Sitting of 1 April 2003

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

  MERSEY TUNNELS BILL
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered on Tuesday 8 April.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  TRANSPORT

    Roadworks
    Keith Vaz: If he will make a statement on procedures which are followed before roadworks on trunk roads are permitted. [105783]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): We intend to introduce legislation to control streetworks, and the Highways Agency is also introducing measures to manage trunk road maintenance better. The House will wish to know that, as part of the trunk road noise reduction programme, I have today set for the first time a timetable for the removal of all concrete surfaces on the motorway and trunk road network. I am also giving the go-ahead to three major road improvements: the A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton improvement; the A57/A628 Mottram. Hollingworth and Tintwistle bypass; and the A45/A46 Tollbar End improvement. I have also asked the Highways Agency to take forward work on three schemes with a view to entry into the targeted programme of improvements: the A38 Derby junctions improvement; the M40/A46 Longbridge roundabout improvement; and the A55/A483 junction improvement at Chester. There is a statement in the Library on this matter.
    Keith Vaz: I welcome the statement made by the Secretary of Stale, but is he aware that a report by his own Department, published in the Leicester Mercury this week, shows that Leicester is the most congested city in England after London? People in Leicester are spending up to 26 per cent. of their journey times waiting in queues because of roadworks. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about this shambolic state of affairs, and will he look carefully at the Bill that I am introducing this week concerning compensation for
    776
    those who are held up in such queues? Will he meet representatives of Leicester city council and other campaigners to try to resolve this appalling state of affairs?
    Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is meeting representatives of the Local Government Association to discuss this issue, and I am sure that he would also be happy to talk to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) about it. My hon. Friend is right to identify the fact that one of the main sources of congestion in towns and cities across the whole country is roadworks. The legislation that the Government are introducing will mean that traffic managers can be appointed who have a duty to issue permits to control what has been, up until now, fairly unrestricted access to digging up roads. The object will be to keep traffic moving.
    The approach has been tried out in London over the last few weeks, and it is having some effect. There is no doubt that the endless digging up of roads, and roadworks that start and seem to go on and on, cause major disruption not only in Leicester but elsewhere, and the Government are determined to introduce legislation far better to regulate the access to roads and, above all, to enable us to achieve our No. 1 priority of keeping traffic moving as much as we possibly can.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I very much welcome what the Secretary of State has just said about the replacement of concrete road surfaces. Can he give the House any more information on that announcement, such as when the A50 Derby to Stoke road will be resurfaced? I have mentioned that road to him on many occasions.
    Mr. Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. I am sure that all hon. Members who have experience of constituents being bothered by the noise that comes from concrete motorways will welcome this announcement. The work will, of course, take time. It will probably be helpful to the hon. Gentleman and the House if I do not read out the entire list of roads and the dates when they are going to get done. However, the press notice has a list attached to it of all the stretches of road involved, and an indication of when they are going to be done. Twenty-six will be done in the near future; the others will be clone over the next few years. All the information is in the Library, but if the hon. Gentleman has any further questions, he will no doubt get in touch with us directly.
    Mr. Tom Levitt: The Secretary of State's announcement about the A57/A628 Tintwistle and Mottram bypass will be greeted with delight in Tintwistle and Glossop in the High Peak-and, indeed, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) not least because this road was taken out of the Government programme by the Conservatives as long ago as 1994. Will the Secretary of State please give us an indication of the timetable that he is considering, so that we may know when this road will become a reality?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right; it is a great pity that this project was taken out of the planned road

    777
    improvements programme some years ago. It is likely that work will start in 2006. Planning work now has to start, and the necessary plans have to be drawn up with a view to entering into contracts. I visited the area last week, and it was perfectly obvious to me that the level of congestion in those small towns was completely unacceptable. I am very glad that many of the environmental agencies recognise that, notwithstanding the fact that this is an area of some sensitivity, a bypass round those three towns is absolutely essential. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: As always, the Government's announcement is not as good as it is made out to be. Work on many of the roads with concrete surfaces will not be completed until 2011, and the money to be spent on the programme is almost identical to the sum that will be raised over the next 10 years through the new stealth tax on motorists using the M25. It is from this month that the Dartford crossing has been paid for, and it will be paid for again—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should try to ask a question.
    Mr. Chope: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the money that will be raised from the stealth tax on the Dartford crossing is more or less all that will be spent on the new road improvements?
    Mr. Darling: What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that my announcement today is infinitely better than anything that he could ever have announced. As my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) pointed out, some of the proposals to which we are giving the go-ahead were stopped by the last Conservative Government. Resurfacing concrete roads will take time because it would be impossible, and highly undesirable, to shut entire lengths of the motorway network for resurfacing, so the work must be phased in and done in an orderly way.
    The big difference between our parties is that this Government have the money and commitment to improve our road network while the Conservative party is committed to a 20 per cent. spending reduction. The transport budget would undoubtedly suffer greatly from those cuts—we have only to look at what the Conservatives did to the transport system when they were in office. We are now putting right some of their mistakes.
    Mr. Bob Laxton: I thank my right hon. Friend for the announcement of the welcome changes to interchange junctions on the A38. Will he reassure me that land-take will be kept to an absolute minimum, especially around Markeaton junction and Markeaton park?
    Mr. Darling: I hope that it will. We should aim to take as little land as possible during all road improvements. If my hon. Friend would like more details of the current proposals, I am sure that we could arrange for him to see them so that he could make representations directly to those responsible for the planning process.

    Railways
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: How many meetings he has had in the last six months with train operating companies about train performance. [105784]
    The Secretary of State for Transport(Mr. Alistair Darling): I meet train operating companies on a regular basis to discuss their work, including the need to improve reliability of train services.
    Mr. Mackay: What comfort can the Secretary of State offer to my constituents who regularly travel from Bracknell to Waterloo but have found that South West Trains has cut the service by half? Its managing director, Andrew Haines, has just written to me saying:
    "the doubling of off-peak services to Reading from two to four per hour…was only credible if Network Rail/Railtrack continued to improve the performance of the network and its assets. In an environment where Network Rail-caused delays are twice the size that they were prior to Hatfield in October 2000, the 10 per cent. increase in train services operated since privatisation is unsustainable."
    Mr. Darling: I would make three points to the right hon. Gentleman. First, as we discussed in the last Transport Question Time, there have been reductions of some 180 out of 18,000 services that run every day, which was done to improve reliability. Some off-peak services have been taken off South West Trains to ensure that there is greater reliability, because passengers say that that is their No. 1 priority. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman is right that there have been planned improvements to services passing through Bracknell.
    My third point relates to Network Rail. It is right that not only train operating companies must improve their performance—about 38 per cent. of delays are attributable to South West Trains—because Network Rail must also improve the quality of track. In the old days, British Rail reckoned that 500 miles of track needed to be replaced each year. In the six years before privatisation, under the last Conservative Government, that dropped to 300 miles. The figure dropped to 200 miles under Railtrack, and in one year it was just over 140. That illustrates the scale of the problems that Railtrack left us. Before the right hon. Gentleman gets too excited—I know that more friends of Railtrack are on the Conservative Benches than anywhere else—he should remember what happens when investment is cut and there is no year-on-year investment. The price for that is being paid by rail passengers, and we are determined to put that right.
    Lawrie Quinn: May I endorse my right hon. Friend's comments on the Rail track legacy? As a former Railtrack employee, I saw only too clearly the failure to invest in renewal of our tracks. When he met train operating companies, did he explore the possibilities for a social railway on lines such as the Esk valley, which runs from Whitby in my constituency to Middlesbrough? Do we not need a new settlement for those lines and to ensure that we service the needs of such remote communities, which are often in the most inaccessible parts of the country?
    Mr. Darling: I am well aware, as is the Strategic Rail Authority, of the value of rural lines serving remote

    779
    communities, but I say to my hon. Friend that the No. 1 priority for the rail industry has to be driving up reliability. Look at the figures overall: just under half the problems that are causing delays are the fault of the train operating companies, while the other half are Network Rail's. The train operating companies and Network Rail need to make a determined effort to get to the root of those problems, sort them out and drive up reliability. The latest figures show that there is a slow improvement, but frankly, the industry needs to do an awful lot better.
    Mr. Tim Collins: Given that train operating companies, like passengers, will have been alarmed by recent reports that there may be scaling back and closures of some branches and smaller stations, will the Secretary of State tell the train operating companies and the House whether he is committed to preserving the entire existing branch network?
    Mr. Darling: I am committed to ensuring that we have a reliable railway service. Under any Government and under any organisation, the exact pattern of services will be subject to review from time to time. As the hon. Gentleman is committed to a 20 per cent. cut in the money spent on railways, he should not stand at the Dispatch Box and maintain that, somehow, he will get a better railway by spending a lot less on it.
    Paddy Tipping: What steps he is taking to protect former mineral railway lines for future transport use. [105785]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): The Strategic Rail Authority's property advisory group investigates the transport potential of former railway land that the SRA inherited from British Rail. It has retained more than 300 sites with potential for transport use, of which at least 12 are former mineral lines or facilities.
    Paddy Tipping: Does the Minister accept that former colliery railway lines in Nottinghamshire and across the country can provide park-and-ride facilities, light rail solutions and more sustainable transport corridors for cycling and walking? Given that fact, will he have discussions with, for example, Network Rail to ensure that it responds quickly and more positively to the many proposals being put to it?
    Mr. Jamieson: I thank my hon. Friend for those questions. He has campaigned hard on the issue over a number of years, and I can assure him that the Government share his concern that disused railway lines, whether they be former mineral lines or not, should be used, where possible, for transport. That is why we have released nearly 200 such sites for transport use and, as I said, 300 have been identified for possible future use. I note that, owing largely to my hon. Friend's actions, the Silverhill colliery scheme is likely to be settled and the contracts signed by the end of the year so as to make use of it as a country park cycleway. His points are well made and very much in line with our policy.
    Mr. Don Foster: Is the Minister aware that, a year ago, the Department for Environment, Food and
    780
    Rural Affairs launched the aggregates levy sustainability fund, which promised £12 million towards ensuring environmentally-friendly transport of minerals and aggregates? Can he therefore explain to the House why his Department has announced that it is not prepared to allocate that money for that purpose? Does that not show a lack of joined-up thinking, just like the cut that it has made in the freight facilities grant?
    Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman mentions the freight facilities grant, which has poured a great deal of money into getting traffic and aggregates off the road and on to rail. We still have £40 million in the scheme, which is doing some of the things that he says he has the ambition to do.
    Mr. Mark Todd: I have raised previously the future of the national forest line, which serves mineral extraction operations in south Derbyshire and north-west Leicestershire. The closure of the Drakelow power station in my constituency presents substantial opportunities for review of the line's future. Will the Department take those opportunities?
    Mr. Jamieson: Yes, indeed. Sometimes when a closure is intended it is possible for the line to be used for other purposes, and this is a good example. My hon. Friend may wish to write to me, and to the Strategic Rail Authority. The line is certainly one of those that we could consider for future transport use.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: If he will make a statement on the rail franchise process for Wales and the Borders. [105786]
    Ian Lucas: When the announcement of the rail franchise for Wales will be made. [105799]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): The Strategic Rail Authority expects to announce the preferred bidder in June. The new franchise is expected to commence in the autumn.
    Mr. Thomas: I very much hope, as does most of Wales, that the June date is a firm one.
    Can the Minister give an undertaking that any cost savings identified during the franchise process involving the train operating companies that are bidding and the SRA will be dedicated to new services, and that there will be no overall diminution of the amounts available for the franchise in Wales? Will he ensure that in future there is better co-ordination between the SRA and the Welsh Assembly, and that the Assembly's rail priorities are those espoused in Wales by the SRA?
    Mr. Jamieson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the new franchise as an all-Wales franchise. I think that it fulfils the Welsh Assembly's ambition, providing for better dialogue between the operator and the Assembly, and will allow a new focus on services in Wales.

    781
    The SRA has told bidders to consider what services they could provide, with varying levels of subsidy. The aim is to ensure that we obtain the maximum value from the subsidiary. Any reduced subsidiary options would certainly not include route closures.
    Ian Lucas: When the SRA considers additional services, will it look closely at the integration of services from my constituency to England, including those running down to London? Although Wrexham is the major town in north Wales, it does not yet have an hourly service linked with the service to London from Chester. Will the Minister take that up with the SRA, and give Wrexham the service that it deserves?
    Mr. Jamieson: I recognise that service integration needs improvement. One of the advantages of an all-Wales and the borders franchise is that, rather than a number of operators discussing the integration of services to and from Wales, there wall be only one such operator.
    The operator of the new franchise will need to work with the SRA and the operator of the London services to maximise integration, and to benefit my hon. Friend's constituents as well as others travelling to and from Wales.
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: Wales and the Borders offers a valued service to the small towns in my constituency, which is currently under threat. Does the Minister agree that the SRA is not helping the Government's 10-year transport plan by applying pressure to TOCs to reduce services to London termini?
    Mr. Jamieson: No, I do not. I think that the new proposal from Wales and the borders will benefit not just those in Wales but those on the periphery. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), the franchise operator will need to work closely with the other operators to make the best use of the lines. The utilisation capacity study that is currently under way will ensure that all users gain the greatest possible benefit.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: May I reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), and ask the Minister to consider not just the inter-city connections mentioned by my hon. Friend but local connections such as Wrexham to Bidston, which runs an important service across a popular travel-to-work area?
    Mr. Jamieson: It is not just a matter of looking at the services with in Wales and to the borders; we must also look at the inter-city routes and how they integrate. As my hon. Friend suggests, the benefit of the new franchise is that that sort of integration and cross-working between operators can take place for the benefit of his constituents and many others in Wales and surrounding areas.

    Ten-year Transport Plan
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: How many meetings he has had with passengers' interest groups in the last year about the 10-year transport plan. [105787]
    The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. John Spellar): My right hon. Friend has had a number of meetings with passenger interest groups over the past year, at which a range of current transport issues were discussed.
    Mr. Wiggin: After listening to the answers to the previous question, particularly as it affects my constituents who still do not have disabled access to Leominster station, will the Minister tell the House why, after the Select Committee's comments on the 10-year plan—that it was "incoherent" and "incomprehensible", and that it
    "failed to provide a vision for a more equitable, safer, and more efficient transport system"—
    any passenger should believe that that has changed?
    Mr. Spellar: If we looked at the hon. Gentleman's own constituency, we would find that his constituents have benefited from the rural bus challenge —[HON. MEMBERS: "Ten-year plan?"]. The 10-year plan applies to all modes of transport, as hon. Members should be aware. For its rail service, Leominster is on the Shrewsbury to Cardiff railway line. The A49 trunk road is a bypass and preparation is being made for a route management strategy for that road, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, carries much freight and is a vital north-south link. There is also a Leominster industrial access road. Those issues relate to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Being based near to Wales, he will know that the new franchising for Wales and the Borders has been widely welcomed. That shows that we are delivering. As the hon. Gentleman will have heard from previous answers, as well as delivering, we are insisting on value for money and ensuring that money put into the transport network, notably for rail, actually delivers a service.
    Alan Simpson: On the assumption that the Minister has had discussions about rail safety with interest groups, will he tell the House what advice he gave those groups about the current disputes on rail safety assessments, in which the Strategic Rail Authority appears to be subsidising the nine employers disputing the case for improved safety standards, against the interests of the eight companies that have agreed to the improved standards? Does the SRA have any legal authority to intervene to provide public subsidy for employers in a private dispute?
    Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend was slightly incorrect when he said that eight companies have agreed to the new standards. The issue at stake is whether Railway Safety should reconsider the safety standard. Great North Eastern Railway and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers put the case to Railway Safety, which is already examining it. In other words, it is already in procedure. Given that it is in procedure, I find it incomprehensible, quite frankly, that we need disputes in other rail companies in order to get it

    783
    into procedure. The key issue is that it will be evaluated technically by Railway Safety, which will examine the views of several organisations, including those representing drivers as well as guards, and a standard will be agreed. I do not understand—and I doubt whether the travelling public understand—the need for a dispute when the matter is already under consideration.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: The Secretary of State said that he wants to drive up reliability for rail passengers. Does the Minister of State accept that spending on Network Rail is going through the roof? From £21 billion, it is projected to go up by another £10 billion for this coming financial year alone, but standards of reliability and punctuality are falling through the floor. How long do train passengers have to wait, after six years of this Government, before standards of service improve?
    Mr. Spellar: What the hon. Lady should remember is that in the days of privatisation, 200 miles of track were replaced a year; BR replaced 300 miles of track, but Network Rail has to replace some 400 miles of track because of the historic underinvestment that was the Tory record, along with the fragmentation of the rail system. The hon. Lady has identified the early stages of assessment by Network Rail of what work needed to be done; at the same time, it has said that it needs better control of cost over-runs inherited from Railtrack. That is a very serious issue. Railtrack's inability to understand or control costs led to its demise. Network Rail has started to take some of the contracts back in-house so that it can get a better evaluation, and control over costs.
    Miss Anne Begg: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will listen to the views of disabled passengers when next he meets them. The level of service provided for disabled passengers by many train operators is still very far short of ideal. It is, in fact, quite appalling in some cases. My right hon. Friend may be shocked to find out that it is still possible for disabled passengers using wheelchairs to be loaded on to a train, only to discover that they cannot get off at the station for which they have bought a ticket. I know that that is true, because it happened to me only a few weeks ago. Will my right hon. Friend speak to the train operators to try and improve the service?
    Mr. Spellar: To be fair to them, the train operators are normally receptive on this matter, especially when cases arise that demonstrate that the system is failing. I should be delighted if my hon. Friend gave me details of the case that she mentioned: not because she was involved, but because it shows that there has been a breakdown in the system. We need to work out why that happened, and I shall be delighted to take the matter up with the train operators.
    Mr. Boris Johnson: Does the Minister agree that an essential part of the 10-year transport plan is cutting pollution and boosting renewable fuels? Has he been lobbying the Chancellor of the Exchequer over the past few days to bring in a further 20p cut in biofuels?
    784
    That would enable those fuels to compete directly at the forecourt with LPG, and provide us with a clean, green fuel that would be of great benefit to our farmers.
    Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State takes a specialist—nay, obsessional—interest in these matters. He tells me that our fiscal record is the best in the world. Beyond that, it would be imprudent of Ministers to comment on such matters just prior to the Budget.

    Community Transport (Barnsley)
    Mr. Eric Illsley: What steps he is taking to improve community transport in Barnsley.[105788]
    The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. John Spellar): Funding for community transport is provided through the local transport plan and urban and rural bus challenge schemes. It is encouraging to see that the partners in Barnsley are making good use of this funding and have recently been successful in securing schemes to serve the communities of Penistone and Athersley.
    Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. As he probably knows, Barnsley has the highest need for community and social transport in south Yorkshire. However, proposals to be discussed this week would move 60 per cent. of community transport funding into the private and commercial sectors. The money would go to companies governed by commercial considerations such as profitability. Does my right hon. Friend think that that would be best use of those resources? Does the proposal fit the Government's policies in relation to community transport?
    Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend will know that I visited the borough of Barnsley last year and saw the community transport scheme there. I am aware that discussions are taking place with the South Yorkshire passenger transport authority, which is looking at the interface between community transport and the accessible mainstream bus services. We must see how that work evolves, and there will need to be discussions afterwards to ensure that an excellent service being provided to the community in Barnsley is sustained.

    Railways
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the future level of train services to Macclesfield and Stoke following the upgrade of the west coast main line.
    Michael Fabricant: When he expects upgrades to the west coast main line to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [105790]
    Ann Winterton: If he will make a statement on the upgrade of the west coast main line. [105791]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): The Strategic Rail Authority will shortly be

    785
    publishing its final west coast plans. This will give full details of progress with the project to date, the time scales for completion, and the future service levels. The line through Macclesfield and Stoke will be the principal London-Manchester route.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful for that reply. Is the Secretary of State aware that Macclesfield is one of the major profit centres on the west coast main line? The line is due to close on 17 May for the best part of five months. If the people whom I represent in Macclesfield and the surrounding area are to benefit, will the right hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that Macclesfield will benefit from increased rail services, once the upgrading has taken place, and that Macclesfield station will be improved? Also, will he guarantee that rail travellers will get value for money? Most are concerned about service reliability and not about train speed.
    Mr. Darling: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point—reliability is absolutely essential. The line will indeed close for a period of just over four months from May. The alternative would have been for two years' interruption, so the big saving in terms of frustration and delays will be the reduction of a two-year period to one of four months.
    The hon. Gentleman is right, too, that passengers will see the benefits of the improvement. For example, the London to Manchester journey time will be down by 30 minutes by 2004 and the Glasgow to London journey will be down by an hour two years later. The SRA is planning to increase the frequency of services on several routes. The key to all this is that spending the money that is necessary—and frankly long overdue, since the line was last the subject of a major overhaul in the late 1960s and early 1970s—will lead to improved reliability, with better track, better signalling and, on many routes, new rolling stock coming on to the main line. All in all, that should provide a more reliable, better service than we have at the moment.
    Michael Fabricant: The Secretary of State will be aware that two lines of track that run through my constituency are to be increased to four lines of track. The construction period will affect 320 homes in Armitage and Handsacre and 150 homes in Lichfield. During that period, what sort of recourse do my constituents have if they wish to complain? How can they improve conditions if the noise becomes too great or if a 14-week construction period is extended to 28 weeks or 30 weeks? What hope can the Secretary of State give them that there will be a light at the end of the tunnel?
    Mr. Darling: I can tell that the hon. Gentleman has been rehearsing his question all morning. He raises a perfectly reasonably point.
    Mr. John Bercow: He always does.
    Mr. Darling: Not always.
    The SRA and those responsible will make every effort to ensure that the work is carried out as expeditiously as possible. No doubt if the hon. Gentleman's constituents are aggrieved they will come first to him and he can then approach the Department with any difficulties that he
    786
    may have. In relation to specific measures, it might be better if I write to him, as he knows exactly what the position is.
    Ann Winterton: Will the Secretary of State accept that although rail travellers from my constituency are indeed looking forward to more reliable services after the upgrade of the west coast main line, they are also looking for better information and better integration of cross-country services to link into what I still call Intercity trains stopping at Stoke and Macclesfield?
    Furthermore, is he aware that Congleton station is a positive disgrace? It is very inhospitable, and it needs CCTV and a good paint. We need some money spent on it, rather as money is being spent on the up line at Stoke-on-Trent and the down line in the constituency of my hon. and ancient Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton).
    Mr. Darling: It must have been a difficult breakfast this morning.
    The hon. Lady makes a fair point. I was on that line recently. I agree that there is a need to improve a number of stations on the west coast main line. That will take time. The Government are committed through Network Rail to spending some £10 billion on doing up that line, which is on any view a very considerable investment.
    I agree with the hon. Lady's comments about information. Train companies can—and to some extent are already beginning to—do an awful lot more to provide better information, not only in respect of passengers travelling on their own trains, but about the services that they connect with. As I have said to the industry on many occasions, the technology is there—it is not rocket science nowadays. Passengers rightly expect to be treated as customers rather than as hapless victims of the system. The hon. Lady is absolutely right in that regard.
    Claire Ward: I thank my right hon. Friend for the information about the upgrade of the west coast main line. Although I welcome it, I hope that it will not be at the expense of commuter services. Draft timetables are now being produced. May I seek an assurance that we will see improvements in the frequency of train services from my constituency into London, and that money will be available for the upgrading of train stations and the extension of platforms to ensure that we are able to benefit from these new services?
    Mr. Darling: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. The whole point of the SRA strategy—not only on the west coast main line but on other lines as well—is to improve capacity on existing track. Upgrading of signalling and some changes that have already been made at Euston station will allow more services to run. As I have said, the SRA plans to publish its final proposals for the west coast line fairly shortly. At that stage, my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will be able to see precisely what is proposed. I agree that intercity services are very important. In particular,

    787
    London commuter services are of the utmost importance if we are to bear down on congestion levels in the city.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern over the reductions in cross-country services on the west coast main line—including reductions in the Glasgow-Bournemouth service that will affect my constituency? The main problem on the cross-country services is overcrowding. However, my main concern—and, I hope, that of the Secretary of State—is over the introduction of the pendolino, or tilting train. It appears that there is only one service between Euston and Manchester. Is the Secretary of State confident that such trains will be introduced on time and on budget?
    Mr. Darling: On the issue of the Virgin cross-country service, as my hon. Friend knows, the SRA has made a small reduction in the number of trains running. There are two reasons for that. When the service was launched last September, no account was taken of the effect that an increased number of trains would have at certain pinch points on the track. As a result, there were holdups and trains did not reach their destinations on time. That, in turn, meant that the return journeys were held up as well. For example, a train leaving Aberdeen and going down to the south-west of England could sometimes arrive several hours late and so could not be on time going back. That is why some of those services have been taken out—to make them more reliable. Because trains have been withdrawn, Virgin will be able to use larger trains on those cross-country routes. It is obvious that four-carriage trains are insufficient to cater for the demand that has been generated. The SRA is ensuring that something that was long overdue on the railway network is put in place—proper management. Money is going in, but proper management is essential if we are to have a reliable train service.
    My hon. Friend is right to say that one pendolino is running at the moment. The operators have been running more trains, without passengers, to test the line. [Interruption.] In the past, train operators have been anxious to bring new rolling stock into service very quickly, without first checking whether that rolling stock runs effectively and properly. It is better to spend the time necessary on testing new trains before introducing them into full passenger service. If we did not do that, people would quite rightly start to complain.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: When will the upgrading of the west coast main line to Liverpool take place? What will be the frequencies of services to London, compared with the frequencies on the Manchester-London line? Why was the north western England rail passengers committee bypassed when the SRA decided to cut all cross-country Virgin services from Liverpool?
    Mr. Darling: On the last point, the SRA now acknowledges that it should have consulted more with rail passengers groups. A number of such groups have made that point and I accept that it is valid. If we are to have rail passengers committees, they ought to be used. They can be used pretty effectively.
    788
    As the hon. Lady will know, there are plans to ensure that Liverpool will benefit from the west coast upgrade. I repeat what I said to our hon. Friend the hon. Member for Watford (Claire Ward) a few moments ago. The SRA will soon publish its final strategy for the west coast and the hon. Lady will be able to see precisely what is proposed for Liverpool services. She will no doubt make her views known then.
    Mr. Tim Collins:The Secretary of State is no doubt right to say that many businesses, passengers and families from the west midlands, the north-west and north of the border who will be inconvenienced—and I include tourism businesses in the Lake district—take the view that, on the whole, the pain is worth the gain. However, can I press the Secretary of State to give the House two commitments? First, will he take a personal interest in the quality of the alternative bus services that will be laid on when the west coast main line services are suspended? If they prove inadequate, will he ensure that they are upgraded?
    Secondly, to pick up on the comment made by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), will the Secretary of State do whatever he can to accelerate the introduction of the pendolinos north of Manchester, where they are looked forward to and anticipated as much as elsewhere?
    Mr. Darling: On the first point, yes, of course. I am aware that if one is going on a journey and there is disruption on the line, one tends to focus on what is happening to oneself at the time rather than on what might happen in a couple of years' time. However, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the investment going into the west coast main line is well worth it. Once it is complete, the line will be transformed from an ageing, inconvenient and unreliable service to something much better.
    As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), I want the pendolino trains to be introduced as quickly as possible, not only to Manchester but beyond. However, it is critically important that there are test runs before the trains are put into full passenger service. Past experience has shown that trying to introduce new rolling stock—and these trains are entirely new for our railway network—sometimes throws up problems that cause disruption, breakdowns or delays, often with extremely unfortunate results. I should like to see the trains in use as quickly as possible, but time spent on getting the service right is time well spent and I hope that, in two years' time, with new trains and upgraded services, people will see a real difference as a result of the massive commitment that the Government have made to investing in the west coast main line.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Further to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward), is the Secretary of State aware by the threat of Virgin Trains that peak-time trains will not stop at Milton Keynes Central? The consequence would be that commuters from that station would entirely fill the county services at peak times,

    789
    thereby displacing all commuters south of Milton Keynes Central. Will my right hon. Friend speak to the SRA to ensure that that does not happen?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend has raised that matter with me previously, and I take her point. The SRA will want to ensure that there is enough passenger capacity between Milton Keynes and London, whether with Virgin or Silverlink, so that the overcrowding to which she referred will not take place. I have already taken the matter up with the SRA and will write to my hon. Friend about it. I suspect, however, that the main proposals will be set out in the final west coast strategy, to which I have already referred hon. Members. There is no doubt that the train service, especially from Milton Keynes, is extremely important and I want to ensure that the quality and level of service is enhanced as a result of the improvements that we make.

    British Transport Police
    Mr. David Heath: If he will make a statement on the role of the British Transport police in responding to major terrorist incidents. [105794]
    The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. John Spellar): The British Transport police play a full part in the British police service within their railways jurisdiction, including the prevention and detection of terrorism. Due to the critical nature of anti-terrorist work the handling of any confirmed incident on the railways would be a joint response involving the BTP, the local police force, the anti-terrorist branch and other emergency services, if necessary.
    Mr. Heath: The Minister will realise that the British Transport police could be faced with a serious emergency, especially on the London underground, in the case of terrorist attack. Is he convinced that the current funding mechanisms allow for the enhanced responsibilities that the BTP may have in that respect? Is the Home Office able to direct additional funds to the BTP without the agreement of the train operating companies? Have the transport police been issued with radiation monitoring equipment, which has, we understand, been issued to the Metropolitan police and some other forces?
    Mr. Spellar: I indicated to the hon. Gentleman that there is close liaison between the British Transport police and the Metropolitan police, in protocols, man-management and commitment. Handling anti-terrorism has, unfortunately, been a staple for the BTP for a considerable number of years, especially due to the threat in one of the main areas covered by the force—the London underground—and also on the mainline London stations. That is part and parcel of the BTP's ordinary work. If any of that work was constrained by financial issues, we should address them.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend recall yesterday's debate about rail safety and the British Transport police and agree that the many favourable comments that were made then suggest that there should be an increase in the staffing of
    790
    the transport police for many other reasons as well as those cited by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)?
    Mr. Spellar: Yes. I forbear, for the benefit of the rest of the House, from replaying the whole of the rather lengthy debate that we had on the British Transport police during an extremely prolonged debate. When I say that my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) and for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) participated in that debate, hon. Members who were not present will get a flavour of the detailed scrutiny that we applied to that subject. What was very clear during the debate was the very high regard in all parts of the House for the work of the British Transport police, and also the increasing effectiveness of those police.
    Equally, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North is absolutely right that questions were raised with regard to work on other transport facilities, but we did indicate at that time that that was riot what we had consulted on more widely, that this was very much the work of the relevant Home Office or Scottish police forces, but we did recognise the need for extensive joint working in order to contain any potential terrorist threat.

  CABINET OFFICE
  The Minister of State was asked—
  CABINET OFFICE

    Regulatory Impact Assessments
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the Government's progress with developing regulatory impact assessments. [105841]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Cabinet Office has a continuous programme of work with Departments to improve the quality of regulatory impact assessments. We published revised guidance in January this year and officials are promoting it with a series of seminars and workshops in Departments. RIAs provide a more open system of assessing the risks, costs and benefits of new legislative proposals.
    Dr. Cable: I acknowledge the usefulness of those assessments in quantifying the costs of regulation, but does the Minister accept the criticism of the Better Regulation Task Force that too many of them are of very poor quality, as with the regulation of care homes; some of them have simply disappeared, as with the regulation of animal movements; and most of them are inconsistent and lacking in independence? How does he propose to improve the situation?
    Mr. Alexander: The Better Regulation Task Force firmly supports the regulatory impact assessments as a tool to endeavour to help Government improve the quality of the legislation that is passed. That is why the BRTF has drawn to the attention of the National Audit Office in its annual report, "Champions of Better Regulation", a number of RIAs that it believes need to

    791
    be of higher quality. That work continues and I believe will be a useful contribution to our better regulation endeavours.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Is not my hon. Friend disappointed that the regulatory reform procedure is still not used by as many Departments as it could be, to remove unnecessary burdens?
    Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend raises an important point in terms of the scale of work that we are endeavouring to take forward to improve better regulation across Government. There is little better that I can do than to quote the recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report, which said:
    "The United Kingdom is at the forefront of regulatory reform in the OECD. It has already made major improvements and has planned more".
    Mr. Philip Hammond: I welcome any steps to try to improve the quality and depth of regulatory impact assessments, some of which, I think we all recognise, have been lamentably superficial, but would the hon. Gentleman consider the case for a system of routine post-implementation audit of regulatory impact assessments and the costs actually imposed on business by legislation, so that we can generate a feedback to the process of pre-legislative regulatory impact assessments that might over time improve their quality?
    Andrew Mackinlay: I do not understand that.
    Mr. Alexander: I have sympathy with the comments of my hon. Friend from a sedentary position.
    We need to be careful not to create a structure that is too bureaucratic in order to reduce bureaucracy and regulation. However, the work that the National Audit Office is taking forward is important. I believe that it will strengthen the quality of the RIA procedures, and that is why I believe that the OECD is correct in recognising the strength of commitment of the British Government to this important area of policy.

    Communication Systems
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What discussions he has had with owners of communication systems of strategic and economic importance about the protection of the systems' integrity; and if he will make a statement. [105842]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible for the national infrastructure security coordination centre. That centre is charged with protecting the critical national infrastructure against electronic attack. Of course, our major communications networks are a key part of that infrastructure.
    792
    My officials have a continual dialogue with a wide range of communication system owners across both the public and private sectors. In addition I met with Andrew Pinder the e-Envoy only last week.
    Miss McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the work carried out by the emergency planning college, Hawkhills, run by Dr. Rooke, near Easingwold in the Vale of York, and I hope that he will join me in paying tribute to the excellent work that it does. What regard has the college had to the damage that could be done to strategic communications systems in the event of a terrorist strike? Has it liased with the owners of such systems about how to pre-empt such a terrorist strike?
    Mr. Alexander: I can assure the hon. Lady that a range of work has been done with various telecommunications and electronic network providers. That work is obviously ongoing. The college to which she refers is in her constituency, and I certainly join her in paying tribute to the work that it undertakes. The college has a key role in developing and promulgating the new United Kingdom resilience doctrine, including those aspects that will flow from the new legislation and developing cross-organisational communities throughout the UK to deliver it.
    David Taylor: Is the Minister confident that the national air traffic control system—which was so disastrously part-privatised by our own Government and which has continually come back with the begging bowl to No. 11 Downing street ever since—is robust enough to resist any attempt by terrorists to infiltrate its systems?
    Mr. Alexander: As I said at the outset, the Home Secretary has responsibility for co-ordinating the Government's approach to all those issues and, in that capacity, he chairs a number of Cabinet Sub-Committees, one of which includes the Department for Transport, which obviously addresses the issue that my hon. Friend raises, but I shall be happy to pass on his comments directly to the Secretary of State for Transport.
    Mr. Richard Allan: Does the Minister recognise the fact that there are weaknesses in the law governing malicious attacks on communication networks at present? Would he therefore welcome an updating of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 better to reflect the growth of the internet, so that he could fulfil his role in protecting Government information technology systems all the better?
    Mr. Alexander: I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest and expertise in such issues, and I am certainly not complacent about the risks of cyber terrorism. That is why I am confident that our major communications providers are taking appropriate precautions now, but that is an ongoing process of work and we clearly keep those matters under review.

    Civil Service
    Tony Wright: If he will make a statement on progress with the diversity strategy in the civil service. [105843]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): We are making steady progress in increasing the diversity of the civil service: 52 per cent. of staff in post in the civil service are women and 7.9 per cent. of staff are from a minority ethnic background, compared with 6.5 per cent. in the economically active population of the United Kingdom. At 3.6 per cent., the proportion of disabled staff in the service suggests that we are making slower progress in that regard, but we are taking steps to address that.
    Tony Wright: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I agree that steady progress is being made, but will he tell us about the one Department where no progress at all is being made? It has only half the number of women and only a quarter the number of ethnical minority people in senior posts. I refer, of course, to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Why is it exempt from the diversity agenda?
    Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Clearly, the responsibility in Departments for such issues is led by a permanent secretary and Ministers, but principally by individual Departments, working under guidance from the Cabinet Office. Given the issue that he raises, I will ensure that there is communication between the Cabinet Office and the Foreign Office on the specific point that he makes.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Things are not so good in the Minister's own Department. Its own 2001–02 report shows that more than 100 staff were engaged in that year, but fewer than
    794
    9 per cent. of them were from ethnic minority backgrounds and there was only one disabled person. That is not very good, is it?
    Mr. Alexander: I am certainly not complacent about the work that we need to continue to do on the diversity agenda in the civil service. To take just one example involving ethnic minorities, the pathways initiative—a specific initiative for the senior civil service—will make a constructive contribution to that work.

    Public Appointments
    Mr. John Lyons: What steps are being taken to publicise decisions on public appointments. [105844]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Government are committed to ensuring greater access to information about public appointments. The new public appointments vacancies website, which was launched by the Cabinet Office last week, demonstrates that commitment and supports the Government's wider objectives on diversity, putting citizens first and extending the range of services online.
    Mr. Lyons: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Does he agree that, if we can more widely publicise public appointments, people will have greater confidence in the system, which will also enhance the sterling role of people throughout the country who volunteer for public service?
    Mr. Alexander: I certainly endorse my hon. Friend's sentiments. We are keen to ensure that we publicise as widely as possible the range of opportunities that there are to make a contribution to public service through serving on a public body. It might be of particular interest to my hon. Friend to learn that the Scottish Parliament passed the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 in the past few days. It received its Royal Assent on 11 March. That will mean that, in addition to the work that is being carried out by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments at a United Kingdom level, separate initiatives will be taken forward through the devolved legislature in Scotland that are relevant to his constituency.

Points of Order
12.30 pm
Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that, from time to time in the past, Secretaries of State and Ministers talked about boom and bust. That appears to have ended now. However, the current craze is for Ministers to say time and time again—the Secretary of State for Transport said it today—that the Conservative party is committed to 20 per cent. cuts in public expenditure. Ministers know that to be untrue and to be a lie. What can we do to protect the truth in the Chamber and to ensure that this lie does not continue to be propagated?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for debate, so I shall not be drawn into it.
Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since we last had a statement about the situation in Iraq, the Prime Minister has met the President of the United States, the US Defence Secretary has sought to bring Iran and Syria into the conflict and there has been a rising tide of civilian as well as military casualties in this dreadful conflict. Yesterday, a number of Members raised points of order about the lack of a statement from the Prime Minister yesterday. Another day has passed and there is still no sign of a statement. Is there any way that the House can encourage the Secretary of State for Defence, the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister to come to the House to give us an update on the appalling situation in Iraq?
Mr. Speaker: Defence questions were held yesterday and many of the matters that the hon. Gentleman raised were covered then. As to the Prime Minister making a statement, Prime Minister's Question Time will be held tomorrow and hon. Members can seek to catch my eye. However, I make no promises as to whom I call.
Glenda Jackson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware of newspaper reports today detailing the United States plans for a post-conflict Iraqi Government that will number 24 ministries each headed by a US official, with four Iraqi advisers again appointed by the United States. This plan flies directly in the face of a reply that the Prime Minister gave in the Chamber to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy). The right hon. Gentleman urged the Prime Minister to
"persuade the President that we want a United Nations-led rather than a United States-led Administration in any post-military conflict Iraq."
The Prime Minister replied:
"I do not believe that there is a need to persuade the President … We made it clear … that any post-conflict Iraqi Administration must be specifically accepted and endorsed by the UN."—[Official Report, 26 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 284.]
If it is not possible for the Prime Minister to come to the House to make a statement about what seems to be a clear lack of communication between the White House and No. 10, is there any way that the Foreign Secretary
796
can be persuaded to come to the House and answer questions on an issue that is serious not only for the people of Iraq but for the peace of the whole world?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady said that she was referring to press reports, so I shall make no further comment on that matter. She can make representations to the officers of the parliamentary Labour party and to the Chief Whip for a debate on these matters.
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given that it is your role to act as the guardian of the rights of Back Benchers and that Ministers' tendency to indulge themselves in evasive, long-winded and circumlocutory replies has been greatly exacerbated in recent times, what consideration have you given to time limiting oral questions and answers in the House to facilitate rather greater progress than we suffered today?
Mr. Speaker: All that we have at our disposal is one hour. I will let the hon. Gentleman into a secret. I said to the Secretary of State for Transport that I hoped that the replies would be a lot shorter the next time that we have Transport questions.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be relieved to hear that I learned my lesson from your wrath of a fortnight ago, and that I am asking not about an issue that I raised with your Office this morning but about a later issue. That is the reports that are coming through that a number of Shi'a from Iran, because of what they see as the attacks on their holy places of Karbala and Najaf—which are perhaps even more important than Mecca and Medina—are volunteering their services to the Iraqi forces. Is there any possibility of a statement by the Ministry of Defence on those who are coming in from other countries, not least Chechnya and Pakistan, to offer their services to the Iraqi forces?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
Hugh Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In replying to a point of order yesterday from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who drew your attention to the fact that, in the absence of the Leader of the House, we were to receive 14 written statements yesterday from Ministers, you kindly and wisely said that you would look into the matter. Are you aware that rather than listening to your words, Ministers have listed a further 15 written statements on the Order Paper today? Is there anything that you can do to prevent that abuse of parliamentary privilege?
Mr. Speaker: I noted the number of written statements listed today. They are submitted in accordance with the rules of the House, which hon. Members have made, so I have nothing more to say on the matter.
Harry Cohen: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. Last Thursday, the acting Leader of the House said:
"I am sure that the Prime Minister will want to report back to the House at the earliest opportunity on his important discussions with President Bush and the Secretary-General of the United Nations."—[Official Report, 27 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 454.]
I should have thought it even more important that the Prime Minister reports to the House as he referred during that visit to the execution of British troops, and the House should hear what he has to say about that.
The matter was raised with you yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and you said:
"I did note what was said last Thursday."—[Official Report, 31 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 668.]
Will you elaborate on that and say whether you have done anything further than noting it? Have you discussed the matter with No. 10? Have you put it to the Government that they should make an early statement?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, I did note what the acting Leader of the House said, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to elaborate on that, I say that I have no responsibility for what the acting Leader of the House has to say on a Thursday. I shall say no more on the matter.

Emergency Broadcasting System
12.37 pm
Tom Brake: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to co-ordinate the provision of a multi-media broadcasting system to provide information to the public about emergencies and potential emergencies.
Since 11 September, the UK has been put on a heightened state of alert, and the war against Iraq has ensured that that state of alert remains in force. The very visible presence of armed police officers at St. Stephen's Entrance is proof of that. To respond effectively to emergencies and potential emergencies a number of measures must be in place. They include having the right people and equipment available, with the people properly trained of course, a robust legislative framework, detailed and tested action plans, and accurate information that can be delivered rapidly and reliably.
There is not sufficient time today to consider whether all those prerequisites for an organised reaction to a threat have been satisfied. I should like to highlight one point that gives me genuine cause for concern—the abandonment of the emergency planning exercise that was due to take place on Sunday 23 March. The reason given for postponing the exercise was the international situation. Surely that is exactly why a test is needed.
My Bill focuses on the provision of information to the public through an emergency broadcasting system, or EBS. In times of crisis the public need the right quantity and quality of information, and they need to know where to access that information. It must be clear and consistent and it must come from a reliable official source. We can no longer rely on the air raid sirens of world war two, which are long gone. We need an emergency warning system or broadcasting system suited to the 21st century. We have entirely new ways of communicating with people via the internet, e-mail, mobile phones, television, radio and so on. The system must therefore be a multi-channel one using existing technology, and would link land-line and mobile phone operators, TV, radio and internet service providers.
I confess that I have not made a detailed assessment of the cost of such a system, but the emergency broadcasting system would rely on existing technology. If Members have a mobile phone, an e-mail address or a fax machine, they already receive many unsolicited messages, probably tens daily, offering anything from an unsecured loan to Viagra-one to pay for the other, perhaps. The facility to broadcast system-wide messages already exists. Indeed, the BBC has the technology, and I shall give a couple of examples. "Connecting in a crisis", a very good BBC initiative, helps to ensure that the public have the information that they need and demand in a civil emergency. The initiative sets out to encourage emergency planners to work more closely with broadcasters in the preparation of strategies for communicating essential information. A similar initiative, "U R @ Risk", is a joint Environment Agency and Met Office scheme to provide the UK's first integrated multi-media system for severe weather and flood alerts, and ensure that people in flood areas receive warnings by text message, e-mail and even their

799
television. There is also the national steering committee on warning and informing the public, which is working on pulling all of that together.
The technology is there, and the research has been done. It is simply a case of pulling together the technologies and integrating them, not creating anything new. Integration could be achieved manually—key individuals would be identified with responsibility to broadcast officially sanctioned messages—or electronically using tried and tested technology and interfaces. The use of an EBS would not necessarily be limited to emergency planning. There is no reason why, for instance, it could not be used in child abduction cases, as happens in the US. The first hour in which a child is missing is the critical period.
Having the ability to broadcast messages widely across different media could indeed save lives. The risk of doing without an emergency broadcasting system is that information will either not be provided at all or, perhaps even more dangerously, will be inconsistent and delivered at different times and in different ways to various places in the country. That is clearly a recipe for uncertainty and confusion—what is needed is clarity and confidence.
I am grateful for the support that the Bill has received from Members on both sides of the House, and if I obtain leave to introduce it today, I will seek even wider support for its aims. I contend that we cannot do without an emergency broadcasting system, which is a key component of any emergency planning response and would safeguard our homeland at a time of crisis. My Bill is designed to provide that safeguard, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by
Tom Brake, Simon Hughes, Mr. Don Foster, Mr. Paul Keetch, Vera Baird, Michael Fabricant, Mr. Richard Allan, Mr. Hugo Swire, Mr. David Heath and Mr. Edward Davey.

Emergency Broadcasting System
  EMERGENCY BROADCASTING SYSTEM
  Tom Brake accordingly presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to co-ordinate the provision of a multi-media broadcasting system to provide information to the public about emergencies and potential emergencies: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 4 July, and to be printed [Bill 85].
Orders of the Day

  Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
  [Relevant documents: The First, Third and Seventh Reports from the Joint Committee on Human Rights of Session 2002–03, on its scrutiny of Bills, HC 191, HC 375 and HC 547.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  12.44 pm
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill implements measures in seven separate European Union agreements. The first is the Schengen implementing convention of 1990. As the House knows, the UK applied to participate in 1999 and was accepted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council in 2000. The other agreements are the mutual legal assistance convention, which updates the provisions of the 1959 convention; the protocol to that convention, finally adopted in 2001; the framework decision on the execution in the EU of freezing assets and evidence; the framework decision on combating terrorism; the convention on driving disqualification; and the framework decision on non-cash means of payment agreed in May 2001.
  UK Ministers were involved in negotiating all those measures apart from Schengen, and our application to join the police and judicial provisions of Schengen, together with all the other measures drawn into the Bill from the six other agreements, have been considered through our own domestic scrutiny process. Parliament has previously decided that justice and home affairs agreements should be implemented through primary legislation—hence, the Bill before us today, which has already been examined by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and in another place.
  Simon Hughes: As the Minister knows, she has support from the Liberal Democrat Benches for the process in relation to the Bill. Are the Government taking up in the EU the processes in relation to other legislation—a matter raised sometimes with her colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) and elsewhere—whereby we are often asked for views on legislation in draft that has already been decided by the Council because of the time delay, and where the final decision does not require consent from this or any other national Parliament, or from the European Parliament?
  Beverley Hughes: I know that views have been expressed about that. The hon. Gentleman will agree that we must get the timetabling of those matters right and more appropriate, so that Members' views can be expressed before those agreements are finalised, rather than afterwards, as he said, because of delays. I take his point and I understand that the issue is being addressed.
  The Bill marks a significant advance in co-operation against serious crime and terrorism in the European Union. It will enable us to work more closely and

  801
  effectively with our EU partners, and more widely outside the EU. It will make it easier to investigate and prosecute cross-border criminal activity. By implementing key EU measures directed at terrorism and serious crime, it demonstrates firmly our commitment to greater co-operation on these matters with our EU partners. The measures on driving disqualification will promote greater road safety across the EU.
  The Bill comes to this place after careful and helpful scrutiny in another place, where the Government responded to some of the concerns expressed and acted on them to provide greater clarity and reassurance. Thus some key order-making powers are now subject to affirmative rather than negative procedure, and conditions attached to cross-border surveillance by foreign officers are now written into the Bill.
  We are already working effectively with our EU partners through Europol and bilateral joint operations, but we need to do more. There are often too many obstacles to international investigations that serve only to protect the criminal. As Members know, bringing multinational gangs to justice may involve several trials in different countries, each with its own criminal procedures. Ensuring success for such complex procedures means cutting down on the obstacles that block effective cross-border co-operation. That is what the Bill sets out to achieve.
  The Bill will make the changes needed to enable the UK to participate in the non-border aspects of the Schengen convention. The Schengen arrangements provide a very clear framework for effective co-operation, especially for cross-border police operations.
  I should like to explain in more detail what the Bill contains and will achieve. Part 1 will modernise our arrangements for providing mutual legal assistance and bring them into line with new proceedings introduced by Schengen and by the mutual legal assistance convention agreed in May 2000. MLAC, as it was called, was part of the European Union's so-called anti-terrorism road map, which was agreed after 11 September. Mutual legal assistance is the formal process by which countries request and provide assistance in obtaining evidence located in one country to assist in criminal proceedings in another. Effective and swift mutual legal assistance arrangements are essential if we and our EU partners are to run successful cross-border investigations and prosecutions.
  MLA is not new—we have done it for many years—but the new provisions will speed up the process and reduce the scope for delay in respect of international cooperation. They will do so, for instance, by allowing UK prosecutors to send requests for evidence directly to courts in other EU countries, rather than going through a central authority system because of an obligation always to do so. Some of the key modernising provisions will also apply to countries outside the EU. For instance, we expect that the ability to provide other countries with evidence by TV link in mutual legal assistance cases will be of most use in cases involving countries outside the EU, because greater distances obviously make travel less feasible.
  802
  The Bill also introduces mutual recognition of orders to freeze evidence, as provided for by the EU draft framework decision on the execution of orders freezing evidence. We see that as a considerable step forward. It will significantly speed up the process of securing valuable evidence. Mutual recognition takes mutual legal assistance one step further by recognising directly, as between EU member states, a request made by a court, thus enabling a direct response to be made with the minimum of formality. The UK has been and is a keen supporter of the principle of mutual recognition, which both speeds up co-operation and respects the standards as well as the diversity of legal systems.
  Jon Trickett: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. The Bill is obviously complex and detailed, but will it afford protection to people such as my constituent, June Harrison, whose husband was killed by a French lorry driver in my constituency? The lorry driver was found guilty in Pontefract magistrates court and his sentence consisted of two elements: suspension of his driving licence and a small and inadequate fine. The driver, Monsieur Boulanger, lawfully returned to France, where he is free to continue driving, as the suspension of his licence does not apply there. He has refused to pay his fine on the ground that we drive on the wrong side of the road. Will the Bill help to correct such injustice, which brings the law into disrepute and questions the notion that we are partners with France?
  Beverley Hughes: The answer to my hon. Friend's general question is yes—the Bill will certainly try to correct injustice. On the specifics of the case that he cites, if he is using the term "suspension" to mean that the lorry driver was disqualified, I can say that in this country the Bill provides for mutual recognition of disqualification between different EU member states, and that will also be implemented in other member states. Such provision would have applied in the case that he mentioned and brought some redress to the family.
  Concern was expressed in another place that the Bill did not provide sufficient safeguards to protect the position of the individual in respect of the new arrangements. We listened to those concerns and have introduced extra protection in respect of double jeopardy to ensure that orders freezing evidence are dealt with promptly and to strengthen the role of UK courts in protecting the position of people giving evidence by television link.
  Criminals operating across international borders are often involved in financial crime and money laundering. It is recognised that the ability to obtain comprehensive banking information from other EU countries would significantly assist domestic law enforcement. By agreeing on the protocol to the mutual legal assistance convention, the EU has created a reciprocal obligation between member states to respond to requests for financial information. The Bill will implement the protocol, allowing us to respond to requests from other EU countries for information relating to criminal suspects' bank accounts. The requests will reflect the new investigative tools introduced by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2001.

  803
  Part 2 deals with terrorism. As criminals, terrorists do not respect national boundaries. We need effective measures with persuasive penalties that are imposed consistently across the EU. Following the events of 11 September, the EU agreed a framework decision requiring all member states to introduce extensive antiterrorism legislation. As the UK already has wide-ranging domestic anti-terrorism legislation—it was largely the starting point for the Commission's proposal—we are broadly compliant with the body of the framework decision, so implementing the measure does not require us to create any new offences or penalties. It simply requires us to take extra-territorial jurisdiction over a wider range of terrorist offences than we do presently. The Bill therefore takes extra-territorial jurisdiction over terrorist offences committed overseas against UK nationals, diplomatic staff and diplomatic premises. It will also take such jurisdiction over terrorist offences committed overseas by UK nationals. We supported that measure during its negotiation in Brussels and welcome this opportunity promptly to implement the changes needed to bring it into force.
  Schedule 4 will also help us tackle terrorism by introducing arrangements to allow us to transmit abroad orders freezing terrorist assets and instrumentalities— funds and assets used to commit terrorist offences. Likewise, we will be able to act on orders from other EU member states. Allowing mutual recognition of those orders is a significant step forward, as it will make it easier for us to freeze terrorist assets even when they have been moved out of the UK, and thereby reduce terrorists' ability to operate effectively.
  Part 3 deals with driving disqualifications—an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) in relation to a specific case. It does not seem right that a person who commits a driving offence for which they are disqualified while abroad should be able to escape disqualification when they return home to their usual state of residence. The EU driving disqualification convention is therefore intended to promote the principle that drivers should abide by the rules of the road no matter where they are driving. That will help to promote greater road safety across the UK. There are safeguards to ensure that the arrangements are not misused and do not lead to unfair decisions. The process for notifying a disqualification will apply only once any appeal has been completed, and there will be a right of appeal in the UK against recognition of foreign disqualifications.
  Part 3 also allows for recognition in Great Britain of driving disqualifications imposed in Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar. The fact that none of those jurisdictions recognises driving disqualifications imposed by any of the others is, as I hope hon. Members will agree, an anomaly whose remedy is long overdue. A more uniform system across the UK is obviously also essential for effective implementation of the wider EU measure.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady and I think that what she is saying is very important. I was involved in a case in which it took more than 18 months to get a French national to appear in a UK court to answer a charge of
  804
  causing death by dangerous driving. What measures does the Bill contain that will assist in ensuring that that sort of farce is not repeated?
  Beverley Hughes: That particular example is the province of the Extradition Bill, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. The Bill before us deals with situations in which evidence rather than the actual procurement of the alleged perpetrator is needed to support a case in one country where the evidence is in another. That may be relevant in cases such as the one to which he refers.
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: I think that the Bill specifies that a prisoner has to give their permission. Does the Minister not feel that that might be a bit too lenient, and that the prisoner should not have to do so, or is such consent essential for the rights of the prisoner?
  Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right. Chapter 5 of the Bill provides for an extension to measures that already exist to enable prisoners to be produced to give evidence. It is already possible for a country to ask for a prisoner to be transferred to it from another country, to assist in an investigation in the country making the request. The new provisions will extend that power somewhat, and will mean that a country can ask for a prisoner to be transferred from its own territory to another country, to assist in its own investigations.
  I need to get back to the hon. Gentleman on the issue of consent. I think that he is right in saying that a prisoner will have to give consent. He made the point that, in that eventuality, that might be taking the principle of consent too far, but that was the agreement under the mutual legal assistance provisions, and we have no scope to go further than that. It is important that, whatever arrangements we agree to, there should be consistency across the EU states in terms of that provision.
  Mr. John Bercow: I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that the minimisation of formality to which she referred some minutes ago would never be a euphemism for the avoidance of proper notification or consultation. In the light of the concern expressed by Liberty and other organisations about the surveillance provisions in the Bill paving the way for arbitrary police action from other jurisdictions against British citizens on our own soil, will she clarify the circumstances in which hot surveillance operations might need to be conducted without advance notification to the British authorities?
  Beverley Hughes: Certainly. I am just coming to that point, if the hon. Gentleman can wait a moment. On what he has just said, however, there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the proposals for cross-border surveillance. Let me say at the outset—I shall stress this point later—that these provisions do not cover hot pursuit exercises, which are covered by a different part of the article. This measure covers pursuit in an emergency, prior to the setting up of a joint investigation team.
  Part 4 of the Bill introduces two key Schengen measures. It ensures that our participation in the Schengen information system will be rigorously

  805
  safeguarded, by giving the Information Commissioner new powers independently to inspect the UK national sections of the Schengen information system. Creating a statutory basis for the role of the Information Commissioner in this way is a new departure. It is required by the Schengen agreement, but we are also clear that it is right to create this extra level of protection for the rights of the individual when the UK is participating in new international systems.
  Part 4 also deals with Schengen cross-border surveillance. Although this has proved the most contentious part of the Bill, we believe that these measures are proportionate and that proper safeguards have been attached. Criminals do not stop at national borders, and if our law enforcement agencies are to investigate them and gather the evidence that they need, they, too, must be able to carry on past our national boundaries. That means that we must have fast and effective arrangements for agreeing cross-border surveillance operations. The measures in the Bill will allow surveillance operations to continue only so that UK officers can take over an operation within the five-hour period specified, if not immediately on the arrival of the foreign officers in the UK.
  The UK police have welcomed the Schengen arrangements because they are reciprocal, and joining them will make it much easier for us to mount cross-border surveillance operations and to pursue UK criminals who are active internationally.
  Gregory Barker: Will the Minister give way?
  Beverley Hughes: It might help the hon. Gentleman if I finished this paragraph first.
  I want to make it clear what the measures do not include. Clause 82 does not licence foreign officers to roam at will around the country. The foreign officers will have no power of arrest, because nothing exists in UK law to give them such a power. The clause simply provides that, in circumstances in which a person suspected of serious criminal activity is heading for the UK from continental Europe, and in which, for whatever reason, our own officers are unable to take over the surveillance themselves the moment the targeted person lands in the UK, the foreign officers will be able to maintain their surveillance for up to five hours. The alternative would be to risk losing valuable intelligence on key criminal suspects. This measure covers neither hot pursuit, which has to take place over land borders, nor undercover surveillance. It simply provides for the temporary extension of an ongoing operation for up to five hours until the UK police either join the operation or, having risk-assessed it, stop it.
  Gregory Barker: On that point, will the Minister explain why five hours was deemed an appropriate period of time, as opposed to three, or six, or a full working day? Obviously, the amount of time needed will depend, for example, on the time of day at which the surveillance officer enters the country. I am interested to know why the Government have chosen five hours—not a minute more, not a minute less.
  Beverley Hughes: That was a matter of some discussion and judgment, and of trying to strike a
  806
  balance between precisely the kind of criteria and issues that the hon. Gentleman started to touch on. The five-hour period was the outcome of those negotiations. A shorter time might jeopardise the extent to which the UK police could conduct a satisfactory risk assessment, which is part of the process. Once they have been informed, they will assess the risk involved in the operation. Equally, they will need long enough to get a team together to join up with the foreign officers, if it is decided that the surveillance should continue. A balance had to be struck between those pragmatic issues; nothing more sinister is involved.
  Mr. James Clappison: Will the Minister clarify whether the five-hour period will also apply to United Kingdom police who want to continue surveillance of a suspect in another country? Will she also tell the House what representations she has received from the police on that issue?
  Beverley Hughes: As I said, the UK police are supportive of these proposals, and of their details. The five-hour period is part of the article as it is written, and it will apply to all the countries to which this measure will apply.
  The foreign officers must inform the UK authorities—the National Criminal Intelligence Service—as soon as they reach the UK, and they will not be allowed to enter private premises. We had always intended to set those two conditions out by means of order, but, having listened to the concerns expressed in Committee in another place, we have now written them into the Bill. We believe that that strikes the right balance between reassurance, legal clarity and flexibility.
  The final measure in the Bill addresses the growing problem of the counterfeiting of plastic cards. That type of offence occurs increasingly on an international scale, which is why the EU agreed a framework decision to ensure that all member states had effective legislation to deal with that sort of crime. Implementing this measure in the UK requires an amendment to the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, allowing it to cover bankers drafts, promissory notes and debit cards.
  As I said at the outset, all the EU agreements that underlie the provisions in the Bill have already been scrutinised by the European Scrutiny Committee of this House and the Committee of the Lords. The Bill will consolidate and implement important measures to improve our ability to tackle international crime and terrorism, and to improve the security and safety of our citizens. I commend the Bill to the House.
  1.9 pm
  Mr. James Paice: I thank the Minister for the way in which she introduced the Bill, and for the clarity with which she described its major features. I also thank my noble Friends in the other place for sending us a Bill that is a considerable improvement on the one that the Government originally introduced there. It still has elements that we cannot wholly support and, although we do not object to any major principle, we shall explore many issues in Committee. We are grateful for our noble Friends' great efforts to reel in some of the Government's poorly conceived efforts to bring Schengen into this country through the back door.

  807
  We welcome more co-operation among police forces, customs authorities and intelligence services throughout the European Union to combat the increasing threat of terrorism. The Government's efforts to harmonise our criminal law with that of the signatory countries to the Schengen convention and related agreements is less welcome. It is interesting that the Bill stands in stark contrast to the Prime Minister's rhetoric in October 1999 when he said:
  "The British proposal that the cornerstone of policy in this area should be mutual recognition of court decisions, rather than the harmonisation of laws, was adopted unanimously."—[Official Report, 19 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 253.]
  As I said, we shall pursue aspects of the Bill in Committee. The key issue that runs through the Bill is reciprocity and the confidence that necessarily goes with that. The Bill is designed to act as a foundation for reciprocal agreements with other designated countries on many aspects that the Minister described. Although I have immense faith in our country's criminal and judicial processes and institutions, I am sceptical about those of several countries with which we might work.
  Mr. William Cash: My hon. Friend will be aware of the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is considering the proposed European constitution. Is he aware that there is a proposal to have a European public prosecutor? Does he agree that that would be a disastrous step in the wrong direction, and would he like such an assurance from the Government?
  Mr. Paice: I am aware of the proposition, and I shall ask for the assurance from the Government that my hon. Friend wants later in my speech.
  I return to the reciprocal agreements and the countries with which we shall have them. I hope that the Government will assure us that they have confidence in not only the present partners, but any future partners that may be created through the powers that the Bill will give the Secretary of State. Will the Minister confirm that if our confidence in the effectiveness of the agreements is eroded, reciprocal arrangements may be withdrawn at any time by order of the House?
  I am worried about which countries may be added to the initial list of participating countries. Although I am first to put on record the fact that the Government consented to change the Bill to ensure that the addition of future participants must be done by statutory instrument using the affirmative procedure, I am worried that part 1 permits the involvement in reciprocal proceedings of
  "any other country designated by an order made by the Secretary of State".
  I am sure that most hon. Members acknowledge that not all potential participants in reciprocal agreements, including potential accession states to the European Union, have their judicial houses entirely in order, but that is nothing compared with the serious possibility that the agreements could apply to any country in the world. I do not suggest for a moment that the Government will lackadaisically come to the House and suggest that we sign an agreement with the Congo, far example. However, the Bill says that the Secretary of State could agree by order to add any other country to the list. That is our fundamental point because although the Bill has arisen primarily from the Schengen
  808
  convention, part 1 could be extended to any other country in the world by order of the Secretary of State. Such an extension should be a matter for the House alone. I am worried that we could allow police forces from other countries to enter this country to conduct surveillance work simply on the strength of a statutory instrument.
  Excellent amendments have changed elements of the Bill for the better, and the most important were those relating to clause 82 and hot surveillance. The Minister touched on the amendments and as we would expect, given her diligence, her description of what hot surveillance is and is not was absolutely right. In passing, I congratulate the Government on having the wisdom not to accede to elements of the acquis that would have allowed hot pursuit in this country after rightly contending that that can apply only over land borders. We have such a border only with the Republic of Ireland, which has also declined to accede to that part of the acquis.
  Clause 82 has been contentious from the outset. As the Minister said, it permits foreign officers to travel to this country to put a suspect under hot surveillance without first notifying our authorities of their intentions. They could do that for five hours before their surveillance must cease and our officers would take over. The Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) that the Government took a decision to use that time period, although we can all speculate on why that was chosen.
  The clause was amended to require that all foreign officers must notify the National Criminal Intelligence Service on their immediate arrival in England and Wales or make an application for authorisation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000 on their immediate arrival in Scotland. The drawback of the notification is that it removes foreign officers' civil liability responsibilities for any incidental act on their part. That matter was pursued in the other place and I shall pursue it here. Although I welcome the fact that this country's authorities must be made aware of a foreign officer's presence on official duty in this country, I am worried about proposed new section 76A(6) because it will deny UK citizens any recourse to subject officers to civil liability proceedings if officers damage their person or property in any way while conducting surveillance in this country.
  Proposed new section 76A(8) is also a worry. It will allow a foreign officer five hours to engage in hot surveillance but it does not detail the point from which five hours is counted. The time period might be simple to calculate in countries with land borders because it would be self-evident when it started and the measure could be easily adhered to. However, we will have a different situation because the United Kingdom is an island. During the fifth day of the Grand Committee in another place, Lord Filkin said that the five-hour period begins when a foreign officer enters the United Kingdom via a port or airport or when a Eurostar train on which he is travelling leaves the tunnel and enters Kent. That definition is worrying because it ignores our internationally recognised territorial waters and airspace, which are part of the United Kingdom.
  I am not embarking on a far-fetched flight of fancy for the sake of controversy or to find a point for argument because we know that many drugs are smuggled into the

  809
  country by boats, which often masquerade as fishing boats. It is conceivable that officers could conduct surveillance on suspected drug smugglers in our territorial waters yet the five-hour period would not have started while they were sitting off the shore of Dover or Sussex or wherever they may be. I hope that the Minister will understand that we have a genuine concern to which the Government should respond accordingly in Committee.
  The other issue relating to surveillance involves firearms. The matter of officers on hot surveillance carrying firearms is missing from the Bill. Again, Lord Filkin assured his colleagues in the other place that, under article 40 of the Schengen convention, there are provisions to prevent foreign police from carrying weapons in this country. In no way do I dispute that those exist, but I would welcome it being in the Bill that just as British officers cannot normally carry firearms when carrying out such duties, nor should any foreign officer who comes here on surveillance.
  The Minister used the terms "urgent" or "in emergency situations". In such circumstances, there could be issues involving a foreign police officer finding it difficult to know what to do with the gun that he carries while going about his normal duties. We need to address that more clearly to ensure that foreign officers are required to dispose of their guns before entering the UK.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, for my beady eye has also focused on clause 82. Given that the principle that ought properly to apply is surely that, be the officer ever so high, the law is above him, can my hon. Friend possibly fathom the rationale for including in clause 82 in the first instance proposed new section 76A(6)?
  Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend has a perceptive and, indeed, inquisitive approach to such matters, and I am sure that he can work out in his own mind what might have given rise to the proposal on civil liability. I do not know the answer and, as he will be aware from what I know will have been his careful studies of what went on in the other place, my noble Friend Baroness Anelay spent a lot of time trying to uncover whatever it may be, but the Government were very reticent. I shall not attribute any nefarious reasons to them for having been so, but we will certainly explore the matter in Committee. If my hon. Friend wishes to join us, I am sure that he will be expert in probing the Government as to why—[Interruption.] I hasten to assure the Minister that that is a perfectly genuine invitation.
  Chapters 3 and 4 of this part of the Bill are, in the main, very sensible, but there is one issue of concern, which relates to speciality and, in particular, areas of banking. The legal processes of searching for evidence can differ between the UK and another participating country, resulting in what might be construed as fishing expeditions for evidence. While it is perhaps reasonable to expect a large banking organisation to be able to swallow the cost and time that could be involved with such expeditions, many smaller institutions cannot.
  Perhaps more important is the issue of what should be admissible in court and in subsequent proceedings. It is preferable that the Bill should permit only evidence
  810
  sought in direct relation to the offence for which a person has been arrested or is being investigated to be requested from a banking institution. We will want to pursue in Committee the importance of restricting fishing expeditions and, topically, the links to the welcome changes made only last week when the Extradition Bill, in which the two issues come together, was considered on Report.
  Part 2 relates to terrorism and will extend jurisdiction under article 9 of the framework directive. We welcome those measures, particularly the ones that will extend the freezing of terrorist assets. They are necessary, but that should not obscure the fact that they also represent swingeing new powers, which we need to examine in detail. Further explanation of them is required. Will the Minister confirm that, as those measures are derived from the framework directive, the extension of extraterritorial jurisdiction applies only to countries that are also signatories to that directive? We will, of course, support all measures to increase the protection of our citizens from terrorism and to detain and detect those who would commit it, but we need to be reassured that those measures are also being pursued by other signatories to the framework directive and that the reciprocal arrangements will be as thorough, genuine and robust as our own.
  That brings me to a wider issue involving the Bill. In the other place, my noble Friends repeatedly asked for a statement on the arrangements being put in place by other member states to implement the Schengen acquis and the convention on mutual assistance. Time and again, we have pursued legislation in the House that was alleged to be our duty as part of our EU membership only to find that some other countries made no such effort to comply with their obligations. Will the Minister agree to publish, before the Bill is considered in Committee, an assessment of the actions taken by all the other signatories so that, before we allow them to send police officers here on hot surveillance, we can be assured that ours can go there? My noble Friends pressed Ministers for such an assessment, but we have not yet had it. I hope that the Minister realises the importance of ensuring that one is published before the Committee sits.
  Information is dealt with in part 4, which introduces access to the Schengen information system. The Information Commissioner will be granted unprecedented powers to monitor and challenge data held in that system. In principle, sharing such information is bound to be right and it must help the fight against crime, but, as we are already finding with our own police national computer, any database is only as good as the quality and timeliness of the information put into it. We shall seek reassurances that the protocols for the use of that system applying to all countries are robust.
  I return to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). What is not clear is how they relate to the other existing and fledgling EU law enforcement systems. We have Europol, which staggers on but is torn between those who want ever more centralised power and those who see the way forward as the successful joint investigation teams. As my hon. Friend said, some participants in the European judicial co-operation unit want it to become a European public prosecutor, so I repeat his question: will the

  811
  Government confirm their total and outright opposition to such a proposition? Of course, it would introduce the concept of a Napoleonic judicial system to Britain, which we have never had before.
  The Minister also referred to the provisions relating to traffic and driving offences, which, on the whole, are sensible and welcome. Two Members at least referred to them during interventions on the Minister. One might cynically say that, surprisingly in terms of legislation being considered by the House, the proposals address issues that really matter to ordinary people in the streets who have seen such problems arise. Understandably, when they see someone apparently escaping with little or no punishment for a serious offence, possibly including a fatality, they get very frustrated. We welcome those provisions, although I slightly share the implied doubts of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on whether the theory will work in practice. Again, we shall want to address that in Committee.
  I refer to a concern brought to me by the Police Federation, which I think the Minister will understand. I go so far as to say that the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) would have understood it more, given his much longer experience in dealing with ministerial matters. In passing, I should say that I regret that he is no longer on the Front Bench to deal with police issues. He served the House and the Government well in that capacity.
  Part 4 is far-reaching in the protections that it offers to foreign officers in terms of their liabilities when they are in this country carrying out hot pursuit, but we do not know for certain that those protections will be extended to our officers when they carry out similar operations in another participating country. We cannot with a clear conscience commit our police to a reciprocity agreement without knowing fully what the reciprocity will involve. We must consider the protection of our own police officers fulfilling their duties abroad. The Bill says a great deal about safeguards for foreign officers but very little about safeguards for our people, which is why I expressed the hope that the Government would publish their assessment of how the legislation is applied in other countries.
  We will not oppose the Bill, not least because the Government have already signed us up to many of its provisions through various European Union agreements. We will support it because we recognise that criminals and terrorists no longer operate solely in one country, as the Minister rightly reminded us. Crime has become global, and we need provisions to deal with it effectively. We will, however, challenge the Government on many elements of the Bill. Some were challenged in the other place and the Government did not respond to our satisfaction; in the case of others, we believe that further clarification or indeed tightening is required, not just to protect foreign police in the context of hot surveillance but, more important, to protect our own citizens.
  The Bill will not prompt headlines in any newspapers, notwithstanding current events, but it will go a long way towards dealing with the problems of crime across international barriers, and we therefore welcome the principles behind it. A number of issues remain to be debated, but we will debate them in Committee.
  1.31 pm
  Mr. David Heath: We broadly support the Bill, and will not oppose its Second Reading. Anyone who brings sense to the debate must realise that the maximum co-operation between police across national boundaries, and between judicial systems, will benefit us when we are dealing with terrorist offences and international crime—along with, of course, the resources and policing that must accompany such co-operation. Many of us are still very worried about the integrity of some of our policing systems as they apply to ports of entry and airports.
  I think it fair to say that the Government seem to be adopting a piecemeal approach. Bits of legislation dribble through the system, dealing with various aspects. We would benefit from more co-ordination. I do not have a problem with one aspect, however. I am glad that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) did not suggest that it was a problem, although it was a recurrent theme in another place. I refer to the Government's power to enter into treaty arrangements with other countries. That, of course, is what being a Government is about—but it does not absolve this House, this Parliament, from the duty, and indeed the right, to scrutinise what has been agreed and if necessary to reject it.
  However beneficial co-operation between states on policing matters and judicial systems may be, three essential tests must qualify it. The first relates to our national security and the integrity of our policing system. Our accession to the Schengen arrangements is partial, as is confirmed by the treaty of Amsterdam: we still have an opt-out, if that is the correct term, from free movement across our national frontiers. We need to be persuaded that the integrity of our security information will not be compromised in a way that might put us at additional risk.
  The second test is the recognition that different judicial systems and jurisprudences operate across the European Union and beyond. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire referred to the Code Napoléon, on which much European law is based. We have differences of jurisprudence within our own country as well, of course, in that there is a difference between the law of England and Wales and that of Scotland.
  I feel that if we start from a basis of respect for different legal systems, while recognising that they cannot easily be absorbed into a single amorphous system, we start from a healthier basis than the assumption that there is any such thing as true harmonisation of widely differing legal systems. That is, I think, recognised in the Bill, but it needs to be recognised in the House as well. Many of us do not want English and Welsh common law to be eroded in the process, while at the same time recognising the quality of other systems of jurisdiction.
  The same applies to policing. There are different methods of policing. Most European countries have a form of gendarmerie which we do not have. We should respect such differences, and treat them as differences in approach but not necessarily in quality.
  Mr. Mark Francois: The hon. Gentleman is, like me, a veteran of the Criminal Justice Bill, which

  813
  is still making its way through Parliament. He has mentioned the importance of maintaining English common law. Will the Liberal Democrats hold true to that in their reaction to whatever finally emerges from the European Convention's examination of the proposed new constitution?
  Mr. Heath: I do not think that there are any proposals to abolish English common law. We shall deal with hypotheticals when we reach them, rather than preempting discussion.
  The third test is defence of the liberties of the individual. Parts of the Bill concern intrusion, lack of remedy and inappropriate use of information. We must be on our guard against those. In the other place, my noble Friend Lord Dholakia said that
  "any threats to the fundamental right to privacy must be legitimate, proportionate and necessary".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 December 2002; Vol. 641, c. 984.]
  Most of us would agree.
  What we must not do is adopt an approach coloured by any xenophobic insistence on the inadequacies of all systems except ours. We should recognise the enormous mutual interest in arrangements of this kind to secure as effective a policing and judicial system as possible. Such a system needs to be based on reciprocity and respect for other legal systems.
  Like the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, I am worried about what may happen if the Bill's provisions extend well beyond EU countries with which we have familiar relationships to countries whose jurisdictions are wildly different. We should be careful about that. The most likely candidate is the United States, with which we have many dealings and which is, I understand, the source of most extraditions—or, at least, the source of more than any other country with which we have dealings.
  Whatever respect we have for the Americans and their system of government, we must accept that their jurisdiction is different from ours in many respects. The situation is complicated by the fact that we are not dealing with a single jurisdiction: because the United States is a federal nation, we are dealing with 50 jurisdictions, which differ among themselves. One reason for my concern is that only yesterday a new extradition treaty and asset-sharing agreement was signed by the Home Secretary and the US, bringing procedures between the UK and the US more in line with extradition arrangements with European countries. I do not necessarily decry that, but the House should be aware of its happening and of the possibility of problems of interpretation arising between jurisdictions and the non-transportability of judicial concepts between the United States—particularly, some states in the US—and this country. We will not debate a Bill on the treaty agreement in the same form as the provisions before us today and that worries me, because it will have as many consequences for our citizens as anything produced by the EU.
  Mr. Cash: Would the hon. Gentleman extrapolate on his comments about jurisdictions in respect of countries within the European Union or the accession countries?
  814
  Does he agree that significant differences exist between our judicial system and that of almost all other countries in Europe, which presents a serious difficulty for these proposals?
  Mr. Heath: With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have just said that. However, we share a common European standpoint in being signatories to the European convention on human rights and we are also co-signatories to the Council of Europe convention. We therefore start on a basis of similar safeguards, which is not the case with countries outside the European family. We should understand the importance of that difference.
  Turning to the specifics of the Bill, part 1 deals with mutual assistance in criminal matters in the service of process, covering requests for assistance both from abroad to us and from the United Kingdom to other countries. I hope to be assisted in further consideration of the Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), who has the distinction of being the only Member who has, in his previous role in the Scottish legal system, drafted letters of request to overseas authorities. It would be valuable to reflect on the changes that apply in that respect.
  Part 1 also deals with the freezing of orders, and questions need to be asked about issues of dual criminality—already dealt with in other legislation—particularly whether requests will have adequate judicial scrutiny, rather than simply administrative scrutiny, which would be a retrograde step. For example, should this country accept a request for evidence that would not be admissible in the British system, but might be admissible under a different legal system? Would such a process be acceptable? What safeguards would apply to the defence in respect of access to information provided in that way? Also, what safeguards would apply in respect of requiring direct relevance to a judicial procedure of any evidence requested? Those are all questions that we should reflect on carefully when we address these matters in Committee.
  The same applies to information about banking transactions and there is a real fear that fishing expeditions might be undertaken in the guise of these proposals. We must be careful to ensure the rights of our citizens in that respect, particularly that they have a right to privacy for their transactions unless they are directly related to the investigation of a criminal offence.
  Ms Debra Shipley: On the question of banking, does the hon. Gentleman agree that Operation Ore, which worked through credit cards, has had a shocking effect on the country? The response of the banking sector so far has been somewhat limited, but the Government now have an opportunity to require banks to do more to stop payments for pornography and other things pertaining to criminal offences.
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Lady makes an important point, though there is a fine line between requiring banks to assist in the investigation of criminal transactions and requiring them to do so in respect of matters that are not illegal but disapproved of. I would be careful to draw that line and make it clear that only specifically criminal behaviour should be covered. The National Criminal Intelligence Service has good systems for dealing with

  815
  financial transactions. The problem is that the system is overwhelmed by the information that it collects. The Government need to address the issue of resourcing. If we are to deal with requests not just from British investigating authorities, but from other European authorities, the ability to meet the demands placed on the system could be a serious problem that has to be overcome.
  The last section of part 1 deals with the transfer of UK prisoners to give evidence abroad. I do not share the view expressed earlier that that should not be subject to consent. We are talking about giving evidence rather than facing charges in another jurisdiction. I would go the other way and seek to ensure that the prisoner agreeing to such an arrangement does so on the basis of proper information and advice from legal representatives. That safeguard should apply.
  Mr. Llwyd: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. Some jurisdictions in the European Union do not have a rule against self-incrimination. I wonder whether that should be taken into account and responded to at some stage.
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman, who has great experience in this area, makes a valid point and we should deal with that problem as we examine the Bill in greater detail.
  Part 2 deals with extra-territorial jurisdiction in respect of terrorism. That is welcome: we must have the capacity to deal with terrorist attacks on British Crown territories abroad, such as our diplomatic missions, and to deal with British subjects who commit acts of terrorism. I have no difficulty with that. In a spirit of inquiry, however, I ask whether the provisions would apply to British subjects currently incarcerated in Guantanamo bay. If they are not prisoners of war, they must surely be suspects of terrorist activity. When the Bill is passed, will a request be passed to the United States authorities to return those prisoners to face trial in the United Kingdom, instead of being incarcerated sine die as they are now?
  Simon Hughes: Through my hon. Friend, may I ask the Minister to respond to that specific point at the end of the debate? Hon. Members have made various attempts on behalf of their constituents who are incarcerated in Guantanamo bay. It would be helpful to know what representations the Government have made, are making and will make in the near future when the Bill is passed.
  Mr. Heath: I agree with my hon. Friend and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
  Part 3 deals with the convention on driving disqualification. Mutual recognition of driving qualifications is long overdue, but some questions of detail still need to be asked. First, the Government have gradually introduced the concept of using disqualification from driving as a sanction for non-driving offences. I am not sure how that would fit within the legislative framework, or whether similar legislation in other European countries could be difficult to translate into British law.
  I am concerned that a British driver convicted and disqualified abroad might not have the same opportunity as a British driver charged in a UK court to
  816
  put arguments about the threat that disqualification would pose to his or her livelihood. British lorry drivers convicted of minor offences might be punished by disqualification, which could have a disastrous effect on their ability to earn their living and maintain their livelihood in the UK and abroad. That is simply a concern—I am not sure how it could be addressed.
  It is astonishing that mutual recognition of driving disqualifications does not exist within the UK. It is extraordinary that disqualifying a person in Northern Ireland has no resonance on the mainland of Great Britain, and vice versa. The same is true for the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar. Will the Minister say whether our recognition of disqualification in Gibraltar will be matched by the Spanish Government's recognition of qualification in Gibraltar? The longstanding disagreement between the British and Spanish Governments about the recognition of Gibraltarian driving licences needs to be addressed. If that is not achieved by the mutual recognition provisions in the Bill, it is hard to see the point of trying to recognise mutual qualifications across the EU.
  Two major elements of the Bill are dealt with in part 4. I have no problem with Britain entering the Schengen information system. I can see all sorts of advantages in that, and I welcome the enhanced role of the Information Commissioner. However, I worry that that massive information system is only as good as the data that are put into it, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said. At the last count two years ago, 49,000 terminals were already attached. Tens of thousands of people across Europe access the system. Thousands of people input information, and the capacity for information to be inputted that is incorrect or inappropriate is extraordinarily large. That concern needs to be addressed.
  My final point in connection with part 4 has to do with hot surveillance, which I consider to be rather a misnomer. I have heard much nonsense spoken about it. People have a vision of Inspector Clouseau bumbling around the Kent countryside doing all sorts of extraordinary things, but I am not filled with immediate alarm at the prospect of overseas police officers being able to engage in surveillance, as the period of time will be very limited and they will have no power of arrest or questioning and will not be able to carry firearms.
  However, I am concerned about the lack of remedy for UK citizens in the event of malpractice by such officers. I worry, too, about the operational difficulties that might arise. I can foresee all sorts of occasions when the intervention of an overseas police officer in a carefully planned operation on this side of the English channel might have disastrous consequences. It must be spelled out very clearly that notification at the earliest opportunity—ideally, in advance—should be the norm rather than the exception.
  There are serious difficulties about what happens at borders. For example, the carabiniere with the pistol in his holster is not excused immigration procedures or border controls in this country so, very unobtrusively, he will have to show his passport and hand in his gun while the person he is tailing skedaddles out of the other side of the airport or port. That is a serious problem to which I am not sure there is an easy answer.

  817
  I share the curiosity of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire about territorial waters, whether in connection with British-flagged ships or with a train in the channel tunnel. Will the Minister say precisely what is the situation in connection within our territorial waters, and what is our assumed territorial responsibility in respect of the Channel tunnel?
  Will the Minister further say whether she intends to reverse the amendment passed in another place to clause 82? Clause 82(4) now prohibits foreign police officers from stopping, questioning and searching a UK citizen within the UK. The Minister may consider that that was implicit in the Bill as originally drafted, but I believe that making it explicit is even more helpful. It certainly does not run counter to our treaty obligations.
  The interventions that I have taken mean that I have spoken for longer than I intended, but I consider this to be an important Bill that deserves the closest possible scrutiny by the House as it is capable of further improvement. Liberal Democrat Members want a Bill of this kind to pass through the House in the very near future, so that we can be assured of the best cooperation between our police and judicial systems and those of our neighbours and partners. We want to work with them to fight terrorism and international crime effectively.
  1.55 pm
  Mr. Mark Francois: I am pleased to be called to contribute to this afternoon's important debate. I begin by echoing the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) to the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). I did not agree with the reasons underlying the right hon. Gentleman's resignation, but he conducted himself honourably in the way that he left the Government. I should like to take this opportunity to acknowledge that, and to place on record my admiration for the right hon. Gentleman.
  I want to concentrate my remarks on part 4 of the Bill, which deals with miscellaneous provisions. Clauses 80 and 81 deal with data protection—a subject that may appear arcane to many observers. In all honesty, I cannot say that it is the talk of all the pubs in Rayleigh on a Friday night, but some potentially important questions still need to be asked on the matter, and I shall focus on them this afternoon.
  Ministers will be aware already that the law relating to data protection is fiendishly complicated. The framework domestic legislation is the Data Protection Act 1998, which is based on the EU data protection directive of 1995.
  It may assist Ministers if I explain that my own interest in this admittedly rarefied subject had its genesis when I introduced a ten-minute Bill last year on the effect on Members of Parliament of the Data Protection Act 1998. I looked at the effect of that legislation on MPs' pursuance of their duties, not least in respect of constituency casework that involved public bodies or private companies.
  I am pleased to say that the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), subsequently brought forward a statutory instrument
  818
  rather snappily entitled the Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2003. The order clarified the position of elected representatives, including Members of Parliament, who seek personal data at the request of constituents so as to carry out casework inquiries on those constituents' behalf. I shall refer to that order again later in my remarks.
  The experience of researching and preparing for my ten-minute Bill taught me just how complicated is the domestic and wider European law in this area, not least because of the potential interaction between any data protection legislation and the Human Rights Act 1998. That is why I am interested in how that potential interaction will affect this Bill.
  That is the background, so I shall now move to the details as to why I think that the interaction that I have described is important, and why I consider this Bill to have important implications for data protection law.
  Clause 81 offers potential access to the UK sections of the Schengen information system, the so-called SIS; the Europol information system, the so-called EIS; and the Customs information system, the so-called CIS. Those were all subsequently defined under clause 81(7) of the Bill. In that regard, the Bill specifically inserts a new provision after clause 54 of the Data Protection Act 1998 giving the Information Commissioner the power to inspect any personal data that is recorded in the UK element of those three systems. In order to do that, the Information Commissioner must provide written notice of the intention to inspect such personal data, unless, under clause 81(5),
  "the case is one of urgency."
  The Government have made much of that provision as a safeguard in their approach to the Bill. In fact, the Home Office's press release of 20 November 2002, entitled "New Bill to Boost EU Police Powers", stated that the Information Commissioner would be given
  "unprecedented powers to monitor and challenge"
  data held in the system, including the power to enter the premises where the database is kept.
  I wish to raise a number of specific points with the Minister about the practical applicability of that measure. First, can he confirm that all the information covered under clauses 80 and 81 will be classified as sensitive personal data for the purposes of the Data Protection Act? Under clause 2 of that Act, "sensitive personal data" specifically includes information concerning
  "the commission or alleged commission"—
  by a person "of any offence" or
  "any proceedings for any offence committed or alleged to have been committed"—
  by a person—
  "the disposal of such proceedings or the sentence of any court in such proceedings."
  If clauses 80 and 81 refer to sensitive personal data, which has additional safeguards under the 1998 Act, are Ministers fully reassured that the covering statement on the front of the Bill that its provisions are compatible with the European convention on human rights is completely accurate?
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend is pursuing an extremely important series of points. Is he aware that two years

  819
  ago the Schengen information system had 49,000 terminals? Given that, how does he think that it might be possible to guarantee total security, and does he agree that the Minister should address that when responding?
  Mr. Francois: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Under the Bill, the Information Commissioner—previously referred to as the data protection commissioner—has the right not only to inspect data that is stored on the UK elements of the three systems, but, at least theoretically, to inspect the physical systems on which the data is stored. In response to my hon. Friend's apposite point, the Information Commissioner will theoretically have the right, if he or she has the necessary resources, to physically inspect every one of those 49,000 terminals, because they form part of the system on which that data is held.
  The matter is fiendishly complicated, but I hope that Ministers will appreciate the tack that I am trying to take. For the safeguard to be effective, it is important that Ministers are fully reassured that there is no contradiction between clauses 80 and 81, the Data Protection Act 1998, the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998, which flowed from the convention. If there were to be such a contradiction, we could end up in the absurd situation whereby when the Information Commissioner seeks access to sensitive personal data, as a safeguard, the European convention on human rights could be turned against the commissioner to prevent them from carrying out the safeguard power of which the Government made so much in their advocacy of the Bill. It might seem a complicated point, but anyone who has had any experience of data protection legislation and its practical implications will recognise that it is a matter that the Government need to double-check. We as a House would not want to end up in a situation whereby we passed the Bill into law, then found that subsequent jurisprudence meant that the safeguard that of which the Government have made so much was ineffective because the European convention on human rights was being used against it.
  Related to that point, will the Minister spell out what constitutes a case of urgency as outlined in clause 81(5)? How will a case of urgency be defined in practice? Can the Minister give some practical examples of the circumstances where such a provision might apply and where the Information Commissioner would therefore be able to gain access to personal data without first having to provide written notice in advance to the data controllers concerned?
  I promised the Minister that I would return to the statutory instrument of late last year that I mentioned in my initial remarks. To keep my word, may I ask him to outline how the Bill would be affected by it? For example, if a Member of Parliament were to be approached by a constituent who believed that they had been wrongly included on the UK element of one, or perhaps all three, of the databases, would the statutory instrument give the Member sufficient authority to pursue the matter on their constituent's behalf? My reading of the situation is that it would, but I should be grateful if the Minister, who may need to seek a little advice, could confirm that.
  Some of the most controversial elements of the Bill, at least to date, have centred on issues such as the hot pursuit of criminal and terrorist suspects across
  820
  international borders, and I do not resile from that proposition. However, on the well-established parliamentary principle that the devil is in the detail, I have sought to highlight what is admittedly a very particular aspect of the Bill where specific questions remain unanswered. Because the law is so fiendishly complicated in this area, I hope in all good faith that the Minister will take on board the points that I have striven to make and that he will address them in his response. If that is not possible today, I should be grateful if he could take the trouble to write to me. Then, perhaps, some of these matters will bear further examination by my colleagues when the Bill progresses into Committee.
  2.9 pm
  Mr. Robert Syms: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), who made some good points on data protection. My points will be more general. On the Conservative Benches, we broadly welcome this Bill, as, I think, do most other hon. Members. We all know that criminals have become extremely nimble, that a lot of their crime is offshore, and that they are good at playing jurisdiction against jurisdiction. Law enforcement agencies and Governments have to collaborate and co-operate a lot more to crack down on such people.
  A number of problems that affect our constituents have their genesis in international crime. On occasion, my constituency suffers from robberies from people's homes. Two thirds of persistent criminals have a drug habit. Drugs are trafficked internationally and we have never been good at cracking down on gangs and the proceeds of their crimes. The issue therefore affects our ordinary constituents, who have to put up with having their homes trashed by criminals. We have to take the battle to the gangs at an international as well as a national level.
  The migration of asylum seekers is a major problem. Many criminal gangs take advantage of people who are, unfortunately, in that situation. In 1975, the world had 75 million people who were migrating; in 1990, the figure was 120 million; and in 2000, the figure was 150 million. Many gangs that traffic in people go through a number of jurisdictions. We have had a number of horrible cases where people have been shut in the back of vehicles and have suffered an awful death. If we are to crack down on the migration of people, our measures have to have effect across jurisdictions.
  The world has become very difficult after the events of 9/11. The impact of terrorism reinforces the broad thrust and principles of the Bill. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh said, the devil is in the detail. I suspect that this is one of those Bills that the experts will have to go through line by line in Committee to work out the snags. Treasury Ministers are probably happy that a Bill such as this one should start in the House of Lords, because many of the experts at that end of the Palace can improve it—and no doubt they have improved it—to make Ministers' jobs somewhat easier.
  For this Bill to work, we have to be confident in the judicial and police systems of other countries. I hope that we can be confident in most of them, but events such as the planespotters incident in Greece undermine public confidence in reciprocal agreements. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire

  821
  (Mr. Paice) raised a number of important issues, touching on the list of countries that will be included and that will join in future. As the European Union expands to bring in countries from the former Soviet Union and perhaps Turkey, major difficulties will arise in reciprocal arrangements. The path will be difficult. As well as convincing ourselves of the benefits, we will have to convince many of our constituents.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh mentioned the Schengen information system. If we are to opt into that system, we will have to be confident in it. We will also have to be confident in the quality of the inputs. In the other place, it was said that the Netherlands SIS can be accessed by 7,000 people, 500 of whom can alter data. If that were replicated throughout the EU—and in his intervention my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) mentioned 49,000 terminals—there would be a vast amount of information that would have to be controlled sensibly.
  Inaccurate information in systems can cause awful and difficult problems. Very recently, a British citizen in South Africa was, because of information given by the FBI, arrested by the South African authorities and put in jail. Systems have to have integrity because problems can be caused not only for an innocent citizen in one jurisdiction, but for people across a range of jurisdictions.
  Of course, there are restrictions in the information that can go on the SIS. One cannot include information about someone's racial origin, political opinions, beliefs, health or sexual life. To some extent, those restrictions have been put in as protections, but we know that there is a coincidence of terrorism and crime in the world today as many terrorist organisations use the proceeds of crime to support their activities. I therefore wonder about the benefits of the SIS in the crackdown on terrorism. If one cannot put down that someone is an Arab or a member of the Ba'ath party or whatever, even if they are engaged in smuggling or drug trafficking or whatever, the effectiveness of the system in attacking terrorism will be reduced.
  I welcome the general thrust of the argument on cracking down on fraud involving plastic cards. More could be done to look into the banking system and the amounts of cash balances there. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire that we have to be wary of fishing operations. It would be fairly easy for the Inland Revenue to fish through Spanish or French bank accounts looking for money belonging to people who may have worked in the middle east and repatriated the money to Spain or France rather than Britain. Issues arise here that we have to explore. I hope that the Committee will explore them.
  Hon. Members have rightly discussed the controversial issue of foreign police or customs officials being able to follow a potential suspect into UK jurisdiction for up to five hours. Legitimate questions have been asked about when the five hours start. As we heard earlier, the noble Lords heard from Lord Filkin that the time of entry at the port or airport, or when Eurostar comes out of the tunnel, is the time at which the
  822
  five hours start. There have been occasions when it has taken five hours to get off the train, so I am not sure that that is the best way to measure it.
  I am concerned about the civil liability of foreign police officers. If, when getting off a train from Europe, one was followed by a potentially shady person, one might wish to confront that person. If somebody from a law enforcement agency follows a British or foreign citizen into British territory, there is a risk of confrontation. I know that police officers try to keep surveillance at a distance, but I suspect that, if somebody was, in an emergency, trying to keep close to somebody who they believed was going to perpetrate a crime, there would be a risk of confrontation. If that confrontation takes place on British soil, and the unfortunate individual being followed is innocent and has been wrongly identified, there is a case for some kind of civil redress or liability. When there is a confrontation between a member of a foreign police force or agency that affects a citizen in the United Kingdom, there ought to be some means of compensation. That is only right and proper.
  We have heard about the problem of armed police officers in Europe. In an emergency, if such an officer—for whom it was normal to carry arms—was following somebody into this country, how do we check them? At airports and ports, will we have a designated officer who can, when somebody turns up with their warrant card or equivalent, secure the weapon so that the officer does not come armed into the British jurisdiction if the normal security systems have not picked up on the issue?
  The general issue of security at our ports and airports has arisen. The port of Poole in my constituency used to have a lot of full-time customs officers who knew the movements of people in and out of the port. Customs and Excise has now put many of those officers into mobile units because the focus of operations is to crack down on the smuggling of cigarettes and alcohol from the continent of Europe. Many officers therefore find themselves in Dover. We now hear that the few remaining officers in Poole are being pulled out. If we are serious about cracking down on international crime, we have to be serious about protecting the borders and boundaries of the United Kingdom.
  Many ports are unmanned and we need to reconsider that. Before his principled resignation, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) was the Minister with responsibility for homeland security. That important issue relates to the work of the transport police and Customs and immigration officials in many of our smaller ports. They cannot all be manned but there is no point in setting up all these international arrangements if we do not keep track of the people entering our ports, including Poole which is, after Bristol, the second biggest port in the south-west.
  Mr. Francois: The extent of cover at our ports is becoming ever more important, a point raised yesterday during our debate on the Railways and Transport Safety Bill by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who has campaigned on the issue for some time. He criticised the Government for the lack of cover at smaller port facilities. This is a pregnant issue, which crops up again and again in the House.
  Mr. Syms: I agree with my hon. Friend. As has been pointed out, the Crime (International Co-operation)

  823
  Bill is part of a series of measures that need to be taken to provide proper security for our citizens. That involves the use of transport police and Customs officials in smaller ports and airports, as we discussed the other day. However, the Government have introduced measures piecemeal on a range of matters and it is difficult for Members suddenly to zoom in on a particular aspect when they cannot see the whole picture. I wish that I had greater confidence in the Government's ability to take an overview of the whole picture so that we could reassure our constituents that homeland security was higher on the political agenda.
  We are engaged in conflict in Iraq and the war on terrorism has been stepped up. We need more international agreements so that we can fight terrorism. After the events of 9/11, one of the first court cases was held in Germany and it was noticeable that many of those involved in those horrific events had travelled across several jurisdictions before reaching the United States. More co-operation is important but we must get the balance right. We must not forget the basic civil liberties of our citizens although many people might accept some modest diminution of those liberties if they felt that they would be better protected. The Bill is fine, but I hope that when the Committee considers it in detail, it will be further improved.
  2.23 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Like the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), we accept the thrust of the Bill, although some matters need to be ironed out in Committee. The speeches of the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) have made my job easy. Although the speech of the hon. Member for Rayleigh was well argued, parts of it were above my head-that is nothing new.
  Many good general points have already been made. There is no doubt that we need better international cooperation to deal with large-scale crime. The greatest scourge is probably drug smuggling, which is one of the main cross-border crimes and possibly the main activity of large, serious gangs of organised criminals. It was estimated recently that two thirds of such gangs were involved in drug trafficking. Those international dealers feed the local markets, which, in their turn, lead to local misery. Drug smuggling often finances forms of terrorism, too, so it is equally important to consider it from that aspect.
  I echo other speeches: we must strike a balance between the needs of the state and the rights of individuals. I am indebted to Justice and Liberty for the briefings that they have provided. Justice has expressed concern that the Bill does not include sufficient procedural safeguards and that it fails
  "to address the rights of the defence."
  I am sure that those matters will be dealt with in Committee. They are important because the new law must have full confidence across the board if it is to be effective.
  I shall not speak at length about each part of the Bill, but I want to refer to chapter 2 of part 1.
  Mr. Cash: In addition to the statements from Justice cited by the hon. Gentleman, does he agree that we are
  824
  getting into deeper and deeper difficulties over such things as the European arrest warrant and the European public prosecutor, to which I referred earlier? There is a monumental shift in the centre of gravity of our criminal justice system.
  Mr. Llwyd: Although the hon. Gentleman and I take a different stand on European co-operation, he makes a valid and important point. In an earlier intervention, I pointed out that a witness might be requested to appear in the jurisdiction of countries that did not have rules against self-incrimination. That is an extremely important point. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, there must be some form of mutual understanding that countries are signatories to the European convention on human rights. That would offer some safeguard, but the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) makes a forceful point.
  I was referring to chapter 2 and the mutual provision of evidence. The procedures for considering and giving effect to freezing orders are dealt with in clauses 10 and 20. However, defence rights must be protected in cases of international mutual assistance, especially in the light of the complex nature of such proceedings. For example, clause 19 makes no reference to the use that may be made of seized evidence once it has been sent to the court or the authority requesting assistance. Other Members have referred to the need to avoid international fishing expeditions—although if we were dealing with the European Community there would not be much fishing. The measure should specify that evidence seized under the terms of the legislation may be used only for the purposes set out in the original request for assistance, unless the territorial authority expressly consents to it being used in specified further investigations.
  Those points of detail will be dealt with in Committee, but I want to raise another matter of considerable concern. Overseas freezing orders should be restricted to a judicial authority in the country that has the power to make such orders. Many of us feel that the Bill should state that implicitly. Concern has been expressed about requests for information about banking transactions for use in the UK. The Bill would allow prosecuting authorities to make requests for such assistance directly, without requesting UK judicial authority. Given our traditions, that is worrying.
  It appears that it will be left to member states to determine judicial authority, with the possibility that a police authority could be designated competent to issue freezing orders, which would then have to be recognised and enforced in all other member states. On the scope of the freezing order and its relationship with the European arrest warrant, the Minister in the other place, Lord Filkin, said on 11 February that it showed how wide-ranging and invasive such orders might be, as they would be made without notice being given to the persons affected. It is considered essential that the recognition and enforcement of such orders should be conditional on their having been made or approved by a judge or other judicial officer in the issuing state, as is the case with the European arrest warrant, which must be "a court decision".
  Mr. Cash: I am sorry to invade the hon. Gentleman's speech yet again, but the European Scrutiny Committee

  825
  looked into what a judicial officer or a judicial authority would imply, and we remain deeply concerned about the disparities between the nature of the judicial process in this country and in the other countries within the EU. Therefore the valid point that the hon. Gentleman makes is extremely relevant to the Bill and it obviously needs to be looked into in Committee.
  Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman makes his point forcefully and clearly, and reinforces what I am attempting to say, but it is all the more important that there should be a minimum level of judicial oversight of the original order. I believe that there should also be a limited right of appeal. Without a minimum safeguard of judicial involvement, and oversight of the making of orders in the issuing state, this whole system may be brought swiftly into disrepute. I hope that I am wrong, but no doubt these matters will be dealt with in Committee.
  I refer the House briefly to the issue of transfer of prisoners. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) said in an intervention that seeking consent from a prisoner was pushing it a bit. I must say, with great respect to the hon. Gentleman, that that is a little nonsensical. What is the point of dragging a hostile witness to the continent by the hair, for him to refuse to give evidence or to make it up on the spot? That intervention bears little scrutiny.
  Chapter 5 deals with that matter, and clause 47 relates to the transfer of a UK prisoner to assist an investigation abroad. In order for a warrant to be issued, written consent must be obtained from the prisoner, or
  "a person appearing to the Secretary of State to be an appropriate person to act on the prisoner's behalf"
  where the prisoner cannot act for himself by reason of physical or mental condition or youth. Such consent cannot be withdrawn after the issue of the warrant.
  Justice points out that it is important that prisoners be advised fully of what they may be getting themselves into, and have access to legal advice on the exercise of those rights according to the law of the country in question; that is important because many people are unaware of laws in this country, let alone in other countries that the prisoner might be taken to. That is not to say that the idea is wrong; the idea is perfectly valid and right. I am just sounding one or two warnings that could be addressed in Committee to ensure that things proceed as they should. However, the transfer of a prisoner could have a significant impact on the exercise of that person's fundamental rights, so it is important that this advice is available, particularly given the irrevocable nature of the consent.
  With regard to foreign police officers acting in the UK, Lord Filkin said in another place that there was no way of knowing how long the foreign police officer had been in the country and it would be necessary to rely on other forces observing the rules. He also said that, in the vast majority of cases where a foreign police force wanted to follow a criminal to Britain, they would have time to contact local police to set up a joint operation.
  Mr. Cash: I am sorry to intervene yet again, but it gives me an opportunity to bounce off the hon.
  826
  Gentleman to the Minister. Does he agree that there is a practical problem with regard to foreign officers? If they do not speak English, are we sure that a translation service—which will, of course, cost a vast amount of money—will be available? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, otherwise, we shall get into quite a complicated position?
  Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, which I am sure will be dealt with in due course. However, I understand that there is fairly easy access of information between European mainland police forces and UK police forces at present. The hon. Gentleman is right in terms of hot—or is it warm?—pursuit.
  Mr. Heath: Not hot.
  Mr. Llwyd: I am told that it is not hot; perhaps warmish—
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Surveillance.
  Mr. Llwyd: Surveillance is the word.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): Tepid.
  Mr. Llwyd: In the heat of a tepid surveillance, it will be impossible to translate on the spot, but—
  Mr. Cash: Even with the Welsh?
  Mr. Llwyd: Even with the Welsh, as the hon. Gentleman says. We are a bilingual country and proud of it.
  There is quite an important point to be made. I am not denigrating police forces in other European states; this is not meant to be a second-hand insult. The UK has very disciplined police forces, who adhere closely to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; indeed, if they do not, anything that they discover falls flat and is not used in a court of law, or is used to little effect. We need to ensure that officers have a basic understanding of what is expected of them when on surveillance in the UK. However, there may be cases involving investigations into serious international criminals, where such surveillance will be necessary. Clause 82 refers to the conditions under which surveillance may be lawfully carried out, but does not set out those conditions, leaving them to be specified in an order by the Secretary of State. I hope that in Committee it will be possible to give some indication of those conditions, because they appear to be important. I am sure that when the Minister responds he will at least refer to the matter.
  The explanatory notes state that it is intended that the first of the orders will apply to the conditions set out in article 40(2) and (3) of the Schengen convention, which the clause is designed to implement. Given that the imposition of conditions on the conduct of foreign officers who operate in the UK is a crucial safeguard to the rights of individuals in the UK and that these matters will be dealt with fairly swiftly, I do not intend to delay the House much longer.

  827
  The hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire and for Somerton and Frome mentioned civil immunity. That is a very worrying matter. I do not understand the raison d'être for this civil immunity and I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter. Clause 82(6) makes no reference to the reason for it. I am not anti-French in any shape or form—never have been and never will be. I do not sign up to the anti-French rhetoric in the light of the current Iraqi situation either. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned Inspector Clouseau. God forbid that a latter-day Clouseau should wreak havoc throughout England, Wales and Scotland, and should wreak havoc with impunity.
  2.39 pm
  Mr. William Cash: The Bill is clearly important, but it is also controversial—perhaps more so than has been illustrated so far from some quarters of the House—and I should like to draw attention to a number of the matters that need to be considered.
  In concluding his speech on Second Reading in the House of Lords, Lord Filkin commented on the fact that the European agreements that lie behind the Bill have been through the scrutiny process in both Houses. In respect of the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee—this is important—he went on to say:
  "No doubt, it will have much to say about our proposals for implementing these measures."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 December 2002; Vol. 641, c. 975.]
  Important considerations lie at the heart of these proposals, and I am aware of the fact that the Government have a substantial majority. I am also aware of the fact that we introduced some constructive proposals in the other place, and I pay tribute to Baroness Anelay for securing the adjustments that the Government have, I think, now accepted with regard to the surveillance procedures. She also suggested that perhaps some of the measures in the Bill should be subjected to a sunset provision, especially the Henry VIII clause—I think that it is now clause 92, to which I shall come later. That subject is causing increasing concern in both Houses of Parliament because of the broad nature of the method of procedure being used.
  The matter that concerns me relates, in part, to what is going on in the European Convention with regard to the Schengen arrangement. I suggested to the Secretary of State for Wales, who is the lead Minister in the Convention, that perhaps the Government were engaging in what I euphemistically described as some light footwork. When I get into the application of the Schengen arrangement to the Bill, the House may understand what I am driving at: we and the Irish have an opt-out from Schengen.
  In her speech on Second Reading in the other place, Baroness Anelay asked the Minister to what extent we were treading towards the full Schengen arrangement through the back door. There is some concern that the Government are, in fact, taking us into the full Schengen arrangement by a series of grandmother's footsteps. When I cross-examined the Secretary of State for Wales, he assured me that we would not seek new opt-outs, but he did not say that we would necessarily retain our existing opt-outs.
  I should like the Minister to deal with those concerns when he replies, as there is some anxiety among those who are attending the Convention that the Government
  828
  are not being as candid about that matter as one would expect. After all, the Bill will be subjected ultimately to the future application of what emerges from the treaty that implements the Convention. It is important for us to know exactly where the Government stand in relation to the whole Schengen agreement in so far as they are already engaged in policy making at the highest level in the Convention.
  Having made that general point, I wish to refer to the Bill, as explained by Lord Filkin, whom I had the pleasure of cross-examining on criminal justice matters in the European Scrutiny Committee. He rightly says:
  "International crime affects us all. Greater freedom to travel and live in other countries and the growth of international trade mean that crime is no longer confined by national boundaries."
  That is true, but the words "no longer" seem to be slightly extraordinary, as they suggest that, somehow or other, proposals of the kind now being adumbrated are a novelty. No, the reality is that international crime has been with us for a very long time.
  Anyone who has read Sherlock Holmes or any of the great detective writers of the 19th century, let alone those of the 17th or 18th centuries or before, will know that the problem of international crime has applied since in the middle ages. However, I am prepared to concede that modern technology has changed the nature of international crime. I understand the need for greater co-operation, particularly in respect of terrorism, but that is not to say that I necessarily agree with the idea of international co-ordination. The distinction is important.
  It is perfectly true to say, as Lord Filkin put it, that
  "The Schengen arrangements provide a clear framework for effective co-operation, especially for cross-border police operations. The UK first applied to participate in the police and judicial co-operation elements of Schengen in May 1999. Our application was accepted a year later"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 December 2002; Vol. 641, c. 971–72.]
  The point that I am making is that he uses the expression "co-operation", but I would be rather inclined to suggest that we should refer to co-ordination, instead of co-operation, in the context of the Bill.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Co-operation on terrorism is one thing, but what justification is there to implement driving disqualifications in this country on UK citizens who have been disqualified overseas, particularly if the length of disqualification overseas would be widely regarded here as disproportionate to the offence committed? My hon. Friend spoke about grandmother's footsteps; is it not more like athlete's footsteps?
  Mr. Cash: I hope that it is not a case of athlete's foot. All I can say is that there are disparities in driving disqualifications in the different jurisdictions, and one of the biggest problems that we face in relation to this perpetual stream, this tidal wave of determination to harmonise our legislation, including criminal law, in the European context, is that we constantly come up against the problems of differences in principle, procedures and judicial method. There are even differences in the kind of people who are engaged in the process of judicial authority, as was mentioned in my exchanges with the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd).

  829
  Indeed, in the European Scrutiny Committee only last week, we heard from two witnesses, one of whom came from Statewatch and the other from Fair Trials Abroad—not people whose evidence one would normally associate with Conservative Members. The Chairman of the Committee asked one of those gentlemen whether he would repeat a specific point in case he wanted to correct it. He said—I slightly paraphrase because, unfortunately, I do not have an encyclopaedic memory, but it will do for the purpose—that, to his certain knowledge, there are junior judges in a number of European Union countries who are xenophobic in their attitude to foreign offenders.
  Even I was slightly taken aback by the tenacity with which he held that view. He was quite emphatic. If that is the judgment of an extremely dedicated person who comes from what can only be described as the liberal left, we should take account of his view in our consideration of any provisions that deal with the interweaving of the criminal system. Questions will ultimately be decided by judges—at least, we trust that they will be proper judges—and the very thought that they might be xenophobic is a matter of grave concern. No doubt, the proceedings of that public hearing will be published shortly and these statements can be verified.
  I am deeply concerned by the ethos that lies at the heart of some of these proposals, however much we may want to achieve the general objectives. For example, Lord Filkin referred to drug smuggling, and we want to be sure that we can avoid that and the drug trafficking that goes with it. As he said:
  "Other cross-border crimes have an impact on society more widely—such as counterfeiting, money laundering and cigarette smuggling. People trafficking is on the increase: 21,800 illegal entrants were detected in the first nine months of 2000 compared with 16,000 in 1999.
  The best way to tackle international crime is to work closely with our neighbours."
  That is an exceptionally good point. The question is how we do that and whether the Bill is the best vehicle. He added:
  "The Netherlands and Spain are both significant bases for the secondary distribution of drugs within the EU, including to the UK. We are already working with our EU partners."
  He then provided several examples.
  Lord Filkin then moved on to the question of the Schengen arrangements. He said:
  "The Bill will make the changes needed to enable the UK to participate in the non-border aspects of the Schengen Convention."
  I understand what he means. That is the aspiration, but he used the word "needed". Is the Bill absolutely necessary to achieve the objectives that we all want achieved, which is to ensure that effective action can be taken to deal with cross-border problems? Is the prescriptive system provided for by the Schengen agreement, which we opted out of and into which we are now being filtered, the appropriate way forward? The debate in the other place and the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) made it clear that the general thrust of the objectives is to prevent international crime as far as possible, and I do not disagree with that. I ask the
  830
  question in the context of the direction in which the convention is going. Given the articles in the convention, we may find that we are being screwed down to the table to the point at which we may find that the whole Schengen operation applies to us as it does to others.
  Lord Filkin made a further point in his interesting Second Reading speech. He said:
  "The question of UK participation in Schengen"—
  this is an understatement—
  "has been of considerable interest to your Lordships' House."
  Indeed, it has. It has also been of considerable interest to this House. I have the honour of assuring Lord Filkin of that.
  Lord Filkin then referred to the four separate reports in the Schengen acquis that were conducted under the aegis of Lord Wallace of Saltaire and a committee of the European Union. Lord Filkin made it clear that the four reports dealt with
  "incorporation into the EU treaty structure and the UK's intentions towards Schengen".
  He notes that
  "a report published in March 1999—just before the Government made our formal application to participate in Schengen —concluded that:
  'if the United Kingdom does not opt-in, its influence over a broad range of Justice and Home Affairs matters may be seriously diminished … Weaker United Kingdom influence over the development of European policies will mean that such policies will reflect the preferences of others, and fail to take into account particular United Kingdom concerns'."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 December 2002; Vol. 641, c. 971–72.]
  We have heard that argument over and over again. We will be better off if we are in the club because that is the framework within which its members are working and we will be able to influence what is going on. I do not know whether Members present had the benefit of seeing Mr. Evan Davies—not a notable Eurosceptic—talking on BBC2 about the euro and what is going on elsewhere within the EU. He mentioned the principle that participation equals influence equals benefit, but the short answer is that there is no evidence with regard to that matter or to this—apart from maintaining the merits of a proper degree of co-operation, with which I entirely concur—that that principle is necessarily the right approach.
  I remember talking to the then Home Secretary, now Lord Waddington, at the time that we took our opt-out from Schengen. We did not become as enmeshed in Schengen as we now appear to be precisely because we thought it impolitic to become so for a range of reasons. They have been discussed as a side wind to this debate, and they include the worries on data protection to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) referred and the points on the judicial process made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. I apologise if I have not pronounced the name of his constituency fluently. We heard similar remarks from other hon. Members.
  There is deep concern about whether the principle that we somehow benefit from participation is a good one. I fear that it is not. In passing, I suggest that the common foreign and security policy is an extremely good example of a common foreign and security policy that is neither common, foreign nor secure. In all these

  831
  matters, we need to look to our own interests, and that is in no way to criticise the objective of trying to achieve co-operation. I am simply asking several useful questions about the efficacy of the procedure that is being followed.
  Lord Filkin added:
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should realise that the usual procedure in the House is that quotations should be brief. I cannot allow him to quote huge amounts from speeches made in the other place. It is a clear rule that quotations must be brief.
  Mr. Cash: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for reminding me of that pearl of wisdom. I shall certainly follow your ruling. However, that is not to say that it is not within my remit to paraphrase whatever has been said. It is important to be accurate about what Lord Filkin said—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not test the patience of the Chair. If Lord Filkin has made a speech in the other place, it is on the record for the benefit of all Members of this House, and the hon. Gentleman would be out of order if he proceeded to quote it at great length.
  Mr. Cash: As this hon. Gentleman has not the slightest intention of being out of order, he will take the advice of the Chair in good part.
  It is, however, important that we acknowledge that important questions of principle lie at the heart of these proposals. Part 2 deals with terrorism, and we must recognise that terrorists do not respect national boundaries. However, we are not talking about national boundaries only in the EU; the principle applies to terrorists wherever they come from. We know perfectly well that there is a greater likelihood that terrorists will come from countries in the middle east, for example, than from the EU.
  I raise these matters in connection with our national security. This Bill is described as the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, and it is a matter of concern that too much emphasis is placed on the question of whether we can contain terrorism that emanates from the EU, which has the underlying problem of Schengen attached to it, or whether we should look more broadly at international co-operation. We must be satisfied that proper safeguards in the judicial and criminal system are made available for the benefit of our own people and, indeed, to other persons suspected of terrorist offences who are subjected to our judicial process, where they know that they will be properly and fairly treated.
  For heaven's sake, we have enough examples of cases that have gone as far as the House of Lords, costing millions of pounds in the process. I suspect that the people concerned would have got short shrift in many other countries, but they have, properly, benefited from the manner in which our judicial process protects their rights even though some people, including the Home Secretary and other Members of this House, believe that article 3 will need to be revised by the House.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Is not one of the problems with the Bill the fact that it does not allow the English judiciary
  832
  sufficient flexibility to examine, and perhaps to substitute, what we would deem a fairer sentence? I think in particular of the example that I gave my hon. Friend earlier—that of disqualification from driving. It appears from clauses 57 and 58 that English courts will not have the discretion to substitute a shorter period of disqualification. Is not that a weakness of the Bill?
  Mr. Cash: I entirely agree. Part 3, which deals with driving disqualifications, is based on the proposition that people who commit a driving offence for which they are disqualified while abroad should not be able to escape disqualification when they return home to their usual state of residence. However, any such proposition is dependent on what the penalties are, on the manner in which they are enforced and on who enforces them.
  The EU convention on driving disqualifications is intended to promote the principle that drivers should abide by the rules of the road no matter where they are driving, thereby promoting greater safety throughout the EU. However, I make the same point about countries that are not in the EU. I am not entirely convinced, for example, that if a tourist from America, India or Tibet comes here, hires a car and drives badly, he should be treated differently from that breed of drivers who come within the remit of the EU convention. We have to recognise that people are people, whatever part of the world they come from; there is not a special breed of people who come from the European Union.
  Mr. Knight: As I understand it, in some jurisdictions one can lose one's driving licence for committing a criminal offence that has nothing whatsoever to do with motoring.
  Mr. Cash: I sincerely hope that that fate does not befall me because nothing would be worse than being barred from driving for committing an offence in France, for example. That would be intolerable.
  The question of the Henry VIII clauses, which arises in relation to clause 92 in particular, concerns me a great deal. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), as I can see from the expression on his face, anticipates what I am about to say. Such clauses crop up in far too many Bills. I described the European Representation Bill, which was introduced in the name of the Lord Chancellor, as having more of a Cardinal Wolsey clause than a Henry VIII clause. No doubt such measures are intended to try to reduce the range and extent of primary legislation, but we are already subjected to a considerable number of what are being described as knives, guillotines and programme motions. On top of that, we find that the draconian arrangements in clause 92 make this important Bill much more complicated, and much less democratic, because it can be amended by resolutions of the House, by regulation and by order.
  I believe that I am right in saying that some adjustments were made to the Bill in the other place, and that the affirmative resolution was applied to some of the provisions, although the annulment procedure was retained for others. That is not to say that taking measures by order is not an increasingly unsatisfactory way of legislating, particularly where one is dealing with

  833
  questions of this kind. Because of judicial co-operation, the extent and range of criminal law in the EU is gaining ground exponentially.
  Last week, or the week before, in cross-examining a Minister, I asked about the introduction of qualified majority voting in that context, because our criminal law system is being seriously invaded, and the Bill is an example of that. The mechanisms that it provides for dealing with criminal matters, including drug trafficking and all the other things that we abhor, are being driven forward in the Convention on the Future of Europe to the point at which there will be a significant, if not complete, reduction in the ability of national Parliaments—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In his well-known enthusiasm for this subject matter, the hon. Gentleman is departing too far into the general rather than dealing with the particular. We are on Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Cash: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was a temptation that I could not avoid, but I shall ensure that it does not recur.
  Mr. Knight: I assume that my hon. Friend is about to address clause 29, which allows witnesses to give evidence abroad through television links. Does he share my unease about that provision, and is he satisfied that it will not be open to abuse? I am concerned that if, for example, a witness is allowed to give evidence on a video link from a country ruled by a regime like the one in Iraq, that person may be subject to coercion and duress while giving evidence.
  Mr. Cash: That is a serious danger—my right hon. Friend's point does not differ significantly from the one that I was making. As with the data protection point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh, if we legislate on television links in the House as representatives of the people, we can be sure that we will do the best that we can to make sure that the provisions are right, fair and proper. However, problems arise in connection with exterior jurisdictions, which sometimes compare unfavourably with ours.
  There is a general welcome for part 2, especially the provisions on terrorist offences. We are deeply concerned about events both before and since 11 September, and must show that the fight against terrorism is indeed taken seriously by authorising closer co-operation between police forces, surveillance agencies and so on. I am also concerned about the protocol on mutual assistance on criminal matters, which affects powers in the Bill. We have come up against these protocols on a number of occasions, and it is important to remember that, as with the charter of fundamental rights, we cannot debate them in the House—at any rate, we cannot amend them—which puts us at a considerable disadvantage. I urge the Minister to consider why that method is being used, as it is effectively a prerogative.
  Have the Government effectively taken to themselves certain powers if Parliament is determined to reject the Bill? By using the protocol, the Government are
  834
  introducing provisions that we cannot amend, so we are at a considerable disadvantage. In Committee, will the Minister put on record what our EU partners will do to introduce legislation to impose exactly the same obligations and penalties on their citizens? What timetable has been adopted to comply with the various protocols?
  We have already discussed judicial and police systems in other countries, which is another matter that we need to consider carefully. Lord Goodhart of the Liberal Democrats made it clear that Italian arrangements on delay fell far short of what we would expect in this country. In his opinion, the system of criminal administration in Belgium is so bad that it is a national scandal. Those matters are not just trotted out by people giving vent to unfounded fears and anxieties. I referred earlier to the fact that there is evidence of xenophobia among judges in other countries, and similarly there are serious problems with criminal administration and delay.
  When people co-operate, they have to be on an equal footing. There is no point in co-operation if it is simply a jumble that we put into a crucible and boil up in the hope that it will all turn out all right. Co-operation must be based on commonly understood principles, and if they are not sufficiently adhered to by other nation states we will have difficulties. I therefore urge the Minister to pay careful attention to the problem of lack of symmetry. We hear much about asymmetric warfare in the context of the Iraq war. I cannot think of anything worse than asymmetric legal systems, which would strike at the heart of what we are trying to achieve on Second Reading. If the Bill is to achieve international co-operation against crime, but does not solve the problems of asymmetry between various judicial systems, we will encounter serious difficulties.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: I hope that my hon. Friend is not going down the road of hannonisation of legal systems.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. So do I.
  Mr. Cash: I am delighted to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I do not have the slightest intention of being tempted down the primrose path by my hon. Friend.
  The listing of crimes causes some concern. I was intrigued to learn that Lord Lloyd of Berwick, an international expert on these matters, suggested that he could draw up a list, and it was proposed that the Government could adopt it. I do not know whether Ministers have picked up that point—the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration did not refer to it in her opening speech—or whether they intend to follow it up. In carrying out what some people call hot watch and others hot pursuit—I am much happier with the "surveillance arrangements"—it should be made clear that foreign customs officers and police officers should not be allowed to enter private homes. Is it clear that they should not be able to challenge or arrest the person under surveillance? Should they not be required to contact the authorities immediately on crossing the border and submit a formal request for assistance as soon as possible? They should not simply arrive and get

  835
  on with their task. The process must be tempered and qualified by a vigilant system of monitoring in this country by people who are competent to do so.
  I made the point earlier about language and translation. It is out of the question that we should allow officers to come over as part of the surveillance process without adequate translation services. We can imagine what would otherwise happen. One of the Ministers' own constituents could find himself confronted by an officer who turned up at his home to conduct surveillance—an officer who does not speak English and with whom he cannot communicate— and the process of surveillance would be conducted within a five-hour period. I do not know whether Ministers have thought the provisions through. It is a difficult problem.
  Mr. Heath: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cash: Somerton and Frome is quite a long way away, so it might take the officers five hours to get down there, but not that long to get to Kent.
  Mr. Heath: It sometimes takes five hours to get across my constituency. Is it not enormously more likely that a Dutch officer, for instance, coming to Britain to carry out surveillance will speak perfect English than that a British police constable performing surveillance in the other direction will speak perfect Dutch? Does not reciprocity apply?
  Mr. Cash: Indeed. I am delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman. If co-operation is to work properly, it should work both ways. Mutuality is central to the Bill, but there is a much greater likelihood that somebody who comes to the UK from Denmark, Holland or one of the other European countries will be able to speak English than vice versa. I do not know how many police officers in this country can speak Greek, for example. I leave the rest to the imagination of the House. It is a matter that will need careful consideration in Committee. Yet again, the surveillance process will involve considerable expense, as translation services are expensive.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh touched on data protection. There are a number of points that require further analysis. It is acknowledged, and it has come out in the debate so far, that the Schengen information system is not allowed to include personal data revealing racial origin, political opinions or religious or other beliefs, or personal data concerning health or sexual life. However, we must be satisfied that data protection rules cover those aspects. Will the Minister confirm that that is so? Will he also say who is responsible for the accuracy of data and the liability for damage resulting from, for example, the transmission and use of inaccurate data?
  In an intervention, I mentioned the 49,000 terminals that exist and the potential dangers with so many terminals: a lack of proper security and control over their use, the scope for invasions of privacy, and the difficulties of ensuring that the rules are properly complied with. It is quite a thought. There is a powerful "1984" quality to all this. Vast amounts of information can be held in 49,000 terminals, and that figure was calculated two years ago. How many megabytes and
  836
  how much information do those terminals contain? What prospect is there that people could be sure that the information about themselves was properly put into those computers, or that they could get access to it?
  Are we moving into a "1984" world? We probably are, in certain respects. I accept that the measures might be beneficial in tracking down criminals, but safeguards are necessary to protect the civil liberties of people who do not fall within the ambit of terrorism, drug trafficking, international money laundering, counterfeiting and all the other activities included, understandably, in the Bill.
  Chris Grayling: I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend. He knows that one of the challenges faced by credit control agencies in this country are situations in which data have been mixed up and somebody is deemed not creditworthy because of another person who previously resided at their address or had a similar name. My hon. Friend's argument may be relevant to such cases, in which a confusion of names or addresses could lead to someone being wrongly suspected or recorded.
  Mr. Cash: I can only register my concern. The matter will have to be considered in Committee. Some people may think that examining such issues on Second Reading is taking more time than they would like, but that is not to say that these are not matters of extreme relevance. As the process is implemented, I predict that the very matters that I raise—for example, in respect of the terminals—will come home to roost. I want to know what assurance Ministers can give us that the system will be secure and that it will not be misused.
  I have some alarming concerns that arise from the Court of Auditors 1996 report on the Netherlands SIS. There are 7,000 people who are authorised to access the system in the Netherlands—that is quite a lot. Of those, 500 are also authorised to change the data, so the potential risk of unauthorised access, unlawful disclosure and/or inaccurate information, as the Court of Auditors report put it, being entered into the database is great. That was seven years ago. It is not just a matter of volume and intensity. The system has been audited and was found to be a cause of grave concern. The question will be how the Information Commissioner will operate functions under part VI of the Data Protection Act 1998. I trust that the Minister will give a full explanation. The provisions enable the Information Commissioner to inspect personal data recorded in the UK section of the three European information systems without a warrant. There is concern that the system has not kept pace with modern methods of data storage and exchange.
  Frankly, in the light of the figures that I have been given, it is a matter of deep concern that we should be absolutely certain that, in the application of the provisions, there is proper monitoring, systems are completely up to date, people's privacy is not unfairly invaded and there is no misuse of the system. A question has to be asked about whether the Information Commissioner would have the right to allow individuals to have access to the information that is held. Will the commissioner be responsible for monitoring the entry of information into the computer systems?

  837
  I have traversed a considerable amount of the Bill and I make no apology for having taken a little time to do so. These are important matters that need to be properly looked into. I am grateful for the acknowledgement from one of the usual channels—he has indicated it by nodding his head—that, despite the fact that my contribution has taken a little of my time and that of the House, these matters need proper scrutiny. I wish those serving on the Committee well in considering these important issues. Indeed, I also wish the Government well. If they have the majority needed to get the Bill through, it is in the interests of all the people whom the provisions will affect that they get it right for the sake of the country as a whole. We know that they will get all their amendments through, or at least we believe that that it is likely, certainly in respect of the Bill as it emerged from the other House. That is why the Ministers have a greater burden of responsibility to ensure that the provisions work effectively. I hope that some of my remarks will be of some assistance in Committee and in other debates in ensuring that the Bill proceeds in a satisfactory manner.
  3.31 pm
  Mr. Greg Knight: At first sight, this seems a reasonable measure that should command—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that I have not anticipated the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that it would be in accordance with the courtesies of the House for him to apologise for his inability to be present for the larger part of the opening of the debate.
  Mr. Knight: You did indeed anticipate what I was about to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall return to what were to be my original opening remarks. Although this appears at first to be a fairly innocuous Bill, I was hoping to hear the opening remarks of the Minister and, just as important, of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). Unfortunately, owing to a constituency matter, I was delayed in arriving in the Chamber. I apologise to both the Minister and the shadow Minister.
  Nevertheless, where one has a view, it is important that one share it with the House, even if one cannot be present for all the proceedings. There are many occasions on which hon. Members speak on Second Reading and hear the opening speeches, but cannot hear the winding-up speeches. Today, I find myself in the reverse position, as I did not hear the earlier remarks but certainly intend to stay and listen to the concluding speeches.
  The more I peruse the Bill the more concerned I am. I have already alluded to some of my concerns in interventions on my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). My first concern relates to video evidence. Anyone who has practised in the courts in England and Wales or, indeed, has merely listened to court proceedings in this country knows one thing for certain: witnesses before a court of law in this country come freely, speak freely and leave freely, without threat or hindrance. That is one of the cornerstones of our system of justice. That is why, when a witness gives compelling
  838
  evidence in a case, the jury usually gives great weight to what they say. Members of the jury can see the witness in person, see that they are not compelled to be present and judge for themselves the reliability of the evidence that they give.
  My concern about the provisions relates initially to clause 29, which deals with "Hearing witnesses abroad through television links". The provisions permit the hearing of witnesses via video link when, according to the explanatory notes to the Bill, it is "neither possible nor desirable"—whatever that means—for a witness to travel from his or her member state to where the evidence is required. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that there will be safeguards in place whenever video evidence of that nature is used. Although one can see from a video screen the demeanour of a witness, one cannot see what is happening behind the camera. One cannot make the assumption that one could make in open court that the witness was there freely and had not been threatened with sanctions against either him or his family unless he gave his evidence in a certain way.
  Mr. Llwyd: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has any experience of criminal law in England and Wales, but video evidence is given in this way in every Crown court virtually every day, especially by youngsters and children, without presenting any problems for the defence or the prosecution.
  Mr. Knight: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that he has a valid point. Of course this happens every day in the United Kingdom, but in cases in which the witness is also in the United Kingdom. We know that we have a fair and just system, but what about cases in which the witness is overseas? How are we to know that the circumstances surrounding the giving of evidence by a witness will be fair under an overseas regime? That is my concern. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's intervention rather makes my point. I am relaxed and satisfied by video evidence given in this country because I know that we have the highest possible standards. But what about the so-called justice overseas, which might fall well below the standards that we expect and maintain in this country? That is the point for the Minister. Will he reassure me that the same procedures will be in place for video evidence given overseas as is in place for such evidence given in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Cash: One of the problems that arises is that, these days, it can be difficult to tell whether video evidence has been tampered with. Don't ask me why that is the case, but one or two recent cases have suggested that people simply cannot tell whether it has been tampered with. Would it not be a serious worry that such evidence were being made available to the courts, if the video system did not accurately reflect what was actually being said?
  Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend makes a point with regard to recorded work on video. It is certainly possible to edit a recording in such a way that the person speaking might appear to say something completely different on the edited version from what was said on the original recorded tape. I am not sure whether that

  839
  process could be carried out on a live video link, but there is certainly a risk involved when one is dealing with recordings, both of an aural and video nature.
  Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. It would also be interesting to know the status of video evidence of the kind that he describes in a case in which the European arrest warrant was being used, and to know whether that would be a vehicle that might permit an investigation or arrest to take place based on such questionable circumstances.
  Mr. Knight: That is an important point that I hope the Minister will address in his closing speech. It certainly adds to my concerns about these provisions.
  I have other concerns, particularly relating to clauses 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58, which cover the recognition in the United Kingdom of foreign driving disqualifications. I can understand where this idea came from. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone said that we should all encourage good driving, whether here, in Spain or in any other part of the European Union. We also expect certain levels of fair play in this country, however. We would expect a United Kingdom citizen to be disqualified only for an offence that would carry a disqualification over here.
  I understand that several states of the United States of America have introduced a yob-busting system. It is known that most young people want to own and drive a motor car, and so offences such as theft, dishonesty or violence carry the sentence of losing one's driving licence. I am worried that if United Kingdom citizens on holiday abroad had too much to drink and became involved in a fracas, they would expect to be punished with a modest fine, not lose their driving licence. If the provisions were implemented, such people would discover that because they had lost their ability to drive overseas, they had also lost their ability to drive in this country, which could lead to the loss of their livelihoods. There could be serious consequences for many people in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Swayne: There would, of course, be contributory negligence on behalf of a citizen so affected. My right hon. Friend will know that it is not long since the Government proposed that people who did not pay their dues to the Child Support Agency should lose their licence.
  Mr. Knight: That is as offensive as the scenario that I described.
  I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking to consider modifying several of the Bill's provisions. They provide that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in the UK will be obliged to implement overseas disqualifications unless a disqualification has less than a month remaining. I ask the Minister why there is no provision to allow discretion to be applied and for a shorter disqualification to be imposed. Why does the Bill not include a system whereby if examination in the United Kingdom showed that the disqualification was too severe or unfair, or that it was a punishment for an offence that does not carry an equivalent penalty here, the English courts could substitute the period of
  840
  disqualification with a shorter and fairer period? I hope that the Minister will address that point in his winding-up speech.
  Mr. Swayne: Will my right hon. Friend give us guidance on what he thinks would be a proper shorter period?
  Mr. Knight: That depends on the circumstances of the case. A person may be convicted overseas of an offence for which an overseas court would impose a disqualification, whether that is fair or not. However, the disqualification might be out of all proportion to the offence, or UK subjects might not have been able to anticipate such a punishment. It is asking a bit much to expect UK citizens to know the ins and outs of foreign law. It is said that ignorance of the law is no defence before the English courts. However, if people broke the law in a foreign country and they were not aware that they would risk being fined and losing their driving licence, that should be a mitigating factor because the punishment might lead them to lose their livelihoods and—if they were unable to keep up their mortgage payments—even their property. The Bill should give UK courts the ability to decide whether the disqualification is fair. If the courts considered it to be fair, they could leave the period unaltered but if they considered it unfair, they could substitute a shorter disqualification. I would argue that the courts should be able to substitute a nil disqualification if they considered that the disqualification was causing a person undue hardship.
  Chris Grayling: My right hon. Friend may be interested to note that clause 56(4) refers to a minimum period of six months, except when the conviction relates to a prescribed state. What constitutes a prescribed state is not immediately apparent. However, my right hon. Friend knows that sentences of much less than six months are passed for offences such as speeding. They might be for 14 days, one month or three months. The Bill does not make clear the way in which a court or driving authority in another country would handle such circumstances.
  Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend is right. I have every confidence in the judicial system in this country. Many magistrates who are faced with a case in which they believe that an offender should be disqualified but hear that he needs his licence for work, will ask the defendant, "Have you taken your holiday from work yet?" If the answer is no, they will ask, "How long are you entitled to a year?" If he replies, "Three weeks," they will often disqualify the defendant for that time. That is done deliberately to ensure that the effect of the disqualification is not disproportionate—in other words, that the defendant does not lose a livelihood through a mid-ranking motoring offence. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tackle those genuine anxieties when he winds up the debate.
  I share some concerns with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone about foreign police officers roaming around the English countryside. We all know that a police officer who is not a member of the CID and investigates a crime has to wear a police uniform. What will be the position of foreign police officers? Will they

  841
  have to wear the uniform of their country? The Bill affords them the same protection as a British officer who acts in the performance of his duty.
  Interfering with a police officer who is carrying out proper inquiries or assaulting a police officer are specific offences that relate to a person who is a serving member of a constabulary. Will foreign police officers have to wear their uniforms? If so, what happens if the uniforms do not make it immediately clear to a UK citizen that those wearing them are police officers?
  Mr. Llwyd: With great respect, I suggest that having a fully dressed gendarme following someone through the streets of London would not be clever surveillance.
  Mr. Knight: That is a fair point. If it is decided not to wear a uniform for efficiency reasons, will foreign police officers have to carry an identification card, which is printed in English and would make it clear to a UK citizen that he is dealing with a member of a police force? The Bill is strangely silent on that. The Bill should include a provision to safeguard UK citizens from heavy-handed police tactics by officers from overseas.
  Our system has a well defined method for making complaints. I have the highest regard for our police but, now and again, they fall below the standard that we expect. A police complaints procedure is in force to deal with that. What happens if a foreign national, who is carrying out a surveillance operation here, behaves thuggishly towards someone who is not directly related to the inquiry? What complaints procedure will be applicable in such cases?
  Of course, we appreciate that crime has no frontiers and that, consequently, crime detection should have none. However, when we try to dismantle barriers by allowing foreign police officers to undertake surveillance work in the United Kingdom, we should examine the safeguards. There is a good argument for saying that as one removes the barriers one has to increase the safeguards. No Member of the House would want to have rules such as those that applied in the United States 100 years ago. We have all seen those old cowboy films in which the baddies make their getaway by crossing the state line. Once over it, they know they are free from arrest for an offence committed in another state. Of course, no one wants such an arrangement to be introduced across Europe, but if we are facilitating greater co-operation we need to ensure that greater safeguards are in place.
  Before drawing my remarks to a close, I should refer to my only other reservation, which relates to what my hon. Friend the Member for Stone called the Henry VIII clause. I prefer to call it the Minister's carte blanche clause. It is bad law-making to include such provisions in every Bill. If the Bill becomes law in this or an amended form and the Minister wants to make changes a few months down the line, he should have the courage to return to the Dispatch Box to tell the House what he wants to do. He should not hide behind a catch-all clause. I hope that he reflects on the points that I have raised and that, in due course in Committee, he is prepared to amend the Bill.
  3.51 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: The debate has attracted a lot of interest on the Conservative Benches, but staggeringly little on the Government Back Benches. Indeed, for the vast majority of a debate that began at about 12.45 pm, the Government Benches have been empty, apart from the places occupied by the Ministers, a Parliamentary Private Secretary and the Government Whip, so there is clearly no enthusiasm on the Government side for the legislation, or indeed recognition that it is in any way important. However, that deficiency has been well made up for by a number of speeches from Conservative Members, which showed serious interest in this important Bill.
  As all speakers have said, there is support on both sides of the House, as in another place, for measures against terrorism, but, despite that support, concerns remain that we shall want to scrutinise in Committee. One of the most important issues raised in another place, which we shall also want to discuss in Committee, was co-ordination of anti-terrorism activity and, in particular, what is referred to in the United States as homeland security.
  My noble Friends sought to include a provision to ensure that we would know precisely who is dealing with all matters involving protecting our citizens in the light of a possible terrorist attack. The position is this: the Prime Minister is in overall charge of intelligence and security matters; the Home Secretary is responsible for the Security Service; the Foreign Secretary is responsible for the Secret Intelligence Service and for GCHQ; and the Defence Secretary is responsible for the defence intelligence service.
  In addition, there is a ministerial committee on the security services, which is chaired by the Prime Minister and includes the Deputy Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. An Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is the junior Minister responsible for counter-terrorism issues at the Foreign Office, while the Home Secretary takes responsibility for terrorism policy at the Home Office. The Minister of State for the armed forces is responsible for intelligence and security matters at the Ministry of Defence. Furthermore, last year, Sir David Omand was appointed to the civil service post of security and intelligence co-ordinator at the Cabinet Office.
  That confusion and that litany could have come straight from a script for "Yes, Minister" or "Yes, Prime Minister". We simply must have much clearer lines of responsibility and there ought to be, in this important legislation, as part of the protection of UK citizens against a terrorist threat, a clear statement that a Cabinet Minister is alone responsible for civil security and civil defence.
  Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is making an extremely important point. Does he agree that, in the final analysis, we should also be certain that, despite the undoubted desirability of collaboration and cooperation across Europe on those matters, we should never be placed in such a position that the final decision

  843
  on the protection of our citizens cannot be taken in this country? I hope that he ensures in Committee that that is the case.
  Mr. Hawkins: Certainly. I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and other Conservative Members, will seek to ensure that that happens.
  There are a number of general worries about the Bill. On 2 December, my noble Friend Lady Anelay pointed out that in many parts of the Bill the Government seek to lead us into Schengen by the nose and through the back door. That can be found in column 976 of the House of Lords Hansard. A number of my hon. Friends, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), have stressed our anxieties about that.
  Our scrutiny role in the United Kingdom Parliament has already been undermined by this Labour Government's signature to various protocols and agreements. The regulatory impact assessment makes clear that the Government have already agreed
  "to urgently ratify the Protocol".
  That is the authors' split infinitive, not mine.
  Of course our involvement in European co-operation against international crime and international terrorism is important and welcome. Not long ago, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and I visited the authorities in the Netherlands, and went to see the European police co-operation centre—known there as Politie. We had some good meetings, and we recognise that there is a huge role for international police co-operation. Nevertheless, the need for co-operation against international terrorism and international crime should not be allowed to give the Government licence to ignore the vital need to keep this British Parliament's sovereign rights intact, and to ensure that decisions are made by this sovereign Parliament.
  Many of my hon. Friends have mentioned concerns about shared information systems. Ministers may or may not know about what those in the information technology world describe as the GIGO factor—garbage in, garbage out. A number of Conservatives, and other Opposition speakers, have referred to the problem posed by the number of terminals that already have access to the Schengen information system, and to the dangers of misinformation—for instance, the possibility of improper arrest. There is a further danger: if so many people have access to a system, there is a risk of deliberate misuse of that system for criminal purposes. Sadly, it is not unknown in any country for those with access to a secret information system to misuse it in an attempt to become involved in crime.
  Concern has also been expressed about the way in which recognition of motoring offences will be dealt with. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) was particularly worried about that. I shall say something later about my experience of international aspects of driving matters when I practised in the courts.
  Conservative Members are pleased that in another place the Government were prepared to accede to a number of points raised by my noble Friends Lady Anelay, Lord Bridgeman, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Renton. As can be seen in column 70 of Hansard, on 23
  844
  January the Attorney-General accepted Lords amendment No. 127, tabled by Lady Anelay. I hope that the fact that the Government have started to accept Conservative amendments exactly as drafted will be a helpful precursor to what happens in our Committee. All too often in Commons Committees, even if the Government and their advisers realise that we are right, rather than accepting our amendments as drafted they oppose them at the time but, grudgingly, return with Government amendments, having changed the odd word, so that it cannot be said that they have accepted a Conservative amendment.
  I also want to talk about important banking issues, which parts of the Bill raise. I may be one of a small number of lawyers in the House—perhaps the only one—to specialise in banking and financial services law. To the best of my knowledge, I am the only one to have specialised in credit card law for several years before entering Parliament. I look forward to posing detailed questions about that matter to Ministers in Committee, based on some of the international banking issues raised in the other place and on my own experience.
  Several hon. Members have already referred this afternoon to fishing expeditions. We want to ensure that prosecuting authorities do not improperly use what the courts call fishing expeditions: constraints should be placed on them. Once again, my noble Friend Baroness Anelay explored that subject in the other place and the Government gave some undertakings on how fishing expeditions would be constrained. It is fair to say that in Committee we shall want to build more protections into the Bill. At this stage, however, I want to say that we recognise and are grateful to the Government for the undertakings that were given from the Dispatch Box in the other place.
  As I look across the Chamber I see the Under-Secretary, who, like myself, is a veteran of the Proceeds of Crime Bill— the longest Bill with the most Committee sittings of the previous parliamentary Session. Some issues from that Bill, and from the Extradition Bill, which we both had to deal with more recently, will crop up again. As so often, the Home Office Bills produced by the Government are interlinking, and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) rightly said that the Government are producing criminal justice legislation drip by drip without fitting all the pieces together. We have already heard in some of this afternoon's speeches how some of the provisions interlink with arguments about the EU arrest warrant in the Extradition Bill and how other issues overlap with the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
  As I have discovered in my own constituency, if the Government, for proper motives, seek to impose new legislation on banking, banks can use the cover of what they must do to stop money laundering to demand more and more—in my view, unnecessary—information from customers for commercial reasons. I stress to the Minister that I recently had occasion in a Delegated Legislation Committee to place on record my concern on behalf of one of my constituents, Doris Christie—a trustee and clerk to a local charity—about the way in which a particular bank was asking for improper information of a personal nature, going far beyond what the legislation required. When pressed, the bank was forced to admit that it had acted for commercial reasons, after initially using the cover of the Proceeds of

  845
  Crime Act 2002. Conservative Members certainly warned the Government about that during the passage of that legislation.
  Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend have in mind the framework decision on the freezing of assets and evidence, which was debated in European Standing Committee? Difficulties arose in implementing the arrangements covered in clause 13 of the Bill, particularly the problem that the request for assistance and information did not have to come from a court or a judicial authority. Another question is the extent to which Eurojust would qualify as an international authority under clause 13. As the convention is coming up in the lift, that question would also apply to Europol, if it were established under the treaty. Those matters will doubtless be debated in Committee, but I invite the Minister to reflect on them, too.
  Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. We are worried about the proposed European convention being introduced, and about how other legislation links into that. I share my hon. Friend's concerns, and echo his request to the Minister to deal with the matter, both this afternoon and in Standing Committee.
  In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire raised several matters to which we hope that the Minister will respond. For example, foreign police officers will come into the UK for surveillance purposes, subject only to a vote in proceedings on a statutory instrument. The Opposition believe that the House as a whole should consider such matters.
  We also stress our opposition to clause 82(6), mentioned by several other speakers, which denies UK citizens any recourse in terms of civil liability if their personal property is damaged in any way by a foreign officer conducting surveillance in this country. There are also huge concerns about clause 82(8), which deals with the time frame of five hours. When Lord Filkin was asked in another place why five hours had been chosen, he said that the figure was plucked from the air because it is the figure used in Schengen. That is not a sufficient answer to a very good question, and we shall certainly want to explore the matter further in Committee.
  In his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire rightly noted the great concern about officers who may be involved in surveillance in our territorial waters. If they were looking for drug smugglers on board a ship, for instance, the concern is that the clock would not start to run on the five-hour period set out in the Bill until any foreign officer who may be involved had landed in this country. We shall refer to that matter again in Committee.
  Chris Grayling: Technically speaking, in law, one enters British territory—at Calais, or at the channel tunnel terminus— when one passes through passport control. There will therefore be a significant amount of time between when a person passes through the terminal and when that person arrives in the UK proper.
  Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend is right, but my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire
  846
  noted in his opening speech that the position of the foreign officer entering British territory on the French side of the channel is not as described by Lord Filkin in another place. Lord Filkin said that the five-hour period stipulated in this Bill would start only when the channel tunnel train had passed out of the tunnel and moved into Kent, or when a foreign officer had touched down at an airport or come ashore from a boat. We need to explore that matter in Committee.
  In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire also stressed that we want a clear undertaking from the Minister—either today or in Committee —that the measures that will be imposed on our citizens by the Bill will also be pursued in exactly the same way by other signatories to the framework and to the protocol. In fact, we should prefer something to that effect to be included in the Bill. In the past, other countries have signed up to directives, protocols and frameworks, but then have not implemented them in any way, shape or form. Many countries have a good record for signing things, but a quite appalling record when it comes to implementation. Many British citizens are concerned about that, and their worry goes far beyond this Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire expressed concern about the information systems, and I have referred to the 49,000 terminals that were already in existence two years ago. There may well be many thousands more now. That concern is reinforced by the fact that some of the EU law enforcement systems are very much in their infancy. There is a battle going on between those who want ever more centralised power and those who regard the very successful joint investigation teams as a more sensible way forward. We shall certainly want assurances from the Minister that we will not move towards the introduction of a Napoleonic judicial system. We do not want a corpus juris system brought in by the back door—an issue that was recently raised in the context of the Extradition Bill. The Police Federation is concerned about reciprocal protocols, especially the protection that is needed for British officers when they are operating on foreign soil. We want to ensure that the Bill, instead of concentrating on the rights of foreign officers when they are here, allows for rights to protect our British police officers when they operate internationally.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and the Minister might be right to say that the Bill will not receive a great deal of media coverage in the current international situation, but a great deal more coverage would be justified given that it deals with a very important matter and has implications for action against terrorism.
  I want to turn briefly to the speeches of other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) stressed his concern about security at our ports, especially our smaller ports, and we very much agree with that. He said that the Government were dealing with matters in a piecemeal fashion; again, we agree. He also stressed, as we continually do, the need for the House to scrutinise what the Government are signed up to. I want to make an additional point. The Government have introduced the concept of so-called pre-legislative scrutiny, which is becoming more popular. It would be much better if all these protocols

  847
  and framework directives received pre-legislative scrutiny by this House before a Minister is sent over to Brussels, Strasbourg, Amsterdam or wherever to sign up to them. If the Government really believe in pre-legislative scrutiny, there should be pre-legislative scrutiny of a whole range of European provisions, and we shall continue to seek that from them in future.
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely important point. There is clearly a democratic deficit in the way in which the Council of Ministers deals with such matters. Has he had an opportunity to look at the system that pertains in Austria, where, as a matter of course, before a Minister appears at a council in Europe, the matter in hand is taken to what I believe is called the first committee of Parliament, where it receives a clear mandate, or at least consideration?
  Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We can learn lessons from other places where such matters are scrutinised properly before Ministers sign up to them.
  Mr. Cash: As a counterpoint to that, does my hon. Friend know that the Convention proposes that conventions, by which I mean instruments to implement treaties of this kind, will not even have to be ratified by national Parliaments, as part of the process of completely dismantling the national parliamentary system?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising matters that relate to the Convention rather than to the Bill before the House.
  Mr. Hawkins: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, but if I may say so without trespassing on your ruling, many hon. Members on both sides of the House—indeed, the Minister herself —referred to overlaps between the Bill and the Convention. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I have been discussing these matters with a colleague, Mr. Nirj Deva, who is a Member of the European Parliament and a former Member of this House.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said that it was absolutely vital that there should be no danger of compromising the security of our information systems and that most people in this country would not want an erosion of our system of law in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, although there should be respect for other systems. I agree with him. He also stressed the need to defend the liberties of the individual. He rightly said that, in this legislation, issues arose to do with dual criminality. I agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome again, but the Minister is well aware that we have sought to put comparative and complementary matters into this Bill and the Extradition Bill to force Ministers to certify that they are compatible. There is a clear overlap in those two pieces of legislation, which are going through the House at the same time. We shall come back to that in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome rightly referred to concerns over administrative rather than judicial proceedings. He raised the issue of the admissibility of evidence and mentioned the need for
  848
  safeguards. He talked about banking transactions. As I have explained, I have a big personal interest in that issue. There is a fine line between what is criminal and what is disapproved of. The hon. Gentleman was responding to the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) when he talked about that issue. He referred to the people detained at Guantanamo bay and mentioned his concerns about the sanction of driving bans being imposed for non-driving offences. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire also referred to that.
  I wholly agree with the important point that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made on the need to safeguard the rights of the people of Gibraltar. He may not know that I am engaged in an all-party committee to support Gibraltarians. Many hon. Members of all parties are involved in that, but it is fair to say that many of my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches want to ensure that the rights of the people of Gibraltar are safeguarded. That issue is referred to specifically in this legislation. We want to ensure that the Government make no attempt—as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome feared they might—to put pressure on Gibraltar. We want pressure to be put on Spain in response to the way in which it has quite wrongly mistreated Gibraltarians.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome spoke about his worry over the Bill's lack of a remedy for UK citizens if civil offences—or civil torts, as lawyers would call them—were committed against them by foreign police officers. He also wanted to support what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said about the dangers of surveillance taking place in our territorial waters.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), in a very powerful speech, talked about his concerns over data protection. He explained his concern about the implications for this legislation of a statutory instrument—the Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2003—which was introduced by the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). My hon. Friend, who has detailed knowledge of data protection issues, discussed his concerns about subsection (7) of the new section proposed in clause 81 of the Bill and about the position of the UK Information Commissioner—previously known as the data protection commissioner. My hon. Friend foresaw the absurd situation of the European convention on human rights being turned against the UK Government and the Information Commissioner. He foresaw the danger of what were intended to be safeguards in the legislation being used against the Government.
  Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the famous Simms and O'Brien case, it was made clear that—to satisfy concerns such as those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois)— it would be possible for the Government to introduce legislation that was inconsistent with the European convention on human rights? Provided that it was clear and unambiguous, that would be constitutionally correct, as Lord Hoffmann has made clear in the House of Lords.
  Mr. Hawkins: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right about that. In the early days of the data protection

  849
  legislation, when I was still practising as a barrister, I had experience of cases that dealt with such issues. I look forward to pursuing in Committee the matters raised by my hon. Friend and by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) expressed concerns, which are widely shared on the Opposition Benches, about the judicial systems of possible EU applicant countries. We raised similar issues during the proceedings on the Extradition Bill, when my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) was especially concerned about the position of Turkey.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Poole also referred to the recent Derek Bond case, in which the FBI misidentified a blameless British pensioner who was on holiday in South Africa. He was thrown into a South African police cell where he languished for a long time due to incorrect data in the FBI information system. In fact, someone had stolen the identity of that blameless British pensioner. That recent case reinforces our fears about the GIGO—garbage in, garbage out—factor to which I referred earlier. Any information system will have limitations; something can be entered by mistake, either accidentally or, as I said earlier, deliberately. My hon. Friend also had a constituency interest in our shared concern about small ports that are not properly policed.
  As a fellow lawyer, I have great respect for the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who speaks for Plaid Cymru. He echoed points made by my hon. Friends and noted that about two thirds of organised crime involved the drugs trade. As shadow spokesman on drug crime, I take his comments extremely seriously.
  Only recently, I was made very much aware of the extent to which any constituency—even a normally law-abiding one such as mine—can suffer from such things. About a week ago, Surrey police conducted a massively successful raid during which they caught several international drugs criminals in my constituency. I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating not only Surrey police on that operation but all police forces that successfully tackle international drugs offenders.
  The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy referred to briefings that he had received from Justice and Liberty about the absence of sufficient procedural safeguards. He expressed concern about the fact that, although the law of England and Wales has a rule against self-incrimination, that is not necessarily the case in other legal systems. He referred to the possibility that police authorities might issue freezing of evidence orders. As he is aware, that matter was discussed at length in another place and we shall return to it in Committee. Following an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, the hon. Gentleman agreed that there are major concerns about scrutiny of the EU arrest warrant and its possible links to the Bill. He also referred to prisoner transfers, which were dealt with on 25 February in another place, at column 222.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stone expressed concern about the European convention. He wanted to know whether we shall retain our existing opt-out. That
  850
  is one of the most important questions on which we want to hear from the Minister today and we shall certainly be pressing Ministers on it in Committee. My hon. Friend observed that international co-operation dated back to Victorian times and referred to the success of Interpol in the 20th century. However, he described, rightly, the tidal wave of attempts to harmonise our law with laws elsewhere in the EU, despite the huge differences in legal principles—between Napoleonic, continental systems and the common law system in this country—and in legal practice.
  My hon. Friend rightly shares the Government's determination to act against terrorism, drug smuggling and people trafficking, but he was concerned about driving disqualifications and the mutual recognition of penalties. He referred to the EU driving disqualification convention and, in answer to an intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, expressed the view that Henry VIII clauses were cropping up far too often in far too many Bills. From the Front Bench, may I tell my hon. Friend that we entirely agree with him? He rightly said that the Bill contains more of a Cardinal Wolsey clause than a Henry VIII clause.
  My hon. Friend expressed concern about the increase in qualified majority voting. I should tell him that our right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Home Secretary, has expressed grave concern about the way in which the Government seek to interfere even in third pillar matters, which are supposed to be sacrosanct.
  Mr. Cash: Is my hon. Friend aware that the unmentionable Convention also proposes to collapse those pillars?
  Mr. Hawkins: I am indeed; and, most important, so is our right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary. Those matters will continue to be the focus of enormous debate, because just about everyone, I think, on the Conservative Benches shares our concern.
  My hon. Friend referred to clause 29 and his concerns about witnesses who were abroad and TV links. He spoke of the need to co-operate against terrorism, but said that he was worried that many of these protocols cannot be debated in the House, as we have said. He talked about the timetable and scrutiny of protocols, and he referred to Lord Goodhart, speaking for the Liberal Democrats in another place, expressing concerns, which Conservative Members of Parliament certainly share, about the judicial systems in places such as Italy and Belgium—and, I would add, Spain.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said, there is concern about asymmetric legal systems. He rightly referred to Lord Lloyd of Berwick in another place providing a possible list of offences to which the Bill may apply. My hon. Friend said that police co-operation must work both ways and expressed his concerns about the language issues, the need for translation services and data protection. He asked whether we were moving into a "1984" world. Cases of stolen identity such as that of Derek Bond obviously give rise to concern.
  My hon. Friend also referred to the Court of Auditors' report on the Netherlands SIS and the interrelationship with the Data Protection Act 1998.

  851
  Finally, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, drawing on his experience as a solicitor, expressed misgivings about the use of video links with places abroad. I, too, am very much aware of the subject from my latter days in practice, when video links were first coming into our jurisdictions. I share his fear that if there is no way of checking that a video witness is able to speak freely in another country, that will cause our courts massive concern. It is entirely different from the situation that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy mentioned, in which video links are used all the time in different parts of the UK. There will be unease if a witness is giving evidence abroad and no one in our judicial system can check that the witness has not been interfered with and is not being intimidated while giving evidence over video link.
  My right hon. Friend also spoke of his concerns about clauses 54 to 58, and the recognition in the UK of foreign driving disqualifications. He has knowledge of the yob-busting systems in various US states, in which a driving ban might be added to a sentence for offences of violence or dishonesty. In response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), my right hon. Friend referred to the offensive scenario of the Government thinking that they would introduce driving bans for Child Support Agency defaulters.
  My right hon. Friend also rightly said that the UK courts should be able to decide what is fair—whether there should be a shorter disqualification period, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said in an intervention. My right hon. Friend said that he shared the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone about the way in which foreign police would have to operate in this country, and raised the question whether they would have to be in uniform. He was also worried about the number of Henry VIII clauses in the Bill.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill would be not wrecked but improved if the Government were prepared to accept an amendment that would give British courts jurisdiction to be flexible in imposing driving bans for certain periods?
  Mr. Hawkins: Yes, I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I hope that we will be able to address that issue in Committee, because it has been canvassed by him and a number of hon. Friends.
  In conclusion, although we are happy with much of the Bill, there are a lot detailed ways in which it can be improved—for example, the issue that my right hon. Friend has just raised. That is why the Bill took many days—I think, it was five—to be considered in Grand Committee in the other place. We want it to be effective, to attack terrorists and international criminals, but we do not want British citizens' rights to be comprehensively undermined. Those are the issues to which we shall return in detail in Committee.
  4.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): I am awfully glad that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr.
  852
  Hawkins) brought us back at the end of his speech to the position of those on the Conservative Front Bench. I thank him for doing so, because they welcome most of the Bill, which they believe necessary and to have been substantially improved in another place, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said in opening the debate for the Opposition.
  I want to cut through some of the rhetoric that we have heard and thank the Opposition for the general welcome that they have given the Bill. I also thank the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who spoke on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, for generally welcoming the Bill. I think that we will be able to satisfy both sets of hon. Members in Committee on most of the points that have been made this afternoon.
  Mr. Heath: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has just said. Was he as puzzled as I was at the disparity between those members of the Conservative Front-Bench team who spoke from the Front Bench and those members of the Conservative Front-Bench team who spoke from the Back Benches?
  Mr. Ainsworth: There was a marked contrast, in fairness, until the winding-up speech, when most of the rhetoric reflected what had been said from the Back Benches, but the substance reflected what was said from the Front Bench by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. That is why I said what I said.
  We have had a detailed and prolonged debate. It would be fair to say that it has been a lot more prolonged than some of us envisaged an hour or so ago. I shall try to address a couple of the over-arching issues that have been raised repeatedly and then turn to some of the issues raised by hon. Members during the debate. I am sure that we can pick up any other points in Committee, and I feel confident that we will be able to satisfy hon. Members that the safeguards that they want will be in place.
  The issue that keeps being thrown at us is that we are, somehow, trying to achieve recognition of the Schengen acquis by the back door. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath went further and suggested that we wanted to do so by the nose, by the back door. I thought for a moment that he would complete the picture by saying that we wanted to do so feet first, by the nose, by the back door. In relation to his point about doing so by the nose, I know that it is difficult for him to recognise the fact that the Labour party won the last two general elections, but we live in a democracy and the democratically elected Government are entitled to make such propositions.
  With regard to the hon. Gentleman's allegation that this is being done by the back door, which was said first by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire in opening the debate, I remind him that the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, said, on 17 March 1999, that we intended to opt into those parts of the Schengen acquis that we thought added value —the police and judicial co-operation arrangements—so nothing has been done by the back door in any way.
  No measure in the Bill adds to the involvement with the Schengen acquis outside what was clearly said in the House a long time ago. The allegation that we are somehow trying to do something behind the scenes

  853
  simply does not wash. It is clear that the measures in the Bill are part of the Schengen arrangements with which we told the House that we intended to involve ourselves.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman has not been with us for most of our deliberations. As I recall it, he left rather briskly when the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire suggested that he might want to join us in Committee. If he will forgive me, I will not be too hasty and allow him to jump into the debate at this point.
  As with our debates on the Extradition Bill, we have had a great deal of debate about what the Government are trying to do. Allegations have been thrown around about the harmonisation of jurisprudence across the European Union, co-operation and co-ordination. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is even opposed to co-ordination. The position is clear. The Government have said—it needs to be repeated because of the allegations that have been thrown round—that there is nothing in the Bill that involves the harmonisation of our legal system with the legal systems in the other parts of the EU. We see mutual recognition as the alternative to that.
  In the modern world, we enjoy all the benefits of the free movement of people, capital and everything else. However, the criminal fraternity might also enjoy those benefits, so we need effective co-operation. By the time that the hon. Gentleman had finished his speech, I think that he had come to accept that effective co-operation involves a degree of co-ordination. Mutual recognition is the way to achieve that, and it is an alternative to harmonisation. That is our policy. It is very clear, and there is nothing in the Bill that involves harmonisation.
  Mr. Paice rose—
  Mr. Bercow rose
  Mr. Ainsworth: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Buckingham. Otherwise he will be after me for a very long time.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary. It is true that my ambition to serve on the Standing Committee is less than 100 per cent. but I had the considerable privilege of listening to the opening speech of the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration. Given the way in which the Under-Secretary has just chided my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on the subject of Schengen, is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the result of the last two general elections represented mass public enthusiasm for the acquis communautaire?
  Mr. Ainsworth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that I was responding to the point about people being led by the nose or about our going into the agreement through the back door. The back door does
  854
  not apply and nor does the nose if one accepts that this is a democratic country and that the Government are allowed to make such propositions.
  Mr. Paice: The Under-Secretary said that there was nothing in the Bill about harmonising our legislation with that in Europe. However, surely the gist of the whole section on driving offences to which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) referred is that someone could pay a penalty or be disqualified in Britain after being prosecuted for an offence under the legislation of another country. Surely if someone is penalised in Britain after being prosecuted under a totally different legislative system, that is effectively harmonisation of the law.
  Mr. Ainsworth: I look forward to our debates in Committee. As I recall it, at the start of our debate the hon. Gentleman welcomed our proposals. He spoke quite glowingly about them and said that they were absolutely necessary. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) walked in halfway through the debate—I do not know on whose prompting—and appears to have changed the hon. Gentleman's mind. We look forward to hearing the Conservative party's position in Committee. We shall have many opportunities to find out whether its policies have changed. Perhaps I have misrepresented or misheard the hon. Gentleman. He might have had deep concerns about the issue at the start of the debate, but I do not remember him saying so.
  Mr. Cash: A simple question has been raised three times, and I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary would answer it. Is it the Government's intention to retain the existing opt-outs in relation to Schengen in the context of the European convention?
  Mr. Ainsworth: We have said clearly that our opt-outs do not involve police and co-operation matters. They involve border controls and other measures, and we intend to maintain them. There is no dubiety about that. The hon. Gentleman should be able to sleep safely in this bed in the knowledge that they are there and will continue.
  There has been a great deal of discussion about the five-hour limit on surveillance. That was already part of the Schengen arrangements, which have been operated by our European partners for some time. I do not share hon. Members' worry about that time limit. There must be adequate time to hand over a surveillance operation so that the British team or joint team who are taking control have time to get established. We did not participate in discussions on the Schengen arrangements, so we had no say on the time limit. Conservative Members ought to think about that, because it is a consequence of their general opt-out—their empty chair policy towards the European Union. If we choose to join protocols after they have been introduced, we have no ability to mould them and we have to take them as written. We are trying to avoid that through our leadership in Europe on this issue and on mutual recognition as an alternative to the harmonisation of judicial systems.
  Chris Grayling: The Minister must recognise that the Committee needs to discuss the five-hour rule on

  855
  surveillance, if only because the nature of crossing the border, in a car, between France and Belgium, or between the Netherlands and Germany, is fundamentally different from coming to Britain. To get here, people must travel by plane, by boat or through the channel tunnel, and they must pass through customs.
  Mr. Ainsworth: We can and will discuss the matter in Committee. That is the point of those proceedings.
  I do not think that the time limit needs to be extended. We will start to count the five hours from the time that the officers arrive in the United Kingdom, and notification of their arrival may be given because it is not as easy to cross these borders. As I said, the limit was in place when we opted into these arrangements, and hon. Members must accept that we had no say in that because we did not participate. I have no problem with that, but it seems that Conservative Members do.
  On the problem of safeguards and liability identified by Opposition Members, their attention should settle not only on clause 82(6); they should also read clause 84, which states that there is a liability for any unlawful conduct by a person in the course of carrying out surveillance. That now rests with the director general of the National Criminal Intelligence Service, and it will be far easier for people to pursue their liability through that course than in a foreign jurisdiction. Of course these are reciprocal arrangements, so the Police Federation need not worry: their members operating abroad will have exactly the same safeguards and liability arrangements as foreign police officers operating in our jurisdiction.
  Mr. Llwyd: The drafting of clause 84 could have been better. It seems to be restating the fact that there is criminal liability for foreign police officers; it does not deal with civil liability. Perhaps the words "civil liability" should have appeared in the clause.
  Mr. Ainsworth: We will not get the cross-border co-operation that we require to carry out these operations if we do not provide the same protections for foreign officers as we provide for our officers operating in this country. Clause 82(6) gives foreign officers conducting surveillance within the five-hour limit exactly the protection that we give our own law enforcement agencies. We will want to explore the matter in Committee, and if concern continues to be expressed, we will want to look into that.
  Mr. Hawkins: With respect to the Minister, he has slightly missed the point of what the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) was asking. If I have interpreted the hon. Gentleman correctly, he was suggesting that the words "civil liability" should be included in clause 84 instead of "unlawful conduct".
  Mr. Llwyd indicated assent.
  Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman confirms that that was the point that he was making. The Minister simply did not understand the question that he was asked.
  Mr. Ainsworth: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the cover in clause 82(6) also applies to our own police officers conducting surveillance operations in this country. He will have an opportunity to address the issue in Committee, where we will have to satisfy him and the rest of the Committee on that point.
  Hon. Members made a lot of points that I cannot cover now, but I am sure that we will return to them in Committee. However, I want to touch on a substantial issue raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire—fishing expeditions and how far the proposals go. I refer him to clause 33(1), which lays out the reasons why such arrangements can be carried out, and makes it clear that they can be carried out only if
  "the person specified in the application is subject to an investigation in the country in question".
  The investigation must concern serious criminal conduct, which, the clause states, must constitute
  "an offence in England and Wales or … Northern Ireland, or would do were it to occur there".
  That spells out when operations are allowed and when they are not allowed. To my mind, it clearly rules out fishing expeditions and people going far wider than is allowed in the clause.
  Mr. Paice: We can obviously pursue this matter in greater depth in Committee, but the Minister needs to think about it a little more deeply. Clearly, any foreign authority wishing to exercise powers under the Bill must comply, as he said, with clause 33(1) and seek the necessary orders. To do so, they will submit all the required evidence that they need certain information about Mr. and Mrs. X. However, what happens if, in the process of doing so, they discover a lot of other information about Mr. and Mrs. X relating to other crimes? The fishing expedition includes the issue of what people do with information gained under one pretext but perhaps used for something else.
  Mr. Ainsworth: I now understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns a little better. Let us return to them in Committee and see whether we can satisfy him on that point.
  The Bill includes a raft of measures, most of which have been welcomed, despite some of the rhetoric that we have heard. I welcome that welcome—the measures are necessary if we are to face up to the serious threat of cross-border criminality, terrorism and other problems in the European Union and further afield. I look forward to our debates in Committee, commend the Bill to the House, and thank all hon. Members who have contributed to today's debate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

CRIME (INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION) BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
That the following provisions shall apply to the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]:

CRIME (INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION) BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
  Committal
  1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

  Proceedings in Standing Committee
  2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 22nd May 2003.
  3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

  Consideration and Third Reading
  4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
  5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
  6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

  Other proceedings
  7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Heppell.]
  The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 170.

  Division No. 153]

  [4:49 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Burden, Richard

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Burnham, Andy

  Ainger, Nick

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cairns, David

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Caton, Martin

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Challen, Colin

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clapham, Michael

  Barnes, Harry

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Battle, John

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Beard, Nigel

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Bell, Stuart

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Benn, Hilary

  Clelland, David

  Bennett, Andrew

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Berry, Roger

  Cohen, Harry

  Best, Harold

  Coleman, Iain

  Betts, Clive

  Colman, Tony

  Blackman, Liz

  Connarty, Michael

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cook rh Robin (Livingston)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Cooper, Yvette

  Borrow, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Corston, Jean

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cousins, Jim

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cranston, Ross

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Crausby, David

  Cruddas, Jon

  Browne, Desmond

  Cummings, John

  Bryant, Chris

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  858

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Jamieson, David

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  David, Wayne

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Denham, rh John

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Dismore, Andrew

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Kemp, Fraser

  Doran, Frank

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Kidney, David

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Edwards, Huw

  Efford, Clive

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Farrelly, Paul

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Lammy, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Flint, Caroline

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Foster, rh Derek

  Lepper, David

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Gilroy, Linda

  Linton, Martin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Love, Andrew

  Goggins, Paul

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Grogan, John

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hanson, David

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  MacDonald, Calum

  McDonnell, John

  Healey, John

  MacDougall, John

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McFall, John

  Hendrick, Mark

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McIsaac, Shona

  Heppell, John

  McKechin, Ann

  Hesford, Stephen

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Heyes, David

  McNulty, Tony

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hodge, Margaret

  McWilliam, John

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Merron, Gillian

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Miliband, David

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hutton, rh John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Mole, Chris

  Illsley, Eric

  Morgan, Julie

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Morley, Elliot

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Mountford, Kali

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Mullin, Chris

  859

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Soley, Clive

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Southworth, Helen

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Spellar, rh John

  Olner, Bill

  Squire, Rachel

  O'Neill, Martin

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Organ, Diana

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Stevenson, George

  Owen, Albert

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Pearson, Ian

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Perham, Linda

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stringer, Graham

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Plaskitt, James

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pound, Stephen

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Prescott, rh John

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Purchase, Ken

  Timms, Stephen

  Purnell, James

  Tipping, Paddy

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Trickett, Jon

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

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

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Turner Neil (Wigan)

  Rendel, David

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  White, Brian

  Rooney, Terry

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Ruane, Chris

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wills, Michael

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Wilson, Brian

  Winnick, David

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Salter, Martin

  Woodward, Shaun

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Woolas, Phil

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Worthington, Tony

  Sawford, Phil

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Sheridan, Jim

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Singh, Marsha

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Jim Fitzpatrick and

  Mr. Jim Murphy

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Allan, Richard

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Burnside, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burstow, Paul

  Bacon, Richard

  Burt, Alistair

  Baker, Norman

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Baldry, Tony

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Barker, Gregory

  Cameron, David

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Cash, William

  Bercow, John

  Chidgey, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Chope, Christopher

  Blunt Crispin

  Clappison, James

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Brady, Graham

  Collins, Tim

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Breed, Colin

  Cotter, Brian

  860

  Curry, rh David

  Moore, Michael

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Öpik, Lembit

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Page, Richard

  Evans, Nigel

  Paice, James

  Fabricant, Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Flight, Howard

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Flook, Adrian

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Forth, rh Eric

  Randall, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Redwood, rh John

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Garnier. Edward

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Goodman Paul

  Salmond, Alex

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Grayling, Chris

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Selous, Andrew

  Greenway, John

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Grieve, Dominic

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hague, rh William

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Hammond, Philip

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

  Harvey, Nick

  Hawkins, Nick

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Heald, Oliver

  Soames, Nicholas

  Heath, David

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Hermon, Lady

  Spring, Richard

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Steen, Anthony

  Howard, rh Michael

  Streeter, Gary

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Jack, rh Michael

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Syms, Robert

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Keetch, Paul

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Thurso, John

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Lamb, Norman

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Viggers, Peter

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Watkinson, Angela

  Lilley rh Peter

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Weir, Michael

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Whittingdale, John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Wiggin, Bill

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Maclean, rh David

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Mates, Michael

  Wishart, Pete

  Maude, rh Francis

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Young, rh Sir George

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Mercer, Patrick

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Mr. Mark Hoban and

  Mr. Mark Francois

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill
Lords amendments considered.
Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill
  Clause 1

    MEANING OF "NHS BODY" AND "QUALIFYING HOSPITAL PATIENT"
    The Lords do not insist on their amendment No. 2, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
    No. 2B, in page 6, line 23, leave out from "regulations" to end of line 24 and insert
    "or an order under this Part is exercisable by the appropriate Minister by statutory instrument".
    5.3 pm
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2C to 2E.
    Jacqui Smith: In our previous discussions on this matter, Opposition Members argued that mental health patients should be permanently excluded from the provisions of the Bill because it would not be possible to carry out an assessment and arrange a care plan for such patients within a minimum time scale, because their needs differed from those of others. That argument took no account of the fact that the Bill already allows us to make different provision for different cases. Of course, as I pointed out earlier, permanently excluding such patients would mean that we ran the risk of being seen to discriminate permanently against patients with mental health problems.
    However, I listened—as I always do—to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who said:
    "The group could be included in the future, but it should not be included at the moment."—[Official Report, 19 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 963.]
    We would have agreed with him if he had said "should be included." In another place, the Government proposed the group of amendments that we are considering. They would enable Parliament to scrutinise inclusion when the group of patients is included in the future, and the arrangements for doing that. The amendments therefore require any regulations that bring patients who receive mental health care within the definition of "qualifying hospital patient" to be subject to affirmative procedure.
    We have added a requirement to clause 8 to provide that regulations that prescribe mental health care must be subject to affirmative procedure. That means that we also need to define mental health care. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) made that point powerfully in our previous debate on the subject. It is therefore necessary to add an order-making power to deal with the problem of definition in the most straightforward way. We intend the order to prescribe mental health care as care that is received by a patient
    862
    who is under a consultant psychiatrist. Two further consequential amendments would affect clauses 9 and 11.
    When it is appropriate, we will lay before the House regulations that bring patients who receive mental health care within the scope of the definition of "qualifying hospital patient". Parliament will then be able to debate—and, if it wishes, disagree to—any such regulations.
    Mr. Simon Burns: Has the Minister any time scale in mind for reaching that point?
    Jacqui Smith: No, we do not have a time scale. As we said throughout our discussions, we should take a pragmatic approach to ensuring that we develop the policy in the most appropriate way. I would want to consider what I anticipate to be the success of the approach for those in acute care as we examine its further extension.
    I believe that we have taken the right approach. The Bill does not exclude the patients whom we are considering, but Parliament will be able to scrutinise the timing and the basis of their inclusion. I therefore hope that hon. Members will agree with Lords in their amendments.
    Mr. Burns: I sincerely thank the Minister for her kind and generous comments about me. It was refreshingly unusual and especially gratifying because she is admitting, as we approach the Bill's last parliamentary stage, that she agrees with the arguments that my hon. Friends and I have presented on the subject of our discussion.
    I was fascinated to hear the Minister say that the Government had sought throughout our proceedings to take a "pragmatic approach" on the way in which to progress. It is unfortunate that the Minister did not extend her bonhomie towards my views further because my hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and I have urged the Minister and the Department from the start to take a pragmatic approach. We suggested that they got rid of the Bill because it will not achieve the Minister's hopes. It will simply set the health service against social services through fines, if I may use, for the final time, the f-word about which the Minister has been in denial most of the time. However, we always welcome a sinner who repents, and the Minister repenteth with a vengeance. We do not hold that against her, as it shows what we have suspected for a long time: if common sense stares her in the face and she is told often enough, the desired effect will result. However, rather sadly for me, she said during our previous proceedings that she had heard my speech many times before, although that shows that it was worth repeating.
    I certainly do not want to rub the Minister's nose in it, but she has, very graciously, conceded the points that the Opposition have been putting to her. I am only saddened that, due to other commitments, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), the Chairman of the Health Committee, cannot be present. I imagine that he may be deliberately absent, because although he argued vigorously last time that the proposal was wrong and his Government have now conceded the point, once

    863
    again we see the Labour Chairman of that Committee out of synch with his Secretary of State and his Government on a health matter.
    To all intents and purposes, the amendment goes along with what we have been urging with regard to patients suffering from mental health problems. We have always said that there are a number of reasons for such patients being treated differently from those with acute illnesses and needs for surgery due to the nature of their illness and the problems associated with mental illness. That is why we tabled amendments originally and why we have pressed them so vigorously on the Government.
    We believed that exempting sufferers of mental illness or postponing until the appropriate time, as the Minister said, their being brought into the ambit of the fining regime would help to enhance a fairly poor Bill. I am glad that the Government have agreed to what are, in effect, amendments to amendments, which will ensure that sufferers from mental illness do not come within the Bill's ambit until, at some later stage, the Government consider issuing a statutory instrument that will, I believe, go through both Houses of Parliament. That is good news, because the Government have recognised a real problem with the care of the mentally ill. I warmly welcome that.
    Also, there is a knock-on effect. For a variety of reasons, not least the damage that could be done to the rest of the health service and social services, the legislation will probably no longer be relevant when the time comes—if it ever does—for it to take effect in this respect, as the Government may be seeking to use another approach or the problem may have gone away, which would make the legislation redundant. I cannot predict which of those scenarios might happen, but I am pleased that the Government have, in principle, conceded the point and I welcome the way that they are seeking to address it.
    The Minister talks about regulations being made under section 1 of the legislation and the Government perhaps wanting to include people who suffer mental health problems, but what rather amuses me is the fact that that will be done through a statutory instrument. This is novel: we had regular debates upstairs in Committee, the Bill was considered on Report on the Floor of the House and the Government listened to our arguments, but, sadly, they did so in isolation.
    5.15 pm
    The amendment says that the regulations under section 1
    "may not prescribe a description of care which is, or includes, mental health care unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before … Parliament."
    That is perfectly straightforward, and the terminology is correct. It is the rest of the sentence that is significant, as the Minister will know from our earlier debates—debates that she has cruelly claimed to have heard many times before. The words that I left out just now are
    "and approved by a resolution of, each House of".
    That constitutes a clear statement that the order will be subject to the affirmative procedure. There will be no back-door publication of an order slipped through on the basis of a negative resolution, allowing, if we are
    864
    lucky, a 90-minute debate in Committee—by which time the order would probably be in force. Now it cannot come into force until it has been subject to an affirmative resolution.
    I congratulate the Minister from the bottom of my heart on seeing sense and finally conceding that secondary legislation emanating from important primary legislation should be subject to the affirmative procedure in both Houses. What disappoints me is the fact that she has conceded that point so late in the day. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) will recall, in Committee we engaged in debate after debate on all the other secondary powers in the Bill that would be dealt with through the negative procedure—although they related to issues of great concern and significance—because they flowed from what could be described as a skeleton of a piece of primary legislation, and the power to determine and implement the fleshing out of that skeleton must come from statutory instruments. The Minister was adamant that it was unnecessary to deal with the matter other than through the negative procedure. I am sorry about that, because I believe that the House should have the right to debate important secondary legislation and question Ministers on it. As I have said, I am glad that the Minister has accepted our arguments, but wish that she had done so earlier.
    I thank the Minister for being prepared to think again. Notwithstanding what she may have said in the past and what some of her Back Benchers have said, she was—"tough enough" is probably the wrong term, and "man enough" certainly is—magnanimous enough to realise that the Opposition were saving her from herself and improving the Bill, while also improving the care of the mentally ill. She recognised reality when it stared her in the face, and gave us the amendments to the amendment.
    My colleagues and I will not oppose this change to the Bill. We look forward to seeing it on the statute book, because we believe that our initial gut reaction was right and that this is in the best interests of those who suffer from mental illness.
    Mr. Paul Burstow: This is the last gasp for consideration of this Bill and today's consideration of Lords amendments is all about banking the concessions, reassurances and undertakings that have been given by Ministers at the Dispatch Box here and in the other place. We should thank the Minister for making those concessions and I place on record my appreciation of the hard and diligent work undertaken by my noble Friends Baroness Barker and Lord Tim Clement-Jones, who pursued several of the concerns that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) raised in Committee—not least the question of how the Bill will operate. We certainly welcome the concessions, not least the fact that the amendments will allow both Houses to consider the matter through the affirmative procedure. Conservative Front-Bench Members and I raised that issue in Committee, and we are pleased that, in this last stage of consideration, it will be built into the Bill.

    865
    I should like to ask the Minister about the operation of amendment No. 2C, which states that regulations
    "may not prescribe a description of care which is, or includes, mental health care unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."
    By dint of the drafting, could a person living in a care home as part of a period of intermediate care be excluded if he also had dementia? If Ministers were minded to include care home settings in future regulations on discharge arrangements—I believe that that was intended in other clauses—and if a person receiving intermediate care in a care home setting also had dementia, thus receiving mental health care services as part of the overall package, would any such regulations have to be subject to the affirmative procedure if the Bill's powers were extended beyond the acute sector into the care home sector? Will the Minister clarify whether that is the Government's intention? On a quick reading, it would be possible to interpret the amendment that way, so it would help if the Minister clarified the position.
    As I said, we shall not oppose the amendment and we shall bank the other concessions gained from the Minister, and in the other place, over the past few weeks.
    Jacqui Smith: I do not intend to respond to much of the contribution of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). I simply reiterate the constructive approach that I have adopted throughout the legislation by saying that the principle is right. Although we will probably—though not necessarily—start with predominantly older people whose discharge from acute hospital care is delayed, it has always been our intention to consider the extension of the provisions if they prove, as I believe that they will, successful in providing incentives to ensure that people get the right care at the right time in the right place. We have always recognised that different people in different circumstances may need a slightly different approach—for example, in respect of the period of time necessary for an assessment, or the level of charge appropriate to particular circumstances.
    The amendments that we are debating today are our attempt to assure hon. Members that we recognise such differences. In the context of the specific issues or concerns pertaining to mental health, it is appropriate that, when and if we get to that particular stage, we examine proposals in detail and allow Parliament to do so as well.
    The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) raised a specific matter. The Bill will already allow the provisions in part 1 to be extended to people in care homes. He is right to say that we discussed in Committee the circumstances in which that might happen. People delayed in intermediate care could well be in a position where it would be appropriate to extend the part 1 provisions to them.
    As I made clear in my introduction, the extent to which that would be subject to the affirmative procedure would depend on the primary reason for the care. The regulations would be extended to mental health patients in circumstances where the qualifying patient was under
    866
    the care of a consultant psychiatrist. That is our definition, and it would be the determining factor as to whether subsequent regulations would be subject to affirmative resolution.
    The hon. Gentleman also wondered whether we would need to consider the specific circumstances involved in extending the provisions in part 1 to intermediate care, and whether I accepted that such care often had an impact on people with dementia. I assure him that the answer to both questions is yes. Whether the affirmative resolution procedure and these particular amendments will be involved depends specifically on whether a person is under the care of a psychiatric consultant.
    Mr. Burstow: The Minister has spoken about the involvement of consultant psychiatrists, but the mental health of older people is often dealt with by psychogeriatricians. They deal with dementia particularly, but with other conditions as well. Is the Minister specifically excluding reference to psychogeriatricians, or are we talking only about psychiatrists in this respect?
    Jacqui Smith: The amendments deal only with the circumstances in which the affirmative resolution procedure would be necessary. All the way along, our argument has been that there might be a variety of people—including those older people under the care of psychogeriatricians—for whom it would be appropriate to use the provisions in the Bill. When we come to extend the provisions of part 1 to those suffering from mental health problems, we will need to define what we mean by the phrase "qualifying patient". It is in that context that I said that it seemed appropriate to define them as being those people who are under the care of a psychiatrist. That does not mean that other patients would not be able to benefit from the provisions of the Bill—either now, if they fit the definition of "qualifying patient", or in the future.
    I hope that the House will feel able to agree with the Lords in the amendment.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 2C to 2E agreed to.
    Jacqui Smith: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in amendment No. 26B, an amendment to Lords amendment No. 26, as amended: in line 26, at end insert—
    "(7A) Until 31st March 2005 the period of two days referred to in subsection (7) is exclusive of Sundays and public holidays in England and Wales."
    In Committee, we discussed the inclusion or exclusion of week ends and public holidays from the minimum interval—the time following notification in which social services must assess and arrange services for a patient. I said that I did not believe that we should state on the face of the Bill that it was acceptable for local authorities to take five days as a minimum period to assess patients and make services available for them. It is worth reminding ourselves that we are talking about a minimum period, and the Bill makes it clear that a discharge would begin only from the end of the minimum period or from the point at which somebody was ready to be discharged.

    867
    5.30 pm
    As I pointed out in Committee, the Bill already ensures, owing to better communication between the NHS—particularly hospitals—and social services, that it is likely that somebody going into hospital for an elective operation would already have had their potential need for social services notified to the local authority beforehand, providing a longer period than in many cases exists at the moment. If they went in as an emergency patient, current figures suggest that only 30 per cent. of such patients come out within three days. We are talking about setting a minimum period that would probably not affect most patients, who will have a longer period.
    Opposition Members have asked us to enshrine in the Bill the possibility that it could take much longer to assess a patient and to make services available so that they can safely leave hospital. A delay does not become any more acceptable to a patient and their family just because it takes place at the weekend or on a bank holiday. A person in an acute hospital bed who no longer needs to be there is not at less risk of the consequences or less vulnerable because social services do not work at weekends. It has been argued that although many social services departments are improving, and are sometimes able to operate for seven days a week, they cannot immediately be expected to perform those functions outside the normal working week. Although I firmly believe that social services should be moving towards a more flexible approach to working hours that means that the needs of individuals for community care services can be more effectively met, I accept that that will take time.
    The amendment requires the regulations on the minimum assessment period to exclude Sundays and public holidays from that period until 31 March 2005.
    Mr. Burns: Let me seek clarification so that there is no misunderstanding. The Minister says that the amendment excludes Sundays and bank holidays, but if she looks at subsection (7), she will see that it refers to
    "at least two days excluding Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays."
    Did she erroneously forget to mention Saturdays?
    Jacqui Smith: I think, dare I say it, that the hon. Gentleman is looking at the wrong amendment. Our amendment, instead of excluding Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays, inserts new subsection (7A), which says:
    "Until 31st March 2005 the period of two days referred to in subsection (7) is exclusive of Sundays and public holidays in England and Wales."
    We have replaced the provision on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays that was previously in the clause with the provision that until 31 March 2005 the regulations will exclude Sundays and public holidays.
    Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the Minister, and I am happy to confirm that she is absolutely right. However, given that she has conceded two thirds of the loaf, why did she not include Saturdays?
    Jacqui Smith: I was explaining how I had been somewhat reluctant even to concede two thirds of the
    868
    loaf. We are talking about the minimum period of time within which we expect social services departments and health providers, working together, to determine an appropriate package of care that ensures that somebody can leave hospital safely. My argument throughout has been that modern social services departments should work over weekends. I do not think it appropriate to say to an older person, "I'm afraid you're going to have to stay in hospital because we're not in a position to sort out your package of care this weekend."
    The amendment seeks to acknowledge the fact that we are in a period of transition and that, given the considerable extra investment that the Government are putting into social services departments, it is likely that the departments will build up their ability to assess people, build up the flexibility of their assessments, and build up their ability to offer services over weekends. It is therefore reasonable of us to say that we will extend the minimum period up to 31 March 2005 so that it does not include Sundays and public holidays. That will mean that local authorities have from now until January 2004—given the other changes that were made in the other place on the point at which charging will start—to plan and prepare for Saturday working before charging kicks in. They will have at least another 15 months after that to move to a seven-day service. We will mirror that in the regulations to do with notices. Although Sundays and public holidays are not part of the planning period, they will not count in the time scale of any notices that are given by the NHS to local authorities. That is a compromise. I do not believe that anyone would want the Bill to contain the message that it is acceptable for older people routinely to wait five or more days in hospital for an assessment of the services required. However, by excluding Sundays and public holidays until 2005, we are giving local authorities time to change their working practices and minimise delays for individual patients.
    I think—dare I say it—that what I have said reflects the constructive approach that we have taken throughout the process while at the same time maintaining our commitment to put in place a system that ensures that people are not trapped in hospital when they are ready to leave as a result of a failure to put in place community care alternatives. As the Bill has gone through both Houses, we have responded in a variety of areas where improvements to the legislation were possible. The principle has been maintained all the way through, but I hope that hon. Members will feel able to support this compromise and agree with the Lords amendments.
    Mr. Burstow: The issue of bank holidays and weekends was first pursued first in Committee in this House and then quite vigorously by my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones in the other place. The proposal had all-party and Cross-Bench support in the other place. That was important, as it allowed us to reach the point that we are at today—with two thirds of the loaf ready to be considered. On the basis of the consideration in the other place and the points that have been raised by the Minister today, I feel that a further delay in implementing this change in respect of Sundays and bank holidays is very welcome. However, it gives rise to some questions that I would like to put to the Minister.

    869
    The Minister is right to say that none of us wants a situation in which a person is unnecessarily left languishing in a hospital bed. We want all efforts to be made to ensure that a person who is ready to be discharged does not stay in hospital unnecessarily. For the benefit of those hon. Members who are able to listen to me, I want to ask the Minister about the cost of moving from a five-day-a-week service to a seven-day-a-week service. From reading the Lords deliberations on the clause it is not entirely clear whether the Government have any idea of the cost of moving to a seven-day-a-week service. It cannot be cost free. Can the Minister tell us whether the cost will be contained in the additional
    "resources that are being allocated through the comprehensive spending review"?
    In that case, the resources would be tied up in doing the same thing for more days of the week rather than in doing new things, so I hope that the Minister will not claim that the Government will be doing lots of additional, new things with money that has been earmarked to enable us to move to a seven-day-a-week service.
    We do not entirely reject the argument for moving to a seven-day-a-week service, not least because of some of the points about children's services made recently by Lord Laming in his report. In some cases, people need services that are available 24 hours a day and, in respect of discharge, seven days a week. The amendment would allow us to move towards that situation in an orderly fashion, which is certainly welcome.
    The delay is welcome, not least because it affords us the opportunity further to understand how the assessment process will work out. During consideration of these and other amendments in the other place, there was some discussion about the planning of the discharge process and the production of care packages. For example, after a person was discharged to their own home, there would be further assessment after two weeks to see whether everything was working as intended. However, it was not made clear during those deliberations whether that would apply to someone who was discharged to a care home. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that it will not apply only to someone who is discharged to their own home. People discharged to care homes would also benefit from such an assessment. Sometimes placing someone in a care home is the wrong decision and the person could recover more effectively and lead a more independent life in their own home with an appropriate care package.
    Finally, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the amendment will have the useful effect of delaying for several years the introduction and implementation of the Bill's provisions in respect of Sundays and public holidays. It is rather amusing that the whole Bill was meant to come into effect today—April fool's day. The legislation should have been implemented this year and it behoves the Minister to acknowledge that that timetable was never realistic if there was to be adequate parliamentary scrutiny of the measure. Parliamentary scrutiny has resulted in the improvement of the Bill, which means that most of its provisions will not be implemented until next January. That is welcome progress from the point at which we began our proceedings on the Bill many months ago.
    870
    We are willing to accept the amendment. Two thirds of the loaf is certainly better than nothing.
    Mr. Burns: I echo the words of the hon. Gentleman, who rightly reminded the House that April fool's day 2003 was the day on which the Government intended the Bill to come into force—the day on which the fines were to start. In her heart, if not through her mouth, the Minister will agree that we have saved the Government from being the ultimate April fools. If it were not for my noble Friends who tabled the amendment that postponed the legislation, we should not have seen the Government climb-down that has led to its coming into force on 1 January 2004. I am sure that the hon. Lady will accept that we have done her and her Government a great favour by imposing common sense on them.
    The Minister rightly said today that she had tried to take a constructive approach throughout all the proceedings on the Bill, as well as on this amendment. It is wonderful how constructive one's approach can be if the Opposition parties have been even more constructive in showing the Government the error of their ways, and when common sense prevails in another place. As any student or follower of the saga of this legislation knows, in Committee, on Report and in another place we have explained time and again to the Minister that not to exclude Saturdays, Sundays and Mondays would be a mistake, because there is essentially a five-day service at present, and to extend that service to seven days would, certainly in the short term, cause considerable problems—not least in funding, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) said.
    5.45 pm
    Although I urge the Minister to resist her usual rant on the subject, it would be interesting if she would address the points made concerning the funding of the service when it in effect changes from a five to a seven day service, because in the real world, as the Minister is aware, services tend to slow down over the weekend and over bank holidays. That is rightly or wrongly a fact of life, and that is why we have pushed so hard and so long with this amendment, to try to save the Government from not facing the reality of the current situation.
    As I told the Minister in an intervention, we have two thirds of a loaf rather than the whole loaf, but then, as the Minister could with some justification say because she will have heard it numerous times before, when one is in opposition and the Government have an overall majority of about 165 seats, any crumb that falls from the Minister's table is more than welcome. In fact, it could be seen as a considerable victory.
    I do not want to dwell on the narrow party political point, because this is not so much a party political victory as a victory for common sense. It is a victory for patients. a victory for social service departments and probably a victory for the NHS, so I too welcome what the Minister has said and agreed to with this two thirds of a loaf.
    In conclusion, I have one final question for the Minister, which I dearly hope she will be prepared to answer so that we may end on a satisfactory note. The amendment seeks to give leeway for Sundays and public holidays over the assessment process to help social

    871
    service departments to avoid incurring fines through no fault of their own. The Minister—except once or twice when she had serious lapses—has refused to use the f-word. She has used her thesaurus and the Labour spin machine and she has come up with every word under the sun to describe what the Bill does and what the amendment seeks to minimise. She has used the euphemism "incentives". She has used the word "charging". She has used other words, but except when she has had a lapse she has never used the word fines. But to the Minister's embarrassment, her own Secretary of State, in his statement to the House the day after the Budget, used the f-word. He was quite blatant. He said that the fines imposed under the legislation would, "x, y, zee." Why does the Secretary of State use the word fines when the Minister has steadfastly refused to do so? Will the Minister now face the reality of the situation and accept that the Bill is just a cackhanded way in which to penalise one public service—social services departments—at the expense of the NHS by imposing fines?
    As my hon. Friends and I have two thirds of a loaf and are not greedy, we will not press any amendment in this group to a Division because, once again, we are grateful to the Minister for taking our advice in a very constructive a way—we gave the advice—and tabling the amendment.
    Jacqui Smith: As we come to the "zee" of this legislation, I hope that we can bring it to a successful conclusion. I shall respond first to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). He asked me about the cost of seven-day working. I reiterate what I said in my introductory remarks: some social services departments are already successfully ensuring that, within three days, they assess and put in place the package of care necessary to get people safely out of hospital, so calculating the cost of bringing everyone up to that level is not straightforward.
    We could argue that everyone should be at that level already, but we recognised that social services departments needed more funding for that aspect of work, among others. That is why the access and systems capacity grant, in particular, highlights the need to improve the number of people involved in assessment and the speed with which assessment takes place, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in his statement in July last year. We have made it clear that that considerable extra investment will contribute to that function.
    Although I can take such comments from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has a bit of a cheek in returning to money again. However, he begged me not to be too confrontational, so I will not be. I shall simply remind hon. Members that the extra investment in social services departments, which enables us to have our high aspirations about ensuring that people get out of hospital and receive the right care when they need it, is possible because of the Government's investment plans, which were not supported by Opposition Members.
    In response to the concerns that were raised about people returning to their own homes and then perhaps struggling or being concerned about whether the package of care was adequate, we said that two-week
    872
    reviews would be undertaken when people return to their own homes. That concern is not so likely to relate to people in care homes, although I recognise the point that we often need to ensure that people do not automatically go into care homes when, with a bit of support, they could return to their own homes. I am glad that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford is nodding.
    The Government have therefore not only defined the idea of intermediate care in the national service framework, but invested significantly in it. That is why last week we were able to report a considerable increase in the number of people who benefit from intermediate care, when we celebrated the fact that the national service framework was published two years ago. That type of opportunity will ensure that older people get the care that they need, as well as the chance to regain their independence.
    Opposition Members have tried to claim victories today, and I am certainly willing to say, as I did earlier, that we have taken a constructive approach throughout the debates on the Bill. For example, we recognised the need to strengthen the provisions on carers in the amendments that we proposed. We also realised that we needed to ensure that the Bill—which is so much about putting patients, particularly older people, at the centre of care—explicitly recognised that fact in the way in which it makes requirements to ensure that people are consulted, for example, before social services are notified and involved in the process. We have made changes and we have clarified the position as we have gone through this process.
    Mr. Burns: The Minister has been constructive in accepting Opposition points of view and in tabling amendments. Would she have been so constructive and made so many changes to the Bill if our Parliament was a single chamber Parliament?
    Jacqui Smith: If hon. Members will forgive me, I will not even start down that route.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Lady would be well advised to take her own advice and stick to the amendment.
    Jacqui Smith: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have outlined some of the issues on which we have made progress. The Bill comes out of the process the better for that.
    I also remind hon. Members that we have maintained at the centre of the Bill—in part 1—the principle that we set down at the beginning. It is right to put in place a system of incentives that ensures that predominantly older people get the right care at the right time and in the right place. We should focus on making sure that health and social services work together better than they have previously so as to make sure that the community alternatives are in place. The Bill that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford has described as horrible on various occasions will, in the very near future, become an Act. That principle will be enshrined and, as I have argued throughout, it represents—along with part 2, which will make community equipment services free and ensure that intermediate care, wherever it is placed, is free—an important step forward. It will enable the

    873
    Government to continue the progress that they have made in reducing delayed discharge and will make sure that the additional investment that we are putting in place has the effect that it should have. Older people and others can be more confident that they will get the right care in the right place and at the right time. On that basis, I commend the Bill and ask the House to support the amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together motions 5, 6, 7 and 8.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 116) (HC 494) Maintenance of Roads Grant 2003–04, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th March, be approved.
    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
    That the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Variation of Specified Documents) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 19th March, be approved.
    IMMIGRATION
    That the draft Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003, which were laid before this House on 24th March, be approved.

    DANGEROUS DRUGS
    That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 12th March, be approved.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
    Question agreed to.

    HEALTH PROTECTION AGENCY
    Ordered,
    That the Health Protection Agency (Yr Asiantaeth Diogelu Iechyd) (Establishment) Order 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 505) and Health Protection Agency (Yr Asiantaeth Diogelu Iechyd) Regulations 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 506), be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

  ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic Adjournments),
  That this House, at its rising on Monday 14th April, do adjourn till Monday 28th April 2003.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

  Community Pharmacies
  5.58 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: I wish to present a petition on behalf of 2,253 residents of Huntingdon, St. Neot's, Brampton, Kimbolton, Alconbury, Ellington, Spaldwick and Stoneley.
  The petition declares
  That the deregulation of pharmacies, as set out in the recent Office of Fair Trading report, would threaten access for patients to adequate pharmacy services in their community and be detrimental to community pharmacy businesses everywhere.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons rejects proposals that would allow the unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions, to preserve local pharmacies and safeguard their continued services to local communities.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Michael Weir: This, too, is a petition about pharmacies; it is from the villages of Friockheim and Letham in my constituency.
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons
  The Petition of the Constituents of Central Angus
  Declares that they oppose the recommendation made in the Office of Fair Trading Report—The Control of Entry Regulations and Retail Pharmacy Services in the UK—to end pharmacy control of entry regulations and allow all supermarkets to open a pharmacy within their stores.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons does not accept the recommendations in the OFT report —The Control of Entry Regulations and Retail Pharmacy Services in the UK.
  And the Petitioners remain etc.
  To lie upon the Table.
  6 pm
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: This petition, which has 3,399 signatures, was given to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) by several local pharmacies in Coventry. They are concerned that they will go out of business because supermarkets will under-price them, and if so, people who are having treatment for drug abuse will no longer be able to get that treatment locally, although they cannot say why.
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons,
  The Petition of the residents of Coventry,
  Declares that local Communities are best served by local community-based pharmacies, and that the OFT's recommendations to abolish the "control of entry" regulation would seriously damage local pharmacies.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reject proposals that allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions, and to preserve local pharmacies and safeguard their continuing provision of services to local communities.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: The petition states:
  To the House of Commons
  The petition of 701 residents of Brandon, Suffolk, and others
  Declares that the government should reject proposals from the Office of Fair Trading that would remove restrictions on entry to the community pharmacy market in order to preserve the local pharmacies and safeguard their continued service to local communities.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to reject the Office of Fair Trading proposals.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Pershore and Malvern Hospitals
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Caplin.]
6.2 pm
Sir Michael Spicer: I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), will respond to the debate. I confess that I would have been even more delighted if the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), who has just left the Chamber, were responding because she knows Malvern very well. I first met the hon. Lady when she was a student at the Chase school in Malvern and I was addressing the sixth form. So great was my eloquence that she immediately rushed off and joined the Labour party.
Coming straight to the point, I have some questions for the Under-Secretary. First, do the Government still support the policy of developing community hospitals'? Secondly, following on from that, do the Government support the community hospitals of Malvern and Pershore? It is hard to exaggerate the importance that my constituents attach to both hospitals. Each hospital has served the surrounding area for around 100 years; each is an essential feature of the community; and each has provided a highly cost-effective service for the elderly and the dying, and above all, in recent years, those recuperating from treatment in the high-cost acute hospitals, particularly, this year, the new Worcestershire Royal hospital.
The great benefit that both community hospitals provide is that patients can recover close to their home and family at a cost that is far lower than that of the large acute hospitals. For that reason, residents of Malvern and Pershore and the surrounding villages have for many years cherished the hospitals and subscribed generously to their respective associations of friends. Each hospital, in different ways, is suddenly under threat. Malvern hospital has reached the point where it needs massive renovation and refurbishment. That has been anticipated for many years, which is why, for most of the period during which I have represented Malvern in Parliament, the hospital authorities have had a firm intention to rebuild the hospital. The previous hospital authority secured a site for precisely that purpose several years ago at Seaford court. In recent years, the plan for a new hospital has been analysed from every viewpoint, including the prospect that it might be subject to a private finance initiative.
Year after year has passed without a final decision being made. The current position is that South Worcestershire primary care trust has further postponed a decision until, it says, the summer. It is now essential that a decision to go ahead is made within the next month or so, otherwise the present hospital will fall into disrepair beyond redemption. My third question to the Minister is, therefore, what is to happen to Malvern hospital? What is its future? I hope that the Minister can provide some positive news.
Pressing as is the case for a new hospital in Malvern, a crisis point has been reached in Pershore, caused by the sudden announcement in the past few weeks by South Worcestershire primary care trust that it intends to close Pershore hospital in its present form and transfer

877
patients to 25 beds in a new, yet-to-be-completed residential home for the elderly at Heathlands. That plan has a number of unacceptable features. There are serious doubts about the suitability of a purpose-built home for the elderly for partial conversion into a hospital. At a basic level, it is not clear that special hospital beds will fit into the separate bedrooms as currently designed, nor that the present configuration of the ground floor, which has been designated as the hospital section, would allow for the proper movement of trolleys and patients.
Even if the necessary money could be found for the conversion, questions arise about the propriety of running a residential home above a hospital. For elderly people, the prospect of having to share an entrance with the hospital is likely to be distressing. The proposal flies in the face of the accepted need for more residential places for the elderly in the county to avoid bed blocking, particularly in the expensive acute hospital in Worcestershire. It is ironic that we should be discussing that immediately after the passage through Parliament of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill. The proposal would mean losing 25 badly needed beds for elderly residents. Indeed, I understand that those rooms have already been assigned to specific people, who have even chosen the colour of their wallpaper. Their future is now in limbo, as is that of people suffering from dementia, who will have no place in Heathlands if the proposals go ahead.
It is all quite unsatisfactory. The idea of exchanging a purpose-built hospital with facilities for minor injury operations, day rooms and proper wards for a makeshift facility with inadequate parking, limited access for ambulances and no minor injury theatre makes no apparent sense at all. At best, the proposal is likely to be unstable. It is made in the context of the failure of South Worcestershire primary care trust, despite repeated assurances to me to the contrary, to honour its commitment to reopen the minor injuries unit at Pershore hospital, as it promised to do when it was temporarily closed because of staff shortages.
In Worcestershire, the word of the primary care trust is not considered to be its bond: put bluntly, my constituents do not trust the SWPCT. That is particularly so because of the reasons that the trust has given for making the move. It claims that that will help to address a deficit, which it says it inherited from the Worcester area health authority. There is a good deal of muddle about the size and nature of that deficit. For instance, was it inherited debt or is it recurring debt? That has not been fully established. What is the size of it? Is it 1 or 2 per cent. of the PCT's annual budget? That has not been properly established, either. My fourth question to the Minister is, what are the facts about the deficit and, if it exists at all, how can the Pershore hospital proposal solve it?
If the primary care trust carries out its proclaimed intent to sign a long-term contract with the Heart of England housing association, the owners of the residential home, it is difficult to foresee how any recurring savings would be made from exchanging a purpose-built hospital for one that is not purpose built. The servicing of 25 individual rooms. for example, must
878
be a much more expensive proposition than running purpose-designed wards. What will be the effect on the inherited deficit or on any recurring deficit?
Mr. Peter Luff: Can my hon. Friend confirm that if a capital revenue were to accrue to the South Worcestershire primary care trust arising from the sale of the current site of the Pershore hospital, it could not be used to pay off the deficit because it would be capital money, not revenue money? It would be in a separate pot, so it would not contribute to solving a deficit problem.
Sir Michael Spicer: That is an interesting question, and it is one of the reasons why it is important to sort out the deficit issue and establish whether it is a recurring current account deficit or whether it can properly be attributed on the balance sheet to the past and be treated as a capital amount. Those are important questions, and my hon. Friend pinpoints a significant aspect.
Part of the growing anger in Pershore stems from the nature of the consultation exercise now under way on behalf of the South Worcestershire primary care trust. The consultation exercise has been truncated to eight weeks. There have been no costings or time scales. It has failed to anticipate the obvious objections and problems. Surrounding villages whose residents look to Pershore hospital have not been consulted. I imagine that my hon. Friend has such villages in his constituency. Above all, the consultation has made no effort to consider the alternatives.
Untested assertions have been made at public meetings. and invariably no supportive evidence has been provided. For example, it has been argued that to rebuild the existing hospital using private finance would be unviable because planning permission would not be forthcoming to provide the land and scope for adequate parking and ancillary services. There is no evidence to suggest that the planning authority, Wychavon district council, would take such an outright negative position with respect to the height of the building or to the change of use of the land behind the present hospital.
It is clear that car parking could be provided adjacent to the present site, which would allow the hospital to be rebuilt to an adequate size on the existing site. It is unacceptable that this alternative has not been considered as part of the proposals put forward by the PCT in the consultation process. For all those reasons, the suspicion remains that the current proposal is a smokescreen for closing the Pershore community hospital outright.
So my fifth question to the Minister is this: will he require the South Worcestershire primary care trust at least to consider alternative proposals to rebuild or refurbish Pershore hospital on its present site, or on any other appropriate local site, and in so doing, supply the public with proper costings, which it has not done to date? He at least owes it to the taxpayer, who is about to inject an additional £18 million next year into the bank account of the South Worcestershire primary care trust, to ask why that extra money is to coincide with a threat to the future of two hospitals for which it has direct responsibility.
My sixth and final question to the Minister is this: will he publish his understanding of how it is intended that the millions of pounds of taxpayers' money that will be

879
injected next year into the South Worcestershire primary care trust will be spent? It makes no sense whatever to my constituents that, on one hand, taxes are going up to pay for health, while on the other, hospitals are threatened with closure. If that pattern is repeating itself nationwide, he must be a very worried man. That would be further evidence of an emerging feature of the Government's policy on public services, in which more cash seems to go hand in hand with lower quality of service.
The Government have a responsibility to the nation to ensure that the money raised from income tax is not siphoned out into a morass of administration and wasted expenditure. That is precisely what seems to be happening in West Worcestershire, where the Minister must intervene at least to the extent of being able fully to answer the questions that I have put to him. Let me very briefly summarise those questions. First, does he support community hospitals in general, and in Malvern and Pershore in particular? Secondly, does he reject the notion that South Worcestershire PCT inherited a debt that justifies the proposed closure of the existing Pershore hospital? Thirdly, does he agree that the PCT should at least come up with options involving the continued existence of the hospital in Pershore, either on its present site or on another appropriate local site? Finally, is he satisfied with a situation in which closure of a community hospital is proposed when, at the same time, taxpayers are pouring millions of extra pounds into the area?
If the Minister cannot answer all those questions on the spot, I hope that he will at least write to me before the weekend.
6.17 pm
Mr. Michael Foster: An opportunity to discuss the health economy in Worcestershire is always welcome and I congratulate the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) on securing a debate on Pershore and Malvern hospitals. Although those hospitals do not serve Worcester directly, they have an impact on the south Worcestershire health economy, and I view Worcester as the capital of south Worcestershire, if I may put it that way.
The hon. Gentleman made a very important point about the role of community hospitals in providing care to support our acute hospital system in Worcestershire. Patients may go to the community hospital for observation before being admitted to the acute hospital, or not admitted, as the case may be. The community hospital also allows people to be discharged from the acute hospital into an area where an appropriate level of care can be given. As he said, that care is in a less intensive and therefore less costly form. The role of community hospitals, be they in Pershore, Malvern or Evesham in south Worcestershire, is very important to the Worcestershire health economy.
Delayed discharges from the acute trust are a problem. We have debated that issue in the Chamber previously and it is to be hoped that we made some progress on it earlier today. The issue flags up the question of Worcestershire's capacity to deal with the health needs of the county and south Worcestershire in particular.
That is why I welcome the opportunity to debate the future of Pershore and Malvern hospitals. These hospitals have a lower bed occupancy rate than the
880
acute trust, which gives the health economy a little bit more flexibility to operate creatively in seeing people move from acute hospitals to more appropriate forms of care. Bearing that in mind, however, I discovered earlier this year what I believe to be a form of discrimination against my constituents in Worcester and against people living in the northern part of the south Worcestershire area, in terms of how the relationship between community hospitals and the acute trust works. I shall give an example. If two patients—one from Pershore, the other from Worcester—were in an acute hospital but no longer needed acute care and were awaiting discharge, and two beds became available at the Pershore community hospital, the Pershore resident would pretty much automatically go to that hospital. The patient from Worcester, however, would not, even though it would be more appropriate to transfer that person to the Pershore environment. That is because the community hospitals serve the smaller towns and villages in south Worcestershire.
When I raised this issue with GPs from the local medical committee, they confirmed that that was indeed the case. My constituents are being discriminated against in terms of how the hospitals at Pershore. Malvern and Evesham currently work. Will the Minister look into this form of discrimination?
Mr. Luff: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. I know, however, that, in the case of Evesham—on which I can speak with authority—the South Worcestershire primary care trust regards the hospital as the property, as it were, of the whole south Worcestershire health economy. It is certainly the trust's intention that people from all over south Worcestershire should be able to use it when they are discharged from an acute hospital. To be fair to the trust, it is taking this issue on board and dealing with it.
Mr. Foster: I can confirm that the South Worcestershire primary care trust is indeed taking this matter up. It has confirmed that the form of discrimination that I have just outlined can occur, and it is endeavouring to ensure that it is cut out, so that we can view south Worcestershire as a single health economy, rather than as distinct geographical locations. That is why I would like to ask the Minister to look into this matter.
This debate flags up the issue of whether Worcester as a city, and perhaps the northern part of the south Worcestershire area, should have some form of community hospital capacity. I put it on record that we in Worcester may have to campaign for a community hospital, so that we can get the type of care from which residents in the more rural parts of the county benefit, and from which those in the heart of Worcester currently do not.
Sir Michael Spicer: Surely that is the answer to the conundrum that the hon. Gentleman described at the beginning of his speech. He seemed to be implying that people were being prevented from going into hospitals in areas close to their families. Patients having their families close by as one of the advantages of such

881
hospitals; that is why they are called community hospitals. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's conundrum is surely to have one for Worcester as well.
Mr. Foster: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because I was about to ask the Minister to support such a campaign for a community hospital in Worcester and to ask my colleagues from Worcestershire to do so as well, as there would be benefits not just for the residents of Worcester. There would also be knock-on effects for the more rural areas of the county.
I would also like to ask the Minister what I think are some pertinent questions, given the contribution made by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire. If the Minister does not have the answers to hand, perhaps he could write to me to put them on the record. There has been an increase in the rate of national insurance contributions, and the money raised by the Exchequer is to pay for improvements in the national health service. How much of that increase will go into the Worcestershire health economy? In particular, how much will the South Worcestershire primary care trust get as a result of the increase?
Will the Minister also make an estimate of the impact that there would have been on south Worcestershire—particularly on Pershore and Malvern hospitals—if national insurance contributions had not been increased? That is a relevant question to ask. Will the Minister also confirm which Members of Parliament from Worcestershire voted in favour of the increase in national insurance contributions—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that this is not his debate. It was initiated by another Member and its context is quite specific. He has not yet strayed too far from the future of Pershore and Malvern hospitals, which is the subject of the debate, and I should be grateful if he would stick to that.
Mr. Foster: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am inclined to get a little carried away when I try to protect the national health service in Worcestershire, whether that is Pershore or Malvern hospital.
Will the Minister make an assessment of what would happen to Pershore and Malvern hospitals if there were a 20 per cent. cut in the budget of the South Worcestershire primary care trust? That would have great relevance to my constituents arid those of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire. I support the call for clarification on the future of Pershore and Malvern hospitals, and I put on record again my intention to campaign for a community hospital facility for the heart of Worcester.
6.25 pm
Mr. Peter Luff: It is a rare privilege to have such time in which to debate the health economy of Worcestershire. These debates are usually dominated by concerns about the north of the county, which are often expressed by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor). It is good that the three hon.
882
Members who represent the south. Worcestershire health economy—that is rather an ugly phrase—are able to participate in a debate on the important question of the future of Pershore and Malvern hospitals and the implications and lessons of the consultation that is currently being conducted. I am specifically concerned with the consultation on Pershore hospital.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) on having the good luck to secure a debate on a subject that is important to his constituents. I shall not tread on his toes too much because Pershore hospital is firmly in his constituency, but he was kind enough to say that many of the villages to the north of Pershore look on that hospital as a health service that is valued and appreciated. Wyre Piddle parish council, especially, shares my hon. Friend's concerns about the inadequacy of the consultation. I have advised the parish council on how to contribute to the consultation but it remains deeply concerned.
I am glad, in most respects, that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) made his contribution and that he agrees that Worcester has a capacity problem. That is common ground between us. Ensuring that the Worcestershire health economy—I do not like the phrase but I shall use it—has an adequate capacity is an important challenge for us all. I agree that the solution to the problem is not closing community hospitals. Indeed, the solution might be to create community hospitals in addition to Pershore and Malvern.
I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about Worcester and I shall make a brief case for Droitwich in the north, although it is not strictly a matter for the debate, because that is short-changed by its community health care facilities. I know that the primary care trust, the town council and other bodies are considering how to improve the situation.
I was sorry that the hon. Gentleman adopted more of a party political approach towards the end of his remarks. He made a point that I shall briefly rebut. No one has ever talked about cutting public expenditure on the health services for Worcestershire, Pershore, Malvern or anywhere by 20 per cent. That is an invention of the hon. Gentleman—and other Labour Members—and a product of his febrile imagination. No one is considering that, and no one in their right mind would. I hope that he will stop making such a ridiculous allegation.
I want to address the consultation process on Pershore hospital and the precedent that it might set for the wider consultation on changes to health care provision that is being held throughout south Worcestershire. Consultation will be held on Evesham community hospital later in the year, and it is tremendously important to get those consultation processes right.
The point of my speech is to ask the Minister a central question. Is he satisfied that the consultation on Pershore community hospital is legal under section 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001? People in Worcestershire are seriously worried that the consultation could be open to legal challenge and that the primary care trust has not conducted it properly. That is not necessarily a criticism of the PCT, although its chairman is a leading supporter of the Labour party. I thought that he might have been aware of his own

883
Government's policy, but my views on his position are well known. However, there is a problem because of the deficit, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire rightly mentioned often during his speech.
The South Worcestershire primary care trust had a small, inherited deficit, which has increased this year. The Government say that it must eradicate the deficit. I have asked parliamentary questions about the length of time that the Government will give the primary care trust to eradicate the deficit, and I found the answers a little frustrating. We know that the consultation on Pershore and the wider health care changes in South Worcestershire is driven by anxiety about the deficit.
The consultation on Evesham hospital is unlikely to be driven by the deficit. I believe that, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Worcester gave, the primary care trust genuinely supports Evesham hospital's continuation and wants it to flourish. However, that will doubtless involve a change in the pattern of service provision. Again, the consultation on Pershore will create the climate for that on Evesham hospital. We must therefore be satisfied that the Pershore consultation is being conducted properly.
Two documents apply to the debate. Malvern is not yet the subject of a document. They are entitled "Modernising Health Services in Pershore" and "Proposed changes to healthcare provision in South Worcestershire". Both are rather coy about the genuine reasons for the policies that they propose.
Let us consider the legality of the process. We held an interesting debate on 11 March in Westminster Hall during which the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), outlined the guidance in "Keeping the NHS local—a new direction of travel". I do not want to quote her out of context, and I shall therefore read the relevant paragraph. She said:
"The guidance has three core principles that will in future underpin everything that we do in this field. The first principle is that options for change should be developed with patients not for them, and that before we even start to formulate preferred options, we have a sense of sitting down right at the outset to design what services should look like—their essential features—and where they should be. In the NHS in the past, a preferred option would emerge and people were presented with it almost as a fait accompli."
To me, the consultation on Pershore is an example of old-style NHS consultation. A "preferred option" has emerged and people are being are being presented with it
"almost as a fait accompli."
The Under-Secretary went on:
"Consultation was sometimes simply the expiry of a period of time, people would do the first thing that they had thought of, and the process was not altered by the involvement of the public. The first underlying principle is that we develop proposals for change in consultation with local communities and that we start at the outset to think about what service redesign should look like."
Later, she mentioned the legal basis for the framework guidance in section 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001. She said that it
"places a duty on the NHS to make arrangements to involve and consult the public in everything that it does. Under that new statutory framework, the NHS has a duty to involve the public in planning and developing services and in making decisions about how services will operate."—[Official Report, 11 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 56–7WH.]
884
She said more but I shall not detain hon. Members with an overlong quote.
Section 11 of the 2001 Act, which should guide consultation on the future of services such as those at Pershore and Malvern, came into force from the beginning of the calendar year, but the guidance was published in February. The document is entitled "Strengthening Accountability". It includes a moving foreword by the Under-Secretary who will reply to the debate. It stated:
"To achieve our aim we will involve and consult patients and the public in how health services are planned and developed … Patient and public involvement is not an end in itself but a way of achieving three fundamental objectives: strengthened accountability to local communities; a health service that genuinely responds to patients and carers; and a sense of ownership and trust."
The conduct of the Pershore consultation sets a worrying precedent for the wider consultation in south Worcestershire and the later consultation on Evesham. That sense of ownership and trust simply does not exist. There is genuine doubt about the underlying purpose.
The document does not mention the financial implications but we all know that they drive the consultation. Subsection 6 on page vii, entitled "Executive summary" states:
"The overall aim of Section 11 is to make sure patients and the public are involved and consulted from the very beginning of any process to develop health services or change how they operate. This will lead to patient-centred care and improvements in the patients' experience."
On page 1, we read probably the most important single passage in the document, which leads me to raise the question of the legality of the process at Pershore. It states:
"Section 11 places a wider duty to involve and consult patients and the public … no: just when considering a proposal but in developing that proposal".
I submit that the public have not been involved in developing that proposal. They are being presented with a fait accompli, or rather five separate ones that constitute the preferred policy of South Worcestershire PCT for Pershore hospital. That is very worrying. I genuinely believe that the Minister's fine words are being undermined by the nature of the consultation process at Pershore. The sense of ownership and trust that the Government rightly want to engender—the objectives are splendid and I do not disagree with them—is at risk as a result of how the process is being conducted.
On page 4 of the document, we read:
"Within the NHS, planning will be from the bottom up.
PCTs (and relevant care trusts), as lead planners will be responsible for creating local plans which describe health and service improvements in their area. These will be developed using local clinicians' knowledge as well as patients and the public."
Of course, the trouble is that what is being proposed at Pershore as well as in the wider consultation on the South Worcestershire PCT proposals for overall service provision in my constituency and those of my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire and the hon. Member for Worcester constitutes not an improvement, but service reductions. We are consulting on service reductions at Pershore and across south Worcestershire's health economy.

885
I try to be a fair man, but I find that difficult to understand. The hon. Gentleman rightly raised the question of the 1 per cent. job-destroying tax introduced by the Chancellor, which comes into effect this week. The hon. Gentleman asked, "The money is coming into south Worcestershire, but where is it going?" I too ask where it is going, because we are consulting on service reductions. I fear that that proves to me that spending more money does not always produce better services. The question involves the quality of that spend, which is what worries me about south Worcestershire, and Pershore in particular. Is the money being spent well?
On page 7 of the document, there is a list. It states:
"Pressure to change services may come from any number of starting points—both negative and positive. Some examples"
of why a consultation such as that at Pershore may need to be conducted are
"outdated buildings and facilities; new standards … evidence of what works, workforce pressures",
and so it goes on. There is no mention of deficits or of budgetary problems, but they are driving the process here, which is perhaps why the consultation is being conducted so urgently and so cack-handedly and why, worryingly, it appears to be contrary to the law of the land passed by this House of Commons only two years ago. We also read:
"The principles behind this should be:
designing services with local populations, not for them;
solutions developed for health communities rather than individual hospitals or organisations".
That leads to my other point about the Pershore consultation in particular. We have two documents, entitled "Modernising Health Services in Pershore" and "Proposed Changes to Healthcare Provision in South Worcestershire". Members should study the fifth proposal of the second document, on community hospitals. They might expect to read about modernising health services in Pershore, but no. There is no cross-reference at all. The proposal talks entirely about the joint health and social services day rehabilitation unit at Evesham community hospital. The proposal is not to make changes, but to send the bill to the county council. The unit cannot be afforded any more, so the proposal is to send the bill to a hard-pressed county council that has already had to increase its council tax enormously just to stand still on service provision. Fat chance of that.
So, where is the joined-up government—I think that is the phrase—in relation to Pershore? I repeat: the document refers to
"solutions developed for health communities rather than individual hospitals or organisations".
Surely there should be one document, "Proposed Changes to Healthcare Provision in South Worcestershire", which would put Pershore in that broader context, but that has not been done. The consultation on Pershore's future is panicky and individual. I will not quote the legislation, as I am sure that the Minister knows what section 11 does, although I have it here if he wants it. It is clear that a duty is imposed on the PCT, which it is not meeting.
886
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate, but I must begin to draw my remarks to a conclusion. The document on Pershore shows every sign of being cobbled together in a great hurry. As a cheap debating point, I note that "Monday 31th" March is an interesting date for a meeting, but the real, important point is that the consultation process ends so soon—in four weeks.
The other document hints at—indeed, if read carefully, makes more explicit—the reason for the Pershore consultation. It identifies three aims:
"To improve performance … To provide an equitable, safe service … To 'live' within our NHS budget, and remove the £5.7 million recurring deficit".
That, of course, is the issue.
This document makes five proposals, three of which involve sending bills to the county council and two of which involve cutting services. I will not talk at length about this because it does not relate specifically to Pershore, but I consider the cut in the GP counselling services outrageous. It is a simple cost-driven measure with no obvious clinical logic. Although a reason is presented in the document, I do not accept it.
People in Droitwich Spa and Evesham have raised with me the proposal to abandon all pulmonary rehabilitation services in Malvern. I believe that those services are based in a Malvern hospital. The question was asked:
"What is happening to the pulmonary rehabilitation service in Malvern?"
The answer was:
"This is being reviewed separately within the PCT involving our Professional Executive Committee of GPs and Primary Care Professionals."
We hear fine words about joined-up services, rather than solutions for individual services. Here is a service provided in Malvern and serving the whole of south Worcestershire—Worcester, Droitwich and Evesham—and here is a fudge. We are talking about not a separate review, but a proposal to remove the only pulmonary rehabilitation nurse serving south Worcestershire. Meanwhile, trusts north of that area are considering employing such nurses, because they recognise their value in reducing the number of emergency admissions.
The crucial aspect of the Malvern service is that it serves the whole county, and allows a reduction in the number of emergency admissions in winter. Many emergency admissions are caused by respiratory diseases, but the trust is thinking of sacking the nurse in order to deal with its budgetary problem and ending a service whose users are understandably worried. This is not just a Malvern problem; it is a south Worcestershire problem.
Other proposals will reach the Minister's desk—proposals relating to Worcestershire, but extending beyond Pershore and Malvern—in the coming weeks and months. There will be further consultation. If the pressure on Pershore and Malvern and the whole south Worcestershire economy is to be relieved, the trust must be given a longer time in which to pay off its deficit. If it is forced to pay it off in a single year, there will be cuts and a loss of confidence in the process whereby the future of health services in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire is

887
dealt with and consulted on. I urge the Minister to reflect on whether the consultation should be halted and begun again, in accordance with the law.
6.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) on securing the debate. I know of his interest in health matters in his constituency, and of his long association with Malvern hospital. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Lull) on their speeches, and on their commitment to the hospitals in their area. I shall try to answer the questions asked by, in particular, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, but if I cannot manage that this evening I shall write to them both in due course.
The proposals for community health services in West Worcestershire are complex. Three public consultations are being undertaken by South Worcestershire primary care trust. As all the proposals are out to public consultation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment on the details. However, I am willing to outline the context. Let me answer two of the hon. Gentleman's questions immediately. The Government are committed to community hospitals, and that includes those in Pershore and Malvern.
South Worcestershire primary care trust came into being on 1 April 2002. It has a population of approximately 280,000 across the south of Worcestershire. The geographical area stretches from Broadway in the east to Tenbury Wells in the west and from Worcester city and Droitwich in the north to Upton-on-Severn in the south. It manages community hospitals with a total of 132 beds—Evesham, Malvern, Tenbury Wells and Pershore hospitals.
The NHS plan outlines a series of challenges designed to deliver a 21st-century health service that puts the needs of each patient as the focal point of the system. South Worcestershire PCT, like all other NHS organisations, will benefit from the massive investment being made by the Government over the next three years. The resources available to the PCT will have increased by £59 million from the level in 2002–03, an overall increase of nearly 30 per cent. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire raised the issue of the deficit, but that increase of £59 million, or nearly 30 per cent., will be a tremendous contribution from the Government to dealing with that problem. That is an indication of the Government's commitment to the area's health economy.
Mr. Luff: I am glad that more money will come in, but where will it go?
Mr. Lammy: It will go into the health economy and an overall package of services, and that will be clear to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I will come to some of the proposals for the area later in my speech. He should tread lightly in that area, as it is Conservative Front Benchers who propose a 20 per cent. cut.
Mr. Luff: The Minister must understand that that is simply untrue. There is no parliamentary turn of phrase
888
that I can find to describe what he has just said, but there is an unattractive word with three letters that I cannot use in the Chamber. What he has just said is not true and I challenge him to produce a single quotation that justifies that preposterous and outrageous claim, because it has no basis in truth. I hope that I have made myself clear.
Mr. Lammy: That is a matter for the hon. Gentleman and his Front Benchers. The Opposition's policy is well known, in the Ho use and in the country. I am not attempting to be partisan on what is an important issue to his constituents and to the Government. The investment is going in, but there is a historic deficit and cuts would make the situation worse. It is right that I, as the Minister responsible, make the Government's position clear and that the hon. Gentleman's constituents understand the dividing line on the issue.
The set of challenges in the NHS plan, combined with unprecedented growth in investment over three years, gives South Worcestershire PCT the opportunity to plan for change and to deliver the principles of public sector reform—devolved, responsive, flexible services with choice for the people who use the NHS. In South Worcestershire, that planning has just been completed via the PCT's local delivery plan. The LDP matches investment over the three years to the challenges set out in the NHS plan to meet service demand needs overall, in particular for emergency and planned care. Overall, South Worcestershire has had a significant share of the resources and has planned sufficient capacity to deliver all targets.
Sir Michael Spicer: That is all rhetoric and political stuff that is not answering the questions that we asked. We accept that taxpayers' money will be spent in the area, but we want to know how it will be spent and how it can be that we now have worse services and two hospitals in my constituency under threat of closure. The Minister must address those precise questions, instead of giving us all that rhetoric that has been written for him by someone else.
Mr. Lammy: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but this is not rhetoric. I am setting out the position in his trust area. I am only three minutes into my contribution, and I hope that I will be able to move on and deal with some of the issues raised in the debate. However, people waiting for surgery and in-patient and out-patient appointments have seen the targets met, as have those waiting for emergency services. Now, 90 per cent. of people wait no longer than four hours, and tremendous progress has been made, in his constituency and elsewhere. It is unacceptable to suggest that services have somehow not improved. They are improving. They are getting better, and the money is going in. I need to repeat that.
If the hon. Gentleman is not happy with what I have said, he can take matter up in the usual way. Indeed, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire mentioned section 11 and the duty of overview and scrutiny, and the normal way in which hon. Members and local people can take such matters up. Those are the normal mechanisms, and the hon. Member for West Worcestershire is free to use them if he is not satisfied with what is happening in his local health economy.

889
As I said, in South Worcestershire this planning has just been completed via the PCT's local delivery plan. That matches investment over these years to the challenges set out in the NHS plan to meet service demand needs overall and, in particular, for emergency and planned care. Overall, South Worcestershire has had a significant share of the resources and has planned sufficient capacity to deliver all targets. The strategic issue is to achieve the right balance between primary, community, secondary and social care.
That is particularly important in relation to maximising the benefits of having a new, private finance initiative, state-of-the-art acute hospital, and developing appropriate community-based services to enable people to be treated and cared for in the community, as far as possible.
Gradual change is being taker forward locally through a series of modernisation compacts between primary and secondary care, the implementation of first-class clinical governance systems, and the identification and delivery of improvements to clinical and service quality.
The PCT instigated a series of service reviews in November. The reviews lasted several months, and involved consultation meetings. Every general practitioner in Worcestershire was invited to those meetings, so that they could gain a degree of ownership of the reviews and the evolving proposals arising from them.
The PCT board met in February 2003 to receive a report on the service reviews and a consultation was proposed entitled, "Improving GP and Community Services in Malvern". In March, the board met and agreed to further consultations. One is entitled "Modernising Health Services in Pershore", and the other is called "Proposed Changes to Health Care Provision in South Worcestershire".
Agreement was also given to a series of public meetings to support the consultation process, with the community health council agreeing to host the meetings and feed back their conclusions. The meetings have started and are ongoing.
The consultation for South Worcestershire as a whole outlines proposals covering occupational therapy, GP-attached social workers, GP practice-based counselling services, sexual health, and the day rehabilitation services of community hospitals. The consultation on Pershore covers the options for the redevelopment of Pershore health centre and the expansion of Abbotswood medical centre. It also considers the provision of minor injury services, the community dental service, and a new community hospital of up to 25 NHS beds at the Heathlands development as a re-provision of Pershore hospital. The consultation covers substantive matters and it is hoped the investment that has gone into the local area will be spent wisely on those substantive matters to meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire. The final consultation on better GP services and community healthcare for Malvern plans to bring the existing services of Malvern health centre and Court road surgery together, on one site and under one roof.
890
Without prejudice to the final outcome of those consultations, it is worth stating some of the public commitments made by the PCT in the context of the reconfigurations. That is particularly pertinent given some of what has been said, which, at least on my advice, is not the basis on which the consultations are being conducted. For Pershore hospital, the PCT gave in its public consultation a clear indication that it is seeking to retain a local hospital. The PCT also confirms that any new hospital would continue to provide the majority of services, with the possible exception that some of those services would be provided in a primary care setting. In addition, the latest proposals signify that overall bed numbers would in fact increase.
Sir Michael Spicer: Does the Minister really accept that a few beds in a purpose-built residential home that is pretty well completed is an acceptable definition of a hospital? If he does—I hope that he does not—what are the implications for the future of the residential home and, indeed, for the beds that will be lost?
Mr. Lammy: I have said that I do not want to prejudice the final outcome of the consultations, but I am advised that the staff are working in inadequate conditions and that patients deserve a more modern inpatient facility. The PCT wants the service to continue in the town, but the existing site is too small. The people of Pershore should have modern health care facilities, and these proposals mean that each patient would have a single en-suite room instead of the existing Nightingale multi-bedded ward.
Sir Michael Spicer: The Minister is being very good about giving way.
Mr. Luff: We have plenty of time.
Sir Michael Spicer: Yes, we have another half an hour.
When the Minister says that the existing site would not be big enough to rebuild a hospital on it, that is surely a prejudicial statement in itself. The fact is that there is plenty of room, subject to planning permission. The supposition is that planning permission would not be given, but that supposition is not accurate. He is trying not to prejudice the consultation process, but that does not tally with some of his comments—for example, defining a hospital as something inside a residential home, saying that we are going to keep a hospital, and saying that there is no room on the existing site. Of course, it has all been given to him by the PCT or by whoever wrote his speech—I do not blame him personally—but he must understand that he is prejudicing his own position by making those very assertive remarks. That is precisely what the PCT is doing, and precisely why I introduced this debate on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Lammy: I am reminded of Sherlock Holmes at this point. On the contrary: I said that I am advised that this is the situation and that the site, as currently framed, is too small. However, it is of course the subject of consultation.
Sir Michael Spicer: That is exactly the point that I am trying to raise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-

891
Worcestershire (Mr. Lull) and I have said, the problem is that the way in which the proposition has been couched allows for no alternatives. It has been asserted during the consultation process that the size of the existing site is insufficient. They have gone from one particular—
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Caplin.]
Sir Michael Spicer: We have raised this issue precisely because of what has been said and because the consultation is flawed—possibly legally flawed. The problem with this debate is that one suspects that the Minister's speech has been written by the people who have already put the matter out to consultation. Those are the people against whom we are making various comments, hoping to hear some objective advice from the Minister.
I do not expect the Minister to answer without having thought the matter through with his advisers, but the least I expect of him is that he take on board the central point that the consultation process is flawed, perhaps legally. I hope that he will look into that and come back to us on why no options have been offered and why the money is going up but the quality of service at the hospital is going down.
Mr. Lammy: I am advised that there is genuine commitment to a community hospital in Pershore. That is the subject of consultation. It cannot be right that we should conduct that consultation among ourselves in the Chamber. That consultation should take place in the local community. The Government are committed to that consultation, and in January we introduced the section 11 powers, under the Health and Social Care Act 2001, to bring into being the overview and scrutiny committee. That was opposed by the Opposition, but the consultation is taking place.
Mr. Michael Foster: Earlier this year, I attended a meeting at which the chairman and chief executive of the South Worcestershire primary care trust gave a briefing on the proposals. I left the room believing that there was a genuine intention to keep the services at Pershore, and a genuine commitment to Pershore community hospital. I entered the room immediately after the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) left. He had had a similar briefing from the same people.
Mr. Lammy: That sets out the position as I suspected that it was.
Sir Michael Spicer rose—
Mr. Luff rose—
Mr. Lammy: I ought to make some progress. As I was saying, we cannot conduct the consultation in this Chamber; it should be conducted locally. The Government gave overview and scrutiny powers to the community that the hon. Member for West Worcestershire represents so that people could take ownership of decisions. I ask the hon. Gentleman
892
whether he has met his strategic health authority to convey his views. I have heard Opposition Members talk about the challenges of centralisation and localisation. The Government are localising the health service through the establishment of primary care trusts and overview and scrutiny committees, and are delegating downwards and shifting the balance of power, yet not even two months into a consultation, I am being asked to intervene on what is clearly a local issue.
Mr. Luff: The Minister has been generous in giving way and as there are 26 minutes remaining, there will be a few more opportunities. I think he does not understand that the consultations are being held because of directions from the Government about the rate at which deficit should be repaid. It is not a localising issue but a centralising one: the Government are telling the primary care trust what to do through the strategic health authority. I realise that this is a legal matter and that the Minister may want to think about it, but will he at least promise to write to me about the legality of the consultation? The Pershore document asks:
"The existing Pershore cottage hospital is loved by local people why must it relocate?"
The question about relocation has been prejudged, completely contrary to section 11 of the Act to which the Minister rightly referred. There is a real issue in relation to the legality of a consultation that is being conducted only so that the PCT can meet the Government's targets. I urge the Minister to look into that and not to dismiss the real concern that I have expressed, which is not partisan but genuine.
Mr. Lammy: This is not the right Chamber in which to raise issues of legality. There are chambers of a different nature where they can be taken up. My understanding is that consultation is taking place and that we should at least allow it to finish before prejudging the outcome or the manner in which it was conducted.
Without prejudicing the final outcome of the consultations, it is worth stating some of the public commitments made by the PCT and their context. The PCT wants to retain a local hospital, and has made it clear publicly that it hopes that a consultation process relating to a new Malvern community hospital will be developed during the summer. The PCT recognises that the local community is becoming frustrated by the length of time that the process has taken. I accept the point that the hon. Member for West Worcestershire made about that.
The PCT is committed to the future of the two hospitals and will develop plans in accordance with the outcome of the public consultation. Several other local public consultations are currently under way on the provision of community services in south Worcestershire.
As I said, I am unable to comment in detail on the proposals while the consultation is going on.
Sir Michael Spicer: The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) said that he had attended a meeting after which he and I had been assured that hospital services would be maintained in Pershore, although I must confess that that was not exactly what was said to me.

893
In that context, does the Minister think that, in general terms, it is suitable for residential homes to be partially converted to so-called hospitals? That is being proposed elsewhere, so it must have turned up on his desk as a general issue. Is it a good way forward?
Mr. Lammy: That depends on several things, including community-based provision in primary care and the needs of older people. As the hon. Gentleman knows, many older people do not want to be in residential homes; they want to stay in the community. In different health economies, depending on the demography of the area, there may be a move in that direction. It will also depend on consultation and on the other services that are needed to support older people or people who require residential care.
There is no one-size-fits-all answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. Our national health service employs 1.2 million people. Every year, 13 million people receive emergency care alone. There can be no one-size-fits-all solution in such a complex health economy in one of the western world's major democracies. The question is complicated and the answer is determined by local variations. Clinicians and managers in local communities throughout the country are trying to do their best for local people to deliver the kind of health service that we want.
As I have stated, I cannot comment on the proposals in detail, but, clearly, the first stage is to get involved with the public consultation itself. As the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire said, section 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 puts a new duty on the NHS to make arrangements to involve and consult the public in planning the services for which it is responsible. The Department has just published "Strengthening Accountability"—policy and practice guidance to support the NHS in meeting the requirements of that duty.
South Worcestershire PCT will be aware of its duties in that regard, and it will have been further advised on its consultation processes by the West Midlands South strategic health authority. The PCT is holding a number of consultation meetings. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester has suggested that some of those meetings have taken place, and hon. Members have had a chance to go to them. If hon. Members feel strongly, I would encourage them, the public or stakeholders to attend those meetings and get their views across. I encourage them to raise such issues with the local authority, which now has a nexus in the overview and scrutiny committees, and with the strategic health authority, which clearly has an interest.
There is also the opportunity to submit written views to the PCT during the consultation period. I repeat that this Adjournment debate is being held during the consultation period, which has only been running for a few weeks.
The Health and Social Care Act 2001 has also given new powers to local authority overview and scrutiny committees to review and scrutinise the planning, operation and development of health services, thus ensuring that the democratically elected representatives of local people with responsibility for their well-being have proper influence over the NHS. Those powers came into force on 1 January.
894
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire mentioned my words in the preface to "Strengthening Accountability". Even though I have a self-interest, I am very proud of that preface—proud of its substance and proud of the fact that the Labour Government have given local people the powers and accountability that they did not have before. I encourage hon. Members, even though they voted against that legislation, to use those powers to raise such issues as they see fit, and to do so locally, with their local stakeholders at local meetings with local people. That arena, not Whitehall, must be the right one in which to do that.
Sir Michael Spicer: We certainly try to use those meetings to do so. I have certainly attended a public meeting on the consultation process. The point that we are making is that people have no option. The outcome is a fait accompli, and people are told, "This is what we are going to do." I should have thought that the first point of consultation is to be given some figures, but we are given no figures, time scales or facts; nor are we given any options. I assure the Minister that I have personally attended one of those public meetings, and the process is pretty well pointless because the whole thing is tied up before people get there.
Mr. Lammy: I hear the sentiment with which the hon. Gentleman makes that suggestion, but there are clearly differences of opinion about the nature of the consultation. I hope that he will forgive me—I do not want to be facetious—but he says that the outcome is a fait accompli, which does not fit with a process that is still continuing. Something cannot have come to an end if it is still going on. This is about consultation and getting involved, and it is about doing so to the best effect, as hon. Members seek to do on behalf of their constituents across the country.
To facilitate health scrutiny, the Act places three key obligations on the NHS: to provide information to overview and scrutiny committees; to consult on the substantial variation and development of services; and to provide for senior NHS officials to attend meetings to explain their decisions. On top of that, the committees have a specific right to refer the proposals to the Secretary of State if they consider that public involvement has been inadequate or that the proposal is flawed. The arrangements exist. Although they exist at some distance from the consultation period, the arrangements are available if there are local remedies. That must be right in what is, after all, a national health service.
Public interest is highest when proposals are made to reconfigure services. That is why we have also set up the independent reconfiguration panel. The panel will tackle complex and sensitive contested reconfigurations, referring in particular to "Strengthening Accountability" and "Keeping the NHS local—a new direction of travel". It will consider how the process of involving and consulting patients and the public was carried out to ensure that involvement has been an inclusive process.
The panel—made up of key stakeholders, a third of whom will be patient representatives—will provide authoritative advice to the Secretary of State on any proposed NHS service reconfigurations or significant service change that he asks it to consider. I should like

895
to clarify at this point that it is for the Secretary of State to ask the panel to consider a case. Overview and scrutiny committees have a power to refer decisions to the Secretary of State, and he will then decide whether to seek further advice. Only those contested proposals in which it is clear that all other options have been exhausted are likely to be referred to the panel for detailed consideration. The panel is very much the final option.
Sir Michael Spicer: This is an interesting and helpful passage in the Minister's speech. As I understand it, he is saying that the Secretary of State can call a matter in if he does not think that all options have been assessed properly and consulted upon. The Secretary of State can take his own position, and this is a useful precursor to that process.
Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman will have heard me set out the course that is available to hon. Members and their constituents in such circumstances. On personal involvement, I have also made it clear that I am advised that consultations are taking place, and the hon. Gentleman takes no issue with that. Let that consultation take its due course. Clearly, other hon. Members and their constituents who have taken an interest in the matter see a difference in what is occurring. It is accepted that there is a deficit in the community, and the Government are doing all that they can to assist with allocations not just in the hon. Gentleman's area but right across the country. Record allocations of above the rate of inflation have been made to PCTs to assist in that endeavour. We are also supporting local people.
I have set out—yes, partly in legalese—what is available should things go wrong. However, despite all that has been said about the services, the PCTs are seeking to retain and enhance them. Given the money going in and the consultation that is at its midway point, the hon. Gentleman's conclusions may be a little premature.
Sir Michael Spicer: The advice that the Minister is giving the House is extremely interesting. If all options have not been considered in the consultation, that would provide a case for the Secretary of State to call a matter in. The law that the Minister has set down is that all options have to be considered, and certainly at the final phase. Is he saying that, if all options were not considered, that would be a serious matter and cause for the Secretary of State to call a matter in?
Mr. Lammy: I have set those arrangements out very clearly. Things are moving on at a pace in the hon. Gentleman's area, and I encourage him to support the health community's endeavours. I know, from Hansard and other sources, that the hon. Gentleman is committed to Malvern hospital and his local community. He will know that it is possible to jump to conclusions and to raise fears before the results of a consultation are complete. I ask him to engage in the process, to support the Government and to work closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester.
Mr. Foster: I am conscious that we are running out of time, so I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he
896
think that constituents, interest groups and communities have options for the future of Pershore and Malvern hospitals which they think are suitable? Will he urge them to make those options public and to include them in the consultation process while it is still ongoing, so that they can be duly considered and any recourse to the Secretary of State becomes a long stop that is not appropriate to this particular consultation?
Mr. Lammy: Absolutely. I say unequivocally that people should be involved in the process and support what is, at the end of the day, devolution in the NHS. It cannot be right that the buck stops with Whitehall. As a Minister, I am a moderniser in that respect. I want decisions to be made locally, not here. I certainly support my hon. Friend in that endeavour.
Mr. Luff: I am trespassing on the hon. Gentleman's generosity, and I am grateful to him for giving way. I agree with much c f what he is saying now, so we are ending on a note of consensus, which is marvellous. How can my constituents engage with one service at Malvern, the pulmonary rehabilitation service, about which the document says:
"This is being reviewed separately within the PCT"?
I appreciate that the Minister may not want to answer now, and I did not do very well with my last request for a letter, but perhaps he could advise me on how that aspect of the public consultation on services at Malvern is being conducted when that service is being reviewed separately within the PCT. That seems to fall short of the very high standards that the Minister is rightly setting.
Mr. Lammy: As I have indicated, where there is a substantial change under section 11, there is a duty to consult through overview and scrutiny. I advise the hon. Gentleman to return to his community with "Strengthening Accountability", which includes my preface, and to take the matter up with them. The thrust of my remarks has been that these decisions must be made locally.
Sir Michael Spicer: The Minister has been extremely generous and rather charming in the last parts of his speech, so I feel bad about pressing him on another point.
The Minister was pressed by the hon. Member for Worcester to say that we should all become deeply engaged in this process of consultation, and we are. Our problem, which I suspect the Minister and the Secretary of State may share, is that we have not been given alternatives with which we can engage. We have been offered just one option, so we can only say yes or no. If the Minister is suggesting that we should be offered alternatives through the consultation process, will he please let that be known to the PCT? That would be an important step forward, and it would certainly solve many of our problems.
Secondly, will the Minister make it clear that if those options do not exist or are not presented during the consultation, that will be cause for the Secretary of State to call the matter in?
Mr. Lammy: The hon. Member has been here for some time, and is seeking to draw me into the detail of

897
the process, but as a new and diligent Minister, it is important that I am not drawn into that detail. The consultation is under way and the hon. Gentleman, as I have encouraged him to do, should be in close contact with his PCT—I know that he is. What I have said about the process is on the record in Hansard and is available in the Department's documents on patient and public involvement in health.
Finally, as the Minister responsible for patient and public involvement in health, I want to say that we are spending more funds on this issue than ever before in the history of the NHS. Whether it is patient advice and liaison services in our local hospitals, the patients forums that will be at the heart of our local communities, or section 11 of the 2001 Act, which makes provision for overview and scrutiny committees, we are spending more funds because we believe in democratic accountability and want it to be at the heart of our NHS. I repeat that I am proud that the Government have moved in that direction. It would be wrong for me to undermine that democratic and local decision making from the Dispatch Box.
Finally, I mentioned the Government's document "Keeping the NHS local," which states that hospital services need to change if we are to continue to meet patients' needs and improve access to local services. Biggest is not always best—we recognise that patients
898
want more, not fewer, local services. Our approach is based on three core principles that all health organisations embarking on service change must now follow. The first principle is about developing options with people, not for them, building on the new legal framework for patient and public involvement in health, which I have set out. The second is about exploiting the opportunities for service redesign and developing new ways of working to keep services local, sometimes keeping people in their homes rather than in a residential care setting. The third is about taking a whole systems view, with different health and social care organisations in a locality working together in a mutually supportive way.
I expect the PCT to take account of the various forms of guidance available, and I hope that the hon. Member for West Worcestershire is ultimately reassured that a decision will be made in the right manner in the coming months. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman continue to press his views and concerns with the PCT, as well as with the strategic health authority, to ensure that proper scrutiny is undertaken, and that massive investment in health care in south Worcestershire under the Government brings about real changes in people's experience of the NHS.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. JOHN MCWILLIAM in the Chair]

Zimbabwe
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
9.30 am
Mr. Peter Luff: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for allowing us the opportunity to ensure that Zimbabwe is not forgotten at a time when the Government's efforts are rightly focused on ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein. Indeed, my fear—it is my principal reason for seeking this debate—is that Robert Mugabe may be increasing his oppression and terror under the cover of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
In another place last month, Baroness Amos said that comparisons between Saddam Hussein and Robert Mugabe were not valid. I wonder. He may not have weapons of mass destruction, but Robert Mugabe is a brutal tyrant whose actions threaten not just his own people but the stability of the region. When I visited southern Africa with Edward Heath in 1981, I thought that it was the oppressive apartheid regime of Pretoria that could drive the region into chaos, while the emerging democracy of Zimbabwe offered a beacon of hope to the continent of Africa. How wrong that judgment was—and how much of my error can be explained by the contrasting personalities of Robert Mugabe and Nelson Mandela.
Our debate is about exposing the horrors that are unfolding in Zimbabwe today, and letting the people there know that we have not forgotten them. We meet after the welcome news of the victory of the Movement for Democratic Change in both of the weekend's by-elections. However, two by-election swallows do not make a summer in Zimbabwe; and this morning we read of an intensified crackdown on the MDC, including the arrest of the party's vice-president. We are indeed still witnessing a winter of discontent in Zimbabwe.
Today, we must give voice to the concern, felt by so many people in Britain and around the world, that Robert Mugabe is being given a free ride in oppressing his people and destroying the economy of southern Africa. I know of that concern because many of my constituents have friends and colleagues in the country. I know of two people in particular. One is a white Zimbabwean farmer who has fled to the United Kingdom and who, to our shame, has hardly been welcomed with open arms the other is the mother of a health professional who fled to the UK from the terrors of Harare—including at least two attempts on his life—who simply did not get the support that he was entitled to expect from the Foreign Office. Perhaps it is because so many of us have such contacts with Zimbabwe, both direct and indirect, that we feel so strongly about what we see as the Government's failure to act with sufficient clarity and purpose to mobilise the international community to deal with Mugabe's growing menace.
190WH
Our concern is for all the people of Zimbabwe. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), said in a previous debate on Zimbabwe, that
"Zimbabwe's problems are the result not of a black versus white conflict or a conflict between Zimbabwe and Britain, but of poor Government policies. The main victims of the regime's policies are the poor, black people of Zimbabwe.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 17 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 187WH.]
I therefore welcome the seriousness with which today's debate is being taken, notably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I hope that it will inspire the Government, for the first time, and in their own time, to have a full day's debate on the Floor of the House on this terrifying tragedy.
Things are getting much worse in Zimbabwe. Amnesty International said of events before the by-elections:
"What we are witnessing is much more than the government's usual tactic of raising the level of violence in the run-up to elections. This is an explosive situation where there seem to be no limits to how far the government will go to suppress opposition and maintain its hold on power."
I shall speak later about the escalating violence, but let us remind ourselves just how bad life is for the vast majority of the population.
Today, 7 million people in Zimbabwe face starvation. There are forecasts of a huge deficit in cereal foods. The Department for International Development has admitted that matters are serious, and said that the World Food Programme is starting to make contingency plans. Can the Minister update the House on that matter? Has any progress been made in stopping the Government of Zimbabwe preventing the delivery of food aid to many vulnerable communities, and in preventing Mugabe from using the food aid that we supply as a political weapon?
The famine has exacerbated the HIV/AIDS crisis. An estimated 2.2 million Zimbabweans are living with HIV/AIDS and more than 600,000 children have been orphaned by the pandemic.
Last month, the Minister, Baroness Amos, said:
"Zimbabwe's economy has continued to decline and is now in crisis. It contracted by 12 per cent. in 2002, according to the estimates of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. It is now the fastest shrinking economy in the world. Inflation is over 200 per cent., unemployment is over 70 per cent. and its currency has continued to plummet in value. There is little food, fuel or foreign exchange. That decline is largely due to poor economic policies, which have undermined macroeconomic stability and destroyed business confidence."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 March 2003; Vol. 645, c. 904–5.]
The country once described as the breadbasket of southern Africa is at breaking point. In October 2002, a well-informed columnist at The Times warned of tribally-based genocide in Zimbabwe. He predicted that
"The majority Mashona tribe, who occupy the richer, northern part of the country centred on Harare, may soon be urged by their leader, Robert Mugabe, and his Zanu (Patriotic Front) governing party into a genocidal bid to take from the southern Matabele ("take back", he would say) the lands which the Mashona believe were stolen from them more than a hundred years ago. The situation has parallels with Kosovo. The plan would be to drive the Matabele, by terror and by massacre, over the southern borders of Zimbabwe whence (in some Mashona minds) they came."

191WH
In November 2002 Physicians for Human Rights concluded:
"It is our opinion that starvation and eventually death will occur upon party political lines in Zimbabwe."
Five months on, that terrible prophecy is being realised. Mugabe's aim is undoubtedly the elimination of any opposition to his rule, and famine is his weapon. He does not care about the people of Zimbabwe; all he cares about is his own political survival. Here is a real and vivid parallel with the butcher of Baghdad—and, like Saddam, Mugabe has a record. In the late 1980s, he used starvation as a tactic for political intimidation. His notorious 5 Brigade, trained by North Korean instructors, was used to suppress internal dissent. The campaign was aimed at the power base of his rival ZAPU, its leader Joshua Nkomo and its ethnic supporters. Between 10,000 and 20,000 died, as the world turned a blind eye. To make the same mistake again would disgrace—I would say, is disgracing—the international community.
Today, Zimbabwe bears an uncanny resemblance to Nazi Germany during the 1930s. There is the same steady erosion of the independence of the army, the civil service and the institutions of the state. Like the Nazis, Mugabe's ZANU-PF party has a parallel party organisation that runs alongside, but always overrides, formal state institutions such as the police and the army. Hitler's brownshirts have their precise counterpart in Mugabe's youth leagues, known as green bombers. The similarity is not lost on Mugabe. He even admits to modelling himself on Hitler. Only last week, he told an audience of his henchmen:
"I am still the Hitler of the time. This Hitler has only one objective, justice for his own people, sovereignty for his people, recognition of the independence of his people, and their right to their resources. If that is Hitler, then let me be a Hitler tenfold. Ten times, that is what we stand for."
He also warned the MDC that, in resisting his regime through mass action, they were playing with fire and that
"those who play with fire will be consumed by that fire."
Mugabe has not just been talking vainly of himself as a vile dictator; sadly, he has been acting like one too. He has gone through the opposition with a fine-toothed comb. There is a programme of imprisonment, torture and sexual assault on opposition activists.
The Zimbabwe Human Rights Forum is not alone in expressing its concern about the increased use of state agents to violate human rights. Last month, more than 500 people were arrested in three days. The Daily News, one of the few independent media outlets in Zimbabwe, reported that 1,000 farm workers, including women and children, at opposition Member of Parliament Roy Bennet's estate in Chimanimani, sustained serious injuries in state-sponsored beatings. Even before the MDC-organised "stay-away" on 18 and 19 March, Baroness Amos had told us:
"This year alone has seen the arrest of eight MPs and four senior officials, including the MDC Mayor of Harare. Some of those arrested have been tortured while in police custody—including the MDC MP, Job Sikhala; an allegation substantiated by government doctors."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 March 2003; Vol. 645, c. 905.]
192WH
The Institute for Democracy in South Africa has reported on the most recent violence. It said:
"The severity of the injuries seems to be attributed to the fact that the majority of the perpetrators were apparently Zimbabwe National Army soldiers, in uniform, who were conveyed in military vehicles to the homes of the victims. The perpetrators were well equipped with weapons of torture such as batons, chains, hosepipes, and rifles. In most cases there were groups between twenty and fifty, assaulting individuals.
It is also evident that not only the ZNA were involved. People taken by the police for questioning were handed over to youth militia, and taken behind the police station where they were assaulted severely, again using weapons such as baton sticks, hose pipes and chains."
Observing that this is the first time for three years that members of the military have formed the highest percentage of the perpetrators of such violence, the update continues:
"Nearly all the victims over the past four days were active members of the MDC, holding rank in the party structure, and the more senior ranks were targeted for abduction and torture to obtain more information regarding plans for further mass action. Many of these people are unable to return to their homes, and have continued to receive threatening phone calls. Many were threatened with further assault, if they reported their injuries, and in one case, a victim who had received life saving treatment at a hospital and been discharged was assaulted again, requiring readmission for other injuries."
Those details are corroborated by the Crisis in Zimbabwe coalition, based in Harare. In a lengthy briefing document, which includes the most harrowing case histories, it lists the types of weapon used in the most recent attacks:
"The perpetrators used fists and booted feet to beat their victims. They also used blunt instruments including batons, sticks, and AK rifle butts. The perpetrators were also equipped with sjamboks (whips), chains and hosepipes.
In addition, many victims reported the use of torture tactics, including electrocution. Other traumas included burning with cigarettes and acid, inserting foreign objects into women's genital areas, urinating in the victim's mouth, and forcing the victims to drink substances such as urine.
Psychological torment was also used, as victims were often threatened with a slow and painful death, and warned not to seek medical treatment or to report the incident."
I do not have time to quote extensively from the case histories, but I shall give just one—that of 32-year-old MK, who lives in a suburb of Harare and works for the MDC. MK said:
"At approximately lam on Sunday 23 March 2003"—
last Sunday—
"twenty men (16 in army uniform and 4 in civilian clothing) climbed over the boundary wall surrounding our home. When my father answered the knocking on the door the men burst in shouting that they wanted his wife They called her out and attacked her.
She was wrapped in a cloth, and they did not wait for her to dress before they started to beat her with hose pipes and the butts of their AK 47 assault rifles. Her cloth fell off leaving her naked and they continued to beat her. They locked my father and the younger children in the bedroom. I heard my mother screaming—they made her open her legs and they tried to push the barrel of an AK into her vagina."
That is but the opening of the testimony of MK.
The situation cannot be allowed to continue but, as ever, the question is what can we do. We must start matching our rhetoric with our actions. The Government must accept the conclusion of the report on

193WH
human rights of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which states that "the failure" of their policy of constructive engagement in Zimbabwe
"reveals the limits of that policy as an effective diplomatic tool."
The Government must also understand that, although the Prime Minister's promises that there will be "no tolerance" of
"the activities of Mr Mugabe's henchmen in Zimbabwe"
make good headlines, they have a devastating effect on those who look to Britain for help, when those words are not backed up by robust action. The Government must admit that the EU travel ban for Mugabe and his henchmen has been shot through with loopholes. The French, in particular, holed it below the waterline when they invited Robert Mugabe to Paris in February—not that he is the only member of his vile regime to have visited Europe and found a way round the ban. Nor was that his only visit since the ban. Mugabe and two other members of his Government visited Rome four months after the travel ban was introduced last February. There have been other visits by people whom we supposed were banned. Parliamentary answers tell us of four visits to Paris, one to Lyon and four to Belgium, and there have probably been more.
Britain must play a greater role in bringing pressure from the wider international community to bear on Mugabe. It should persuade EU leaders to extend sanctions to the business men who bankroll Mugabe, persuade Commonwealth leaders of the need to press home the principles embedded in the Harare declaration and encourage southern African countries to follow Kenya's lead and condemn Mugabe's vile regime. It is a matter of the greatest regret that some members of the Commonwealth are already urging Zimbabwe's readmission into the organisation. The decision has, at least, been delayed until December. There is a need here for urgent and intense diplomacy by our Government. There can be no question of readmission while Mugabe remains in power.
Another issue is the role of the United Nations in resolving the situation. The Government have talked of activity there, but I do not see enough. I understand that our mission to the UN, and Ministers, have been preoccupied with Iraq, but we cannot fight dictators one at a time. That is the way in which evil flourishes, and it must be fought on all its fronts. Many people are asking why the Security Council still believes that Zimbabwe does not pose a threat to regional security when it is clear that the current situation is having serious regional implications. Others are making the comparison between Zimbabwe and Kosovo, on which the Security Council adopted resolutions 1199 and 1203 in 1998—referring to that "grave humanitarian situation" and "impending humanitarian catastrophe"—and resolution 1244 in 1999.
The Security Council has never discussed Zimbabwe, and it is time that it did. I can conclude only that the world is waiting for the situation to get worse before acting. Is that not exactly the kind of situation to which the Prime Minister referred when 18 months ago he warned:
"If Rwanda happened again today … we would have a moral duty to act there"?
Now is a tragic time for Zimbabwe. Those who look to Britain for help have a right to expect that we, above all, will not turn a blind eye. Ministers must realise that they
194WH
can rely on rhetoric only for so long before people start asking, "How is Mugabe managing to starve 7 million of his own people without any real consequences?"
Such tragic evil has but one source—the man Mugabe. In any free and fair election, he would lose; but the most recent election was neither free nor fair. Last week Baroness Amos told Lord Tebbitt that
"it is not British policy to have regime change in Harare."—[Official Report. House of Lords, 26 March 2003; Vol. 646, c. 803.]
I hope by that that there was no suggestion of toleration of the results of that election.
Zimbabwe has been poisoned by one man's arrogance and obsession. As Webster wrote in "The Duchess of Malfi":

"Considering duly, that a prince's court

Is like a common fountain, whence should flow

Pure silver drops in general, but if't chance

Some curs'd example poison't near the head,

Death and diseases through the whole land spread."

Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. I intend to call the wind-ups to start no later than 10.30, so I make a plea to hon. Members to be as brief as possible, so that as many as possible can get in.
9.47 am
Mr. Derek Wyatt: I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on securing the debate. I agree with almost everything he said. Zimbabwe is a very sad place and we and our Government should do more.
Hon. Members who read the early-day motions this morning will have noticed that, serendipitously, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) has tabled early-day motion 989 on Zimbabwean cricketers in which he pays tribute to Henry Olonga and Andy Flower. What contact is there with Henry Olonga, who is in hiding in South Africa and whose life is in danger? I hope that the right procedures are being followed through the usual channels so that, if we need to, we can ensure that he is safer.
I have spent a considerable part of the past six years focusing on cricket and money laundering in connection with Zimbabwe. It is appropriate to mention Henry Olonga and Andy Flower, but we should also pay tribute to Nasser Hussain, who took a difficult decision. I am reminded of my phone conversation with Tim Lamb before the England cricketers left Australia to go to Zimbabwe. I had written a personal letter to Nasser Hussain asking whether he would like to come to be briefed by us about events in Zimbabwe. Tim Lamb said that he was minded not to show the letter to Nasser Hussain, to which I replied, "In that case, I might just phone and tell the Press Association immediately I put the phone down on this call." His response was, "In that case, I might show him the letter." The England and Wales Cricket Board has shown the most appalling leadership on this issue. I congratulate Nasser Hussain on the stand that he took, given the difficult position in which he was placed.
It is appropriate to talk about cricket in Zimbabwe because the ECB is holding a wake for cricket today—the annual meeting with county cricketers at Lord's. In

195WH
the light of that, I hope that UK citizens will peacefully demonstrate against the 2003 summer tour of Zimbabwe to England and oppose the England cricket team going to Zimbabwe in 2004.
I have tabled three early-day motions about cricket in the past six months: early-day motions 458, 549, and 718. I shall not read them out, but I will explore the issues raised in early-day motion 718. I have been trying to take the ECB and the International Cricket Council to court. That was not so difficult with the ECB, because its constitution is so appalling and contains some flaky sentences. It was clear that we had a case and that we would win, which is partly why the ECB withdrew from the tour of Zimbabwe. For example, it said that all cricketers had an interest in the game, but it was not in the interests of the game for people to go to Zimbabwe. There were clearly major holes in the constitution.
What got my goat was that Tim Lamb would not make public the amount of risk insurance that the ECB had taken out for cricketers and county cricketers. Ultimately, county cricket depends on the television and sponsorship rights negotiated by the ECB. The ECB said that it would lose –10 million, but I suspect that that was untrue and that the real loss would be slightly less than –2 million. Tim Lamb would not make public the amount of risk insurance taken out or, indeed, whether he had taken any out for the players. Nasser Hussain took that up with the ECB. I look forward to being corrected publicly if I am wrong about the ECB in that respect.
Tim Lamb was fond of saying that he had never met a Minister or debated Zimbabwe with a ministerial team. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward) was rather clever in an article that she wrote in The Guardian, because she managed to finesse the minutes of a meeting between Tim Lamb and Foreign Office representatives. I will not put them all on the public record now because they are already in the Library. However, I shall read out one or two paragraphs.
Paragraph 4 of the minutes prepared by officials states:
"Mr Lamb asked whether we could foresee a situation where HMG might wish the tour to Zimbabwe to be cancelled. You said that we had not yet consulted Ministers, but given the Government of Zimbabwe's human rights record, HMG might well find it difficult to accept that an England cricket team should play in Zimbabwe You said that the MDC and civil society in Zimbabwe might also consider that World Cup matches would give credibility, and so aid and comfort, to the Mugabe regime."
Paragraph 5 states:
"Mr Lamb said that the ECB had to write to the ICC by 8 July … giving preliminary views on whether they were willing to play in Zimbabwe. He understood the problems, but did not wish to be the one to pull the plug at this stage. He asked if we might suggest language he could use, without attribution, with the ICC. I attach a copy of the exchange of e-mails."
So, there was collusion.
Finally, paragraph 6 states:
"Mr Lamb's bottom line was that he would accept HMG's advice closer to the time, and would consult again Indeed, the Zimbabwe option might disappear before then, especially if the media group due to televise the matches in Harare and Bulawayo … chose not to do so."
196WH
So much for the ECB's spin that it did not get advice from the Foreign Office.
Mr. Michael Ancram: Given what the hon. Gentleman has just read, why did the previous Minister of State, who drew the short straw last time and took part in the debate in December, say that his view that the English cricket team should not play in Zimbabwe was a personal one? Why did he write in his local newspaper that the Government did not have a view at that time?
Mr.Wyatt: That is a matter for the Minister, but I see the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making.
The ICC is a body of secrecy. Through my solicitor, Jonathan Haydn-Williams of Taylor Wessing, I have tried to get the ICC to publish its articles of association, but it has refused to do so—not once, not twice, not three times, but four times. It is based at Lord's and says that it is the governing body of cricket, but it is not. It is the most appalling association I have ever come across. It will not release its articles of association—what is it afraid of? There must be something in the articles that would make it vulnerable to a legal challenge in the High Court.
Mr. John Randall: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of the Zimbabwe tour going ahead this year? Does he agree that if that tour is cancelled, we should invite the Kenyans over? They have done extremely well and taken a robust view of Zimbabwe.
Mr. Wyatt: I am not in favour of Zimbabwe playing cricket here in the summer, but I would welcome the Kenyans with open arms.
I have been looking into money laundering for several years. Four Members of Parliament who had made various comments and allegations about laundered money in Switzerland went to Zurich last year. As hon. Members will remember, the Abacha money was found at UBS in Switzerland, as was the Marcos money, so we went to UBS expecting to find Mugabe's laundered money. As guests of the British-Swiss chamber of commerce, we spent a morning with the due diligence team at UBS. It had recorded more than 8,000 contact lists, which included the names of the Mugabe families and Mugabe's civil servants and ministers. The bank had traced every lead, but it did not have one lead on the missing money. Of course, we asked, "Where is the money?", and without blinking the bank's representatives said, "It is in either the Isle of Man or the City of London."
As a consequence of the amount of criticism that UBS has received, it has taken the lead in saying, "If there are any ethics to this banking business, why do we not agree to sign some sort of statement about laundered money?" To date, only one bank in Britain, HSBC, has signed such a statement, yet there are thousands of banks in the City, and I hope that many more of them will be persuaded to sign it.
Yesterday, my staff and I phoned the usual suspects asking where Mugabe's missing billions could be. There was widespread acceptance among the majority of those to whom we spoke that Mugabe and his associates' funds are mainly held in Malaysia. I have been to the Isle

197WH
of Man to try to find leads, but that is fairly new information, and we are grateful to Transparency International for helping us to find that out.
Figures cited by the The Sunday Telegraph on 3 March 2002 suggest that the amount of money laundered by ZANU-PF might exceed $100 million, although I think that the figure is nearer $4 billion. The newspaper's sources suggest that about $5 million has passed through the Channel Islands. It has also been suggested that Malaysia is a logical place to store the funds. If one traces the number of visits that Mugabe makes to Singapore and Kuala Lumpur, it is revealing and makes me think that the funds are in Malaysia. I hope that, in summing up, the Minister will say exactly what sort of pressure we should now put on the Malaysian Government to come clean and say whether Mugabe has laundered money there. In particular, what powers does the general secretariat of the Commonwealth have with respect to money laundering either in Zimbabwe or Malaysia? Both countries are members of their respective regional branches of the Financial Action Task Force. Malaysia belongs to the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering, and Zimbabwe belongs to the Eastern and Southern Africa Anti-Money Laundering Group. If the reports are correct, both countries are in violation of the charters of those groups.
The United Kingdom has been granted observer jurisdiction over both groups, which means that we are to highlight any problems in them. I would like to know when those meetings will start, who will represent us at them and when we will start to ask questions about the whereabouts of Mugabe's money, because it is vital that we turn off that supply of funds.
We talked to Krall International, the company mentioned in the Sunday Telegraph article, which had been employed by the Financial Services Authority to find Mugabe's assets. It said that it had never been asked to carry out such a task. Christie Lorgen, deputy head of the African department, states that no such business had been tendered by the FSA and that, to her knowledge, no such investigation was being undertaken by any private company. Will the Minister tell us what role the FSA might have in finding laundered money, both in the City and in the global marketplace?
Both the MDC and the Zimbabwe Democracy Trust have offered encouragement for our position on Mugabe's money laundering and believe that successfully freezing his assets would considerably hinder his domestic and international position. The Zimbabwe Democracy Trust also recommends that we push for banks to accept a corporate social responsibility through both positive and negative media exposure. Does the Minister intend to ask Barclays to undertake the same UBS forensic examination of Mugabe's funds and perform the same due diligence? There is concern that there may be laundered money from Mugabe in Barclays bank. What does the Minister have at his disposal to order banks registered in the UK and the Isle of Man to perform the same forensic due diligence that UBS performs?
I hope that the cricketers come to their senses at Lord's today, and that considerable pressure is put on the executive of the ECB, which has done great damage to national and international cricket. I hope also that
198WH
the Minister will tell us in his concluding remarks what rights and powers he has to examine the issue of laundered money in Malaysia.
10 am
Andrew Selous: Before I start, I should declare a slight family interest in the issue. My great-great uncle led Cecil Rhodes into what later became Rhodesia many years ago.
We heard my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) talk about the shocking statistics from Zimbabwe today. I shall not go through them again at length, but four of them stuck out starkly: about 7.2 million people rely on food aid; 35 per cent. of the population are infected with the HIV virus—some 2.2 million people; a third of all those under 15 are orphans—around 600,000 people; and the unemployment rate is 70 per cent.
Commenting on his recent report on Zimbabwe, James Morris, the head of the World Food Programme, said before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in February that
"nationwide shortages of basic commodities and fuel, high parallel market prices and runaway inflation are a formula for disaster. More than half of Zimbabwe's 12 million people are now living with the threat of starvation We are seeing hunger-related diseases. Children have dropped out of schools. Desperate families in rural Zimbabwe have resorted to eating wild fruits and tubers, some poisonous. just to survive. The government has declined permission for us to conduct nutritional surveys that would help target what resources we have to the hardest hit areas … Food is seen as weapon in domestic politics."
That is surely the most damming indictment possible of what is going on in Zimbabwe today.
We probably all agree that the UK cannot act to solve the situation on its own, not least because of our colonial past. However, I share the great disquiet of the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), and doubtless of hon. Members on both sides of the House, about the Government's recent actions with regard to the cricket tour. There should have been a far more robust stance. It is difficult to imagine the despair of the opposition and those suffering in Zimbabwe when they see the UK Government's apparent acceptance of our cricketers going to Zimbabwe and the comfort that that would have brought to the regime. When the Minister replies, will he say where the Department of Trade and Industry stands on sponsorship and trade with Zimbabwe?
The UK cannot sort out the problem on its own. What other institutions are left to us with which we can work to try to do something about the desperate situation in Zimbabwe? First, there is the Commonwealth—the historic association to which Zimbabwe has belonged, although it is, of course, currently suspended, and of which Britain is the head. I must say, however, that the Commonwealth has badly failed the people of Zimbabwe. During the elections—the Commonwealth's chance to show whether Zimbabwe's Government had democratic legitimacy—it sent only 42 observers to that country. I do not believe that there were enough observers or that they could do their job properly.
The troika that the Government appointed, comprising the Prime Minister of Australia and the Presidents of Nigeria and Kenya, has not found

199WH
unanimity. Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo, almost unbelievably, say that things are getting better and recommend Zimbabwe's reinclusion in the Commonwealth. That is staggering. It shows clearly that, sadly, the Commonwealth will not be the vehicle that we might have hoped would solve the Zimbabwe situation.
What of the European Union? In recent weeks we have seen President Mugabe come to Europe, to Paris, despite—I have to say this in defence of the UK Government—strong protests on their part that visit should not go ahead. Nevertheless, President Mugabe came to France, and it is difficult to underestimate the despair that that must have caused among those suffering in Zimbabwe. I understand that the common position on Africa adopted in February 2002 has a get-out clause in respect of travel to the EU, in that article 3.3 says that member states may permit Ministers to come to the EU
"on the grounds of attending meetings of international bodies or conducting political dialogue that promotes democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe".
Sadly, we must conclude that too many EU countries are trying to pursue their own African agenda for us to be able to look with any hope or confidence to the EU as a solution to the problem.
What of the African institutions to which we might look? The Government have tried to work with the South African Development Community and the New Partnership for Africa's Development, or NEPAD. That is a subsidiary of the Organisation of African Unity, within which there is a peer review mechanism to which countries can subject themselves. I believe that that mechanism is fatally flawed, not least because of the strong involvement in the OAU of Libya, which is one of Zimbabwe's greatest supporters in Africa. The peer review mechanism gives us no grounds for hope with regard to intervention to resolve the situation in Zimbabwe.
President Mbeki, who is the current president of the Non-Aligned Movement and a member of the Commonwealth troika, has, almost unbelievably, secured Mr. Mugabe a unanimous vote of confidence from that organisation. That fairly shocking fact means that we cannot look to that group of nations either.
That leaves the United Nations and the World Food Programme as the only international bodies with a chance of getting the international community together to do something about Zimbabwe.
Peter Bottomley: I am sure that my hon. Friend will make it clear that when we say "we", we are talking about the people of Zimbabwe as well as people in this country who are concerned about them. Will he also mention in passing the Churches, which more than 20 years ago spent much time raising awareness of what conditions were like for them? Some are now speaking out bravely, but many others have been cowed and intimidated.
Andrew Selous: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right that there are brave groups outside the state in Zimbabwe that are trying to
200WH
administer food aid. There are also brave Church leaders, although sadly some are complicit with the Mugabe regime. I understand that the diocese of Rochester recently broke its links with the diocese of Harare because it felt that that diocese was too close to the Government and not acting in the interests of the people of the diocese.
Mr. Luff: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is ironic that the opposition to the regime of Robert Mugabe, who I think claims still to be a Roman Catholic, is being led very bravely by the Roman Catholic Church in Zimbabwe?
Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend's point is extremely well made. I hope that the UN will grasp the nettle. We saw it falter at the last hurdle with regard to Iraq, but I hope that it will rise to the challenge posed by the desperate humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe. I believe that The United Nations Development Programme, which has representatives on the ground, should go into Zimbabwe with the food that is required to assist the 7.2 million people about whom we have heard repeatedly this morning.
The argument always advanced is that of sovereignty: that the UN cannot interfere in the affairs of a sovereign nation. With regard to sovereignty and democratic legitimacy, I noted that Baroness Park, when initiating a recent debate on the issue in the House of Lords, said that originally there had been 5.2 million Zimbabweans on the electoral register, but that that figure had increased miraculously to 5.6 million just before the general election—an extra 400,000 voters had been "created". However, in August 2002 the census for Zimbabwe showed only 4.2 million adults. The information that has emerged since that general election shows that even if there had been the faintest belief that the general election was legitimate, the rigging of the figures in the electoral registers shows that it was not. The Government of Zimbabwe have no democratic legitimacy.
The world must address the issue of sovereignty. I commend the writings of two able and active Conservatives, James Mawdsley, the former human rights campaigner from Burma, and Ben Rogers, who argued recently that sovereignty lies not only with the Government of a country, but with its people, and that when a Government are clearly abusing the best interests of its people—as is evidently the case in Zimbabwe—institutions such as the UN have the right to intervene.
There is a great deal of hypocrisy with regard to Zimbabwe. I do not believe that if a white regime in Africa were behaving towards its people in such a way, the situation would have been allowed to continue. Why were there marches on the streets when the Selous scouts were in Zimbabwe, but none now with the green bombers? Many in the UK should ask themselves that question.
10.12 am
Kate Hoey: I add my thanks to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) for initiating this debate and ensuring that, despite everything that is going on in the Gulf, people do not forget what is happening in Zimbabwe.

201WH
I will not add anything to the list of horrors that has been put forward by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members. I agree with everything that has been said so far. My first point concerns what is happening in Africa in general. We should start to criticise other African countries. Perhaps for too long we have treated southern African countries, and South Africa in particular, with kid gloves, believing that we should not criticise them because they are African countries and have come through terrible times. However, in the past month, we have seen several organisations pass motions of support for Zimbabwe and call for sanctions to be lifted: the Southern African Development Community on 10 March, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa on 17 March and the Non-Aligned Movement in late February. South Africa has taken the lead on that issue.
There comes a time when, despite the horrors of South Africa and the almost total support that there was for the change in regime and the fact that after many years apartheid was lifted and we had a democratic Government, sometimes we must be honest with our friends. The role of President Mbeki and the South African Government has been quite shameful. The British Government have a special responsibility: we cannot ignore the fact that we were the old colonial power. Some argue that that makes it more difficult for us to get involved, but I believe it gives us a special responsibility.
Ms Julia Drown: When some of us met the Zimbabwean high commissioner recently, we expressed our serious concerns about conditions in that country. The response was the point that my hon. Friend makes. First, there were no problems, and in so far as there were problems, they were all due to Britain not facing its responsibilities from its colonial history. Would she agree that although our colonial history is responsible for much, there is no excuse for the Zimbabwean Government to starve their people and have unfair elections or for the horrific human rights abuses that we see there? They already say that we poke our nose into everything that they do and use that as part of their propaganda both within the country and across wider Africa. What is the answer?
Kate Hoey: I thank my hon. Friend. That is precisely why it is crucial that we do not exercise double standards as a Government when we deal with a country, whatever its regime, whatever its colour. We must be committed to democracy. We must make the effort now to put pressure on other southern African countries Our real power, which the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) mentioned, is in the New Partnership for Africa's Development. It is supposed to incorporate best government, peer review and democracy.
The Minister is aware that NEPAD will be discussed at the G8 meeting in June. I urge him and all his officials to ensure that between now and then we push hard a dialogue with African leaders, pointing out to them that they must take a firm stance. They must condemn Mugabe's use of violence and other means of oppression as well as the disastrous economic policies. If African nations fail to take such action, the Government should commit themselves to bringing the whole NEPAD
202WH
process to a halt at the G8 meeting. Only when we mean what we say about Zimbabwe and really do something will it address the minds of some of those leaders.
What is happening with NEPAD? Why is it being supported when its African partners who are committed on paper to good government have repeatedly gone into print in support of Mugabe, despite all the killings and the maiming of people that have been described this morning? At the forefront of that will be the position of South Africa. President Mbeki and his wife spent a day at Chequers just a few weeks ago, yet we have not heard whether there was any push on him about what was happening. I cannot believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not take the opportunity to hammer home to him the importance of his attitude towards what is happening in Zimbabwe. I know that he wanted to discuss Iraq and to try to persuade the South African Government that the war was justified. He obviously did not manage to do that, but neither did he manage to raise the question of Zimbabwe in any serious way, and that concerns me.
We must stop adopting double standards and we must stop apologising for south African countries. I heard Mike Soper, the vice-chairman of the ECB, on the radio this morning talking about cricket. I know Mike Soper well because he used to be the chairman of Surrey until he gave that up to become vice-chairman of the ECB. He might have handled the matter slightly differently from the current chairman of the ECB, had he been elected. He said this morning that the voice of Nelson Mandela made a great difference to attitudes in South Africa. When Nelson Mandela said that it was all right to go to Zimbabwe, all the liberals who felt so strongly about Nelson Mandela stepped back. That is a real shame, because no one can underestimate the importance of Nelson Mandela to the struggle in South Africa, but it is sad that everyone feels that they must remain silent because Nelson Mandela has spoken.
I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt). However, I go further: no one who watches the two test matches and the other matches will enjoy them knowing that the lives of some of the Zimbabwean players have been threatened. I pay tribute to Henry Olongo and Andy Flower and the other players who worked behind the scenes without publicity and who took action to show that they knew that their country was not a democracy. I would like the Government to go upfront on this, not to sit back and pass the buck as usual when it comes to sport and politics. The Government should say that they do not want Zimbabwe to tour. We think of the headlines "Relief for ECB as Zimbabwe agrees to honour tour" and "English cricket's financial worries eased yesterday." Is that what it is all about? I would like my Government to tell the cricket authorities that they do not want Zimbabwe to tour and to urge everyone not to attend the matches. I hope that they will cancel the tour.
It would be terrific if we could get Kenya to come instead. That would show Africa that countries that stand out against the majority can gain by taking that approach. I hope that the Minister will say something on that. It is not good enough to say that such matters are for the Minister for Sport. The Minister for Sport said, "It's not up to me; it's up to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office." We cannot keep passing the

203WH
buck. Zimbabwe should not tour, and none of those who have bought a ticket should attend the matches. That would be one small gesture that all those in this country who condemn Zimbabwe's behaviour could make.
10.23 am
Mr. David Chidgey: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on securing the debate and bringing to our attention the desperate situation in Zimbabwe, which the contributions so have graphically illustrated. Recent reports have shown that there has been acceleration in the violation of human rights in Zimbabwe and that attempts have been made to expand the abuse of power; fears are growing of widespread famine and disease. We should remind ourselves that that is the doing of a corrupt and vicious regime orchestrated by President Mugabe.
The Movement for Democratic Change pointed out that the war in Iraq is being ruthlessly exploited by Mr. Mugabe to unleash unprecedented assaults against his opponents while the attention of the world is focused elsewhere. Other hon. Members have pointed that out. The statistics make chilling reading. Using the powers that the regime has granted to itself under the Public Order and Security Act and after the two-day national strike organised by the MDC, the regime arrested more than 500 MDC supporters and officials. At least 1,000 of its supporters have been driven from their homes, and more than 250 people were so badly beaten that they had to be admitted to hospital, many with broken bones. Not only men, but mothers and children, suffered torture by electric shock and cigarette burns. It is important to repeat that women—mothers, teenagers, and in some cases little girls—were subjected to rape by rifle barrels. That is an appalling record of atrocities and it is wholly unaccetable. As the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire said, Mr. Mugabe now boasts that he will not hesitate to act like a black Hitler when it comes to crushing his opponents.
There are indications of further manoeuvres by Mr. Mugabe to expand his abuse of power. Some analysts say that Mugabe would step down but for the slight impediment that if he did, the constitution would require an election for a new president—an election that his supporters might not win. He might be persuaded to go if power could be transferred to a chosen crony in ZANU-PF, but that would need a change in the constitution, for which ZANU-PF would need a greater majority than it currently commands in the Zimbabwean Parliament. That is why the by-elections recently held in the Harare suburbs were so important: victories for ZANU-PF would have been vital to secure the ability to change the constitution. Thankfully, those victories have been denied it.
The latest figures from the United Nations on the humanitarian disaster, which hon. Members have confirmed, are that probably two thirds of Zimbabwe's population are on the verge of starvation and the AIDS epidemic is reaching such proportions that it is overwhelming the country's medical resources. The figures are always vague so one can never be sure, but it appears that between 600,000 and 800,000 young
204WH
Zimbabweans are AIDS orphans—about one in 15 of the population. That is a huge burden for any country to cope with, let alone a country such as Zimbabwe, which has been stripped almost bare of its resources by Mugabe.
As the Minister will confirm, the United Kingdom Government have extended their funding programmes for food aid to mid-2003 through the World Food Programme and non-governmental organisations. The aim is to feed about 90 per cent. of the starving people in Zimbabwe; the question is whether the food is reaching the needy, or being diverted to ZANU-PF supporters or even to the black market. The Government discount reports that, for example, Save the Children sacks of cereal are going straight to the black market and not to the starving, on the grounds that once the aid has been delivered, the empty sacks are recycled and used a second, third or fourth time for carrying cereals and other things. How does that explain reliable reports that Save the Children lorries loaded with food aid are being driven off by ZANU-PF supporters, or that the aid is being distributed by organisations headed by ZANU-PF MPs? The Government's assurances are not convincing.
Action is being taken throughout the international community—by the United Nations, which has been mentioned, the United States, the European Union, the Commonwealth and national Governments. International lawyers argue that the United Nations' ability to intervene directly in situations such as Zimbabwe is constrained by its charter. According to the lawyers, it can be argued that the murders, however atrocious, and the attacks, however appalling, on MDC supporters are politically motivated, not ethnic genocide, although it could equally be argued that much political support in Zimbabwe is tribally based. In Matabeleland, some appalling mass murders were committed, which I am sure were directly related to tribal connections with a political party.
The repression and human rights abuses are currently contained within Zimbabwe. It is argued that the scope for UN action is limited unless and until the trouble spreads to the neighbouring countries, although the increasing exodus of refugees and food shortages in neighbouring countries mean that the problems are clearly mounting and UN intervention may become more justifiable.
Criticism from the United States is mounting and the US sanctions regime is tightening, which is a good example for all to follow. As late as 28 March, the European Union issued a strongly worded statement—I paraphrase it to save time, but it is important to get the essential message across that it strongly condemns the unprecedented violence and repression against the opposition after the protest actions of 18 and 19 March. The EU is especially concerned about the recent events and condemns the wave of arbitrary arrests of approximately 400 opposition supporters, many of whom have suffered ill treatment and even torture by security forces. The EU reiterates its call on the Government of Zimbabwe to respect human rights, to cease immediately its campaign of violent repression and to call to account those responsible for the use of violence and torture. Those are fine words, to which all would sign up, but we are looking for something more positive.

205WH
We should put it on record that the Commonwealth Secretary-General, Don McKinnon, has been acting with great courage in recent days to stop Zimbabwe being readmitted to the Commonwealth at the end of its year-long suspension. Other hon. Members have mentioned attempts by President Mbeki of South Africa and President Obasanjo of Nigeria to have Zimbabwe readmitted; they appear to have been thwarted, at least for the time being.
President Mugabe has clearly failed even to attempt to address the concerns set out by the Commonwealth last year, so from my perspective there can be no question of Zimbabwe being readmitted. I believe that a report from the secretariat, which is expected to be issued this week, will state conclusively that the Zimbabwe Government have maintained state-sponsored human rights abuses throughout the country's suspension. There are encouraging signs that the Commonwealth will not split along north-south ethnic lines when it considers whether Zimbabwe's suspension should be continued. The new Government in Kenya and the Government of Ghana have shown that their support for Mugabe is not blind and may be weakening. Caribbean Government members have been appalled by the treatment of Henry Olonga during the recent cricket world cup because he had the audacity to show his disagreement with Mugabe's regime.
Those are positive signs, but they raise the question what positive action our Government are taking to bring pressure to bear on Mr. Mugabe. The Government are on the record as working through quiet diplomacy to try to resolve the problem, but to what effect? As do many hon. Members, I accept that direct intervention in Zimbabwe by the British Government or their agencies cannot be sensibly considered in today's world, but the Liberal Democrats are calling for no further exemptions to travel bans for international meetings, because such exemptions merely undermine our position and that of the EU. Exemptions should be allowed only for meetings relating to the alleviation of the current crisis. We also believe that sanctions should be made wider and deeper, and neighbouring countries encouraged to take up the travel ban in the southern African region.
Hon. Members have referred to NEPAD—the New Partnership for Africa's Development—and the fact that it has set out some high principles or targets for a modern, new Africa in which African countries take their destiny in their own hands rather than relying on support, intervention and so on from the west; we should all subscribe to that set of principles. However, it is incumbent on NEPAD to tackle the situation in Zimbabwe on its own initiative and to spread best practice in human rights and good governance through peer example and peer pressure. The organisation should be encouraged to do that. It is not enough, as some members of NEPAD have said recently, to rely on the ex-colonial powers to intervene when internal conflicts arise.
There is a case from which everyone, especially those who lead NEPAD, should draw a lesson. The French Government were recently invited to help to mediate to resolve the rebellion in Ivory Coast. We all saw the results: the inflammation of an already serious situation, many thousands of refugees, and the resident French nationals, who were such an important part of a
206WH
previously thriving economy, fleeing Ivory Coast. It is not enough for leading politicians in Africa to pass the buck back to the ex-colonial powers when they find an inernal conflict that peer pressure cannot resolve. The Liberal Democrats call on the Government to spearhead an initiative to encourage African nations to abide by the commitments under NEPAD and to bring pressure to bear on Zimbabwe.
Finally, I have three questions to ask the Minister, to which I hope he will find the time to reply when he makes his concluding remarks. Given the importance of South Africa in resolving the crisis in Zimbabwe, what action is being taken to limit the extent to which that country's opposition to the continuation of Commonwealth sanctions hinders the search for a solution? What monitoring mechanisms are the Government using to assess the success or otherwise of our food relief programmes? What action is being taken to investigate allegations against British-based companies involved in Mugabe's Government's exploitation of the Congo's natural resources?
10.36 am
Mr. Michael Ancram: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on securing this important debate and on the way in which he introduced it. His argument was persuasive and compelling, and the evidence that he adduced was harrowing.
The debate is crucial because of what is happening in Zimbabwe and why it is happening now. It is wrong that, once again, a member of the Opposition has initiated the debate. It always appears to be the Opposition who bring the matter before us. The debate should have been on a Government motion and it should have taken place in the main Chamber. We once used an Opposition day to debate the subject on the Floor of the House, but the Government have never provided a similar debate. I say to the Minister in all seriousness that until they do, no one will believe that the Government take the situation in Zimbabwe seriously. I say that more in sorrow than in anger, because for the Government Zimbabwe appears to be a problem to be swept under the carpet.
Two years ago, the Prime Minister claimed that he had a moral duty to act. Instead, as we saw during the cricket world cup fiasco, the Government have too often timidly walked by on the other side. They are still doing so. They connived in the technical arrangement that allowed the French to invite Mugabe to visit Paris in February—not that the travel ban was exactly a great and raging success—and since then they have done nothing to bring genuine pressure to bear on Mugabe. They have never explained what the Prime Minister meant in his conference speech two years ago when he said that he would not tolerate the behaviour of Mugabe's henchmen.
Last July, I went to Zimbabwe and saw the horror, fear and ethnic cleansing of black farm workers thrown out of their homes without their property. Above all, I witnessed their sense of betrayal at the hands of the British. The abuse of power in Zimbabwe is not temporary or moderate. As Amnesty International says:
"there seems to be no limit on how far the government will go to suppress opposition and to maintain its power."

207WH
That is the reality. I was not surprised when the very courageous MDC MP, Roy Bennet, who is no stranger to beatings and imprisonment, said:
"we feel forgotten by the rest of the world. Mugabe is getting away with murder, torture and rape, and no-one is taking a blind bit of notice."
That is why I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire for raising the matter today in this debate. I just wish that the Government were doing more.
The horrors in Zimbabwe are getting worse. In the past two weeks there has been a massive increase in state-sponsored violence and intimidation. It is no coincidence that the upsurge has come when the world's media are concentrating on Iraq and during the two by-elections for seats that, thank goodness, the MDC held. The smoke of war—even a distant war—has provided cover behind which Mugabe's brutality has grown and flourished. Yesterday's by-elections in Kuwadzana and Highfield, although fantastic victories for the MDC, were marred by Government vote-rigging, false voter-registration of the sort to which my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) referred, and vicious intimidation. The MDC won the by-elections, but by his brutal attempts to steal those contests, Mugabe gave notice that he is determined to use any means to achieve the five parliamentary wins that he needs constitutionally to entrench his vile dictatorship. No wonder he describes himself as Africa's Hitler. We have heard again today of the arrest of the vice-president of the MDC.
Government-sponsored violence has spiralled since the Iraq war began. In addition to the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of black farm workers and the state-provoked and politically directed mass starvation, there are now false prosecutions, murders, the official use of sexual assault and rape as weapons of intimidation, and increasingly vicious beatings. The violent Government reaction to the stay-away two weeks ago has signalled the end of even more human rights in Zimbabwe. The voices of Zimbabwe's people tell us they are angry, hungry and at the end of their tether. If the international community does not act, I fear that the law-abiding, decent, peace-loving people of Zimbabwe, black and white alike, will take the law into their own hands. All the ingredients for an enormous humanitarian disaster are present. We could not walk away from such a conflagration.
Zimbabwe is at the front line of the food crisis. The World Food Programme estimates that 7.2 million people there are vulnerable; that number has increased by 1 million in the past six months. Food production has dropped to about one third of previous years' levels and 34 per cent. of the adult population are now infected with HIV/AIDS. On top of that is oppression. The main opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, and his MDC party have reached the limit of what they can legally do to try to force the Government to change. Since the recent strikes, at least 1,000 people have been arrested, assaulted and hounded from their homes.
208WH
What has been our response? Baroness Amos said last week:
"The United Kingdom Government are working with our EU partners on a statement condemning the action which has been taken".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 March 2003; Vol. 646, c. 948.]
They are working on a statement of condemnation. Mugabe's thugs are not working on a statement; they are working over the opposition. The time for statements is long gone—we need action.
The United States has just signed a new and broad sanctions order. Will we now toughen up EU sanctions? Presumably the Government received some promises in return for their surrender to France over Mugabe's recent visit to Paris. We need harsh, targeted sanctions, which should include the families of regime members and the regime's financial backers, freezing the assets of those people as well as banning travel. As hon. Members have said, we must also use the leverage of NEPAD.
Beyond that, the problem of Zimbabwe needs urgently to be internationalised. Several hon. Members have referred to that. We need United Nations action. Last week, Baroness Amos last week expressed her regret that Zimbabwe does not pose a challenge to international security and peace and hence remains a domestic issue in which the UN cannot intervene. I have to say that I totally disagree. Its geographical position means that the impact of Zimbabwe's escalating crisis will extend well beyond its borders. It will destabilise Zimbabwe's immediate neighbours, particularly South Africa, Botswana, Malawi and Mozambique, by driving thousands of refugees into those countries. A political scientist of the university of Zimbabwe, Masipula Sithole has said:
"Given its pivotal position, Zimbabwe has the potential to destabilise SADC"—
Southern African Development Community—
"both economically and politically on a much wider scale."
If that is not the definition of an international problem, I do not know what is.
I should like to see a United Nations Security Council resolution—for which there are many good precedents under article 2.7 of the UN charter—condemning what is happening in Zimbabwe and calling for international monitoring of humanitarian aid and its distribution. That would be a start. If such a resolution were firm enough, as others have been in the past, it could also deal with refugees and ethnic cleansing. Will the Government table such a resolution before the Security Council?
The SADC, especially South Africa, the region's economic powerhouse, should take more resolute action. Morgan Tsvangirai stated last week that the MDC is willing to enter talks on how to solve Zimbabwe's political and economic crisis, but the signs are not hopeful. Following last week's strike, President Mugabe called the MDC a terrorist organisation and vowed that it would be crushed. Nevertheless, I believe that this is a time for renewed effort. Even President Mbeki of South Africa—the country that holds the key to pressurising Mugabe and Zimbabwe—has at last condemned the violent crackdown in Zimbabwe. That is an opening on which we should work.
In his conference speech last year, our Prime Minister talked about
"a coalition to give Africa hope."

209WH
Where is that coalition for Zimbabwe? We must start building it now. The Government must act. To stand idly by and watch genocide, ethnic cleansing, mass rape, starvation and torture is no longer an option, if it ever was. We need to get a resolution from the United Nations, to go to the SADC and strike a new alliance, and to return to the EU and toughen the sanctions. Above all we need to give hope back to the people of Zimbabwe.
We acted in Kosovo because of unacceptable floutings of human rights—ethnic cleansing, rape camps, torture chambers and hideous levels of violence. What, in those terms, is different in Zimbabwe? All the same elements are there. The Foreign Secretary might be paralysed by the post-colonial guilt to which he referred in an interview in the New Statesman before Christmas, but that does not mean that the rest of us need be. The oppressed and persecuted people of Zimbabwe, most of them black, see nothing post-colonial in asking us to intervene; rather, they see it as a moral obligation on us to do so and cannot understand why the British Government do not. The Government can act, and even at this desperately late hour, they must act. The time for walking by on the other side is over.
10.45 am
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): This has been a good and powerful debate. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the shadow Foreign Secretary, for compressing his remarks to allow me a full 15 minutes in which to reply to the important points raised. I invite hon. Members to write to me if I fail to do so. There may be technical issues on which a full written response is more appropriate.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on obtaining the debate and on a remarkably powerful speech. He brings to these debates a great knowledge of international development issues and, if I may say so, a moral commitment. I hope that his speech will be widely read in Zimbabwe.
In a recent edition of The New York Review of Books, I read a remarkable essay by Doris Lessing. This was the opening:
"'You have the jewel of Africa in your hands,' said President Samora Machel of Mozambique and President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania to Robert Mugabe, at the moment of independence, in 1980. 'Now look after it' … Twenty-three years later, the 'jewel' is ruined, dishonoured, disgraced … One man is associated with the calamity, Robert Mugabe. For a while I wondered if the word 'tragedy' could be applied here, greatness brought low, but Mugabe, despite his early reputation, was never great; he was always a frightened little man. There is a tragedy, all right, but it is Zimbabwe's. Mugabe is now widely execrated, and rightly, but blame for him began late. Nothing is more astonishing than the silence about him for so many years."
Despite the eloquence of our speeches—we have heard eloquent speeches today—it is the power of a great writer, a woman who has contributed so much to English letters, that I commend to hon. Members if they wish to understand the Zimbabwe situation. She is right to say that we are late in condemning Mugabe.
The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) referred to his antecedents, in that a great-great uncle led the way for the colonialisation of what became known as Rhodesia. I certainly would have been much happier as a student in the 1960s and a
210WH
young man in the 1970s had there been some undouble standards on the part of the Conservative party in that period in calling for the freedom of Zimbabwe.
The hon. Gentleman said that it was difficult for the UK alone to solve the problem, because of what he described as our colonial past. He is right. It is not appropriate for the shadow Foreign Secretary simply to wish all that away, because the plain fact is, as Doris Lessing said, that we ignored Mugabe's crimes. We ignored them in the 1980s when he unleashed the notorious 5 Brigade on Matabeleland. At the time, a Conservative Minister defended those actions. We ignored Mugabe as recently as 1994, when the right hon. Member for Devizes was a member of the previous Administration, on the recommendation of which Mugabe was given a knighthood. I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman now has discovered that Mugabe, dictatorship and doing wicked things to people are bad. I welcome the Conservative conversion to the position that the Government have always upheld.
We associate ourselves with the speech that Morgan Tsvangirai made yesterday, in which he said:
"Mugabe can and will indeed torture us, maim us, brutalize us and even kill us, but he can never destroy our resolve, our desire and our demand for change in our lives … As we embark on this final peaceful thrust towards our freedom, we ask the Southern African region, the African continent and the international community to be the arbiters of who will cast the first stone and who are the real perpetrators of violence and crimes against humanity."
Mr. Ancram: The Minister associates himself with Morgan Tsvangirai's remarks from yesterday. What does he intend to do as a result of that association?
Mr. MacShane: I was coming to that. Yesterday, my noble friend Baroness Amos, the Minister with responsibility for African affairs, said in South Africa to a South African audience:
"One unfortunate consequence of the Zimbabwe situation … is that it makes it more difficult to promote NEPAD. I spend a great deal of time tackling business about Africa. Foreign investors fear that NEPAD won't work. They question whether an African Peer Review Mechanism can really work if African pressure is so low key and so little heeded, as appears to be the case with Zimbabwe."
She said that
"the issue of Zimbabwe bedevils developed country dialogue with Africa and the Commonwealth, SADC and the European Union. The danger is that EU and G8 leaders could lose enthusiasm for the collective approach which is at the heart of NEPAD."
That speech has been widely reported in today's South African press.
The Government are trying to take the message about what needs to be done in Zimbabwe to its neighbours, and there has been some movement. Two weeks ago, South Africa's Foreign Minister, Dr. Dlamini-Zuma, said that her Government would never condemn Zimbabwe while ZANU-PF is in power. However, last week, on 26 March, President Mbeki said that his Government had
"said to the Zimbabwean government that we would not agree with actions that deny the right of Zimbabweans to protest peacefully, democratically and so on."
That is at least the first statement from the President of South Africa following his discussions with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that moves the South African position a little further forward.

211WH
The Government work consistently with the international community, the international financial institutions and the European Union to introduce sanctions that can be imposed on Zimbabwe. I am pleased that the United States has now implemented sanctions such as asset freezing that the European Union initiated. Reference has been made to whether we should impose trade sanctions on Zimbabwe. British Airways continues to fly to Harare, and I have heard no call from Mr. Tsvangirai, the trade unions or the communities that are suffering in Zimbabwe for an increase of that suffering by, for example, cutting off air links to the UK or imposing trade sanctions. The Department of Trade and Industry is not involved in promoting directly business with Zimbabwe.
Kate Hoey: What position will the Government take with regard to NEPAD at the G8 summit in June? Will Baroness Amos's speech in South Africa then be translated into action?
Mr. MacShane: Indeed. We are urging the neighbouring countries of Zimbabwe to recognise the need for an African approach. It would not be helpful simply to cut Africa off and say that there will be no more aid or help through NEPAD. We want broad investment in Africa. There are some good examples of that in Tanzania, and the new Government in Kenya are moving in the right direction. I do not agree with my hon. Friend, passionate though her point was, that the answer is to shut down NEPAD or to shut down links and trade and investment with the whole of Africa. That would punish the whole of Africa for Mugabe's crimes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt)—
Mr. Ancram: This is an important point. The American sanctions to which the Minister referred are broader than ours and include those who bankroll Mugabe's regime. Will the Minister give an undertaking that the British Government will seek to extend EU sanctions in the same way to cover those who pay for Mugabe's regime?
Mr. MacShane: I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman. There is an asset freeze, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey made a powerful speech about the problem of worldwide money laundering. He referred to the need for British banks to have regard to some of the money that is being transmitted through their branches here and in other countries. He asked about the role of the Financial Services Authority and he referred to Malaysia. He is right to draw attention to the fact that Mr. Mugabe has visited that country and that people on one of the jets on which he was travelling were interested to see many cartons going back to State House in Harare containing products that had been bought in Malaysia. That suggests that Mr. Mugabe has personal access to funds there.
I shall have to write to my hon. Friend with more detail on the question of money secrecy, which is becoming a major issue. In a different context, that is
212WH
why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is trying to promote the exchange of information on European taxation. That is the right way to go. Many Members, principally Opposition Members, have strong contacts in the City and hold directorships there. It would be helpful if they could bring their influence to bear to expose any of the hidden money with which we must deal.
I have an open mind on the issue of cricket. My view is that it would be no bad thing for the Zimbabwe cricket team to come here and face demonstrations and placards and posters, particularly from the many Zimbabwean asylum seekers who, I hope, will receive a warm welcome in this country. They should not be condemned just because they are asylum seekers. When those asylum seekers attend the cricket matches with their posters and placards, television images and photographs of them will be beamed back to Zimbabwe. We all enjoyed the account of my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey of how the ECB had discussed and negotiated matters.
The question of whether the English cricket team should go to Zimbabwe in 18 months' time must be discussed. However, we must express hope that perhaps Zimbabwe will have a new Government by then.
Mr. Luff: Will the Minister say something about the UN Security Council before he sits down?
Mr. MacShane: As we speak, the Government are seeking, with friends and partners, to table a resolution on Zimbabwe at the UN Commission on Human Rights. We tried last year, and our attempt was blocked because the whole of Africa refused to vote with us. The fact is that if one wants to get anything through the UN one must take a majority of countries with one. The problem is that, between independence in 1980 and the development of the Zimbabwe crisis about 18 or 19 years later, there was no public diplomacy by the Government of this country—on Matabeleland or on the growing use of torture and terrorist tactics by ZANU—PF to alert the world to the crisis and tragedy of Zimbabwe. I hope that public opinion is slowly changing.
Reference was made to Mr. Mugabe's visit to Paris, which we deplored. However, I was glad to see that French newspapers, for the first time to my knowledge, carried accounts by farmers who had been expelled from their lands of what the Mugabe regime had done. French newspapers carried editorials condemning the invitation that the French Government had offered. Bit by bit, through the EU, the Commonwealth—I commend the position taken by Mr. McKinnon—the United States and the wider international community, we are seeking to internationalise the dispute. We can take this forward only through concrete action by the Government.
I welcome the debate and I welcome the points made by all hon. Members. However, I wish that some of them would apologise for the complacent appeasement that they offered to Mr. Mugabe between 1980 and 1997. The Government are firmly committed to the concept of democracy and human rights in Zimbabwe.

Adult Education (Oxfordshire)
11 am
Mr. Boris Johnson: I am pleased to have secured this debate. I do not pretend that it is of such burning importance in terms of human suffering as the very good debate that we have just had on Zimbabwe, but it is an important subject none the less. I am grateful to the Minister for School Standards for his presence. I realise that the issue is not his direct responsibility. I understand that the Minister responsible for adult education is engaged elsewhere, but I am sure that the Minister for School Standards will be a more than adequate replacement. I am a keen admirer of his intellectual attainments.
I hope that if the Minister follows my argument he will go some way down the road to understanding a couple of general criticisms that people like me make of the Government. In particular, we are concerned about the astonishing rate at which council tax is rising this spring and the general problems caused by the over-prescriptive approach that the Government sometimes take to education. I do not want to harangue the Minister, who has been obliging in coming here today. I simply urge him to listen with good will to what I have to say about the suffering and the painful bureaucratic overload on those who are engaged in providing adult education, and to consider whether he can think of some concrete answers and offer some hope for people in south Oxfordshire.
I am sure that, even if he is not responsible for adult education, the Minister will be familiar with the keep-fit-for-fun W161 course that was run by Oxfordshire county council and used to take place in Wallingford in the neighbouring constituency to mine. Many people used to enjoy that course: 50 women used to do keep fit for fun under the auspices of a very gifted physical education teacher called Andrea. Among other things they would do the grapevine, which, as I am sure the Minister will know, is a complicated physical exercise involving putting one's feet sideways and then together, then sideways and then together again, and then standing on one's toes. It is exhausting and good for these women who wrote to tell me how much they enjoyed it. The 50 women ranged in ages from about 40 to over 80.
To my dismay, I discovered that the teacher of keep fit for fun, Andrea, had decided that she could no longer continue with the class. The game was not worth the candle. Even the attractions of the grapevine palled because she was inundated with Government-inspired paperwork. That is the core of my submission to the Minister. Andrea was asked every year to fill in no fewer than 300 forms about her 50 pupils. The Minister is a skilled mathematician and so he would be able to work out that she was legally obliged to fill in six forms per pupil per year. She had to measure the women's attainments in co-ordination, stamina and general fitness in order to provide the county council with evidence of their success. She decided that she did not come into PE teaching for that. She told me that she was giving it up because of "all the new paperwork." She said that she was not paid for it, and she did not see why she should do it. To use a colloquialism, she jacked it in; she could not be bothered to do it any more, and instead went private. She decided to go outside the ambit of
214WH
adult education; she potentially removed that course from some of my constituents by taking her course out of the sphere of normal adult education. That is sad, as I am sure the Minister will agree.
I shall quote the husband of one the students of Andrea, the keep-fit instructress, who wrote to me about the closure of the course in moving words. He said:
"Does it matter that 50 women in Oxfordshire may have had taken from them the opportunity to lift their health and spirits once a week by the need of some Council bureaucrat to worship at the management shrine of 'accountability'? Well, it does to the women involved. The Council is paid to help them, not hinder them … But I think it also illustrates a cancer that is infiltrating today's society: the compulsion of many politicians to control, measure and manage everything, whatever the cost, and for bureaucrats to impose their faddish business models and processes on everything that moves. Trapped in their hermetic world of administration it never seems to occur to them to ask 'Isn't this a bit daft?' when issuing a new edict. Whatever happened to common sense?"
Those are the words of a husband of one of the keep-fit-for-fun enthusiasts. One can understand the real irritation, embarrassment and annoyance of husbands who hoped that their wives would enjoy doing keep-fit-for-fun classes only to find that that pleasurable activity was being taken from them.
I was surprised enough to discover the travails of keep-fit Andrea, but I then received a letter from another constituent, a Mr. Edward Horsup of Woodcote, who is a bridge teacher in adult education. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you and the Minister will not mind my reading what he said about the burdens being inflicted on him. He wrote:
"In common with other Adult Ed teachers, I have to make regular checks to see that I'm on the right tracks; and to report on each student individually. This will prove a time-consuming business, as everything will have to be processed. As one from the Don't Let the Bastards Grind You Down school I shall soldier on, hoping for better things … Other teachers, maybe less resolute, or perhaps without the time available inside or outside their course, will leave the profession. People who attend classes—students, although some are very elderly—are unlikely to enthuse about constantly filling in forms. They may think their time is being badly wasted, and drop out. Managers who run Adult Ed courses are having to cope with constant protests, and have to organise all this extra bureaucracy to boot. I know of at least two managers who will soon leave their jobs because of extra pressures."
Mr. Horsup went on to point out something to which many people in the health service will attest, which is the great benefit of adult education to society—and not only of keep fit for fun, bridge and so on. It keeps people active, and keeps their minds and bodies alert. It is of general benefit to society. Without a major interest such as playing bridge, people just sit back in boredom, thinking of excuses to visit the doctor. Mr. Horsup continued:
"Some people have been coming to my classes for years and years. Yet this quango aims to have no one attending a class for more than three years; they should then do something else."
And so he goes on. It would be good if the Minister could think of some way of addressing those concerns.
I received a letter from yet another husband, this time of a lady who has for a long time run a watercolour class in Watlington. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I labour the point, but he will be startled by the identical way in which these people complain. They are serious, sensible and sober people, and I am sure that he will accept that they have a point. The letter says:

215WH
"This tide of regulation which started with tutor-training sessions to risk assessments to lesson plans and monitoring of students and even continues with questioning students is driven by an army of coordinators, administrators and inspectors all backed up with the threat of financial penalty."
There is no subsidy. The letter continues:
"The end seems to be more administration and less classes, typical results for government interference."
Those are the words of a husband whose wife has been giving watercolour classes for many years in south Oxfordshire.
I am sure that the Minister will make the case that public subsidy for adult education classes should be accompanied by some sort of regulation. There should be a broad oversight of what goes on, and I believe that that would be common ground for us all. However, I wonder whether such regulation needs to go quite as far as sending someone who gives classes in watercolours or keep fit a form of stupendous length, which covers the induction checklist, scheme of work, individual learning plan, lesson plan, progress report, initial evaluation form, end-of-course evaluation form, course report, additional learning support form, learner handbook, samples of student work, course description and student destination. That is too much to ask people in adult education to complete. A sledgehammer is being taken to crack a nut. I wonder whether, in the time that we have available to us today and in a collegial spirit of cooperation, we can think of a way of alleviating the problem.
I believe that there should be some element of a market solution to the problem. If a course is had or deficient, if people are bored by it, or if it is plainly not satisfactory, and would not, in the view of the Government or the Learning and Skills Council, rightly command public subsidy, it seems probable that people would drift away from it. The Minister might think creatively about ways of exploiting that natural phenomenon.
Could the Minister—I appreciate that it is not his subject—clarify whether the intention behind all the bureaucracy and regulation is to extinguish some of the courses, on the ground that the Department of Education and Skills and the Learning and Skills Council do not in their hearts believe that they are fit subjects for "education", and therefore are not deserving of public subsidy?
Is the intention to regulate the courses out of existence by inundating their teachers and tutors with such a quantity of paperwork? If that is the intention, it is the wrong way of approaching it. It would be more honest if the Department were to say that watercolours, keep fit, bridge and the many thousands of other classes that people enjoy, and that bring people together throughout the country, do not deserve public subsidy and that it will chop that subsidy. It would be better to be honest and upfront about it than to bully people out of doing a job that they enjoy and to drive people away from adult education courses. I am not sure that that is the intention, and I see that the Minister shakes his head, but he should realise that that is what is happening, and that that is the effect of the regulations that have been produced.
216WH
I hope that the Minister will recognise that I have made a case for the existence of a genuine problem, which it is not beyond his considerable powers of imagination to address. I am sure that his fertile intellect will come up with a solution over the next 16 minutes.
I do not recommend the solution that the Department famously came up with before, which was to send teachers already inundated with paperwork a wonderful 150-page document called something like "How to deal with paperwork, and how to solve your problems with bureaucracy, part 1—part 2 follows shortly." I do not think that that will be the solution, and I am sure that the Minister will not want to go down that route.
As I promised at the outset, I want to draw attention to two of the wider ramifications of the phenomenon that I have—I hope hon. Members will agree—convincingly described. I spoke earlier of the forms that Andrea had to fill in when assessing the progress of women who are often aged 80 or over in achieving fitness. She said that the forms were rather depressing. The Minister is beaming, but it is sometimes difficult to put a positive gloss on attempts to improve the fitness of women aged 80 or over, or to say that their general stamina and co-ordination are improving, even with the ministrations of Andrea in Wallingford. She said that she found it taxing and dispiriting to fill in forms intended to record the progress of her charges, when some of them had, quite frankly, made no progress. In a word, the process was completely and utterly pointless, and it was driving her bonkers.
Of course, that is not the end of it. Andrea screwed her courage to the sticking place and made an effort to fill in all the forms. However, there will be a consequence if she or her successor keeps on meeting prescriptions imposed by the Learning and Skills Council or the Government. The Minister knows exactly what I am about to say: someone at the LSC or at Oxfordshire county council will have to process those nonsensical forms, full of meaningless statistics about the non-improvement in the fitness of 80-year-olds who do the grapevine. Someone will have to tabulate those forms, and that person will be a council official of one sort or another. They will have their salary and pension requirements, and there will be increased national insurance payments. That is why we are seeing such huge rises in our council taxes this spring.
The regulation that I have described therefore generates higher taxation, and I urge the Minister carefully to reconsider what can be done to alleviate the problem. As I am sure he knows, Oxfordshire's council tax will rise by 14 or 15 per cent. this year, and £2.7 million will be needed to meet the increase in national insurance contributions. Council tax payers are therefore paying for the increased contributions of council officials. That is a perfect example of excessive paperwork requiring an ontological expansion in the number of council officials, and placing needless extra burdens on council tax payers. I hope that the Minister agrees that I have made a case for linking regulation with taxation. Those are the fiscal consequences of this sort of madness.

217WH
I shall make a general point about—I say this tentatively—deficiencies in the Government's general attitude to education. The total assets of Yale and Harvard—the Minister probably went to one of them, or to the John F. Kennedy School of Government, although he is shaking his head—are about £12 billion. The total assets of the top 16 British universities in the Russell group, however, are far less than £1 billion in toto. One must therefore wonder whether the Government's highly prescriptive regulatory approach to education is delivering the results that we want.
I do not want to draw in too many tangential subjects, but perhaps I can tempt the Minister to say whether he agrees with his colleague, the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education, that there should be quotas for access to Oxbridge from the maintained sector and whether he agrees with the principle of an access regulator, about which the Government now seem to be in doubt. I draw in those tangential subjects because they are directly relevant to the Government's vice of over-prescription in higher education. We shall not make universities better by regulating them in the way that the Government favour, or improve them by bullying them as the Government continue to do. Nor shall we improve adult education if we continue to bully people like keep-fit Andrea and, effectively, drive them out of the profession.
I am sure that the Minister will forgive me for having gone on for so long; I expect that he, too, has many views on the matter, which he will want to expand at length. If, together, we can come up with a positive way to alleviate the excessive burdens on people delivering adult education in Oxfordshire, many who doubt the good sense of the Government will begin to think that their heart is in the right place.
11.21 am
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) on his tour de force, and on his continuing concern for the well-being of his constituents, particularly those with an adult education interest. Keen students of the hon. Gentleman will know that he has devoted some attention to the subject in his outpourings in different parts of the national press. Andrea was Amelia in November, when we first caught sight of the horror that is unfolding in Oxfordshire. She was still teaching the grapevine as part of a Nietzschean struggle to lose weight. I am sorry that we did not get a chance to debate Nietzsche today. I also apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), my ministerial colleague, who has a personal engagement that he cannot break.
I shall address the hon. Gentleman's points, starting from his comment that adult education is good for individuals and for the community, and that it is for individuals to choose what sort of adult education they want. It is their choice whether they learn the grapevine or Greek, and it is the Government's responsibility to support that; it is part of being a healthy community. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that funding for adult education is increasing significantly—I shall go through the figures for Oxfordshire in a moment. By any measure, the Government's commitment to adult education in many forms is clear. I hope that we shall not fall out about that.
218WH
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman's remarks concerned the between accountability—the need for balance proper spending of public money—and a light-touch system that does not bog down either students or teachers in mindless bureaucracy, least of all bureaucracy that feeds off itself and creates a vicious spiral of officialdom that has to scrutinise it. He was good enough to recognise the need for an accountability mechanism. The first port of call in any adult education institution is the principal; it is his or her job to ensure that the teachers are of a good standard. Most people recognise that the Government's proposals will lead adult education institutions to have a clearer focus on their courses, and their principals to have a clearer set of responsibilities to ensure high standards.
I am not familiar with the area, but I understand that the adult learning inspectorate is designed to maintain quality. The experience of Ofsted in the school sector is that there has been a positive effect over the past 10 years. Ofsted has brought qualitative judgments to bear on the performance of individual schools, helping to raise their quality. We hope that something similar will occur in relation to adult education.
The situation in Oxfordshire bears some scrutiny. My statistics suggest that in Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire, the single learning and skills council for those three areas has a budget of about £155 million—a significant sum of public money—about two thirds of which is spent on young people under 18. None the less, about £44 million, a substantial amount of provision, is spent on adult education. I understand that the money is spent on work-based learning contracts, including 17 further education contracts, nine of which are with FE colleges and others of which are with adult community groups and higher education establishments. The dividing lines between those sectors are less stark than they used to be, which is a good thing. In addition, money goes to 36 sixth forms and 16 projects for young people.
Of course, Oxfordshire local education authority also funds courses. I understand that it receives about £1.94 million for adult and community learning, supporting 19,000 learners in Oxfordshire. I am unsure whether any of those courses are in the three classes described by the hon. Gentleman, but the adult education commitment of the LEA is delivered through 28 community education centres. All our information suggests that work of high quality is being carried out and that courses of some distinction are being run.
I was shocked by the tale of woe set out by the hon. Gentleman. It is in no one's interests if teachers and tutors are being driven out of the system, let alone being driven mad. It is in no one's interests if choice is thereby being reduced and provision is of a lower quality. I take seriously his allegation that, motivated by the best of interests—namely, higher quality—the Government are achieving the worst of ends. Although I can imagine some possible solutions, it would not be appropriate for me to ski so far off-piste as to mention them.
Mr. Johnson: Given that the Minister has been so kind as to agree with my central point and has offered us the tantalising prospect of skiing off-piste, and given that we are in the less formal confines of Westminster Hall and that the issue is not really party political, I

219WH
should be grateful if he could adumbrate the ideas that are floating through his capacious mind about how the problem could be solved.
Mr. Miliband: I am glad to have the opportunity to continue my train of thought. The Learning and Skills Council is a new organisation, which brings together the funds for adult education in a way that has not been done before, and should reduce, rather than increase, bureaucracy. I want to make a few points about process before I come to the points of substance.
I shall get in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South as well as with the LSC, to bring to their attention the specific issues raised and to ask them for an explanation. We should try to ascertain whether the problem lies with the local education authority or with the LSC, and determine whether every learning and skills council is adopting a similar policy or whether the Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire LSC is adopting a particularly rigorous regime. We need to get to the bottom of this and to ascertain whether there are national edicts. I would be interested in seeing the results of such an inquiry.
One danger in government is of its different parts, even in the same Department, collecting the same information. The hon. Gentleman referred a couple of times to pieces of information that were required. Some of that information is very basic, such as names, numbers or sizes of classes. We are trying to cut out that sort of duplication in relation to schools. I hope that we can investigate whether such duplication is occurring in adult education. It drives people mad to have to give the same piece of information twice, three times or more.
I should also like to find out whether the LEA and LSC are working in complete harmony, because the LSC needs to operate in a way that dovetails with the work of the LEA. We should try to investigate that third area to see whether it is a cause of unnecessary bureaucracy. I hope that I have convinced the hon. Gentleman that I take his points seriously. I am grateful to have had a brief opportunity to hear him make his points personally, rather than having to read them.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Parliament and Executive Agencies
2 pm
Dr. Alan Whitehead: I am pleased to have been chosen to conduct this Adjournment debate. There are few debates in the House about Parliament and Executive agencies. My examination of the record suggests that this is the first such debate since the Labour Government came to power. I freely concede that that might be because several of my hon. Friends think that this is a tedious subject, but it is important none the less. Almost 60 per cent. of civil servants now work for Executive agencies, which are responsible for yearly expenditure amounting to £18 billion. Executive agencies therefore represent an enormously important area of government business, yet one that, paradoxically, barely rates a mention in the House.
It is interesting that two reports looking into agencies were recently published. The Cabinet Office produced a report last June entitled, "Better government services: Executive agencies in the 21st century", which provided several recommendations; and the National Audit Office issued a report last week entitled, "The Role of Executive Agencies". Among other things, those reports provide a welcome spotlight on the subject and, in the case of the Cabinet Office report, welcome recommendations. However, nowhere in either report is the word "Parliament" mentioned. Actually, that is not strictly true: there is a line, which is not followed up, on page 18 of the Cabinet Office report. Under a list of
"Other complaints that have been highlighted",
one bullet point lists
"ministerial and parliamentary disquiet about the accountability regime".
I will consider agencies, perhaps in the light of that bullet point, and also in the context of a helpful definition provided some time ago by Professor John Stewart, who warned us about universal use of the word "accountability" in public policy. He made the distinction between "giving an account" and "holding to account". Giving an account is the process of providing material, written or verbal, possibly under examination, for what one has done, whereas holding to account is what follows from giving an account—that is, what can be done about the account that has been given. There is no doubt that agencies give full accounts of themselves. Agencies' annual reports, key targets and accounts are published each year. The Cabinet Office report reflects that, stating that
"Because of its transparent structure, problems in an agency are more exposed than in parts of a conventional department."
But can agencies be held to account? If so, in what way? Does it matter?
The original purpose of setting up Executive agencies was to separate steerers from rowers—that is, to ensure that policy civil servants are retained in the core civil service structure and those who carry out the policy but do not make it or help to make it are in separate organisations, with their own chief executives freed to run things and responsible for the pay and rations of their agencies. When the next steps agencies were set up in the late 1980s, it was theorised that that would lead to substantially greater savings, greater operating freedoms, better delivery of policy, and so on, because functions would not be confused.

221WH
It was suggested at that time that the creation of Executive agencies would make it easier to measure performance and judge effectiveness. It was also suggested that it would be possible to see which of the agencies might perform better in the private sector, so each was required to review its status, with a view to possible privatisation, every five years—the so-called quinquennial review.
The rowers were to be accountable to the steerers through contract arrangements. There was to be a framework document that set out the function of the agency and its remit; it would contain a set of key performance indicators to measure progress on the tasks set out in the document. The agencies would report directly to Ministers, not to policy civil servants—a logical step since they would not be making policy but carrying out policy determined by Ministers who would want to know whether they had done their work efficiently.
As a result of that structure, one of the main architects of the next steps programme, Sir Robin Ibbs, said in 1998:
"the presumption must be, that, provided that management is operating within the strategic direction set by ministers, it must be left as free as possible to manage within that framework."
How have agencies done? In many ways they have been a great success, and the Cabinet Office report underlines that. Agency chief executives report that the arrangements within which they work are good and much better than those that prevailed before the late 1980s. Objectively, however, it is difficult to tell. The only control would have been to leave half the civil service as it was and to compare its performance against the half that was in agencies. In practice, however, we have a ubiquitous regime: it just is, and that is how things are. We look at success in the model; we do not judge the model itself.
It is difficult to judge because no yardstick was ever established to do so. Remarkably, the whole edifice came into existence without a shred of legislation. Sir Peter Kemp, another one of the architects of the Executive agency programme, recently admitted:
"we were making it up as we went along."
There is nothing to which Parliament can refer. Nevertheless, there was and there remains a fundamental change—MPs cannot ask questions of a Minister on behalf of an agency. It is not a Minister's place to answer. Sixty per cent. of the civil service has slipped from being held to account by Executive action in the first place and not by parliamentary legislation. It is very difficult to find out how the decisions to fund agencies are made, since they are on an arm's-length contract with the Department in which they sit. Professor Colin Talbot records that:
"allocation of resources to agencies is completely mysterious, even to many agency managers. Public expenditure decisions do not reflect or report on how these affect agencies."
That is the gloomy view; the reality is less stark. Agencies do sit in Departments and they do account to Ministers, a good Minister will pay some attention to his or her agency, and the Minister is accountable to Parliament for his or her actions. Some kind of indirect accountability is thereby restored.
How do Ministers judge and how do we judge? They might judge by looking at the key performance indicators. However, there are several remarkable
222WH
aspects of key performance indicators as they relate to Executive agencies. First, the nature of the key performance indicators changes year by year, so it is difficult to see what agencies are doing on a longitudinal basis. Professor Andrew Massey analysed 10 agencies and looked at their key performance indicators between 1990 and 1995. Between those years, 54 of the original 79 key performance indicators disappeared and were replaced by 45 new ones. Even worse, Professor Massey noted at the time that targets were a similarly unreliable friend when examining performance. Between 1995 and 1996, he looked at comparative targets for those 10 agencies: remarkably, no fewer than 47 were lower than those for the year before. Last summer's Cabinet Office report highlights the persistence of that practice, which has worsened. Between 1998–99 and 1999–2000, more than 50 per cent. of targets, where they can be compared, were lower than the targets of previous years.
How does that happen? Quite simply, it is because agencies set their own targets and key performance indicators and present them to Ministers. It is in effect a civil service version of the local government client-contractor relationship without the client side. In local government, there is a substantial client side, which monitors and appraises what contractors do. The purpose is to ensure identical monitoring of in-house and private contractors. In central Government, however, there is no client side. Departments have a Frazer figure—the name arose as a result of a report by the aforesaid Frazer—who is supposed to study how agencies work in the context of the Department and the policy civil service in which they reside. However, the Cabinet Office report shows that the procedure is implemented only in some cases.
Of course, Ministers could take more than a cursory interest in the agencies for which their Departments are responsible, but the reality is that most do not. That is not because of any failings on their part, but because they simply do not have the time. By virtue of their activities, most agencies fall below the policy radar screen. Select Committees could, and occasionally do, mount inquiries, but they, too, have limited time. The Ministry of Defence has 36 agencies; it would take the Select Committee on Defence most of its time to consider just some of them. Looking back over Select Committee reports from the past few years, we find that virtually no inquiries have been held.
Does that matter? It could be said that we have traded accountability for efficiency and that it has perhaps been worth making such a Faustian pact. However, I think that it does matter, because, as I have demonstrated, it is difficult to gauge how good the efficiency side of the bargain is. That concern comes over and above the perhaps rather abstract notion of Parliament's sovereignty and the need for public service to be accountable to Parliament. However, there is a further concern, which relates to the originally clear distinction between steerers and rowers. The Cabinet Office report freely concedes that several agencies undertake substantial policy work. That was always an acknowledged element of Benefits Agency activities, but according to the report it is now substantially more widespread. That may be a problem for Ministers.
Of course, one can sidestep the issue, as the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) did when he was Home Secretary in the last

223WH
Conservative Government. When the Prison Service apparently blew up in his face, he said that the steering related to the policy decision that prisoners should not escape and suggested that the fact that they did escape reflected a failure of the rowing, not of the steering. The public did not buy that. In any event, as Sir Peter Kemp said in 1988,
"all policy work has an element of execution and all executive work has an element of policy".
He said that at precisely the moment that he was setting up a structure that assumed a rigid distinction between policy and execution. Now, contrary to the original intentions—although Sir Peter might have anticipated this—agencies take policy decisions, but the machinery of accountability remains such as to suggest that they do not.
That arrangement is a potential problem not only for Parliament but for Ministers. This is not simply an academic issue, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of the difficulties that the Scottish Qualifications Authority caused the Scottish Executive's Ministry for Education and Young People a little while ago. I accept that the authority is a non-departmental public body, but the relationship between the two and the way in which the issue was reported to the Scottish Parliament are essentially the same.
If we are to have steerers and rowers, it is important that the steerers steer the ship and that the rowers do not—either because of the force that they place on the oars, or because some row and some do not—send the ship in an entirely unintended direction. The Cabinet Office report recommends that the relationship between agencies and Ministers should involve "no surprises". That is a laudable aim, but the real surprise would be if there were no surprises under the present contract arrangements for agencies.
The landscape of agencies is complex, and my brief contribution is inevitably something of a caricature. There are other issues that open other fronts—for example, the way in which the Government decide to create agencies in the first place. There is no legislation to guide us, so there are currently no constraints. An agency might be created, such as Jobcentre Plus, or a new body might be a non-departmental public body. The Government have on occasions pioneered such new creatures as the office of the e-envoy. The recent White Paper on nuclear waste proposed that a non-departmental public body be set up to deal with the nuclear legacy. Why not an agency? We shall never know, nor shall we have the means to find out. Sometimes, just to confuse us, non-departmental public bodies that call themselves agencies are set up, such as the Environment Agency and the Food Standards Agency.
I have some structural concerns about the relationship of agencies to Parliament and Ministers. Agencies have been developing through what has been described as emerging policy. In other words, we have at each stage justified the existence of those agencies and examined them on policy lines that change and emerge rather than remain true to the original intentions. If one examines the record, one sees that most of the original intentions for agencies have not been met, yet the structure to implement those intentions sails on as if they had been.
224WH
The Cabinet Office report made some valuable recommendations and good proposals on the future of agencies, which I thoroughly endorse, such as the end of quinquennial reviews. The report stated that
"some agencies have become disconnected from their departments."
The fact that all the recommendations of that report have been or are being implemented without any brush with Parliament other than an answer to a written question illustrates my point.
However, the report does not address the issues that I have raised. There is neither the mechanism in Parliament to deal with those issues easily, nor any interest or urgency in finding such a mechanism. For what it is worth, my modest proposal is to establish parliamentary Frazer figures for agencies—small groups of Members, each group responsible for reviewing and reporting on a number of agencies, which might submit their thoughts to each departmental Select Committee. I think that that would work quite well, although I also think, for the reasons that I have outlined, that it probably will not happen.
2.16 pm
Brian White: The process by which Executive agencies were created is similar to that which had been used in private industry for some time prior to its adoption in the civil service. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) said, although each agency is subject to a quinquennial review, apart from the two documents to which he referred—the Cabinet Office report and the recent NAO report—there has been no comprehensive assessment of the success of the experiment. I therefore congratulate him on raising the issue today.
The management vogue of the late 1980s and the early 1990s was to separate strategy from tactics, and management from operation. However, the private sector has moved on since those days and developed different theories of working practices, but the civil service has not yet caught up. That is something to think about when we consider modernising government. In an organisation such as the civil service, how does one reflect changing approaches to management structures? How does one deal with issues such as hierarchy and the separation of structure in some of the Executive agencies, for example, in a fast-changing environment? I hope that the Minister will consider those structural issues today and subsequently.
I am also concerned about the way in which innovation has occurred in Executive agencies. There has been quite a bit of innovation in the civil service, but some of the agencies have been doing their own thing. For example, the Medicines Control Agency put its computer system out to tender two months before it was due to be merged with another agency. How do such decisions fit into an overall corporate strategy? My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test is right to raise such matters.
My hon. Friend talked about the key issue of targets. Who sets targets, and who owns them? We need to engage in that important debate. Targets are an important means of assessing whether public services are being improved, but they are not the whole story. We sometimes risk concentrating on the targets without

225WH
looking at the overall performance of an organisation. For example, among the evidence considered by the Select Committee on Public Administration was the fact that Oldham borough council's high score in every one of its performance indicators did not prevent riots from taking place there; the conclusion of the report was that it should have done better in its performance indicators. We have not got that right. Because Executive agencies are at arm's length, it is important when setting targets for them to understand the difference between target setting and performance management.
We should also consider how Executive agencies operate together when there are cross-cutting targets. We have made substantial improvements in the civil service, but we have done less well at Executive level. My hon. Friend mentioned accountability, one of the key elements of which is transparency of decision making. People should be able to see that their comments have been taken on board by the organisation and have affected its decisions, whether or not they agree with them. I hesitate to talk about the Benefits Agency, because it is too easy a target and it has struggled hard to address the issue, but it still needs to improve.
We have discussed the separation of policy and operations. It was right to do that at the time the next steps agencies were proposed, but we have now moved to a point at which implementation is considered to be the key test, so we have to measure outcomes. It is not always advantageous to separate policy and operations, because if key policy decisions are not grounded in the reality of the daily work, the policy can be bad. Conversely, if one is carrying out daily operations with no understanding of the political or operational policy, one simply carries on with existing practices and does not reflect policy. That is one of the key challenges for those who aim to modernise government.
My hon. Friend did not refer to the fact that the Executive agencies still tend to be far more hierarchical than their private sector counterparts. That, too, is due to the speed of change. When the Executive agencies were first appointed, 93 of 138 chief executives' posts were subject to open competition—more up-to-date figures might be available, but that is the figure I remember—and of the 93, only 34 were external appointments. How to encourage movement—of people in and out of Executive agencies, of policy to operation, of the private to the public sector and vice—versa is a key question, and the Minister should address it.
My hon. Friend touched on the fact that Executive agencies have started to develop their own culture, which is not necessarily the same as the departmental culture from which they have sprung. We have to consider how to encourage that while restraining it in relation to policy. We have begun to develop new models rather than doing what would once have been natural for an Executive agency. A new model such as Sure Start is a better model for a cross-cutting, delivery-focused outside-appointment organisation. It stretches targets and is grounded in the voluntary sector in communities, and it is one of the Government's major successes. In the past, it would probably have been set up in an Executive agency. It is therefore important to reconsider Executive agencies and ask whether models exist that we should apply to them. It was probably right
226WH
to set up such bodies as Executive agencies 10 or 12 years ago, but is it still right to do that, or are there better models to use?
The debate is primarily about Executive agencies, but some of the comments made by my hon. Friend and some of the issues that I have raised apply also to regulators, their so-called independence, and how they can sometimes be totally cut off from Government policy because they follow a line of thought that does not necessarily fit in with it. Again, we should examine some aspects of Executive agency accountability. One of the greatest barriers to innovation and change in the civil service is fear of the Public Accounts Committee. That is much truer of Executive agencies than it is of the senior civil service. That fear is not the Committee's fault, but it prevents the creation of many new ways of delivering services, and we must challenge it.
We must also examine good old-fashioned Treasury rules, the way in which Executive agencies can access capital markets, and new ways of dealing with funding. We do not need to open that can of worms today, but we must consider the issue.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, which highlights several questions about accountability and key issues about how the civil service should progress. It also highlights some of the challenges described in the modernising government White Paper. There is a success story to be told about some Executive agencies and what they have done. We must not forget that they have delivered a great deal, but there are several challenges to meet and many issues to resolve if the delivery of public services is to be as successful as we all want it to be.
2.27 pm
Mr. Richard Allan: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) on securing the debate. Southampton is a city not at all like Umm Qasr, according to a British serviceman, but I shall not go further down that route for fear of offending my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock).
I want to contribute to the debate by making a few comments in the light of my experience as a representative working on behalf of 60,000 citizens of the UK, because that is the key relationship, which I believe the hon. Member for Southampton, Test tried to tease out, between the recipients of the services on whose behalf they are delivered and who pay for them, and the deliverers of the services—the agencies—and their representatives whom they elect to steer the delivery of those services.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Executive agencies are much more significant than the parliamentary time given to discuss them might imply. However, we usually become interested in them when we receive a complaint, which leads us to gain most of our understanding about the complexity of the system. As parliamentary representatives, we are necessarily required to gain an understanding of the complexity of the relationship between agencies, the public, Parliament and Ministers by virtue of the complaints that are brought to us.
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the key question of accountability. We find out who the steerer is only after examining a complaint and having been through

227WH
the complex procedure, at which point the key question becomes, "Who can change this?" The fact is that a citizen did not like what happened to them. We must find out who can change things and make them better, which returns us to the question of who the steerer is—to use the hon. Gentleman's analogy of the boat. Can we, as MPs, get at the steerers? That is the other key underlying question. Sometimes we can find out who the steerer is, but there is no direct mechanism for us to try to influence the person who can change the outcome for our constituents.
To give an example at random, we all may have experienced complaints in our surgeries about the Child Support Agency. When a complaint about the CSA comes in—that typically happens with alarming regularity—we have to try to pick through the system to find out whether the agency is implementing the regulations wrongly, or correctly implementing wrong regulations that we have made here, and can do nothing about the problem. That process can be hugely time-consuming, especially for the waiting constituent, who has a significant financial stake in the outcome of the complaint. They are often told that they must wait for several months while we pick through the system in that way. The problem is brought home to me every time one of those cases comes along. There must be a better way of cutting through the complexity. We should be clear at an earlier stage who is responsible and, as I said, where the steerers are.
Members can go on enormous paper trails. There is a learning process for us; we learn over time at whom to target letters rather than simply directing them at a Minister. When we initially come into this place, without the training that we need, we send our letters off to the Minister. When a letter hits his desk he will, quite properly, direct it to the agency responsible—and a little time-consuming loop has occurred. The agency might take the letter through its own complaints procedure, which takes some time, and finally come to the conclusion that it is carrying out Parliament's will and does not have a problem. The matter is then signed off and comes back to the Member, who is told that if they want to do anything about it, they must go through the parliamentary route. That might mean returning to the Minister and saying, "I know I wrote to you about this, and I thought I was complaining about the agency, but I wasn't. I was complaining about the stupid regulations that your Government brought in and now I want to challenge those."
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander)indicated dissent.
Mr. Allan: The Minister tuts at the idea of any regulation being stupid. Perhaps the regulations concerned were implemented in 1996 or 1995, when regulations were invariably stupid.
Mr. Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman certainly cannot expect to get away with that provocation without an intervention. Does he at least accept that there were significantly fewer regulations then?
Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman will accept that my tongue was firmly in my cheek when I made that remark.
228WH
I have an equal axe to grind with pre-1997 and post-1997 regulations. However, he might have a point in that for various reasons there has been a shift of responsibility from primary legislation to regulation. Any Government might make such a move, but regulations can give much more flexibility to the agencies, which returns us to the point of the debate. There has been a general shift from making a set of rules in primary legislation, examined with full parliamentary scrutiny, to doing so in secondary legislation or even at the level of the agencies themselves, where there is much latitude for interpretation. There might be sound reasons for that, because this place can act as a bottleneck for changes that need to be made, but it raises the questions of accountability that—I think—triggered this debate and that are raised quite properly as the process continues.
There is an ongoing review of the ombudsman service. The ombudsman is, in a sense, the piggy in the middle who has to referee many such matters. He ends up with many of the complaints that are generated after they have gone through other procedures unsatisfactorily. He has a critical role in the way in which the public see the agencies working. The review has identified various shortcomings, which are worth examining.
The review mentions the number and range of public bodies with which the ombudsman has to deal. The list runs to five pages of principal agencies and all sorts of other boards. That range reflects the way in which responsibility has been moved down from central Government. The review considers the large number of complaints coming through. The quantity will inevitably increase over time, as we generate more active, engaged citizens who quite properly feel that they do not have to sit and take services that they consider poor. They are quite willing to come forward. We should respond to that general social change.
Brian White: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Executive agencies have different complaints procedures, and that one of the ombudsman's problems is ensuring that the complainants have been through those procedures before they approach him?
Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Indeed, that is one of the outcomes of the review. I know that he was engaged in that as a member of the Public Administration Committee, through which the ombudsman reports to Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is helpfully engaged in those issues.
One of the key problems has been the proliferation of complaints procedures, which were quite properly motivated by the great citizens charter campaigns of the 1990s. It is right that people who have a problem with public service delivery should have a means of redress. The next steps agency programme was meant to ensure that agencies were seen to be responsive to the public by having their own complaints procedures. However, that has led to huge confusion about which procedures to follow to gain satisfaction, and in which order. Indeed, the fact that some jurisdictions overlap—it can be complex and confusing to individuals—also needs to be dealt with.
I commend the ombudsman's website, at www.ombudsman.org.uk, as the clearest example of a joined-up way of explaining things to the citizen. I have

229WH
given the full address because I hope that one day the online Hansard will provide a live link, so that people who follow our debates, as I am sure they will, will be able to click on the site and have a look. The ombudsman's website is the clearest example that I have seen; it certainly works better than most Government websites that I have used in order to find out who is responsible for what. It is okay if one goes to the right Department—if one is in the right silo—but if one is connected to the wrong Department, one is stuck there and the system will not say what is going on in other Departments.
The ombudsman's site has a broad overview. It has five pages listing agencies and public bodies. I suspect that bodies such as the Inland Revenue and the Child Support Agency generate most complaints, but the site also covers museums and science bodies such as those on xenotransplantation and other hot topics. If it included the wine standards board of the Vintners Company, the best complaints received by the ombudsman would be from people saying, "The wine standards board got it wrong. It said that that this wine was good, but it is lousy." I can imagine the poor ombudsman's staff having to work their way through cases of the wine in order to decide whether the complaint was justified.
The other important question raised by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test was how policy makers relate to the Departments. That rang a bell with me. The all-party archaeological group inquired into the archaeological policy of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. That is relevant because the Department practises at the furthest end of the agency process; it has explicitly followed that route from its inception. When the all-party group asked why the Department responsible for archaeology policy had no qualified archaeologists, we were told that it would be wrong for civil servants to second-guess the work of agencies such as English Heritage, which decide such policies. We were effectively told that policy is set and directed from outside.
To follow the hon. Gentleman's analogy about rowers and steerers, who are both outside Parliament, the caterers in the Department offer pay and rations to rowers and steerers but do not take a more active role. That raises important questions about how we can influence policy if the policy makers are from an outside agency. These things affect areas such as sport, which has been quite contentious.
I suspect that some of the recent problems with sports funding have occurred because those responsible for funding were not accountable to this place but were working at a distance. As a result, bodies go off with the money and seem to set policy and, at a later date, their representatives are hauled before a Select Committee to say what went wrong. That has had an impact on many projects, including some in Sheffield. We have been involved in bringing the UK Sports Institute to Sheffield. We have found it complex working out who has responsibility. It seems that for much of the time policy is set not in the Department but outside it. It is important to find out how we get hold of those who make policy.
I close by observing that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test that we should have interest groups of MPs to ensure accountability is a very good one. All-party groups have an informal way of
230WH
fulfilling that function when they are active and working well. They bring people from agencies and outside bodies to talk to them. There is a great deal of sense in a more open and recognised relationship between agencies and Parliament.
I agree that although Select Committees conduct a valuable function, they are full up: there is not much more business that can be got through them. The only way in which they could truly hold all the departmental bodies to account would be to have sub-committees. I doubt, however, that Select Committees would welcome that. They prefer to be smaller bodies that are focused and proactive in making their inquiries. There is therefore a parliamentary gap in which people could work more closely with agencies, and there is a demand in Parliament to do so. There are interest groups of MPs across a range of issues, and they would be pleased to take up such a role.
I again congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton, Test on raising the issue. It is an important matter, and I hope that the Minister can offer us some hope on the Cabinet Office's policy in clarifying it. Clarity and the relationship to the citizen are vital. The citizen may have a lousy experience because he cannot cut through the maze to find out who is responsible. When citizens come up against the system they are told, "What you want is somewhere in the cracks between the floorboards. It is the problem of neither the rowers nor the steerers; it has fallen off the back of the boat." It is no wonder that citizens feel alienated when encountering that response. I hope that the Minister can provide more clarity on how people will be able to work through the agency system and how we can have a clear line of accountability between the citizen and MPs.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. While we are on the question of clear lines of accountability, I understand that there is to be a Division or Divisions at 3 o'clock. There is no certainty that there will be only one. Therefore, my ruling is that we will resume 15 minutes after the beginning of the last Division.
2.42 pm
Mr. Philip Hammond: Thank you for that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) calling today's debate and on the concise way in which he introduced it. You will know better than I that many debates in this place are opened at great length; it was therefore very reassuring to hear the hon. Gentleman make his points in 15 or 16 minutes. I do not know whether the timing of the debate was fortuitous with the report of the National Audit Office coming out last week, but it is certainly very helpful for the Chamber to have the opportunity to consider these issues today.
When I came to consider the issue, I discovered that—as the hon. Gentleman said—it has scarcely been discussed in Parliament. That lack of interest has been reciprocated in the two reports—the National Audit Office report and that of the Office of Public Services

231WH
Reform—neither of which gives Parliament more than a passing reference. When it comes to this issue, we are all, I suspect, mere amateurs compared with the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. He is far too modest to mention it, but he is the author of a substantial pamphlet on the next steps agencies, which I found very illuminating if not always easily digestible. He is a great expert on the subject.
There are 127 Executive agencies which represent a substantial proportion of the services delivered by central Government civil services. We need to remember the context: the largest proportion of public services consumed by the public—education and health—are delivered through devolved mechanisms that are not part of the Executive agencies or directly controlled, at least in theory, by central Government Departments.
The establishment of the next steps agencies always seemed a logical step on from the introduction of greater management freedoms and the attempt to introduce some private sector disciplines into the operation of the delivery part of the public sector. Three main interrelated issues emerge from the two reports. The first is the rationale for creating Executive agencies. The hon. Gentleman explored in his pamphlet the possibility that political dogma was one of the motives and concluded that, although a little political dogma might have been involved, there was a clear management theory rationale for giving the Executive branch of Government an arm's-length relationship with the policy formulation branch.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the five-yearly reviews that agencies are required to undertake, to determine(whether) whether they would be better off in the private sector. Perhaps we should have a regular review of the basic rationale for what we are doing in the light of changing practices in the private sector, to which the hon. Member for Milton Keynes. North-East (Brian White) referred, and the changing environment in which public services are delivered.
The second issue is the split between the delivery of services and the policy-making arm of central Government. I should like to say a little more about that in a moment. Thirdly, of course, there is the key issue of the lines of accountability of Executive agencies.
The Office of Public Services Reform review identifies the danger of a growing gulf between policy development and implementation, particularly in terms of creating what might unfortunately come to be seen as a B-stream within the civil service and the idea that the implementation is somehow a second-class activity while the high-flyer role is in policy making. We have heard from other hon. Members that perhaps that sharp demarcation between policy formation and implementation can be exaggerated Certainly, when I recently examined the Environment Agency and flooding policy I discovered, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) did in a different context, that the Executive agencies of necessity become huge repositories of expert knowledge that are drawn on by the relatively thinly populated policy-making centre and perhaps have a larger influence on the policy agenda than the structure, coldly reduced to a piece of paper, would suggest.
232WH
The NAO report suggests that all agencies should have a senior sponsor in their controlling Department to ensure a better two-way traffic and no surprises. Perhaps the Minister can tell us something about what has been done so far to achieve that. In relation to accountability, which is obviously the most fraught area, I too would like to place on record my belief that the role of the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office is crucial. They perform the central role at present in holding Executive agencies to account.
I am somewhat torn between the two models that have been proposed for increasing parliamentary scrutiny of Executive agencies. Clearly, in our everyday role as constituency MPs, we regularly deal with Executive agencies. I recognise the points made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam about having to decide first whether the agency has simply failed in delivery, which means that the issue has to be resolved at agency level, or whether there is a policy issue to be addressed. Would more direct parliamentary scrutiny of the agencies' operation risk undermining the parliamentary accountability of Ministers? That issue needs to be debated further, but I am tempted to think that Ministers may take advantage of more direct parliamentary scrutiny of Executive agencies to avoid answerability for the agencies' performance and actions, even to the extent that they are currently held accountable.
I shall try to be brief, because we are all anxious to hear from the Minister and our time is constrained by the possibility of Divisions, but I should like to say something about targets. One problem is that, in trying to bring into the management of public service delivery some private sector disciplines, we are hindered by the fact that the most influential private sector disciplines are perforce missing. There is no discipline of the capital markets, no price mechanism and, usually, no customers exercising choice. We must therefore ensure that productivity, efficiency and good management practice are delivered by setting proxies for those disciplines in the form of targets that we have to monitor. However, there is a real danger that achieving the targets becomes an end in itself, rather than just a means to deliver the real end, which is good-quality services for the public. No one has mentioned that yet, but I suggest that it can only ever really be measured in terms of public satisfaction.
I do not want to crow, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall cite an example relating to the creation of the National Care Standards Commission and the Government's subsequent proposal to introduce a series of standards to measure the quality of the service delivered to older people in care homes. Throughout that process and the sittings of the Standing Committee that considered the Care Standards Bill, we argued that measuring the size of doorways and the square metres in each room with a tape measure and clipboard was not the same as measuring the quality of the care experience delivered to the member of the public who was supposed to be the beneficiary of that service. For a year the Government argued against that notion, but they have now recognised the reality of it by abandoning their prescriptive targets and moving to a more customer-focused approach in measuring the delivery of care to older people.

233WH
We must keep that issue clear in our minds. I am certainly not a "private good, public bad" man, and I would not suggest that that was a model to follow, but if we are to harness the maximum benefits of the private sector—the good bits of a private sector approach—we must be careful to ensure that we do not import targets that simply become ends in themselves, rather than means to the end.
Brian White:A key piece of evidence given to the Public Administration Committee was that, in the private sector, people are expected to meet about 80 per cent. of their targets and doing so is considered very good, whereas if someone in the public sector failed to achieve 20 per cent. of their targets, they would be slaughtered. That is the difference between the private and public sectors' use of targets. In the private sector, not every target is expected to be met; it is the performance and the quality that are relevant, as the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman uses the term "slaughtered". Ultimately, in the private sector a failing business will be slaughtered and we can be sure that productivity will go on increasing; ultimately, efficient businesses will survive and inefficient businesses will not. In the public sector, because there is not that predatory threat in a marketplace, we have to introduce those controls and measures. I am straying slightly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if we consider what is happening in the national health service, with huge spending increases translating, at present, into very small increases in output, we can see the dangers where those disciplines do not drive continual productivity increases.
The NAO report made a number of recommendations and hon. Members are anxious to hear what the Minister has to say about them. I hope that he will tell us in detail which recommendations the Government intend to respond to positively.
2.54 pm
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) for opening the debate with a thoughtful and well-reasoned speech. He is to be congratulated on his contribution this afternoon and on his wider contribution, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). My hon. Friend has published a Social Market Foundation pamphlet based on his earlier experiences as a Member of the House in the late 1990s, following his extensive experience in local government.
I will begin by responding to some of the matters raised by my hon. Friend before endeavouring to place the debate in the wider context of the Government's public services reform agenda. On my hon. Friend's general point about setting targets, which was aired in contributions from Opposition Members, targets have to be agreed by the Department and are announced to Parliament so that they are transparent. Guidance on performance management to improve target setting is considered in the recommendations of the National Audit Office report, which has been much discussed this afternoon, and is being promulgated by the Treasury, and indeed the Cabinet Office.
234WH
In that regard, my hon. Friend asked whether agencies took policy decisions and where accountability actually lay. Agencies have to take what might be termed operational policy decisions on a day-to-day basis, but they take place within a framework of public service agreements and of policy developed by Ministers. Agencies are free to manage within that overall strategic direction; the kind of rigid distinctions that were mentioned in the debate between policy and delivery can sometimes confuse more than they clarify. Ultimately, however, Ministers are accountable for their Departments' action, including the actions of the agencies, and they account for those actions directly to the House.
My hon. Friend spoke of the lack of legislation to set up some of the agencies. Executive agencies are, by definition, administrative constructs: they are only part of their parent Departments. Departments and Ministers are regularly scrutinised and held to account by Parliament. That is partly why I was not convinced, although I was intrigued, by my hon. Friend's suggestion that there should be specialist groups of MPs overseeing the work of each agency. Of course, it is for Parliament rather than the Executive to establish by which means Parliament should hold the Executive to account. However, personally I think that we must maintain clear lines of accountability, whereby Ministers are held directly to account on the Floor of the House of Commons, rather than a system of accountability that has the potential to become more confused.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) made a practical contribution to the debate, which in part reflected his experience in the Public Administration Committee, on which he has served for some time. He made a specific point about the importance of targets. The performance partnerships will probably feature more largely in years to come in the work of the Public Administration Committee; they are a key driver of the sort of changes that we want to achieve in the Cabinet Office. Through those performance partnerships we are developing with Departments a means by which agency targets can be directly linked to departmental public service agreements. Moreover, we take into account the capacity of the Department and its agencies to deliver those targets; in that regard it is important to recognise that performance partnerships seek to address overall performance rather than just to focus on targets. That is relevant, given the observations that my hon. Friend made about the evidence to the Public Administration Committee.
My hon. Friend asked whether agencies had developed their own distinctive cultures, and it is certainly the case that in the agency policy review of which I spoke at the beginning of my remarks, it was recognised that distinctive cultures had developed in certain agencies, some focusing on delivery skills, others on customer response. By following the recommendations in the agency review, the Government have the opportunity to spread and strengthen some of those best-practice cultures more widely than within the individual silos in which they were originally developed.
My hon. Friend's final point was about where agencies sit within the cross-cutting agenda, which features prominently in the work being taken forward

235WH
by the Government. It is a commonly expressed criticism of agencies, that in the first few years of their establishment and operation they were not capable of establishing that important joined-up approach. However, the agency policy review did not find evidence as strong as some of the initial concerns might have suggested. In any case, aligning agencies more clearly with the PSA objectives of which I spoke, and the targets for agencies, will contribute significantly to attempts to ensure that they are seen as part of the landscape of delivery that Departments are developing, rather than as being driven solely by the demands of the agency.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) concluded his contribution with a plea for clarity. All three documents—the pamphlet written by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, to which the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge referred, the NAO report and the agency policy review—have been widely discussed today and are useful contributions to the attempt to bring clarity to this area of policy. However, I shall return to a point that I made earlier about this when I conclude my remarks. It is important to accept that the accountability that our constituents recognise most easily is that of Ministers to Parliament. As our thinking develops about how to ensure accountability and transparency, I am keen to ensure that we do not lose the clarity and rigour that the parliamentary system brings.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge made a very specific point about senior sponsorship in Departments in relation to the agency policy review. I can offer him some comfort by telling him that the Cabinet Office issued new guidance on governance in its guidance on framework documents circulated in January. It included the need for a senior sponsor in the parent Department to provide strategic direction and strategic performance management, which is one of the recommendations that has been adopted.
Given the need for expedition, I have endeavoured to cover some of the points raised, but, as I said at the outset, it is important to place the contributions that we have heard today in the wider context of the Government's objectives for better services generally.
In 2001, the Cabinet Office and the Treasury initiated a review of delivery policy entitled "Better government services: Executive agencies in the 21st century". That review focused mainly on the role of Executive agencies, which we have discussed today. I announced its publication on 22 July, when I explained that the Cabinet Office and the Treasury would work with Departments to put its recommendations into effect. That was part of the wider drive to improve the effectiveness of public service and—the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East—to place a culture of delivery at the very heart of the Government's agenda.
The report concluded that the agency model had been successful, and since 1998 agencies have transformed the landscape of government and the responsiveness and effectiveness of service. The leader of the review, Pam Alexander, who, I assure hon. Members, is no relation, commented in the news release that accompanied the publication of the report, and I believe that it will assist the House if I quote from it. She says:
236WH
"Agencies have been a great success story. They have brought to those services delivered within government both customer focus and a real drive to improve performance and to innovate. There is, of course, a range of effectiveness amongst this wide variety of organisations. But, it is generally the case that they have drifted apart from their parent departments and are seen as separate from them. Reconnection with Ministers' aims and departmental objectives, especially those underpinning Public Service Agreemènts is esseńtial if agencies are to play a full part in delivering effectively in the future."
That report was widely circulated. Copies were placed in the Libraries of both Houses, and sent to permanent secretaries, agency and NDPB chief executives, and departmental sponsoring units. The report was also announced to the media in the usual way and placed on our website. Hard-copy versions were also made freely available.
The continuing review was discussed at the agency and NDPB chief executives' conference in autumn 2001 and spring 2002, and in autumn 2002 after the report was finally published. One of the report's main recommendations was to allow departmental and agency key targets and a cycle of views to ensure that structures and processes across Departments support the achievement of key objectives. That would take the form of a one-off review of departmental delivery mechanisms as part of the departmental change known as a landscape review.
The central programme fundamentally to review agencies every five years—the quinquennial review, which was the previous system—was to be stopped, and business reviews of the end-to-end processes involved in delivering specific services were to be introduced in its place. There were recommendations on governance and leadership in Departments and agencies, performance management and financial aspects. As I said, the recommendations were intended to improve overall delivery of services and policy making by ensuring that agencies were closely aligned with Departments' policy-making roles, and by giving agencies more freedoms, which included three-year funding agreements and end-year flexibilities, opportunities for income generation and greater freedom to recruit senior staff. To reinforce their direct accountability to Ministers on operational matters, there were to be improved communications, including at least one discussion a year between chief executives and their respective Ministers.
There was a recommendation that the Cabinet Office should review reporting and other requirements placed on the delivery agents by Government, with the aim of reducing to a minimum the burden that they create. Chief executives were involved in the review of policy and the report contains the recommendations that they wanted. They continue to be involved in the review's implementation group.
The Government accepted the recommendations in the review and stated that the Cabinet Office and the Treasury would, as I have mentioned, work with Departments to put the recommendations into effect as part of the wider drive to improve the effectiveness of public services. An implementation group comprising representatives of the Cabinet Office, the Treasury,

237WH
Departments and chief executives was established to ensure that the stakeholders were represented. An implementation plan has been drawn up with the aim of implementing the recommendations by the end of 2003. Landscape reviews and the first tranche of end-to-end reviews will feed into the 2004 spending review—effectively they will need to be completed by the end of 2003.
While the idea of a landscape review is new, the end-to-end approach is derived from practice and is familiar in the private sector—it is becoming more so in the public sector. It is in line with other reviews, such as the delivery unit's priority reviews. The NAO report published on 28 March 2003, which has been mentioned much this afternoon, examined agencies and their targets. It looked at the performance of 30 agencies across Government in meeting their targets, analysed eight in detail and three in depth, and made a number of recommendations on target setting and evaluation. The Treasury, in collaboration with the Cabinet Office, will provide guidance to Departments and agencies on performance management. That will take account of the findings of the important NAO report.
Members of Parliament are encouraged to deal directly with chief executives on daily matters concerning agencies, but Secretaries of State are and remain accountable to Parliament on all matters to do with their agencies. Accordingly, they retain the right to intervene in the operations of the agency if public or parliamentary concerns justify it. The chief executive and permanent secretary may be required to appear before the Public Accounts Committee—I endorse the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge when he paid tribute to its work over a number of years. At Select Committee hearings, Ministers will normally ask the chief executive to represent or accompany them if the Committee is specifically concerned with the day-to-day operations of the agency.
Policy on agencies is developing in the context of the Prime Minister's principles for public service reform and plays a major role in ensuring that services are delivered in the most effective, accountable, flexible and customer-focused way possible.
3.7 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

Kazakhstan
3.30 pm
John Mann: Kazakhstan is probably not as well known in the United Kingdom as it should be when one considers its strategic importance to the UK and to the world. It is in central Asia, borders Russia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and China, and has an area of 1.6 million miles, making it one of the largest of the former Soviet Union countries. It was home to Attila the Hun, the source of the great silk road, and Genghis Khan occupied it in 1221. Later, it came under the protectorship of Russia, which eventually colonised it, and then it became part of the Soviet bloc. It has been an independent state since 1991 and its relations with the UK have improved from that date. Another little known fact is that in 1985, in the city of Alma-Ata, I met my wife. Ever since that day, I have paid close and particular attention to its affairs.
The country is well known for its oil and gas reserves. Tenzig and Kashagan oil fields contain 88 per cent. of central Asia's oil wealth: Kazakhstan has resources of between 30 billion and 50 billion barrels of oil and its Government estimate that the Kashagan field alone might contain up to 50 billion barrels. Western dependency on energy has made the country strategically important to us, not least by creating a competitive energy alternative to supplies from the middle east. Britain is the second largest investor in Kazakhstan, with £2.5 billion investment led by British Gas. Kazakhstan has proven reserves of 65 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
The economy of Kazakhstan is growing well. Its gross domestic product has increased by 13.2 per cent. in the past year—the best year of economic performance since 1991—and by 45 per cent. in the last four years. The hyperinflation that it experienced immediately after independence has been reduced to a respectable 6 per cent. a year. It is important to our interests that we do not lose out to other countries that are building a strong relationship with Kazakhstan—not least the United States, which through the Houston initiative has helped the country to emerge as a key player on the world stage.
The Kazakh economic strategy is to use a Norwegian-style investment fund—which already has £2 million in it—for economic development, and to create a high-tech, high value-added economic base, not one that relies on oil and gas, especially by encouraging joint ventures with western companies. That creates many opportunities for inward investment, such as that enjoyed by the organic foods industry, which has major possibilities, although technical expertise in both processing and storage has to be imported. The economy also has a significant mineral base.
One key recent development is the rapid growth of the private banking system, which now has an estimated £2 billion of deposits, many of them small. The rate of progress needs to be maintained if international confidence is to be maintained. That sector is a key indicator of the economy, and British banks and the British Government need to pay particular attention to it in the assistance that they give to Kazakhstan.
In the current world situation, it is important to note the stability in Kazakhstan, not only in relation to the surrounding countries, which is significant, but globally.

239WH
Its only nuclear power plant was closed in 1999 and it is now a nuclear-free state. Semipalatinsk, in central Kazakhstan, was closed down as a nuclear testing base immediately after independence. In the years of Soviet domination and control, the whole of central Kazakhstan was used as a nuclear-testing wasteland.
During the Afghan war, the Kazakhstan Government was a loyal ally of ours and provided airspace to coalition forces to help them wage the war on international terrorism effectively. On Iraq, I quote from a statement from Kazakhstan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 19 March:
"Unfortunately, those efforts turned out to be futile, in part because of the destructive position of the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein who had not presented convincing evidence of disarmament of his country. The possibility of a peaceful solution of the arisen problem through diplomatic means has been basically reduced to zero."
In the context of international relations, I think that we all share that sentiment.
Kazakhstan's stability compared with neighbouring countries is important. All too often, we lump all central Asia together—if I may make a mild criticism of our own Government and Foreign and Commonwealth Office, they all too often use the descriptive label "central Asia"—but Kazakhstan is significantly more stable than any of the surrounding countries and it is progressing and adopting western values, including those of liberal democracy, more quickly. We should therefore be dealing with the country on its own terms and in its own right, rather than lumping it in with its neighbours.
There are issues to be resolved in Kazakhstan, such as the legal framework, which is important for businesses wishing to invest, but without question there have been significant improvements in recent years. We can provide specialist expertise to help to develop the kind of liberal democracy that will encourage western investment. The death penalty remains a contentious and important issue for the west, and I hope that we will continue to urge the Kazakhs to address it. It has been the subject of public debate in recent months, but it remains a potential obstacle to future development. I hope that we can take it up with the Kazakhs in the friendliest terms.
In terms of dialogue, a delegation of 14 Kazakh parliamentarians is visiting the UK on 12 to 18 May. I am sure that we will give them a warm welcome and that there will be significant, good deliberations during their visit.
Turning to trade unions, I quote the World Bank on trade union organisation in Kazakhstan:
"Unions in Eurasian Transition Economies remain much as they were in the socialist era: aligned with management. As such, they are not independent organisations representing workers' interests. Perhaps the only exception is Kazakhstan, where recent reforms have allowed firms or individuals to opt out of union negotiated settlements and have legalised independent worker groups as bargaining entities."
In the creation and strengthening of civic society, we in the west tend to overemphasise individual human rights as opposed to collective human rights. The independent Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Kazakhstan has 100 union affiliates and 350,000 members and has a role
240WH
in creating civil democracy. That model has been replicated in countries such as Poland, Zimbabwe and South Africa. We have given direct assistance through the trade union movement and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to Kazakh trade unions to encourage that growth of civil society and civic responsibility. That should remain an important part of our work, and I strongly urge the Minister to consider that.
The sector of the Kazakh economy that is currently underplayed but that I would highlight for potential development is tourism. Kazakhstan is an enormous country, and the cosmopolitan city of Alma-Ata is often described as the new Paris—although some might add that it is more politically reliable than Paris these days. Kazakhstan offers potential tourists a wealth of new opportunities. A simplified visa process for UK citizens who wish to visit Kazakhstan, including those who visit for business, has been introduced, and I hope that the Minister will consider reciprocity in visa arrangements for Kazakh nationals who visit, especially on business. In particular, ecological holidays from the west have the potential for enormous growth. I hope that the Kazakh Government will continue to promote that as the number of visitors to the country increases—it was 1.8 million at the last count.
Linda Gilroy: My hon. Friend is right to praise the tourist potential of Kazakhstan, which those of us in the all-party group witnessed when we visited last November. Will he also mention the potential for co-operation between our great universities? We paid a visit to the Kazakh British university and saw great scope for that.
John Mann: The link with Aberdeen university is extremely important. I trust that the visit of Baroness Symons has been postponed rather than cancelled, and that it will be resurrected. I urge the Minister to make visiting Kazakhstan in the near future a priority.
The issue of drugs is important in my constituency and across this country. Kazakhstan has 8,000 miles of borders, yet the only project in which the European Union has been involved to tackle drug smuggling—which goes with people smuggling and arms smuggling—through Kazakhstan has been at Alma-Ata international airport. I urge the Government to consider supporting a project to train customs officers, and introduce computers and high technology at border posts in Kazakhstan, so that that country's counter-drugs agencies can enjoy successes that will benefit Britain in terms of our heroin problem. I propose that potential aid project for the Minister's consideration.
I also hope that additional aid can be given—perhaps through the Westminster Foundationߞto help political parties in Kazakhstan to develop themselves.
In May the Beagle 2 rocket to Mars will be launched from Kazakhstan. The Prime Minister has been invited, and I hope that we will send a delegation at the highest possible level to celebrate that success.
Help in tackling drugs and through the extended trade union movement are ways in which we can assist Kazakhstan in its progression to liberal democracy and becoming a major economic player on the world stage. The word Kazakh comes from the Turkic—it means free

241WH
and independent. After years of Soviet and Russian bondage, that country now has an independent, free state. We need to assist Kazakhstan's democratisation, and I trust that the Minister will respond accordingly.
3.44 pm
Bob Spink: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), and congratulate him on securing this debate.
I visited Kazakhstan last November as part of the British parliamentary delegation and should therefore declare an interest. As has already been intimated by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), that visit was very successful. It was facilitated by Erlan Idrissov, the Kazakh ambassador in London, to whom we owe a great vote of thanks.
I saw for myself the great progress that has been made in a number of areas in Kazakhstan. In developing democracy, electoral systems are improving, civic and human rights are progressing apace, a free press is emerging and gaining confidence, and there is a desire to improve the justice and legislative systems. More can be achieved, of course, but the progress made over the past decade is remarkable when one considers how many hundreds of years it has taken us to achieve such progress in the UK.
In terms of social responsibility, Kazakhstan has added great stability to the region by fighting drug trafficking, removing the world's fourth-largest nuclear arsenal, and supporting the international community in fighting terrorism. In commercial and financial systems, macro-economic, fiscal and banking reforms have progressed tremendously in recent years. Markets are opening up, which gives some semblance of rational competition, and although there is still room for improvement, there have been tremendous achievements.
The bottom line is that Kazakhstan is a country that is making an increasing contribution to the international stability of the region, and a country with which we could and should be doing more business. Perhaps we should have a Minister for the UK equivalent of the Houston initiative.
3.47 pm
Mr. Ivor Caplin: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on initiating this well-informed and important debate. The House will wish to know that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), is abroad today on Government business.
UK relations with Kazakhstan are, in general terms, excellent. We established diplomatic relations with Kazakhstan 11 years ago, since when we have steadily increased the size of our embassy and range of interests. We continue to examine ways in which we can expand our representation further in key locations such as the capital, Astana, and in Atyrau on the Caspian sea. In time, we expect to move our embassy to Astana.
We have an excellent relationship with the energetic and dynamic former Foreign Minister, Erlan Idrissov, who was appointed Kazakh ambassador to London last year. I believe that that appointment demonstrates the importance that Kazakhstan attaches to its relations with the UK.
242WH
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Kazakh President are co-patrons of the Kazakh-British Technical university, a facility that was opened by the President last September. Our embassy and the British Council are actively engaged in helping to set up postgraduate courses at the university.
Through the Kazakh embassy, we have established close co-operation with the Kazakh Government to enlist their support for the preparations surrounding the launch of the Beagle 2 Mars Lander, which will take off from Baikonur, the Russian space centre in Kazakhstan, on the Mars Express rocket. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw referred to that event, and we are looking forward to it.
Both bilaterally and through the European Union and other multilateral organisations, we are providing Kazakhstan with assistance to overcome the legacy of the former Soviet Union and to help it to develop into a free and fair market-based society. Examples of that assistance include a Department for International Development project on the former Soviet nuclear test site of Semipalatinsk, and health reform projects.
Our high-level contacts are increasing. The past six months have seen meetings between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Kazakh President, and between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Kazakh Foreign Minister Tokaev. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire, met the Kazakh Defence Minister Altynbaev when he visited the UK in January. Furthermore, my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs met the Kazakh Minister for the Environment Samakova, when she visited London last month.
Such frequent high-level contacts are indicative of the strength of Anglo-Kazakh relations, which we hope will be further strengthened by visits from the Kazakh Ministers of Agriculture and of Justice later in the year. It is a pity that the visit to Kazakhstan by my noble Friend Baroness Symons, the Minister with responsibility for overseas trade, has been postponed in the light of current events, but I can confirm that it is her intention to reschedule that visit later in the year. I also know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is still keen to visit the country when he can.
I am pleased to say that parliamentary contacts are also improving. A group of UK parliamentarians visited Kazakhstan last November, as we have already heard. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), both members of the delegation, present in the Chamber. I am especially pleased that a delegation from the Kazakh Parliament will visit the UK in May under the auspices of the all-party group. The Government warmly welcome that increased activity.
We must continue to work hard to develop our relationship. We need to engage Kazakhstan on important issues, which include not only short-term issues but long-term goals. For the United Kingdom, there are several important prizes, the first of which is energy security. Britain will soon be a net importer of oil

243WH
and gas. That means that we have an increasing interest in ensuring diversity of supply and liquidity of the oil market. The Caspian will have an important role to play in world energy markets. Working with Kazakhstan to get the oil and gas out of the ground and delivered to markets is, therefore, strongly in our national interests.
The second prize relates to Kazakhstan's regional role. Kazakhstan's per capita GDP is already five times greater than that of its neighbour Kyrgyzstan. In 10 years, that gap will be wider, and it is a similar story with other countries in the Eurasian region. Our objective is that Kazakhstan, the regional motor of growth, should export prosperity and stability to the other countries of the region. The President of Kazakhstan and his Government are already strongly committed to regional co-operation. We greatly welcome that and want to work with them to make it a reality.
Thirdly, Kazakhstan's development will open up a wide range of possibilities for further co-operation between our two countries. Our aim is to support the Kazakh Government to achieve poverty reduction, a better environment and a higher quality of life for the people of their country.
Human rights are also important. Although we recognise that Kazakhstan has a better record than some of its neighbours and that transition is not an easy or quick process, there is serious concern that the human rights position has deteriorated in the past year. With our EU partners, we have lobbied the Kazakh Government on the cases of political opponents such as Zhakiyanov and Ablyazov and the leading Kazakh journalist, Duvanov. Criticism of the Kazakh Government in that respect will not go away—the problem needs to be addressed. We intend to continue raising those issues with the Kazakh Government, with our EU colleagues and with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
We want to work with the Kazakh Government to improve human rights in Kazakhstan. One important issue will be the new electoral law currently under consideration, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw referred. We also intend to fund several projects in the field of human rights and democratisation. One example is an ongoing project to provide technical assistance for the development of trade unions in Kazakhstan.
Linda Gilroy: Does my hon. Friend agree that the point I made earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw is important in developing human rights? If we can forge links between the young people of our universities, that might bring about the sort of climate in Kazakhstan that we all seek.
Mr. Caplin: It is clearly in everyone's interest that young people in all countries, including the United Kingdom and Kazakhstan, are able to play an active part. I would welcome any way of achieving that.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw on his campaigning on drugs issues in the UK. That is another important issue, and we intend to seek out opportunities for greater co-operation between the United Kingdom and Kazakhstan on the drug interdiction.
244WH
To touch briefly on the international situation, the UK Government welcomed the comments the Kazakh Foreign Minister made about Saddam Hussein last month, just after the vote in the House.
Kazakhstan was one of the quickest of the former Soviet Union countries to implement essential economic reform, and one of the most thorough in doing so. It was a crucial move, which owes much to the courage and farsightedness of the Kazakh Government. However, Kazakhstan should continue with economic reform—for example, in its development of the non-oil and gas sectors.
Kazakhstan has done much to attract foreign investment. The Government recognised early the importance of foreign direct investment, which has been successful. It has the highest rate of FDI per capita in the countries of the former Soviet Union. British companies have certainly welcomed the investment opportunities: the UK is the second largest investor in Kazakhstan after the USA, with an investment since 1993 of $2.76 billion, or 14 per cent. of the total foreign direct investment in the country. We hope that that investment will continue to grow.
More than 100 companies in Kazakhstan are either fully UK-owned or joint ventures with British connections. Unsurprisingly, they are mostly active in the oil and gas sector, partly because that is the foundation of the Kazakh economy and partly because British firms have so much experience in that sector. It might be worth reminding the House that the UK faced some of the issues that now face Kazakhstan, including local content questions, during the development of our North sea oil resources in the 1970s.
There is also substantial investment in the energy sector and in aviation. For example, BAE Systems set up Air Astana, and many British firms provide consultancy, banking and other financial services. British Gas and Shell are two more high-profile British firms in Kazakhstan. British Gas has a one-third share in the Karachaganak onshore field, and Shell is one of the partners developing the massive offshore field Kashagan.
What of the future? What still needs to be done to ensure that investment, both foreign and domestic, keeps flowing and that the economy keeps growing? I would include in that list the improvement of the regulatory environment and the business climate, the establishment of market-supporting institutions, transparency and the rule of law. Those are all fundamental to business and healthy economic growth. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry raised some of those issues with the Kazakh Minister of Industry when he visited the UK last month. Through Trade Partners UK, we are looking at ways in which we can help to assist the development of Kazakhstan's small and medium-sized enterprises.
There are still risks that Kazakhstan will scare off current and future investors by meddling with the sanctity of commercial contracts and by implementing new layers of bureaucracy. We have made our views clear to Kazakhstan: activity of that sort will seriously deter the new investment that is essential for sustained growth. We will continue to address those issues with the Kazakh Government and through the Kazakh-British Trade and Industry Council.

245WH
The Government believe that our expertise and experience can add real value to the development of Kazakhstan and that they will put UK-Kazakh relations on an even firmer footing. I assure hon. Members that we will maintain a close, open and serious dialogue with Kazakhstan. We have much to offer.

Retired Police Officers
3.59 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: It is a privilege to introduce this Adjournment debate, which I do for two reasons. First, it is a development of my national interest. I am not a Front-Bench spokesman on Home Office matters, but I have an interest in policing, and I have the honour of chairing the all-party police group.
The second reason is local. There are major concerns in my area, as in many others, about law and order matters. A couple of weeks ago, my local police community consultative group organised a public meeting—in a hall that, at a pinch, was capable of holding 400 to 500 people—on policing, antisocial behaviour and law and order in an area called Hampton. In the event, well over 1,000 people turned up. With some difficulty—on health and safety grounds—the meeting proceeded, but we are now having to hold the meeting in shifts. There were special circumstances, not least of which was that we had just had the terrible experience in that area of the Marsha McDonnell murder. None the less, the meeting reflected an undercurrent of concern about street crime, antisocial behaviour and the lack of a police presence.
I acknowledge—this is general background—that the Government, the Mayor of London and the Greater London Assembly have responded to concern about police numbers. Those numbers are starting to grow after a decade or more of decline, but I shall focus not simply on numbers but on quality and age profile. The problem in many parts of the country, and certainly in the south-east, is that a serious imbalance is emerging in the police force. That was well captured in a headline in the Evening Standard a few weeks ago: "Crisis as bobbies on the beat really get younger".
The position in many suburban areas in London, such as the one that I represent, is that 60 per cent. or more of all officers on front-line duties are probationers—raw recruits. In some suburbs in outer London, such as in Surrey, the figure reaches 75 per cent. Of course any officers at all—any people who are visible to the public—are welcome, but there are obviously inherent disadvantages in having probationary officers. They lack experience, inevitably make mistakes and perhaps do not inspire the same respect in local young people. Probationary officers are also inherently limited in the amount of face contact that they have with the public. In their first year, they spend 70 per cent. of their time at college; the figure is 40 per cent. in the second year.
An excessive dependence on probationers and raw recruits in the front line of the police service is unsatisfactory in itself. Moreover, the problem will almost certainly get much worse, for two reasons. First, the police force is being pulled in two directions. There are perfectly legitimate pressures to expand it. The ambition is to raise numbers in London from 28,000 to 35,000. That is absolutely right, but it will require an enormous effort in recruitment. Secondly, we are at the same time approaching what the police call the blue bulge. The cohort of officers who were recruited in the mid-1970s on the back of the Edmund-Davies report and more attractive police conditions are coming up to 30 years' service. Because of the limitations of the police pension scheme, which, as the Minister knows, is very

247WH
restrictive—it prevents pension entitlements from being accumulated beyond a 30-year period—almost all those officers opt to retire.
As I said, the police force is being pulled in two directions. On one hand, there is the pressure for more recruitment; on the other, there is the loss of large numbers of experienced officers. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, among others, has described that as a very worrying situation. It is worrying for several reasons. First, the large-scale loss of experienced police officers once they reach 50 or 51 affects numbers—it will be difficult to meet the numbers objectives if large numbers of such officers leave the police force next year and the year after, the peak years of the bulge.
Secondly, the dilution of experience has serious effects. Increasingly, there are reports of the quality of police detection work and the presentation of material to the Crown Prosecution Service being diluted and weakened by the lack of experience in the ranks of police officers and the imbalance in the age structure. In addition, there is simply a waste of human resources.
Some 50-year-old police officers get sick. They get worn out and simply want to retire. One does not want them to feel that they have to continue working. Many others have a lot of potential. They are fully fit, fully active and want to continue working. Their resources are largely being wasted at the moment. Many of them, as the Minister will know, go into dead-end jobs with security companies and are not being properly utilised. How do we ensure that the resource represented by retiring police officers is fully utilised? There are two solutions. The Government recognise that, and I want to talk those two options through with the Minister and perhaps get some feedback from him.
The first option, which the Government are currently exploring, is to encourage retiring police officers to remain on an ad hoc basis. Several police forces, including the Metropolitan police, have opted to carry out a pilot scheme, subject to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis agreeing to extend contracts on a year-by-year basis. I do not know whether the scheme is working well. Perhaps the Minister could tell us either today or in a written statement how many officers are being kept through this route, breaking that down by police force. That information would be helpful.
The second route, which I want to explore in more detail and promote to the Minister, is to recruit on a systematic basis and on quite a large scale from the pool of officers who are retiring or have retired. There are currently 20,000 retired police officers in the 50 to 55 age group. Companies are already being established. I have no particular brief for any of them, but I have met and been briefed by RIG Police Recruit Ltd, which is one of the leaders in the field. It has already accumulated a database of more than 500 officers who are ready and available to work in the police. Some of them already are doing so in Thames Valley and Surrey. That is probably just the tip of an iceberg. It represents the beginning of a potentially large process if the Government and individual police forces can grasp the opportunity.
What would these officers do? Clearly they are not in the same position as full-time career officers, including those who have stayed on. If we looked at this
248WH
imaginatively, we would see that there are many ways to exploit the tremendous resource represented by these retired officers who wish to work. There has been an unprecedented interest in police reform over the last few years following the publication of the Government's paper "Policing a New Century". We have experiments in expanding the police family, all of which I welcome. This is an aspect of the experiments that has not yet been fully explored. There are various things that these retiring or re-recruited police officers could do that are not currently being done.
The first involves recruitment on contract in order to carry out short-term assignments. Very often a police force is suddenly confronted with a major emergency. A classic example would be the terrorist threats surrounding Heathrow, the Soham inquiry in Cambridgeshire or the Marsha McDonnell murder in my constituency. In each of those cases, dozens—sometimes hundreds—of officers are recruited to work on a highly focused assignment. As a consequence, they are pulled out of other work, which the police themselves describe as overstretch. Normal police work is, in effect, undermined by it. Were there a pool of short-term contract officers available—experienced officers coming back into the force on a contract basis for so many weeks or months—those gaps could be filled and the problem of overstretch dealt with.
Those officers could also undertake part-time work. It has always been assumed that police officers will do a full-time job, but there is no inherent reason why they should not work part-time. There are times of peak demand, late evening on a Saturday being the most obvious, for which it should be possible to build up a cadre of part-time officers. There are certain activities that those officers would be ideally placed and qualified to undertake, which, I suspect, are not currently being properly performed. For example, there is a major demand for what are called in the trade "investigative officers". They work in the background on major inquiries. If there is a murder or disappearance, hundreds of officers have to be employed to knock on thousands of doors. Those background officers I have described would be ideally qualified to do much of that routine investigative work.
Post-arrest research is often very detailed, painstaking and labour intensive, but it is fundamental to the success of prosecutions. Again, officers of that background are ideally qualified to do that. Such officers could also work in the forensic service or in CID, or they could work with youth. It is an obvious point that young people will not accord a 20 or 21-year-old recruit the same degree of respect and deference that they would give to a 50-year-old officer with a grown-up family who has been through parenting. That is a simple, human point. If police of that age group and background were used in such a role, they would be so much more effective. I am not a police officer—that is not my background—but I know that there are all those roles available. I ask the Minister to consider carrying out an independent study to evaluate what roles might usefully be performed by re-recruited officers. There is clearly a supply and a need, but we must pinpoint more specifically and accurately where the demand lies.
Why does it appear to be so difficult to get that process moving, given that there is clearly an interest in Government in police reform and that so much is now

249WH
beginning to happen? Why is this particular initiative proving so difficult to get off the ground? For example, why does the crime fighting fund, a body of funding available to chief police officers to meet their needs, specifically exclude such re-recruited officers working on contract? It is not obvious to me why that is so. Perhaps the Government are afraid that it is a relatively expensive source of manpower, but I am assured by people who work in the business that the hourly rate, and the hourly cost to the police force, is exactly the same. Can we have an evaluation of that?
Will the Minister address some specific issues? First, can he give us an evaluation of the efforts currently being made to encourage officers to stay on in the force beyond retirement age? How well is that succeeding and what is the regional breakdown? Secondly, can he suggest whether it might be possible to undertake a proper, independent study of how the vast resource of retired and retiring police officers could be put to the most effective use? Perhaps that has already been done; it certainly should be. Thirdly, can he tell us what the bottlenecks are on the Government's side? There might be funding or technical issues of which I am not aware, which are holding the Government back from utilising the crime fighting fund and other resources.
4.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Wills): I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing the debate and on the cogent and compelling way in which he has outlined his arguments. He has rightly identified an important issue for not only the Home Office but the entire Government. He gave a compelling example from his own constituency of the importance that people attach to such issues. It is important that we respond to them effectively.
Before I deal with the specific points that the hon. Gentleman raised, I should place the debate in context by pointing out that police forces throughout the country are recruiting very successfully at the moment. He recognised that in his remarks. We are delivering on our promise to put more police officers on the streets, and we are ahead of schedule on our targets. Last week, we announced record police numbers, together with more than 1,200 community support officers. These numbers are proof of our commitment to tackling crime and antisocial behaviour. We promised that there would be 130,000 police officers by March of this year, and by 30 September 2002—six months ahead of schedule—there were 131,548. That is 1,548 officers above the target. In the 12 months to September 2002 strength increased by 4,337, which is the largest increase for 27 years.
The crime fighting fund has already delivered 9,000 new police recruits over and above those that the service had planned to appoint over the past three years. The scheme will continue for a further three years. In 2003–04, the crime fighting fund will support the further growth of about 650 police officers. We have decisively reversed the decline in police numbers, and we expect to see that growth continue this year. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set a target of 132,500 officers in 2004, and the present numbers show that we are well on the way to achieving that.
250WH
As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, there is far more to improving the effectiveness of the police force than simply boosting the number of recruits, important though that is. Before I turn to the specific points that he made, I should say that it is also important that the police officers we do have spend their time effectively. We must get far more of them out of the station and on to the streets. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the work that is being done under the bureaucracy taskforce, which was set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). He is, sadly, no longer the Minister with responsibilities for the police, but I wish to pay tribute to his admirable work in that area. The taskforce was chaired by Sir David O'Dowd, and it is now well under way to being implemented throughout the country.
The need to retain more officers was rightly identified, and I want now to deal with the specific points that were made on that matter. It was pointed out that the police pension, good though it is, can act as a clog to retaining experienced officers. Many of them want to continue working, and they have a great deal to contribute beyond the time when it is in their financial interest to take the pension. We have introduced, as I think the hon. Gentleman is aware, the 30-plus scheme to encourage the retention of officers beyond the 30-year point at which they can retire with an immediate pension of two thirds of their final pensionable salary.
I wish to bring the hon. Gentleman up to date on the scheme. After the police negotiating board agreement of May last year, which included outline provisions for arrangements to retain officers beyond 30 years, the board agreed the details of the present 30-plus scheme in December. The main feature of the scheme is that it enables officers to retire in the normal way so that they can have the benefit of a tax-free lump sum and then rejoin the force if management considers them suitable for further service. Re-engagement is at the officer's former rank and pay. Once the officer is back in service, his or her pension is subject to abatement so that he or she will not receive a full police pension on top of a police salary. However, the scheme allows for sufficient pension to be paid in order to make up for any replacement allowances that are lost on retirement.
We hope that the scheme will be attractive to many officers who want to come back in this way. As pensioners, those participants in the 30-plus scheme cannot rejoin the police pension scheme. However, they could purchase additional benefits by taking out a personal pension. Participants will also be eligible for special priority payments of up to £5,000 on the same basis as other officers. If it is on top of their pay scale, they are eligible for a competence-related threshold payment of £1,000 a year. The aim of the scheme is to retain those officers who would otherwise be lost to the service through retirement. In order to measure the effectiveness of the scheme, and it is important that we evaluate it as it progresses, we are piloting it in two phases before we give the final go-ahead to a nationwide launch. As luck would have it, phase 1 finished yesterday, and I am pleased to announce the launch of phase 2 today, so it is a timely debate.
Eight forces participated in phase 1: the Metropolitan police and the Avon and Somerset, Hertfordshire, North Wales, Surrey, Thames Valley, West Mercia and

251WH
West Midlands forces. Phase 1 commenced in December 2002. The pilots were not given central funding, and were primarily designed to test the level of interest and take-up among officers. A relatively short time was available, and the number of officers re-engaged was not large, because many of those currently retiring had already made other plans. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, people often plan for their retirement many years in advance and make arrangements with their families, so one would not necessarily expect a high take-up in the early stages.
What is encouraging for the forces taking part is the level of interest among officers approaching the 30-year mark. Although only about 20 officers were re-engaged during phase 1, the indications are that it is worth proceeding with phase 2. We hope to see a higher take-up as the scheme is tested further.
The phase 2 pilots will be run on a wider basis from now until 31 March 2004. We have written to all 15 forces that expressed an interest in phase 2, inviting them to participate. We will use phase 2 to assess the scheme in more detail, to discover whether it attracts the right calibre of officer, whether the retained officers are put to good operational use, and whether, as far as it is possible to tell, the participants would have left the service but for the scheme.
Subject to final confirmation, phase 2 will operate on the same unfunded basis as phase 1, but most of the forces applying have indicated that they would be prepared to participate in the pilot without central funding assistance. One benefit of phase 1 is that it has confirmed to the participating forces that the 30-plus scheme is virtually cost neutral.
The hon. Gentleman made some interesting suggestions, so he is obviously aware that the scheme is not the only answer to the problem of retention. We need to look more widely when trying to encourage officers to stay on, but the scheme promises to be a useful measure in helping management to tackle one aspect of wastage from the police service. If the phase 2 pilots are successful, as I hope and expect them to be, we aim to have the 30-plus scheme rolled out nationally in 2005–06.
I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman a reasonable assessment of the state of play on the scheme, but that is not all that we and the Association of Chief Police Officers have been doing. He asked what role officers coming back in this way might play. In the course of establishing the forces' interest in the proposal, ACPO has identified a number of possible roles for retired officers—a study that the hon. Gentleman suggested should be done.
I shall list some of the categories that have been identified so far; indeed, the hon. Gentleman has already referred to some of them. They include working as investigative assistants, inquiry officers or scene guards; being a part of house-to-house inquiry teams; acting as statement takers or homes indexers; working in major incident rooms or in casualty bureaux; evaluating DNA hits, operating central switchboards or working control rooms; acting as drivers or assessors of recruits; working in data management; and acting as exhibits officers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that such
252WH
officers would have a wide range of opportunities from which to choose. How individual officers should be deployed will obviously be a management or operational matter, but I hope that he is reassured by the fact that such identification has already taken place and will continue.
That is not all that we have done. I referred earlier to the bureaucracy taskforce, chaired by Sir David O'Dowd, which was set up by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and driven forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen.
Among many other recommendations in its report, the taskforce explicitly recognised the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman about the amount of valuable experience that is currently lost when a police officer retires, although that is not always the case. As he said, we do not want police officers who have done 30 years of valuable service to stay on against their wishes. However, we must recognise, as he does, that many of them have much to contribute and want to continue doing so. The taskforce considered that they represented a significant resource that should be exploited. It noted especially the potential for developing the use of databases for retired officers and the advantages in being able to call upon such a resource. The examples to which the hon. Gentleman referred of incidents such as the terrible murder that took place in his constituency and a range of other events show how valuable such a database could be.
Some databases already exist at a local level and they are used to provide the police service—often at short notice or in the short term—with access to retired police officers possessing particular skills to help to meet unusual demands. The taskforce specifically recommended the establishment of a national database of retired officers. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary accepted the recommendation and we are currently working closely with the Association of Chief Police Officers to make progress on it.
The hon. Gentleman referred to commercial organisations that are already involved in the work, and a number of such organisations already supply individual forces with retired officers through local arrangements. They may be interested in extending the scope of the service that they provide to a national level.
ACPO found that many forces already employ retired officers in a variety of ways—I have mentioned some of their roles—some through their own networks; others employ commercial organisations for that purpose. Usually, officers are employed among full-time civilian support staff but there is a range of other opportunities that are already being taken up: they are employed on casual, temporary contracts in circumstances when, for example, there is no time to employ new members of staff or where that would not be appropriate because the job will be of limited duration. The identification of such roles is an evolving process and we expect it to continue to develop over time. Policing is a skill and an evolving science and we expect the identification of such roles to develop along with it.
Many police officers retire happily and have no wish to return. However, if they want to come back we must ensure that mechanisms are in place to allow them to do so. One key blockage has been the particular nature of the pension. Pensions are often inflexible, not only in the

253WH
police force but in many other occupations. The work that we have already done has introduced a new level of flexibility. As I said, we are at an early stage in piloting the scheme—
Dr.Cable: The Minister has given a helpful and comprehensive reply. Before he sits down, however, will he address the specific issue of why the crime fighting fund cannot be used to facilitate recruitment of the type that he described?
Mr.Wills: We are at too early a stage for the process to take place. We are turning round policing after many years of decline, as the hon. Gentleman said. Investment is coming through and we must ensure that the crime fighting fund is used properly. Unfortunately, matters progress relatively slowly, because we must make sure that we get things right. I understand his frustration. However, the early signs are that the scheme will be successful and that it will be rolled out nationally. We must then consider the most appropriate way to fund it.
254WH
We are committed to funding police forces so that they can maintain adequate levels of recruitment and retention.
The hon. Gentleman need not worry that the funding will not be there if there is a need for it. We must ensure that there is an appropriate case for that funding. The early signs are what he would have expected and hoped for: there is a case for the scheme to continue but we have to make sure that there is a demand for it and that it is the most appropriate use of the funding. We are not ruling anything out at present but we must be certain that there is a case to be made for it.
We must take into account not only the pension but the other things that need to be done, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel reassured that we have taken steps to address those needs. I assure him that if further need for action is identified in future, we will take it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Four o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  Government Annual Report
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet office if he will reintroduce the Government Annual Report with the contents independently validated. [105845]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government will continue to report to Parliament and the public on their performance through a variety of means, such as reports, statistical bulletins, ministerial statements and parliamentary questions. The information in the annual report was in any event a collation of existing, publicly available, material and it has therefore been decided not to continue with it.

  Central Office of Information
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many members of staff there were in the Central Office of Information on(a) 1 March 1997 and (b) the latest date for which figures are available. [105847]

  Mr. Alexander
  There were 384 (full time equivalent) staff at 31 March 1997 and 364 at 28 February 2003.

TRANSPORT

  Railways
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the outstanding funding issues that require resolution before the East London Line extension project can be taken forward. [105795]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority has made budgetary provision to develop the project further and to undertake preliminary works, if and when the outstanding planning issues are resolved. It is intended that the main works should be built and financed through a Special Purpose Vehicle and the Authority is discussing with the Department how best to structure this.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to develop local rail networks. [105797]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State's Directions and Guidance require the Strategic Rail Authority to have regard to "compatibility and consistency with local transport plans and regional transport strategies." The Authority's Strategic Plan sets out the developments being taken forward over the next 10 years in each area of the country.
  610W
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the announcement of the rail franchise for Wales will be made. [105799]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority expects to announce the preferred bidder in June. The new franchise is expected to commence this Autumn.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about investment in the national railway infrastructure. [105800]

  Mr. Spellar
  Total investment in the rail industry in 2001–02, excluding rolling stock, was £3.1 billion. The bulk of this is in respect of rail infrastructure. Details of this investment are set out in "National Rail Trends", which is published by the SRA.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Strategic Rail Authority on the development of a high speed train service throughout the UK. [105796]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are in regular contact with the Authority over all aspects of railway services. The Authority is currently considering a draft report which it has recently received on the potential viability of a new north to south High Speed Line. The Authority intend to consult on the conclusions of the study later this year.

  Train Operating Companies
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what subsidy each of the train operating companies received in each year since 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [105957]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Details of the subsidy paid to each train operating company, in each year, are set out in the Strategic Rail Authority's annual report, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  London Underground
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on future plans for London Underground. [105801]

  Mr. Spellar
  Following completion of the first Public Private Partnership contract on 31 December 2002, the Government expect the remaining two contracts to be completed very soon. The PPP brings in the modernisation the Underground so badly needs.

  The Government want London Underground to transfer to Transport for London as soon as possible, and is working closely with TfL, London Underground and other interested parties to achieve that.

  Air Transport
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many responses he has received to his consultative document on the future of air transport in the UK. [105802]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have received over 100,000 responses (letters and questionnaires) to the consultation from all areas of the UK, and the majority originate from the south-east of England and the midlands.
  611W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assumptions were made in the SERAS Air Passenger Forecasting Model in respect of(a) demand transferring to off-peak flights, (b) demand transferring to regional airports and (c) demand transferring to rail, in assessing the consequences for fare levels of a shortfall in airport capacity in the South East; and if he will make a statement. [106217]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The consequences of a shortfall in airport capacity in the South East are an output of the SERAS Air Passenger Forecasting Model, not input assumptions. The model assigns passengers according to their 'least cost' route between the start point of their journey and its end point, as described in the SERAS Stage 2 Methodology Supporting document no 29, "Rules and Modelling." A shortfall in capacity at a specific airport leads to a 'fare premium' to balance demand and supply at that airport. This fare premium is only applied in the model when 'off-peak' flights at the constrained airport have already taken the initial burden of adjustment, so that airport utilisation throughout the day is high. With airport capacity constraints applying in the South East, some traffic with a South East origin is displaced to regional airports, some traffic with a regional origin is clawed back by regional airports, some traffic transfers to other transport modes including rail, and some traffic is suppressed entirely.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he gives about the impact on air passengers' and carriers' liability of(a) a war and (b) a terrorist attack. [105275]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The liability of air carriers' is established by international and European law and no further guidance is necessary.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much aviation fuel was consumed by UK civil aviation in the last year for which figures are available, broken down into fuel consumed by(a) domestic and (b) international air travel. [106219]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Based on data reported by airlines to the Civil Aviation Authority, it is estimated that UK airlines used 10.2 million tonnes of fuel in 2002. Although such fuel usage is reported as a total it is broadly estimated that about 90 per cent. was expended on international aviation and 10 per cent. on domestic aviation.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what airport development options in the South-East other than those described in The Future of Air Transport in the UK: South East he is considering; if those options will be included in the forthcoming white paper on aviation; and what the consultation arrangements for these options are. [106220]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government will consider all responses to The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East submitted by 30 June 2003 including any reasonable alternatives to the options for new airport capacity set out in the consultation document. If the Government concluded that any such alternative schemes were superior to the 612W
  options in the consultation document and wished to consider including them in the air transport white paper, there would be a full consultation process.

  Road Congestion
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for tackling congestion on the trunk road network. [105803]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written statement made by the Secretary of State earlier today, at columns 49–50 WS.

  Al2
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the Highways Agency will approve a junction from the A12 to the Colchester Northern Approach Road. [105804]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The junction will be approved as soon as all design and safety issues have been addressed. The Highways Agency and the developer have made significant progress and will continue to work closely to resolve this matter as quickly as possible.

  Concessionary Travel
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assistance he provides to local authorities in order that they can provide free rail passes to pensioners entitling them to concessionary rail travel; [106071]

  (2) whether his Department instructs local authorities on the rate at which rail passes should be supplied to pensioners for concessionary rail travel; [106070]

  (3) what discussions he has had with HM Treasury regarding the provision of free (a) passes for pensioners entitling them to concessionary rail travel and (b) off-peak travel on all public transport for all pensioners; [106072]

  (4) what guidelines he issues to local authorities on the provision of rail passes for pensioners entitling them to concessionary travel. [106069]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Beyond the statutory minimum requirement for concessionary travel (half-fare on local buses for older and disabled people, with no charge for the pass) decisions about whether to offer a more generous scheme for bus and rail travel are for the relevant PTAs/local authorities.

  Expenditure on concessionary travel schemes is covered by the contribution that the Government makes to local authorities through the annual grant settlement, including where a PTA/local authority offers consessionary travel on local railways.

  Fylde Coast Light Rail Scheme
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with other Government departments about the potential regeneration benefits of the proposed Fylde Coast Light Rail Scheme. [105798]
  613W
  Mr. Spellar
  None yet, since Blackpool Council have not yet submitted formal proposals for this scheme. My Department is currently considering their proposals for refurbishment of the existing, historic tram system. I am well aware of the importance the Council attaches to these as part of their regeneration strategy for Blackpool.

  Shipping (Iraq)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department has had with the shipping industry on the ownership and operation of the deep water container port at Umm Qasr, Iraq. [105875]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which of the contractors responsible for rail safety in the(a) Paddington and (b) Hatfield rail crashes operated quality management systems. [105605]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand that Network Rail's safety procedures require contractors to have suitable and sufficient Safety Quality and Environment Management systems in place in accordance with the company's railway standards. Both Amey and Balfour Beatty had such systems in place at the times of the Paddington and Hatfield rail crashes.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he consulted previous prime ministers before committing British forces to battle in Iraq. [105436]

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

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the Secretary General of the United Nations in New York; and if he will place in the Library copies of briefing material used in respect of that meeting. [106418]

  The Prime Minister
  I met United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan in New York on 27 March. We discussed a range of issues including the on-going consultations on the Oil for Food Programme and the UN's role in Iraq.

  Since that meeting the Security Council has unanimously adopted UN Security Council Resolution 1472 (2003) providing for the continuation of the Oil for Food Programme.

  Information relating to internal advice and consultation is not disclosed under Exemption 2, Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Palestine
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister when he informed Mr. Abu Mazen that the publication of the final draft of the roadmap had been postponed until after the approval by the Palestinian Legislative Council of the Palestinian Cabinet; and when and by whom this decision was taken. [106451]

  The Prime Minister
  Publication is the responsibility of the Roadmap's authors, the Quartet of the UN, EU, United States and Russia. As I told the House on 26 March 2003,Official Report, column 281, "when the Palestinian Prime Minister has his Cabinet in place, the roadmap will be given to both the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority". This decision was announced by President Bush on 14 March.

  Pensions
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the(a) funded and (b) unfunded public sector pension schemes for which he is responsible; when the last actuarial valuation was of each scheme; what the value was of the assets at the last actuarial valuation of each scheme; what deficit is disclosed by the last actuarial valuation of each scheme; and if he will make a statement. [104929]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on Monday 31 March 2003,Official Report.

  I am responsible for two pension schemes for the staff of the Security and Intelligence Agencies. Both are unfunded and operate by analogy with the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme.

  Work Placements
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy for his Department to support and sponsor work placements for degree students. [106059]

  The Prime Minister
  Many Government Departments already run work placement schemes.

TREASURY

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his Department's total spending was on advertising and promotional campaigns between April 2002 and March 2003; and what the cost of each campaign was, broken down by costs relating to(a) television, (b) radio and (c) print media. [106431]

  Ruth Kelly
  The total cost of advertising and promotional campaigns by HM Treasury for the year to March 2003 was nil.

  Tax Relief (Amateur Sports Clubs)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax relief is available for amateur sports clubs; and what plans he has to change these arrangements. [105903]
  615W
  John Healey
  The Finance Act 2002 introduced a range of tax reliefs for Community Amateur Sports Clubs (CASCs) on their income and on donations made to them, similar to those normally given to charities.

  The measures provide CASCs with exemption from:

  corporation tax on interest;

  corporation tax on any trading income up to £15,000;

  corporation tax on income from property up to £10,000; and

  capital gains tax on disposals of assets.

  Donors to CASCs will be able to give using the following reliefs:

  Gift aid for individuals;

  Inheritance tax;

  Gifts of assets to a CASC on a no gain/no loss basis for capital gains purposes for both individuals and companies;

  Gifts of trading stock and plant and machinery by businesses.

  Clubs which meet the Charity Commission's criteria for charitable status can apply to the Charity Commission for registration. That gives them access to the more generous tax reliefs available to charities. The Chancellor keeps all elements of the tax system under review, in the context of his annual Budget Statement.

  Annuities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters he has received since February 2002 from residents in the Buckingham constituency regarding annuities. [106368]

  Ruth Kelly
  Three letters on this subject have been identified as coming from the Buckingham constituency.

  Commercial Confidentiality
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance his Department issues to civil servants on how to deal with claims from organisations that the information they provide to the Department is commercially confidential. [105483]

  Ruth Kelly
  It is not standard practice to verify claims of commercial confidentiality on receiving information from organisations as this issue is normally only relevant if the question arises as to whether the information should be disclosed to another party. The Treasury has not issued guidance on this issue. In the event of a request for information claimed to be commercially confidential, officials would rely on the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and central guidance on the operation of the Code to determine whether information should be withheld.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the expenditure of his Department on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002. [106299]

  Ruth Kelly
  Expenditure on newspapers, magazines and periodicals is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Euro Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many visits there have been to the Treasury Euro website since 9 January 2002. [106374]

  Ruth Kelly
  There have been over 400,000 visitors to the Treasury euro website (www.euro.gov.uk) since 9 January 2002, bringing the total to over 1,000,000 visitors to the site since it was re-launched by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 29 March 2001,Official Report, column 1087.

  Afganistan
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what subsidies the UK Government are receiving from foreign allies to fund the continuing involvement of UK forces in Afghanistan. [105682]

  Mr. Boateng
  UK military forces continue to operate in Afghanistan but at a much lower level than during the period of the overthrow of the Taliban and the successful establishment of the International Security Assistance Force. We continue to work in close cooperation with other nations but we are receiving no direct subsidies for our military operations in Afghanistan.

  Iraq
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the total cost to HM Treasury of the humanitarian aid required in Iraq. [105690]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have not made any final estimate of the likely costs of humanitarian needs in Iraq.

  The Chancellor announced on 27 March that a total of £ 240 million had been set aside for humanitarian assistance in Iraq. This includes £ 30 million for the MoD to provide immediate assistance on the ground and £ 50 million committed by DFID to support preparations and delivery of assistance by humanitarian agencies. The remainder of the money will be committed in line with emerging humanitarian needs.

  Landfill Tax Credit
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations over funding to ease the transition between the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme and any successor were held by the Department to take into account the opinions of local schemes promoting sustainable waste issues. [105760]

  John Healey
  The consultation on the possible changes to the landfill tax credit scheme last year asked for views on a range of questions, including transition arrangements. A summary of responses to the consultation was published on 4 September 2002. These views were taken into consideration by the Government in its decisions to reform the scheme.

  Smuggling
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what support his Department gives to the Royal Navy to combat the smuggling of(a) spirits, (b) wine and (c) drugs. [105500]
  617W
  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise are responsible for collecting indirect taxes and enforcing Government requirements relating to the movement of goods into and out of the UK. Customs' focus is on managing risks to the revenue, such as smuggling of spirits and wine, and risks to society that arise from the illegal importation of prohibited or restricted goods, such as Class A drugs.

  The Royal Navy assists Customs both nationally and internationally in the interdiction of drugs, in accordance with its duty under section 11 Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the additional revenue which would be raised from the proposals to increase the charge to lease duty in his consultative document Modernising Stamp Duty; and if he will publish a report estimating the economic impact on the leasehold property market separately for each of the options. [105601]

  Ruth Kelly
  In the 2002 Budget, the Government set out its intention to modernise stamp duty, and as part of this reform to review the stamp duty charged on leases. Further information on policy options was published in the consultative document, "Modernising Stamp Duty on land and buildings in the UK," in April 2002. The Chancellor will report on progress in modernising stamp duty in this year's Budget.

  Taxation (Non-Domiciled UK Residents)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the tax treatment of non-domiciled UK residents. [106029]

  Dawn Primarolo
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget last April that we are reviewing the residence and domicile rules as they affect the tax liabilities of individuals. We believe that any modernisation of these rules needs to be based on clear principles: the rules should be fair, clear, easy to operate and support the competitiveness of the British economy. As indicated in paragraph 5.82 of the Pre-Budget Report last November, the Treasury and the Inland Revenue will be publishing a background paper to aid discussion of how the rules compare with the Government's principles.

  VAT
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much VAT was collected from UK companies in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [105505]

  John Healey
  The total amount of VAT collected in the UK for years 2001–02 and 2002–03 (to January 2003), is published by the Office for National Statistics in, "Financial Statistics", No. 491, Table 2.1D as:

  (a) £61,032 million.

  (b) £54,458 million to January 2003.

  Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of VAT owed was recovered from UK companies in receivership in the last 12 months. [105506]
  618W
  John Healey
  Data is not available on the percentage of VAT recovered from UK companies in receivership.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes have been made in the last two years regarding VAT liability for new building in the UK. [105507]

  John Healey
  In the last two years the Government have made two changes to ensure the VAT rules for new buildings continue to be applied in an equitable and fair way.

  In June 2002 we adjusted the rules that apply to the construction of new annexes which are partly used for charitable purposes. In the pre-Budget Report in November 2002, we announced the closure of a heavily exploited tax avoidance loophole, ensuring that the full payment for a new commercial building is subject to VAT.

  Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what powers the Inland Revenue has to reclaim VAT from subcontractors who go into receivership. [105521]

  John Healey
  Under Government Accounting guidelines, the common law principle that the Crown is indivisible is applied to set-off VAT refunds against other tax liabilities in cases where a debtor goes into receivership.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  16 to 17-year-olds
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of 16 to 17-year-olds are studying for an(a) academic and (b) vocational qualification in (i) further education colleges, (ii) sixth form colleges, (iii) schools and (iv) other training providers. [103984]

  Margaret Hodge
  The percentage of 16, 17 and 16 and 17-year-olds participating in full-time education by type of qualification being studied and by institution type for end 2001 are set out as follows. The figures are provisional.

  Percentage

  16 year olds

  17 year olds

  16 and 17 year olds

  Schools1

  General2

  27.2

  23.5

  25.4

  Vocational3

  6.7

  4.0

  5.4

  Sixth Form Colleges

  General2

  7.3

  6.0

  6.6

  Vocational3

  2.5

  1.8

  2.1

  General FE Colleges

  General2

  6.0

  4.9

  5.5

  Vocational3

  20.7

  17.1

  18.9

  Higher Education Institutions

  General2

  —

  0.4

  0.2

  Vocational3

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Total in full-time education4

  71.2

  58.4

  64.9

  Government supported training5

  7.0

  9.4

  8.1

  1 Includes maintained and independent schools.

  2 Academic qualification breakdown is made up of students studying HE courses, GCE A/AS/A2 levels, International Baccalaureate and GCSEs

  619W
  3 Vocational qualification breakdown is made up of students studying VCE A/AS levels, NVQs, GNVQs, and other equivalents (e.g. City & Guilds).

  4 Includes special schools for whom no qualification breakdown is available.

  5 All vocational qualifications, includes overlap with full-time education.

  A qualification breakdown for those in part-time education is not available.

  A more detailed breakdown by course of study can be found in the annual statistical

  first release, 'Participation in Education, Training and Employment by 16 to 18-year-olds in England'.

  Early-years Provision
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of children living in poverty will be covered by a Sure Start Scheme in(a) 2000, (b) 2002, (c) 2003, (d) 2004 and (e) 2005; and if he will make a statement. [103704]

  Maria Eagle
  By July 2003, when the target of over 500 Sure Start local programmes has been met, they will reach around 30 per cent. of all children under four living in poverty, and provide a basis for mainstreaming the principles of Sure Start into all services for young children and their families. The Sure Start local programmes which were approved by July 2000 covered some 4 per cent. of children under four living in poverty, and those approved by July 2002 covered some 17 per cent. of such children. The Government's 2002 Spending Review provides for the future development of children's centres in disadvantaged wards to reach further children in poverty.

  Civil Service Travel
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what grades in the Civil Service in his Department are allowed to travel by air(a) first class and (b) business class at public expense when on official duties. [104963]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department is committed to ensuring staff use the most efficient and economic means of travel in the circumstances, taking into account any management benefit or the needs of staff with disabilities.

  Members of the Senior Civil Service are allowed to travel by air, first class or club class for journeys of over two and a half hours. For journeys of under two and a half hours staff would be expected to travel economy class if available. Staff at other levels are allowed to travel by air, at the higher class when they are travelling with someone entitled to the higher class of travel to discuss official business.

  Class Sizes
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average class size was for classes taught by one teacher in each year since 1999 for(a) pupils in Key Stage 1, (b) pupils in
  620W
  Key Stage 2, (c) primary schools and (d) secondary schools in (i) England and (ii) each parliamentary constituency. [104507]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information on class size by Key Stage has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  A table showing average class sizes by primary and secondary schools is already available in the Library.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average class size was for(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in each constituency in each of the last six academic years. [104510]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Commercial Confidentiality
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance his Department issues to civil servants on how to deal with claims from organisations that the information they provide to the Department is commercially confidential. [105551]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is not standard practice to verify claims of commercial confidentiality on receiving information from organisations, as this issue is normally relevant only if the question arises as to whether or not the information should be disclosed to another party.

  The Code of Practice on Access to Government Information provides a specific exemption for a third party's commercial confidences, and the Code and the guidance on the operation of the Code helps officials to determine whether such information should be disclosed or withheld in response to an individual request. In deciding this, officials need to consider if "unwarranted disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party." This would normally involve consultation with the third party involved. Even where the exemption to disclosure applies, the information in question must still be made available if there is an overriding public interest in disclosure, usually appropriate only where there is a substantial risk to public health, safety or the environment.

  Demography
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the estimated cohort size is of those attaining the compulsory school leaving age in each year from 1995 to 2010. [105305]

  Mr. Miliband
  The estimates for January of each academic year are as follows.
  621W

  Academic year

  Thousand

  1994–95

  588.6

  1995–96

  606.6

  1996–97

  600.0

  1997–98

  577.6

  1998–99

  591.3

  1999–2000

  602.3

  2000–01

  628.5

  2001–02

  631.4

  2002–03

  639.3

  2003–04

  655.9

  2004–05

  648.0

  2005–06

  660.0

  2006–07

  665.5

  2007–08

  658.3

  2008–09

  635.6

  2009–10

  630.3

  Departmental Creche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what creche facilities are provided by his Department; and at what cost. [104296]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department is committed to promoting equality of opportunity for its staff and supports a range of child care provision that help staff balance family and working life. It is currently reviewing its child care provision to ensure the best possible support to all our staff with child care responsibilities.100 full-time workplace nursery places are available to staff working in Sheffield and Runcorn; 143 full-time playscheme places, operating during the school holidays for children in full-time education aged from 4 to 14 years, are available for DfES staff working in Sheffield, Runcorn, Darlington and London; and child care vouchers are provided to staff working in London and, Darlington and parents in Runcorn and Sheffield who do not have a nursery place. In 2002–03 DfES spent £260,000 supporting child care.

  Graduate Earnings
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the average lifetime earnings of graduates, broken down by degree subject. [102533]

  Margaret Hodge
  The White Paper, "The Future of Higher Education", highlighted how the financial returns to a degree vary by degree subject. No specific estimates have been made of the average lifetime earnings of graduates broken down by subject. Higher education is a good investment. The White Paper, "The Future of Higher Education", highlighted how those with higher education qualifications earn on average around 50 per cent. more than non-graduates. There will inevitably be some individual variation in lifetime returns because graduate earnings are influenced by a number of factors, including the subject studied, institution attended, occupational choices and other personal characteristics and demographic factors.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the additional cost is to each local education authority of the increase in national 622W
  insurance contributions that comes into effect on 6 April 2003 in the (a) financial year 2003–04 and (b) school year 2003–04. [105572]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not collect information on the distribution of staff salaries by local education authority. It is therefore not possible for us to calculate the additional cost of the national insurance increase to each local education authority.

  Personnel Records
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his policy is on the period for which the Department's personnel records in respect of teachers and Her Majesty's Inspectors should be retained; and what requirements on the retention of these records have been included in contracts with private sector organisations which hold such records. [105656]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department maintains records on individual teachers for the purpose of administering the Teachers' Pension Scheme. Document retention and destruction policy is in accordance with the requirements of the Public Records Office. The obligation to comply with Public Records Office policies forms part of the contractual requirements on the private sector administrators of the Teachers' Pensions Scheme. Personnel files on Her Majesty's Inspectors are held by OFSTED. All files are retained for the purpose of pensions administration for 12 years after pensions become payable in individual cases.

  Other data on teachers is held by the General Teaching Council as required for its regulatory function and in accordance with regulations.

  Standards Fund
  Mr.Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the reduction in revenue for each local education authority will be caused by the removal of grants 603 and 613 of the Standards Fund announced on 29 November 2002 in the(a) financial year 2003–04 and (b) school year 2003–04. [105574]

  Mr.Miliband
  Grant 603 (Class Size Grant) totalled £143 million in 2002–03 for revenue funding. This has been transferred into Education Formula Spending for 2003–04 and authorities' allocations for 2002–03 were taken into account in calculating the minimum and maximum increases in Education Formula Spending Share.

  Grant 613 (Key Stage 2 Class Size Recurrent Funding) totalled £7 million in 2002–03. This was not transferred into Education Formula Spending Share, but losses of this grant were taken into account in the calculation of the new £28 million grant to support authorities worst hit by the losses of certain Standards Fund Grant and low Education Formula Spending Share increases.

  Teacher Recruitment
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what incentives the Government offer to aid the recruitment of teachers. [105854]
  623W
  Mr. Miliband
  Since September 2000, £6,000 teacher training bursaries have been offered to students taking Postgraduate Certificate in Education courses at institutions in England. For those students who train as specialist teachers of mathematics, science, modern languages, technology or English, and who go on, after induction, to teach those subjects in maintained schools in England, a further £4,000 "golden hello" is available. From September 2002, these incentives have been supplemented by Repayment of Teachers' Loans Scheme, a three-year pilot to increase the numbers of new teachers of priority subjects by paying off their student loans over time. With better pay for teachers, and the new measures to reduce workloads and provide more support in the classroom that we have proposed, these initiatives have raised the numbers of teachers in schools to their highest level for 20 years and brought about a 20 per cent. rise in the number of recruits to initial teacher training courses since 1999–2000.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Security Procedures
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission what steps are being taken to keep the employees of the John Simon hair salon in the Palace of Westminster informed of the latest information on security procedures. [105440]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The Serjeant at Arms is responsible for providing information to Members and staff of the House of Commons regarding security issues. He also arranges for external organisations with facilities situated within the Palace of Westminster to receive appropriate security advice. I understand that the employees of the John Simon hair salon now have the latest information on security procedures.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Domestic Violence
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister for Women what the timetable is for the Green Paper on Domestic Violence. [97695]

  Ms Hewitt
  The consultation paper, setting out proposals to prevent domestic violence, deal with perpetrators and provide increased support to victims, will be published by summer 2003. It will aim to generate a comprehensive response from the public, voluntary sector and others, to ensure the widest possible agreement on what needs to be done to prevent and deal with domestic violence, as announced on 24 February 2003,Official Report, column 324W.

  Women Managers
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Minister for Women what work she is undertaking in partnership with other bodies to encourage women to train for managerial positions; and with which bodies she is carrying out such work. [99134]
  624W
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 24 February 2003]My Department recognises how vital it is to achieve high quality leadership and management for UK productivity and competitiveness among both men and women. We have just published a Government response to the final report of the Council for Excellence in Management and Leadership (CEML), which set out 30 recommendations to tackle any management deficit in the UK's management and leadership capability.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Credits (Iraq)
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what payments were made by the Export Credit Guarantees Department for claims relating to Iraq since 1990; and if she will make a statement] [105189]

  Ms Hewitt
  The current value of claims paid by ECGD since 1 January 1990 on Iraq is £630.5 million.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the United States Agency for International Development on potential contracts for reconstruction projects in Iraq; and if she will make a statement. [105981]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 31 March 2003]: I have discussed post-conflict issues with Andrew Natsios of USAID. We discussed ways in which UK companies could best contribute to the future development of Iraq for the benefit of the Iraqi people. HMG is not in this for business opportunities. But UK companies would have much to offer in terms of knowledge and expertise, which could make a substantial contribution to the redevelopment of Iraq's essential infrastructure.

  Oil
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment his Department has made of the effects of(a) a conflict with Iraq, (b) problems in the Venezuelan economy and (c) problems in Nigeria on world oil prices. [105678]

  Mr. Wilson
  From mid-November 2002 to mid-March 2003 oil prices (Brent) rose by around $10 per barrel to over $33 per barrel due to a range of factors, including: a significant disruption to supplies from Venezuela; low levels of OECD commercial oil stocks, particularly in the United States and Asia-Pacific; very cold weather in the Northern Hemisphere, particularly the United States; and market uncertainty about international developments regarding Iraq.

  Despite the loss of oil supplies from Iraq and a disruption to supplies from Nigeria, a combination of increased supply from producers (including a recovery in Venezuelan production), a seasonal fall in world oil demand, and reduced market uncertainty about developments regarding Iraq has seen oil prices fall to around $25 to $27 per barrel in late March.
  625W
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment his Department has made of the effect of(a) a short and (b) a prolonged conflict in Iraq on the underlying supply and demand situation for oil. [105689]

  Mr. Wilson
  No significant disruption to the underlying supply and demand balance for oil is expected to arise from military action in Iraq. Prior to conflict, Iraqi oil production stood at around 2.5 million barrels per day or only 3 per cent. of total world oil production, of which only around 1.5 to 2 million barrels per day was exported. Over the past few months, producers have increased oil supplies and this incremental supply is now reaching markets, with more oil on the way. Combined with a seasonal downturn in world oil demand in the second quarter this is helping to balance the oil market. OPEC producers have pledged to use their available excess capacity to ensure that the market remains adequately supplied. Moreover, the International Energy Agency remains ready to reinforce producers' efforts, including through the release of stocks, should the need arise.

  Post Office Card Account
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many third party account holders a Post Office card account holder may nominate; and why there is no provision in the scheme to allow for a temporary third party; [105397]

  (2) what advice will be available for people who forget their Post Office card account PIN numbers. [105417]

  Mr. Timms
  This is a matter which falls within the day-to-day responsibility of Post Office Ltd. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to ensure that the Post Office offers a Post Office card account that is fully accessible to people with physical and sensory impairments. [105260]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government and the Post Office are working to provide a high quality range of services for all our customers, including those who wish to use the Post Office card account. As the service provider, it is the responsibility for Post Office Ltd. to ensure the accessibility of the Post Office card account.

  Agency Workers Directive
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress towards the European Union Agency Workers Directive; and what her Department's policy is on the Directive as it stands. [105932]

  Alan Johnson
  The Council of Ministers held an informal discussion of the proposal at the March Employment Council. It was concluded that political agreement was not reached, but that there was significant political will to achieve political agreement at the June Employment Council. The Government are not opposed in principle to the proposed directive on temporary agency work, but would like to see a more 626W
  flexible directive that strikes a balance between protecting agency workers and protecting employment opportunities for agency workers.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will set maximum(a) quantities and (b) values on the amounts of (i) armaments and (ii) military equipment that can be transferred under each arms licence. [106099]

  Nigel Griffiths
  A Standard Individual Export Licence already specifies the maximum quantity and the value of armaments and military equipment, which can be exported from the UK, under the authority of that licence.

  Departmental Catering Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost was of(a) the in-house canteen and (b) other catering services provided by the Department in 2002. [104252]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The Department's staff restaurant services are provided at zero cash subsidy by an outsourced contractor, Wilson Storey Halliday; and

  (b) The Department spent approximately £940, 000 with its preferred hospitality contractor in calendar year 2002.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list projects awarded funding by the East of England Development Agency through the Regional Selective Assistance schemes, broken down by county; what level of financial assistance was awarded to these projects; and what assessment she has made of the effect of each RSA award on(a) jobs saved and created and (b) the benefits to the local economy. [104890]

  Alan Johnson
  This information is not held by my Department and has been supplied by the East of England Development Agency (EEDA).

  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, under Exemption 13: Third Party Commercial Confidences of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information it is not possible to list individual projects but the aggregate of approved RSA offers since authority was delegated to EEDA from 2 April 2002 is as follows:
  Bedfordshire—6 projects, RSA grant total: £2,503,402. Total expected safeguarded jobs: 564; total expected created jobs: 713.
  Suffolk—1 project, RSA grant: £595,730. Expected safeguarded jobs: 168.

  These projects will directly help tackle unemployment problems in these areas and make a valuable additional contribution to the economic development of the region.

  ECGD-Supported Projects
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many projects supported by the
  627W
  Export Credits Guarantee Department in the last 12 months have been won through a competitive tendering process. [105063]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since 1 April 2002 ECGD has asked applicants for cover to state the type of procedure that has been used by the buyer in awarding the contract (e.g. competitive tendering, negotiated contract). Of cases supported since April 2002, around two thirds of the contracts were won through competitive tendering.

  Electricity and Gas Prepayment Meters
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many households in(a) England and Wales and (b) the Buckingham constituency have (i) electric and (ii) gas pre-payment meters. [106376]

  Mr. Wilson
  In England and Wales, in December 2002, 3,221,781 domestic electricity consumers and 1,808,145 domestic gas consumers had prepayment meters. Figures for prepayment meter use are not available on a constituency basis.

  Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the agenda of the European Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council meeting on 6 March 2003. [105931]

  Alan Johnson
  The agenda for the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council consisted of:

  1. preparation of the Spring European Council;

  2. proposal for a Council Decision establishing a Tripartite Social Summit for Growth and Employment;

  3. Employment Committee Work Programme 2003;

  4. Social Protection Committee Work Programme 2003;

  5. follow-up to the Commission action plan for skills and mobility;

  6. amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on working conditions for temporary workers;

  7. gender mainstreaming; and

  8. European Year of People with Disabilities.

  State Aid
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish her Department's proposals for the reform of the state aid rules. [106234]

  Alan Johnson
  The European Commission's rules on state aid are under constant development. The Department consults other Government Departments, Devolved Administrations and other principally affected bodies as appropriate.

  European Spallation Source Project
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action the Department has taken to support the development of the European Spallation Source project in(a) Selby and (b) Oxford University. [105288]
  628W
  Ms Hewitt
  The European Spallation Source (ESS) is a potential project to build a new neutron source for European scientists. The UK has been involved in the discussions on ESS since a European Commission report in 1990 recommended a design study for a next generation neutron source. A Council was formed in 1993, including UK membership, and the initial design study was published in 1996. Further research and development was needed before a fair decision could be taken to build the ESS. Participating laboratories around Europe have been undertaking this R&D. The UK has been represented in the Council and has participated in the R&D via the Council for the Central Laboratories of the Research Councils (CCLRC), an NDPB Agency of the Department who operate the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory near Oxford and the Daresbury Laboratory near Warrington. CCLRC have responsibility for ensuring that UK researchers have access to neutron facilities now and in the future. They also operate the UK's current neutron source.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on recruitment within the UK nuclear power industry. [105805]

  Mr. Wilson
  A report on nuclear skills published by my Department in December made a series of recommendations aimed at avoiding potential problems 10–15 years ahead but did not suggest that there are likely to be any significant problems in the short term. Copies of the report are in the Library. It can also be accessed via the DTI website at http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/nuclear/skills/nsg.shtml.

  I am currently involved in discussions about appropriate arrangements through a sector skills council.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many women have been appointed as chairmen of Regional Development Agencies. [105955]

  Alan Johnson
  Juliet Williams, Chair of the South West of England Regional Development Agency is the only female Chair of an English Regional Development Agency. She was appointed in December 2002.

  I have been responsible for appointments to the eight English Regional Development Agencies since June 2001. Appointments to the London Development Agency are made by the Mayor of London.

  Radioactive Waste
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which prospective sites were chosen by Nirex in its earlier site search for suitable locations to dispose of radioactive waste. [106417]

  Mr. Wilson
  As the Secretary of State for the Environment informed the House on 21 March 1989, Nirex recommended to Government that detailed geological studies for a deep repository be carried out in the vicinity of Sellafield and Dounreay.
  629W
  Nirex has no current plans to investigate sites for radioactive waste disposal facilities.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Births
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many women from(a) the Republic of Ireland and (b) Great Britain have given birth at (i) the Royal Jubilee Maternity Hospital and (ii) other hospitals in Northern Ireland in the last five years for which figures are available. [105753]

  Mr. Browne
  The information requested is provided in the table. It covers the period from 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002.

  Hospital

  Births to ROI residents

  Births to GB residents

  Births to other non-residents in Northern Ireland

  Royal Jubilee Maternity hospital

  3

  46

  0

  Other Northern Ireland hospitals

  303

  10

  13

  1 Western Health and Social Services Board were unable to distinguish between births to GB residents and births to other non-Northern Ireland residents.

  Chief Electoral Officer
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what resources have been allocated to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland in each year since 1997. [103252]

  Mr. Browne
  Financial resources allocated to the Chief Electoral Officer in each year from 1997 are as follows:

  £million

  1997–98

  1.2

  1998–99

  4.9

  1999–2000

  1.2

  2000–01

  1.4

  2001–02

  2.5

  2002–03

  6.5

  Departmental Buildings
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost to public funds was of(a) the inquiry into development of Victoria Square and (b) preparation for the inquiry. [105064]

  Mr. Browne
  The Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) held conjoined inquiries into the Development Scheme for Victoria Square Belfast and representations to the Notice of Intention to Vest lands in connection with the Development Scheme. The inquiries were a statutory requirement under the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. Pre-inquiry meetings were held by the PAC on 18 October 2001, 26 October 2001, 13 December 2001 and 8 January 2002 to establish arrangements for the inquiries and deal with procedural queries. The actual inquiries took place between 630W
  22 January and 31 January 2002. Preparatory work, which necessitated input from planning, vesting, legal (including counsel), transportation, built heritage and urban design consultants extended over a five month period and resulted in costs of £215,000. The Department incurred a further £507,900 in consultancy costs during the inquiry itself. These costs relate to the preparation and presentation of the Department's case in the form of written and oral evidence to the inquiries.

  Medical Records
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidance he has issued on whether unconfirmed allegations by(a) members of the public, (b) relatives and (c) health professionals not involved in the care of an individual should be included in a patient's medical case notes. [105750]

  Mr. Browne
  It is a matter for professional judgment acting on the advice of professional bodies and organisations to determine what is recorded in a patient's medical notes in order to help in the diagnosis and treatment of the patient.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under what circumstances a patient can be denied access to information contained in his or her medical case notes. [105752]

  Mr. Browne
  Access to information contained in a patient's medical case notes may be denied if its disclosure, in the opinion of the holder of the record, would disclose information:

  (a) likely to cause serious harm to the physical or mental health of the patient or any other individual, or,

  (b) relating to or provided by an individual, other than the patient, who could be identified from the information.

  Primary School Funding
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much funding is allocated, per head of pupil, to primary schools in the(a) maintained, (b) controlled, (c) integrated and (d) Irish medium sectors; and on what basis this funding is allocated. [105953]

  Jane Kennedy
  The following information is taken from the Budget Statements published in 2002/03 by the relevant funding authority, ie by each of the Education and Library Boards for controlled, controlled integrated, maintained and Irish-medium schools; and, by the Department of Education in respect of grant maintained integrated schools.

  2002–03 formula allocations per capitas

  Sector

  Per capita (£)

  Controlled primary

  1,696

  Maintained primary

  1,739

  Integrated primary

  1,894

  Irish medium primary

  1,910

  In addition to formula funding allocations, schools also have access to certain earmarked funds and other funds held centrally by each funding authority.
  631W
  Formula funding is allocated by the operation of six separate Local Management of Schools (LMS) Formulae; one in each of the Education and Library Boards and one by the Department of Education.

  Alcohol (Public Places)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the review into public drinking laws in Northern Ireland will be completed. [105914]

  Mr. Browne
  The review of the operation of the "drinking in public" bye-laws is still on-going. It is not possible to predict at this stage when the process will be completed.

  Acute Hospitals
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on redevelopment, improvement and future plans for the Ulster hospital under the recently announced restructuring of acute hospital services in Northern Ireland. [105751]
  632W
  Mr. Browne
  Under Developing Better Services, the Ulster hospital together with the Royal group of hospitals, the Belfast city hospital and the Mater hospital will form part of network of acute hospitals serving the greater Belfast area.

  The Ulster Community and Hospitals Trust is taking forward a 4-phase Strategic Development Plan for the Ulster hospital. The second phase is underway and due for completion during 2005–06 at an estimated cost of£44 million. The Trust has been asked to draw up a Strategic Context for Phase 3.

  Further redevelopment will be taken forward when the detailed proposals have been agreed.

  Electoral Procedures
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland have been registered to vote under the rolling registration scheme this year. [103246]

  Mr. Browne
  As of 1 March, 21,750 names have been added to the Electoral Register under rolling registration.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland have applied for the photographic Election Identity Card this year. [103247]

  Mr. Browne
  There have been 55,225 applications for the Electoral Identity Card as at 15 March.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Animal Health
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what conditions apply to the import of live pheasants from(a) the EU and (b) countries not in the EU. [105606]

  Mr. Morley
  Council Directive 90/539/EEC sets out animal health conditions concerning intra Community trade in live poultry, including pheasants. Pheasants entering the UK from EU Member States must be accompanied by an export health certificate, which is issued by the Veterinary Authorities in the country of the origin. The export health certificate confirms that the Official Veterinarian has examined the pheasants and they meet the necessary health conditions specified in Council Directive 90/539/EEC. The Veterinary Authorities in the exporting Member State inform the appropriate local animal health office in the UK by an ANIMO message (animal movement system) that a health certificate has been signed and a consignment of birds is on its way. In addition, the importer in the UK must give at least 24 hours notice in writing to the Divisional Veterinary Manager responsible for the place of destination, of his intention to import the birds, the nature of the consignment, its anticipated date of arrival and the place of destination.

  Council Directive 96/482/EEC lays down animal health conditions and veterinary certificates for the import of poultry, including pheasants, from Third Countries. Import of pheasants into the UK is allowed only from those Third Countries which can provide assurances supported by appropriate documents, or as a result of on-the-spot inspections, satisfy the necessary animal health conditions required by the UK and the European Commission. Pheasants entering the EU from Third Countries must be accompanied by an export health certificate issued by an Official Veterinarian in the country of origin. The health certificate confirms that the Official Veterinarian in the country of the origin has inspected the pheasants and they meet all the conditions specified in Council Directive 96/482/EEC. There is a post import isolation of 42 days. The State Veterinary Staff in the UK carry out at least six veterinary checks on the pheasants imported from Third Countries in the first 14 days after import. The Veterinary Laboratories Agency in Weybridge carries out tests on sick and dead pheasants to identify any possible disease. In addition, the local Divisional Veterinary Manager will receive an ANIMO message and import notification in the same way as EU imports.

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost to her Department was for accountancy services in 2002. [101860]
  634W
  Alun Michael
  The forecast cost of accountancy services in 2002–03 is £715,000.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the(a) annual cost to her Department and (b) value of the assets of (i) Food from Britain, (ii) Horticulture Research International, (iii) the Meat and Livestock Commission and (iv) the Sea Fish Industry Authority; if she will make a statement in each case on the reasons for each body being in the public sector; and if she will make a statement. [105083]

  Mr. Morley
  The annual cost to Defra of each of the bodies specified and the value of their assets for 2001–02 are set out in the following table:

  £ million

  Non-departmental public body (NDPB)

  Annual cost to Defra 2001–02

  Value of assets 2001–02

  Food From Britain (FFB)

  15.483

  90,998

  Horticulture Research International(HRI)

  213.643

  43.568

  Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC)

  3287,000

  5.9

  Sea Fish Industry Authority (SFIA)

  4270,000

  4.937

  1 This excludes foot and mouth recovery funds of £2.5 million granted to FFB for 2001–02.

  2 Comprises £13.493 million R&D income and related payments and c £0.150 million running costs of Defra sponsorship unit.

  3 Comprises £232,000 Commissioners costs and c £.055 million running costs of Defra sponsorship unit.

  4 Comprises board members salaries, NI contributions and Defra sponsorship costs.

  Food From Britain

  Food From Britain was set up in 1983 under the Agricultural Marketing Act to improve the marketing of food and drink produced or processed in the United Kingdom. In 1993 its remit was changed to focus on promoting food and drink exports and speciality foods. The most recent review of its functions recommended that it should be retained as a public body with the existing remit.

  Horticulture Research International

  Following a Quinquennial Review in 2002 the Government announced on 20 January 2003 that they broadly accepted the review team's recommendations that HRI should cease to be a NDPB and should be transferred to new owners in the private sector. Detailed discussions are currently under way to establish whether scenarios recommended by the review team are achievable and affordable, and whether any further Government investment is necessary. Subject to satisfactory negotiations, the aim is to have in place the arrangements for HRI's future by 1 April 2004.

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  The MLC is a public sector NDPB by virtue of the Agriculture Act 1967 with the general duty of promoting greater efficiency in the livestock and

  635W
  livestock product industries in Great Britain. Apart from the payment and expenses of MLC Commissioners from public funds, and occasional public grants, the MLC is funded principally by a combination of a statutory levy on livestock producers and private income from commercial services (including services procured by Defra, such as £9.3 million for foot and mouth disease related work in 2001–02). As producers are required by statute to pay the levy, it is classed as public expenditure. However in reality the costs of the MLC fall almost entirely on the private livestock sector rather than the Exchequer.

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  The Sea Fish Industry Authority is a public levy funded body set up by the Fisheries Act 1981 to promote the efficiency of the sea fish industry and to serve the interests of that industry as a whole. The last review of

  (a)Agricultural labour force as a percentage of total labour force

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  North East

  1.33

  1.30

  1.24

  1.24

  1.06

  1.20

  1.18

  1.13

  1.23

  1.17

  North West

  1.60

  1.59

  1.54

  1.52

  1.30

  1.44

  1.32

  1.32

  1.33

  1.25

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  2.05

  2.00

  1.91

  1.87

  1.60

  1.79

  1.74

  1.71

  1.79

  1.73

  East Midlands

  2.65

  2.55

  2.48

  2.41

  2.07

  2.33

  2.18

  2.16

  2.23

  2.14

  West Midlands

  2.10

  2.06

  1.99

  1.97

  1.68

  1.91

  1.82

  1.86

  1.92

  1.83

  Eastern

  2.63

  2.54

  2.46

  2.38

  2.02

  2.31

  2.12

  2.05

  2.10

  2.02

  London

  0.04

  0.04

  0.04

  0.04

  0.03

  0.04

  0.03

  0.03

  0.03

  0.03

  South East

  1.76

  1.70

  1.63

  1.58

  1.35

  1.55

  1.44

  1.32

  1.38

  1.35

  South West

  3.91

  3.88

  3.72

  3.69

  3.16

  3.55

  3.43

  3.44

  3.42

  3.25

  UK Total

  2.29

  2.26

  2.19

  2.15

  1.84

  2.07

  1.95

  1.90

  1.92

  1.88

  Notes:

  For England years 1993–99 include main holdings only, years 2000–02 include main and minor holdings. A greater degree of estimation has been used for the years 1993–97

  Source:

  June Census of Agriculture and Horticulture, SEERAD, DARD, NAWAD, ONS.

  (b)Agricultural labour force as a percentage of total UK labour force by farm type

  Farm type

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Cereals

  0.21

  0.20

  0.20

  0.20

  0.18

  0.21

  0.19

  0.19

  0.21

  0.20

  General cropping

  0.28

  0.27

  0.27

  0.26

  0.21

  0.23

  0.21

  0.19

  0.19

  0.18

  Horticulture

  0.23

  0.22

  0.20

  0.20

  0.17

  0.20

  0.20

  0.19

  0.19

  0.19

  Pigs and poultry

  0.10

  0.09

  0.09

  0.08

  0.08

  0.09

  0.07

  0.08

  0.08

  0.08

  Dairy

  0.34

  0.37

  0.36

  0.34

  0.28

  0.30

  0.28

  0.26

  0.24

  0.24

  Cattle and sheep (LFA)

  0.43

  0.41

  0.40

  0.40

  0.34

  0.39

  0.38

  0.36

  0.35

  0.36

  Cattle and sheep (lowland)

  0.32

  0.29

  0.28

  0.28

  0.24

  0.27

  0.26

  0.27

  0.26

  0.28

  Mixed

  0.21

  0.20

  0.19

  0.19

  0.16

  0.18

  0.16

  0.15

  0.15

  0.14

  Other types

  0.18

  0.19

  0.19

  0.20

  0.17

  0.19

  0.19

  0.20

  0.24

  0.22

  All types

  2.29

  2.26

  2.19

  2.15

  1.84

  2.07

  1.95

  1.90

  1.92

  1.88

  Notes:

  For England years 1993–99 include main holdings only, years 2000–02 include main and minor holdings. A greater degree of estimation has been used for the years 1993–97.

  Source:

  June Census of Agriculture and Horticulture, SEERAD, DARD, NAWAD

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the budgets were in 2001–02 of(a) the Agricultural Wages Board, (b) the Agricultural Wages Committee England, (c) the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, (d) the UK Register of Organic Food Standards, (e) the Wine Standards Board of the Vintner's Company, (f) the Agricultural Dwelling House Authority, (g) the Hill Farming Advisory Committee, (h) the National Rural
  636W
  it recommended that it be retained as a public body as its statutory objective remains relevant and the SFIA benefits the industry as a whole.

  Labour Force
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of the UK work force were employed in agriculture in each of the past 10 years, broken down by(a) region and (b) type of farm. [104977]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 March 2003]: The information is given in the tables for (a) UK total and regions in England and (b) UK farm types.

  Information for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is published in Agriculture in the United Kingdom for 2001 and 2002 and in Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom for earlier years. These can be found on the Defra website at www.defra.gov.uk/esg/m_publications.htm

  Development Forum, (i) the Rural Affairs Forum, (j) the Trade Union Sustainable Development Advisory Committee, (k) Regional Flood Defence Committees and (l) the Regional Environmental Protection Advisory Committees; and if she will make a statement. [104434]

  Alun Michael
  Information on 2001–02 budgets for most of the bodies listed can be found in the Cabinet Office "Public Bodies 2002" publication, a copy of
  637W
  which is in the Library of the House. The bodies not listed in this publication, i.e. the National Rural Development Forum, the Rural Affairs Forum, the Trade Union Sustainable Development Advisory Committee and the Regional Environmental Protection Advisory Committees, are funded from within mainstream budgets in Defra or its agencies and could be separated out from those budgets at disproportionate cost only.

  Woodland
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to introduce statutory protection for ancient woodland in England. [105226]

  Mr. Morley
  A number of measures are already in place to protect all woodland in England, including ancient semi-natural woodlands, where the biodiversity and cultural heritage values are the highest. In particular, the felling of any type of woodland is controlled through felling regulations. Additionally, many woodlands are subject to further controls because they are within designated areas such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest or Special Areas of Conservation.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the amount of ancient woodland in England. [105227]

  Mr. Morley
  We estimate the total area of ancient woodland in England to be 334,000 hectares, as set out in the UK Indicators of Sustainable Forestry. The publication can be viewed on the Forestry Commission's website at http://www.forestrv.qov.uk/sfindicators

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to increase woodland cover in(a) the East Riding of Yorkshire, (b) Yorkshire and the Humber and (c) England. [105276]

  Mr. Morley
  With support from the Woodland Grant Scheme and Farm Woodland Premium Scheme, private woodland owners in Yorkshire and the Humber, including the East Riding, created some 850 hectares of new woodland over the last two years. The forthcoming Regional Forestry Framework is expected to identify priorities and actions for forestry in the Region, including further woodland creation.

  As regards our Forestry Strategy for England as a whole, we are currently reviewing our grant schemes with a view to achieving, among other things, improved targeting of support for new woodland. At the moment, our target is to create 30,000 hectares of new woodland over the seven year period of the England Rural Development Programme.

  Animal By-products
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions are taking place with unrelated organisations in advance of the introduction of the Animal By-Products Order. [105893]
  638W
  Mr. Morley
  Discussions are continuing with a wide range of stakeholders prior to the introduction of the Animal By-Products Regulation on 1 May.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what penalties will ensue for those who continue to use on-farm burial after the introduction of the Animal By-Products Order. [105894]

  Mr. Morley
  Penalties for failure to comply with the Animal By-Products Regulation when it comes into effect from 1 May range from a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both.

  Bovine TB
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the(a) number and (b) proportion of cattle sold to stock farms culled out during the foot and mouth crisis in respect of which (i) their TB reactor test was overdue and (ii) the herd was subject to a movement restriction following the identification of TB infected cattle. [105966]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA is funding a study of the consequences of restocking, which makes the most of the unique research opportunities following the foot and mouth disease outbreak, and looks at TB in newly formed herds. However, the information sought, in the format requested, could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she will take to ensure that all current projects under the Government's bovine TB research programme will be made accessible to(a) non-governmental organisations and (b) the public by means of (i) a reference title for each project, (ii) a description of its purpose, (iii) its timescales and (iv) its cost. [105919]

  Mr. Morley
  The various strands of the Government's research programme both completed and on-going are available in exactly the format requested on Defra's website www2.defra.gov.uk/research/

  Annual reports of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB also include summary updates of Defra-funded TB research. These are available on the Defra website at www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her latest estimate is of the progress being made to(a) identify, (b) pilot and (c) conduct a wider implementation of a cattle vaccine to control the spread of bovine TB. [105920]

  Mr. Morley
  The development of a TB vaccine is one of the key objectives of our TB research programme. We are currently committed to research projects costing more than £5 million, designed to identify candidate vaccines, to experimentally vaccinate cattle and to develop a TB test which will differentiate vaccinated from infected animals. There are many steps in the process of identifying vaccine candidates, testing their efficacy and getting legislative clearance for the successful ones. The Chief Veterinary Officer has set up
  639W
  a Vaccine Steering Group to identify the administrative and legal processes that would need to be followed to enable a vaccine to be used with minimum delay.

  The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG) has cautioned that vaccination is an effective policy option for controlling bovine tuberculosis only in the longer term. The Group is expected to report to Ministers in the first half of this year on the feasibility of pursuing a TB vaccination strategy for cattle or wildlife.

  Bushmeat
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what measures her Department has taken to discourage the import of bushmeat into the United. Kingdom; and how much has been spent by her Department on those measures in the last 12 months; [105067]

  (2) what measures her Department has taken in the last three years to discourage the export of bushmeat to the United Kingdom, broken down by region of origin; and how much her Department spent on those measures. [105066]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 March 2003]: 2.5 per cent. of seizures of products of animal origin reported to DEFRA. Since March 2002, the Department has put in place measures to tackle the disease risks posed by illegal imports of all types of meat and animal products under the Illegal Imports Action Plan. Just under £3 million has been spent this financial year on that plan. It is not possible to determine how much of this was spent to discourage the import specifically of bushmeat. We have made available a total of £25 million over the next three financial years for measures to tackle all illegal imports of animal and plant products.

  In the current financial year, additional measures have been introduced at ports and airports to tackle illegal imports. Temporary agency staff, funded by DEFRA, have been recruited to carry out checks to detect smuggled goods—teams of six are based at our major airports and teams of two at major seaports. We are also paying for additional checks through overtime elsewhere. Further inspection resources have also been provided through the detector dog pilot, and a publicity campaign which has targeted ports, airports and overseas points of departure. We are working with airlines to get our message across through in-flight announcements and videos. We are also advertising on seven million ticket wallets to long-haul destinations.

  The CITES Bushmeat Working Group is also making good progress towards developing strategies to overcome the unsustainable trade in bushmeat in central and west Africa within a proper legislative framework. We have recently contributed a further £15,000 to help the group carry forward its work in this area, bringing to £70,000 the amount contributed since the Working Group was first set up in April 2000.

  On 25 March, the report on the risk assessment of the import of meat and meat products contaminated with foot and mouth disease virus was-published, along with a draft revised and updated action plan for 2003–04.

  Energy Efficiency
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of her Department's funding allocation to the Carbon Trust has been spent in each year since the Trust's creation; and what assessment she has made of the impact of that expenditure. [105219]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 March 2003]: The Carbon Trust was created in April 2001, taking over management of the non-domestic part of the Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme (EEBPp) in July 2002 (which it re-launched as Action Energy) and administration of the Enhanced Capital Allowances programme in August 2002. In this time the Carbon Trust has also formulated its programmes, market research and proper financial and procurement procedures. In line with their remit the Carbon Trust have constructed and launched new and innovative programmes such as the Foundation Phase of the Low Carbon Innovation Programme (LCIP) in May 2002. The full LCIP programme has been notified to the European Commission for State Aids consideration.

  The Carbon Trust was allocated £26.5 million in 2001–02 by my Department, and a total of £49.6 million for 2002–03 (including £17.1 million from the EEBPp). Carbon Trust spend for 2001–02 was £5.5 million (composed of £3.1 million spend and £2.4 million to enhance the EEBPp), accurate spend figures for 2002–03 are not yet available from the Carbon Trust, however Defra has received and is considering a request for £20 million end year flexibility from the Carbon Trust's 2002–03 allocation.

  The Trust has already done much valuable work in its three main programme areas and is taking a proactive role in the energy efficiency arena in its role as the main source of energy efficiency information and advice for non-domestic sector. The impact of the Carbon Trust will be measured in terms of carbon savings, including savings from their Research and Development and Demonstration work. An initial impact assessment programme for the Trust is being developed and should provide preliminary results over the summer.

  Commercial Confidentiality
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance her Department issues to civil servants on how to deal with claims from organisations that the information they provide to the Department is commercially confidential. [105555]

  Alun Michael
  It is not standard practice to verify claims of commercial confidentiality on receiving information from organisations, as this issue is normally only relevant if the question arises as to whether or not the information should be disclosed to another party. Access to the environmental information which Defra holds is subject to the Environmental Information Regulations 1992. Detailed guidance on implementing the Regulations, including the exception relating to commercial confidentiality, is publicly available on the Defra website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/pubaccess/index.htm.
  641W
  Where information is not subject to the Environmental Information Regulations 1992, the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, and the guidance on the operation of the Code, helps officials determine whether information should be disclosed or withheld in response to an individual request. Exemption 13 under the Code relates to a third party's commercial confidences. In deciding whether or not information should be withheld under this exemption, officials must consider whether "unwarranted disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party". While it is ultimately up to Departments to determine, in accordance with the Code, whether to disclose the information, the third party whose interests may be adversely affected should normally be consulted in order to inform the Department's decision. Even where the exemption prima facie applies, the information in question must still be disclosed if there is an overriding public interest in disclosure. However, under the Code, disclosure of commercially confidential information will usually only be appropriate where the risk to public health, public safety or the environment is substantial and specific. A decision to refuse requested information may be made without consultation with the supplier of information where the case for confidentiality is obvious and overwhelming.

  Conservation Boards
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with(a) the Chancellor of the Exchequer and (b) the Inland Revenue about the VAT status of conservation boards. [105477]

  Alun Michael
  Following discussions about the role and contribution of conservation boards my hon. Friend, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, has considered the implications and has explained that conservation boards will not meet the criteria set out for bodies to be able to recover VAT payments. We are considering the implications of this and will discuss the options with the Countryside Agency.

  Animal Diseases (Compensation)
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much compensation was given to farmers for(a) foot and mouth, (b) CJD and (c) animal disposal in each year since 1990 in (i) cash and (ii) real terms. [104509]

  Mr. Morley
  The following table gives details of the amount of compensation paid to the farmers for foot and mouth, both in cash and in real terms, for foot and mouth and CJD (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)).

  £ million

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

  Foot and Mouth

  Cash

  Real terms (in 2002 prices)

  Cash

  Real terms (in 2002 prices)

  1990

  9.11

  12.95

  0

  0

  1991

  16.33

  21.75

  0

  0

  1992

  29.22

  37.42

  0

  0

  1993

  38.05

  47.51

  0

  0

  1994

  25.38

  31.27

  0

  0

  642W

  £ million

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

  Foot and Mouth

  Cash

  Real terms (in 2002 prices)

  Cash

  Real terms (in 2002 prices)

  1995

  11.06

  13.27

  0

  0

  1996

  6.96

  8.09

  0

  0

  1997

  3.21

  3.63

  0

  0

  1998

  2.26

  2.48

  0

  0

  1999

  6.16

  6.60

  0

  0

  2000

  2.71

  2.84

  0

  0

  2001

  1.88

  1.93

  1,106.80

  1,134.47

  2002

  3.03

  3.03

  0

  0

  No payments have been made to farmers for disposal of animals.

  Hill Farming
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of her Department's spending on support for hill farming, in each year from 1990–91 in(a) cash and (b) real terms; what value for money is obtained by this spending; what the purpose is of this spending; and if she will make a statement. [105081]

  Mr. Morley
  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance (HLCA) spending in the UK from 1990–91 was as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Cash

  Real terms

  1990

  128.5

  179.6

  1991

  147.1

  194.1

  1992

  152.7

  194.3

  1993

  132.4

  165.8

  1994

  110.0

  134.5

  1995

  107.6

  127.2

  1996

  107.1

  123.6

  1997

  167.6

  187.5

  1998

  110.5

  119.6

  1999

  175.8

  187.3

  2000

  172.4

  178.4

  Note:

  Expenditure in real terms at 2002 prices.

  From 2001, support for hill farming became the responsibility of the devolved administrations. In England, spending on the Hill Farm Allowance (HFA), which replaced HLCA, was as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Cash

  Real terms

  2001

  42.5

  43.2

  2002

  39.0

  39.0

  The objectives of HLCA were to help support the continuation of extensive livestock farming in the hills and uplands—the less favoured areas—thereby helping to maintain aviable population and conserve the countryside. HLCA was replaced by HFA and similarschemes in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The objectives of HFA are tocontribute to the maintenance of the social fabric in upland communities through support for continued agricultural land use and to help to preserve the farmed upland environment by ensuring that land in these naturally disadvantaged areas is managed in a sustainable way.
  643W
  In terms of value for money, support for extensive grazing has played an important role in maintaining our traditional upland landscapes and hill farming communities. We are keen to ensure that support for extensive farming in the LFAs is as effective as possible, and plan shortly to consult publicly on a review of the Hill Farm Allowance to see whether improvements might usefully be made.

  Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many of the recommendations contained in Farming and Food: A Sustainable Future have been(a) fully and (b) partially implemented. [105214]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 March 2003]: The Government fully accepted the analysis and vision set out in the Policy Commission's report. The vast majority of its 105 recommendations are being implemented within the Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food, which was launched on 12 December 2002. Good progress has already been made. Examples include the establishment of the Food Chain Centre, supporting English Farming and Food Partnerships (EFFP) under the Agricultural Development Scheme, and the launch of a new Entry-Level Pilot Scheme.

  The Policy Commission's report made it clear that the onus is not on Government alone to deliver this change. Many of the Commission's recommendations are targeted wholly or partly at the food and farming industry, which has a pivotal part to play.

  The Government has established an Implementation Group chaired by Sir Don Curry, former chair of the Policy Commission, to oversee and drive forward delivery of the Strategy at national and regional level. Implementation is being backed by £500 million over three years.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farms there are in England; how much financial support they received from her Department in the latest available year; and if she will make a statement. [105080]

  Mr. Morley
  In 2002 there were 146 thousand agricultural holdings in England. In total they received £1.7 billion in the form of direct subsidies. The Exchequer costs of market support is only available at the UK level but the England share of this can be broadly estimated to be £0.4 billion.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the total net cost to the Exchequer of the Forestry Commission in each year from 2002–03 to 2004–05 (planned); what assessment has been made of the value for money of this expenditure; and if she will make a statement. [105079]

  Mr. Morley
  The estimated total net cash cost of the Forestry Commission for the periods requested is given in the following table. These figures reflect the Commission's activities in England and those which apply to the GB as a whole, such as forestry research.
  644W

  £000

  Net Cash Cost

  2002–03

  63,398

  2003–04

  61,333

  2004–05

  58,183

  To ensure value for money from these inputs, the Forestry Commission has a Service Delivery Agreement (SDA) for the spending review period. The SDA, which specifies the outputs that the Commission must achieve, can be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/hcou-4u4j85. Performance against the targets is reported in Defra's Departmental Report.

  Fuel Povert
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the annual assessment of the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group. [105390]

  Mr. Morley
  The Fuel Poverty Advisory Group's first annual report was published on 4 March 2003, alongside Government's own annual progress report of its Fuel Poverty Strategy.

  Funding Schemes (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people in the Buckingham constituency have received funding from the(a) Rural Enterprise scheme, (b) Processing and Marketing Grants scheme and (c) Vocational Training scheme since their introduction, indicating the length of funding received from each scheme. [106382]

  Alun Michael
  In the county of Buckinghamshire, 11 projects have been approved under the Rural Enterprise Scheme and four under the Vocational Training Scheme. The length of funding varies between individual projects. So far no projects have been approved in Buckinghamshire under the Processing and Marketing Grant.

  Details of project beneficiaries are not available at constituency level.

  Fur Farming
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to bring in a compensation scheme for fur farmers in conformity with the Human Rights Act 1998. [105415]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's view is that a compensation scheme drawn up under the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 will help ensure that the ban on fur farming is fair in all respects.

  GMOs
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the future licensing of GM crops. [105485]

  Mr. Meacher
  Following the entry into force of Directive 2001/18 on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms, a total of 19 applications for
  645W
  marketing consents for GM crops have been submitted to various EU member states. The Directive sets out clear procedures and deadlines for each stage of the decision-making process by member states and the European Commission. On any assessment, final decisions at EU level on any of the 19 applications are unlikely to be taken before the end of the year at the very earliest. By that time we will have the first set of results from our crop trials, the report of the public debate, and the information provided by the other parts of the work programme on GM that the Government has put in place. We will decide our policy on the commercial cultivation of GM crops in the UK, in consultation with the devolved Administrations, based on an objective assessment of all the available information.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) whether the UK Government is required by EC Directive 2001/18 to give an opinion on each of the 19 Part C marketing consents submitted to EU member states so far this year: and for each application, what the latest date is by which the United Kingdom's opinion is required for each of those 19 Part C applications should the UK Government consider that all the information requirements required of applicants under the Directive have been met; [105658]

  (2) if she will list the reasons under EC Directive 2001/18 which would permit the United Kingdom to delay issuing an opinion on a Part C application made to the United Kingdom competent authority and to applications made to other member states. [105659]

  Mr. Meacher
  EC Directive 2001/18 places obligations on all European Union Member States with regard to Part C marketing consents, which includes a timetable for each stage. If a Part C application is made to the United Kingdom, we are requried to complete its assessment of compliance with the Directive within 90 days. This deadline excludes any period during which further information is being sought from the applicant. In the two current cases of such applications, additional information is being sought from the applicants. Accordingly, I cannot predict when a UK opinion on either will be required, since it depends upon when the information is provided. Any favourably assessed application would subsequently be submitted for scrutiny by other European Union Member States.

  In the case of a Part C application to another Member State, the United Kingdom has 60 days from receipt of a positive assessment to submit any comments it may have. It is important that we contribute to the thorough scrutiny of these applications. If we were to be concerned that a particular crop may pose a risk to human health or the environment then it is clearly important that the UK submits a reasoned objection. The UK's non participation would not delay the timetable for taking decisions in Brussels. Two applications have reached this stage so far, and in both cases the UK had until 25 March 2003 to submit a response, and in both cases we sought further information necessary to completing our assessment. The deadline for comments on each of the other 15 applications will depend upon if and when positive assessments are submitted by the appropriate lead
  646W
  Member State. All applications are subsequently dependent upon collective EU decision-making procedures and timetable as set out in the Directive.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the reasons for the absence of signs at Gatwick airport to warn travellers about regulations on the import of meat.[104645]

  Mr. Morley
  There are in fact 11 posters in both the South and North terminals at Gatwick airport warning travellers of the rules on the import of meat, food and plants, and the penalties for breaking them. There are also currently 18 posters in commercial sites around the entrances and exits to these terminals.

  The Government recognise that this publicity campaign does not always have the impact we would like in raising awareness. We are continuing to work with stakeholders, major airlines and airport authorities—among others—to strengthen and enhance our campaign.

  Chlorofluoro carbons
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether it is her policy that, under the terms of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, developed countries' production allowance for chlorofluorocarbons for export to meet the basic domestic needs of developing countries should be further reduced below the percentages allowed in the Beijing Adjustment to the Protocol; and whether the United Kingdom will raise this issue as one to be advanced by the EC in this year's meeting of the parties to the Protocol. [105627]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK is keen to ensure that there is no oversupply of CFCs in developing countries as a result of production for basic domestic needs, as this could lead to CFCs being available at lower prices than alternatives and hence could jeopardise developing countries' compliance with consumption controls under the Montreal Protocol. The European Commission is currently finalising a study on the production of CFCs in both developed and developing countries for basic domestic needs and the level of supply of these substances. Based on the conclusions in this report we will consider, with the Commission and other EU member states, what further adjustments to the levels of production agreed in Beijing in 1999 might be appropriate for consideration by the Parties to the Protocol at their meeting this year. The UK is a member of a working group of member states established by the Commission to discuss this.

  Pollution (Stansted Airport)
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the annual emission of(a) NOx, (b) SOx, (c) Carbon Dioxide and (d) particles in the area surrounding Stansted airport was in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [106518]
  647W
  Alun Michael
  The following table shows estimated emissions of NOx, SOx, Carbon Dioxide and particulates (PM10) for Stansted Airport in 1997, 1998 and 1999:

  Emission(tonnes)

  1997

  1998

  1999

  NOx (as Nitrogen Dioxide)

  502

  625

  805

  SOx (as Sulphur Dioxide)

  34.9

  43.4

  56.1

  Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

  106,319

  132,258

  171,070

  Particulates (PM10)

  9.5

  11.8

  15

  Source:

  National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory. Aircraft emissions during the complete take off and landing cycle up to 1,000m are allocated to the airport. Consequently a proportion of the emissions are emitted at some height and horizontal distance from the boundaries of the airport. Emissions are calculated from aircraft movement data. The emissions are based on the number of aircraft movements at the airport in relevant years. Emissions from aircraft support vehicles are based on UK totals for this sector apportioned pro-rata according to the number of aircraft movements.

  Animal Movements
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reasons transporting livestock to and from shows will no longer be exempt from the six-day standstill. [105642]

  Mr. Morley
  We announced in a written statement on 23 January 2003 that the standstill would be reduced from 20 to six days for cattle, sheep and goats with effect from 4 March 2003, but with far fewer exemptions.

  The mixing of animals at shows—just as at markets—presents a risk of spreading undetected disease. During the period when the general rule was a 20-day whole farm standstill, it was agreed that an exemption could be allowed for show animals, but only if they were isolated in Defra approved facilities for 20 days before moving to shows and on return home.

  The removal of most of the exemptions to the standstill is a counter-balance to the increased risk created by the reduction in standstill period to six days. Pigs—which are still subject to a 20-day whole farm standstill—may take advantage of an exemption if they are individually identified and isolated for 20 days in approved Defra facilities before moving to a show.

  Supermarkets
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what initiatives she has undertaken to persuade supermarkets(a) to reduce food miles and (b) to source food products from the locality of their stores. [104613]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 24 March 2003]: The Government are keen to see supermarkets re-examine supply routes to reduce journeys wherever sensible. However, the issues involved are complex and reducing food miles may not always be the most environmentally preferable solution in terms of reducing overall energy consumption. To help clarify the issues, Defra and DfT are supporting a study by Transport 2000 into the scope for reducing food miles in selected product sectors by using local suppliers and different distribution patterns.
  648W
  The Advisory Committee on Consumer Products and the Environment and the Sustainable Development Commission are also planning to do work in this area.

  The Strategy for Sustainable Food and Farming reiterated the Government's commitment to developing a comprehensive Food Industry Sustainability Strategy to provide strategic direction and set priorities for the food industry. Work is now in hand to take forward the drafting of this strategy. We recognise that the strategy will need to cover difficult issues such as food miles. Defra has recently commissioned external research on food miles. The purpose of this research is to establish preferred statistical measure(s) of food miles and their validity as indicators for assessing progress towards sustainability in the food chain.

  Many of the major retailers are introducing policies which should lead to an increase in the range of locally sourced produce stocked, in response to consumer demand. In addition Food From Britain, which we grant-aid, is working with the large supermarkets to encourage the sale of quality regional produce. Defra has also helped finance workshops organised by the Institute of Grocery Distribution, designed to bring together supermarkets and small local producers to explore how barriers to local sourcing can be overcome.

  Town and Parish Councils Directory
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library a copy of her Department's directory of town and parish councils. [105972]

  Alun Michael
  The Department's database of parish and town council clerks in England has been drawn together to enable us to communicate with parish and town councils, it is not immediately clear whether it would be consistent with the Data Protection Act 1998 to publish our internal database as a public directory. It must be remembered that many clerks work from home on a part-time basis although some of the larger town and parish councils do have their own offices. I have asked for the matter to be considered by our legal advisers and I shall write to my hon. Friend after I have considered that advice and shall place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to increase woodland cover in(a) the East Riding of Yorkshire, (b) Yorkshire and the Humber and (c) England. [105276]

  Mr. Morley
  With support from the Woodland Grant Scheme and Farm Woodland Premium Scheme, private woodland owners in Yorkshire and the Humber, including the East Riding, created some 850 hectares of new woodland over the last two years. The forthcoming Regional Forestry Framework is expected to identify priorities and actions for forestry in the Region, including further woodland creation.

  As regards our Forestry Strategy for England as a whole, we are currently reviewing our grant schemes with a view to achieving, among other things, improved targeting of support for new woodland. At the moment,

  649W
  our target is to create 30,000 hectares of new woodland over the seven year period of the England Rural Development Programme.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces (Council Tax)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make representations to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to request that local authorities suspend liability to council tax for members of HM armed forces for periods when serving in the Gulf. [106091]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has no plans to make representations to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to stop council tax payments for members of the Armed Forces while serving in the Gulf.

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his written ministerial statement of 20 March 2003,Official Report, column 54WS, on the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, whether the system of ex-gratia payments will apply to all partners irrespective of sex or sexual orientation; who will make the decision on eligibility for the payments; and if he will make a statement. [105834]

  Dr. Moonie
  The policy change announced on 20 March applies equally to same sex and opposite sex partners; for eligibility, personnel will need to demonstrate that the relationship was substantial. It will also need to be confirmed that the death related to conflict. Decisions on eligibility will initially be taken by the scheme managers using evidence provided by the partner. The partner will be notified of the decision and reasons behind it; where the claim is not accepted, the existing appeals procedures can be invoked including, where the Internal Disputes Resolution Procedures have been exhausted and where otherwise appropriate, reference to the Pensions Ombudsman. The policy change will not be retrospective with respect to deaths occurring before 20 March.

  Chemical and Biological Weapons
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his Answer of 20 March 2003,Official Report, column 884W, on chemical and biological weapons, what estimate has been made of the individual useable minimum and maximum lifetime, given the varying degrees of initial purity and differing storage conditions, of (a) wet form of anthrax, (b) smallpox, (c) VX gas and (d) mustard gas. [106235]

  Dr. Moonie
  As I set out in my previous response, the stability of the individual agents will depend on both their initial purity and the precise conditions in which they are stored.

  The usable lifetime as chemical or biological warfare agents can vary widely. In respect of the biological warfare agents, it can vary from a couple months to 40 years for the wet form of anthrax and from a couple
  650W
  of days to 30 years for smallpox. For the chemical warfare agents VX and mustard, it can very from a couple of days to 30 years.

  Civil Service Travel
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what grades in the Civil Service in his Department are allowed to travel by air(a) first class and (b) business class at public expense when on official duties. [104962]

  Dr. Moonie
  Official travel should always be arranged by the most cost-effective means and route. The Ministry of Defence operates a range of RAF Trooping and part-charter flights to and from those overseas areas where there is a major and permanent United Kingdom military presence such as Germany, Cyprus, the USA and Brunei. If the journey is covered by a Trooping or MOD charter flight this should be used whenever possible. Where commercial flights are necessarily used, however, the MOD can call upon a number of Discounted Fare Agreements that have been negotiated with major airlines to enable journeys to be completed at reduced cost. If scheduled commercial flights are used in this way, the class of travel is determined by grade and flight time. Those in the grade of Permanent Secretary are entitled to fly business class where the flight time is under 2.5 hours and first class for longer flights. All other grades are required to use economy class for flights of less than 2.5 hours duration and business class for the longer journeys.

  Helplines
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his Answer of 25 February 2003,Official Report, columns 447–8W, on telephone helplines, how marry calls were made to each helpline charged at national rate in the last year for which records are available; and what the average duration was of these calls. [105890]

  Dr. Moonie
  In my Answer of 25 February, I referred to seven telephone helplines that were charged at the national rate. Of these, three do not record information on the number or duration of calls received. Information relating to the other four is as follows:

  MOD Public Enquiry Office (0870 607 4455)—during the calendar year 2002 51,174 calls were received, with an average duration of 94 seconds;

  Welsh Language Public Enquiry Office (01554 821 413)—during the calendar year 2002 only four calls were received. The estimated average duration of these calls was 60 seconds;

  Gulf Veterans Advice Unit (020 7395 2375)—full records are not kept, but the average number of calls during 2002 was in the region of six a month. The number is an answer machine, which asks callers to leave their details so that their call can be returned at a later date. It also directs callers to the freephone number 0800 1694495.

  Defence Vetting Agency helpline (01904 662 644)—for the year from March 2002 to February 2003 the helpline received a total of 81,925 calls. On average, these calls lasted 122 seconds.

  Iraq
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost to his Department was of missions involving the release of ordnance by UK aircraft over Iraq in each month since September 2001; and if he will make a statement. [104316]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence identifies the costs of operations in terms of the net additional costs it has incurred. It is not possible to separate out those costs attributable only to missions involving the release of ordnance, because they are an integral part of the whole operation.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will(a) place in the Library and (b) post on the departmental website on a daily basis the battle damage assessment for coalition forces in their invasion of Iraq. [105543]

  Dr. Moonie
  It would be inappropriate to make battle damage assessments available. To do so would provide the Iraqi regime with considerable information which might jeopardise the future effectiveness of coalition operations. I am therefore withholding this information under Exemption 1 (Defence, Security and International Relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Regular unclassified reports providing updated information on the progress of operations are placed in the Library of the House on days when no ministerial statement is made to the House.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Iraqi civilians have been(a) killed and (b) severely injured since the coalition forces invaded Iraq; and if he will place in the Library, on a daily basis, details of new deaths or severe injuries caused to Iraqi civilians by the use of military force in the invasion of Iraq. [105563]

  Mr. Ingram
  We have no means of ascertaining the numbers of Iraqis killed or injured during the coalition's military action, although we make every effort to keep any impact upon the Iraqi civilian population to an absolute minimum. Saddam Hussein has a history of falsely claiming such casualties, and it would be wrong to accept all reports at face value. It would not be helpful to publish daily the details requested by the hon. Member before the facts have been accurately identified.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what powers Iraqi military personnel are held prisoner by UK forces; whether such prisoners are prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention; and if he will make a statement. [105344]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 27 March 2003]: Coalition military action against Iraq is in conformity with international law. The taking of prisoners of war is a recognised and legitimate means of reducing an enemy's strength and fighting capacity. Iraqi military personnel who fall into the hands of United Kingdom forces will be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Baathist Party Fedayeen have been killed by British Marines in Basra since the invasion of Iraq began. [105613]
  652W
  Mr. Ingram
  Personnel of 3 Commando Brigade, Royal Marines, have engaged both regular and irregular Iraqi forces which posed a direct threat to coalition forces on a number of occasions. Coalition forces have also attacked legitimate military and regime targets in and around Basra. The Ministry of Defence is unable to verify how many members of the Iraqi armed forces, Ba'ath Party or State Security Organisation have been killed as result of those operations.

  Middle East (Health Advice)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 12 March 2003,Official Report, column 277W, on Middle East (Health Advice), on what records he will rely if personnel returning from the Gulf consider that a failure by his Department to provide appropriate health briefings was a contributory factor to an illness from which they are suffering. [103575]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence retains copies of pre-deployment health briefings for future reference.

  Stress
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the(a) prevalence and (b) causes of occupational stress in (i) Her Majesty's forces, (ii) the MOD Police and (iii) the MOD Guard Service. [93670]

  Dr. Moonie
  According to centrally held records, 13 Service personnel were medically discharged with occupational stress as the main cause between January 2001 and January 2003. Between 1 April 2002 and 7 March 2003, 10 officers in the Ministry of Defence Police were medically retired due to occupational stress or anxiety-related illnesses. No information is held centrally on the prevalence of occupational stress among members of the Ministry of Defence Guard Service.

  In 1998, the Royal Navy undertook a three-year study of occupational stress among naval personnel. This found that the two principal causes of stress were trying to balance work and home life and discord in working relationships, and that good supervisor support was very effective in managing stress.

  Our policies on occupational stress are kept under review in the light of developments in the field of stress management and treatment.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he plans to make to provide post traumatic stress disorder counselling to members of the armed forces following any possible action in Iraq. [102643]

  Dr. Moonie
  Service personnel deploying to the Gulf region are given briefings on health issues, including stress-related disorders, and mental health staff are available to personnel in theatre. Briefings will be given to personnel prior to leaving theatre. These will cover post traumatic stress reactions and the problems that may be encountered on returning home to families. Personnel identified by commanders or medical staff as being at special risk would be referred to mental health staff.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraqi Civilians
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Office what assistance the United Kingdom plans to provide to(a) Iraqi civilians hit by coalition missiles or bombs and (b) the family survivors of Iraqi civilians killed by the coalition invasion of Iraq. [105588]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.

  The United Kingdom takes its responsibilities toward the Iraqi people extremely seriously. Coalition forces are taking the utmost care to minimise the impact of the conflict on civilians and to provide humanitarian assistance where appropriate.

  Anglo-French Relations
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his oral answer of 25 March 2003,Official Report, column 153, on Anglo-French Relations, if he will publish the (a) analysis and (b) methodology behind that analysis of the cost of enlargement of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [105782]

  Mr. MacShane
  In my reply I inadvertently quoted a figure of 1.75 billion euros; this should be up to £1.75 billion. The estimate of the positive economic effect on UK GDP from enlargement is taken from a study by Baldwin R. E., J. F. Francois & Fortes R. (1997) "The costs and benefits of eastern enlargement: the impact on the EU and central Europe", Economic Policy, No. 24, April 1997. The study estimates have been updated to 1999 GDP figures and prices.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the use of force in Northern Cyprus on 25 March to prevent the holding of a referendum on the Cyprus peace plan in the village of Doganci (Elye); and what action he is taking in response to the arrest of Erdogan Sorakin, Ahmet Barcin, Izzet Izcan, Niyazi Duzgun, Mehmet Bicen and Ali Gulle, political and trade union leaders in Northern Cyprus. [105831]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 31 March 2003]: We have followed the events of 25 March with great concern. We deplore any interference by the Turkish Cypriot authorities which curtails the Turkish Cypriots' rights of assembly and of free, peaceful expression of their political views. We have protested to the Turkish Cypriot authorities and continue to monitor the situation closely.

  EU Enlargement
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the cost to the UK of the proposed enlargement of the EU. [105674]

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's estimate is of the effect of enlargement on Britain's contribution to the EU budget. [106067]
  654W
  Mr. MacShane
  The Copenhagen European Council agreed €25.1 billion of payments for the new member states between 2004–06. This means the overall annual net cost of enlargement is less than one-thousandth of the GDP of the EU-15. And the UK's share of any additional cost will continue to be limited by the abatement.

  The Government publish forecasts of the UK's net contribution to the EC Budget as a whole rather than individual elements. Latest estimates of the UK's net contribution are set out in the footnote to table B17 of the November 2002 Pre-Budget Report (Cm 5664).

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the consequences of the enlargement of the EU on the work load of the European Court of Justice; and what plans he has for reforms to allow the Court to deal with the consequence of enlargement. [106066]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 31 March 2003]: We expect an increased work load for the Community Courts after enlargement. The Government supports an effective European Court of Justice (ECJ). Changes under the Treaty of Nice will facilitate the allocation of work between the ECJ and the Court of First Instance (CFI), and provide for judicial panels to be attached to the CFI. Each new member state will appoint one judge to each court. The Government have been fully engaged in discussions in the Future of Europe Convention which are looking at various improvements relating to the work of the courts including how to improve the enforcement of EC law.

  Kuwait
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future use of the accumulated resources of the Kuwait Compensation Fund. [105265]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK has supported the work of the UN Compensation Commission since its creation in 1991 and four out of six categories of claims arising from the illegal invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1991 have been resolved. 25 per cent. of Oil for Food funds continue to be paid to the UNCC. It would be open to the Security Council to change these arrangements in the future.

  Somalia
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government recognises Mr. Jama Ali Jama as the President of the Puntland State of Somalia. [105622]

  Mr. Straw
  The UK recognises States, not Governments. We do not recognise "the Puntland State of Somalia".

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Commercial Confidentiality
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what guidance her Department issues to civil servants on how to deal with
  655W
  claims from organisations that the information they provide to the Department is commercially confidential. [105559]

  Clare Short
  DFID officials are required to follow the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam of 26 March, concerning debt stock reductions, how many of the qualifying HIPC countries have started to receive their debt relief. [106110]

  Clare Short
  To date, 26 countries out of a total of 37 eligible countries have qualified for relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, and will receive over US$62 billion in debt relief. Of these, eight countries (Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Tanzania and Uganda) have reached Completion Point. At this stage, they receive an irrevocable reduction in their stock of debt. The remaining 18 (Cameroon, Chad, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Sao Tome & Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Zambia) are receiving interim relief on their debt servicing payments. During this stage of the process, these countries are no longer required to make any further payments on the debt to be written off. We expect most of the remaining 18 countries to reach Completion Point within the next two years when they, too, will receive irrevocable debt relief. It is difficult to predict when the other 11 countries will qualify for HIPC relief, as many are still affected by conflict or severe governance problems. We expect the Democratic Republic of Congo to reach its Decision Point when the Transitional Government is installed and the Central African Republic, Comoros and Cote d'lvoire to do so later this year if appropriate progress is made. The remaining countries (Burundi, Congo Republic, Liberia, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Togo) are a long way from qualifying, as they are affected by conflict or have serious governance concerns. But if the Sudan peace makes progress then debt relief will be made available to Sudan.

  Eritrea
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much development aid her Department has given to Eritrea in each of the last four financial years; and whether she plans to increase this in the next financial year. [105429]

  Clare Short
  The total development aid that my Department has provided to Eritrea in the most recent financial years for which we have figures available is:

  £ million

  1998–99

  0.868

  1999–2000

  0.438

  2000–01

  2.385

  2001–02

  1.511

  In addition we have provided support to Eritrea
  656W
  through the European Commission, where our share of European Development Fund 8 is 12.69 per cent. Our imputed share of EC contributions to the EC in the most recent four years that we have data for is:

  £ million

  1997

  0.7

  1998

  0.6

  1999

  0.7

  2000

  0.7

  We do not have a development partnership with Eritrea. We will continue to make a contribution to meeting urgent humanitarian needs, and to the consolidation of the peace process. We will also continue to assess the scope for helping with economic and political reform.

  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in Eritrea. [105430]

  Clare Short
  DFID continually monitors the humanitarian situation in Eritrea. In addition we have regular contacts with UN and international NGO relief organisations, and our Embassy in Eritrea regularly reports on humanitarian matters.

  A visit by DFID officials at the end of January confirmed our view that there are significant humanitarian needs in the country, with high rates of malnutrition demonstrated in many areas, particularly in the Anseba and North Red Sea zones. Our humanitarian assistance, which has focused on meeting the most urgent needs, has amounted to just over £3.35 million since the beginning of 2002.

  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions her Department has had with the United Nations Humanitarian Co-ordinator in Eritrea on aid reserves in Eritrea. [105431]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) on 26 March 2003,Official Report, column 244W.

  Guatemala
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations the Government have made to the Government of Guatemala on the problem of street children; and if she will make a statement. [105484]

  Clare Short
  The Government have been monitoring closely the Government of Guatemala's compliance to the UN Convention On The Rights of the Child, and we have raised our concerns about the deaths of street children on a number of occasions bilaterally. The UK also supported an EU statement critical of the Government of Guatemala's record of safeguarding human rights, at last year's multi donor Consultative Group meeting.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the aid agencies she supports which work in Iraq. [105113]
  657W
  Clare Short
  During the current crisis DFID has committed £32 million to Red Cross/Red Crescent movements; £8 million to WFP; £5 million to NGOs (£1.1 million of which has been specifically agreed with individual NGOs to date—Merlin, the International Medical Corps, Save the Children UK and HelpAGE);£2 million to UNICEF; £1.75 million to UNHCR; £1 million to WHO; £150,000 to OCHA; £100,000 to UNSECOORD. In addition I have announced a £65 million commitment to the UN flash appeal which will be allocated to individual UN agencies in due course.

  In the past DFID has provided support to the following NGOs.

  Northern Iraq:
  Save the Children UK; HelpAge International; Christian Aid; Response Relief Resettlement & Rehabilitation (4Rs); A Community Oriented Rehabilitation Network (ACORN).

  Baghdad controlled Iraq:
  International Committee of the Red Cross, UNICEF, CARE International UK.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps the Government is taking to separate military and humanitarian objectives and actions in Iraq. [105437]

  Clare Short
  The coalition military are responsible for the provision of humanitarian assistance as set down in the Hague Regulations and Geneva Conventions governing Armed Conflict. The Treasury has allocated £30 million to the Ministry of Defence for this purpose. DFID is advising the MOD on its humanitarian work.

  Separately DFID is providing humanitarian assistance in Iraq on the basis of greatest need. DFID has earmarked £210 million for this, the bulk of which will be allocated through the UN, Red Cross and international NGOs.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact on her annual humanitarian aid budget for 2003-04 of re-allocating to Iraq resources earmarked for global assistance to Iraq. [105586]

  Clare Short
  Existing DFID budget plans have not been diverted to fund our assistance to Iraq. The purpose of the DFID Contingency reserve is to deal with unforeseen emergencies.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to address the humanitarian impact of military action in Iraq on neighbouring countries, with particular reference to(a) Jordan and (b) Iran. [106476]

  Clare Short
  My Department has committed £115 million to support the UN agencies, Red Cross/Red Crescent and NGOs to enable them to provide humanitarian assistance where it is needed. All these groups are active in Jordan and Iran.

  In addition DFID has humanitarian advisers in Jordan and Iran who are undertaking regular situation assessments on the ground.

  The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) report no substantial refugee flows, as yet, into the countries surrounding Iraq.
  658W
  Latest information is available in daily updates on the situation in Iraq and surrounding countries, which can be obtained from the House of Commons Library.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps are being taken by her Department to support aid agencies in establishing first aid centres for Iraqi civilians caught up in any conflict. [106478]

  Clare Short
  DFID has committed £115 million to support work by humanitarian agencies in the current crisis and has £95 million set aside for further contributions. A number of these agencies such as the Red Cross/Red Crescent, WHO, UNICEF, Merlin, International Medical Corps and Save the Children UK operate in the health sector. Their activities include the provision of mobile health units, first aid posts, hospital rehabilitation, trauma care and health facilities in refugee and Internally Displaced People camps.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received concerning a time scale for the handover of military-led humanitarian operations in Iraq to UN agencies and NGOs. [106479]

  Clare Short
  The UK is committed to humanitarian assistance being provided by civilian agencies wherever possible, on the basis of need, and not as part of a military strategy. However, humanitarian agencies cannot operate until a permissive security environment has been established. The Office of the UN Security Coordinator (UNSECOORD) provides security advice to the UN humanitarian agencies and will determine when UN agencies can enter southern Iraq. NGOs will need to undertake their own security assessments before engaging.

  Some NGOs and UN agencies remain active in Northern and Baghdad controlled Iraq.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what representations she has received concerning the time scale for a UN resolution on a mandate for the reconstruction of Iraq; and if she will make a statement; [106480]

  (2) with whom she has discussed the possibility of a UN authority in Iraq before the establishment of a transitional Iraqi Government. [106477]

  Clare Short
  The Government is working to secure a UN mandate to provide legal authority for the reconstruction effort in Iraq. This will make possible the engagement of the International Financial Institutions and the wider international community. We are holding ongoing discussions with key partners, including Security Council members, on this issue. It is important that the UN mandate should be established as soon as possible.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of her Department's contingency reserve for 2003–04 has been earmarked for Iraq. [106482]

  Clare Short
  I have earmarked £75 million from my Department's contingency reserve for Iraq. This is 75 per cent. of my 2003–04 contingency reserve.
  659W
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the adequacy of funds in the existing UN escrow accounts to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people over the next three months. [106483]

  Clare Short
  The Security Council unanimously approved a resolution authorising the UN Secretary General to manage the Oil-for-Food (OFF) programme. This is very important for the 16 million Iraqis who rely on the OFF for survival.

  The UN believes that some humanitarian needs might be met from existing OFF escrow accounts. The UN will keep the international community abreast of any adjustments to the flash appeal that they issued on 28 March 2003 to cover humanitarian needs over the next six months.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) of 26 March 2003,Official Report, column 277, what the legal basis is for her statements (a) that UK armed forces are in Iraq as an occupying power, with humanitarian responsibilities and duties to keep order and the civil administration running; and (b) that they do not have the authority to reorganise institutions or establish a new Government. [106584]

  Clare Short
  These statements are based on legal advice on the applicability of the 1907 Hague Regulations and the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that: "To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate". Section III of the Hague Regulations sets out the limits of military authority over the territory of an occupied state; parts of the Geneva Conventions are also relevant.

  Kenya
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in the northern pastoral regions of Kenya that border Uganda, Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia; and what assistance her Department is providing to alleviate poverty in the pastoral regions of Kenya. [105425]

  Clare Short
  Following several years of poor rains and drought the food security situation in northern Kenya remains precarious. Following recent rain in the north and north-eastern border areas, livestock and grazing conditions there are satisfactory. But the rains have not yet come to the north-west, and some livestock losses there have been reported. DFID staff in Kenya are in close touch with UN and other agencies which are closely monitoring the situation.

  Since 1999 DFID has spent over £18 million on drought-related assistance to Kenya. Most of this has been targeted on the north of the country. DFID is also supporting longer term initiatives to reduce poverty in these areas, both through our core contributions to UN
  660W
  agencies such as the World Food Programme, and by supporting NGOs, including Oxfam and EPAG, working on conflict resolution and a range of activities to help people to secure and enhance their livelihoods.

  Middle East
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with non-governmental organisations working in Palestine. [106007]

  Clare Short
  My Department is in regular contact with a wide range of international and Palestinian nongovernmental organisations. I recently participated in the launch of Christian Aid's report "Losing ground—Israel, poverty and the Palestinians" about the alarming rise in poverty among ordinary Palestinians.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is providing to the indigenous people of the Western Sahara. [105623]

  Clare Short
  DFID provides support to the Saharawi refugees through its contributions to the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) and the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

  Western Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what support Her Majesty's Government are giving to the Fur and other indigenous peoples of Dafur in Western Sudan; [106423]

  (2) what humanitarian aid is being made available to the people of Darfur, Sudan. [105625]

  Clare Short
  DFID closely monitors the situation in Darfur and has regularly intervened to address humanitarian needs, and will continue to do so. We are also closely involved in supporting the peace process. A successful conclusion to this will bring real benefits to Darfur as to all other parts of Sudan.

  At present we have a £500,000 grant for Save the Children to trace abducted women and children, then reunify with the their families in Darfur. There have not been any other specific contributions to NGO's working in Darfur so far this year; however, we have contributed £2,500,000 to the World Food Programme's 2003 Emergency Food Operations in Sudan and £2,500,000 to the International Committee of the Red Cross 2003 Appeal for Sudan; additionally we have given £900,000 to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which includes an element to provide a response to humanitarian needs where necessary. The WFP, ICRC and OCHA are able to provide humanitarian assistance to Darfur if needs are demonstrated.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the need for her Department to assist with humanitarian relief in Zimbabwe. [105985]
  661W
  Clare Short
  Continuing misgovernment, together with late rains, means that the crisis in food production in Zimbabwe will persist for the third consecutive year. Current DFID and UN feeding programmes for Zimbabwe extend until June 2003. A specific programme will be developed once detailed assessments and the plans of the Zimbabwe Government are published. In the meantime our contingency planning has been done and we expect to maintain some support for humanitarian needs for a further year, working with the UN and non-governmental agencies.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will place in the Library the business case for merging the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund; [105017]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the administrative savings as a result of merging the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund. [105018]

  Tessa Jowell
  Merging the two bodies is expected to achieve administrative savings and allow better co-ordination of funding. The case for merger will be set out in a White Paper later this year following consultation with the voluntary sector.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which parliamentary constituencies received less than(a) half and (b) a quarter of the median for lottery grant funding in the year for which latest figures are available. [105693]

  Mr. Caborn
  The following list, which is based upon information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the National Lottery awards database, shows (in alphabetical order) parliamentary constituencies which have received less than half and a quarter of the median for Lottery grant funding for the period 1 March 2002 to 28 February 2003.

  UK Constituencies less than.½ median

  Aldridge-Brownhills

  Banff & Buchan

  Batley and Spen

  Blackburn

  Blaydon

  Bosworth

  Bracknell

  Bristol South

  Buckingham

  Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley

  Carshalton and Wallington

  Chesham and Amersham

  Cleethorpes

  662W

  Clydebank & Milngavie

  Colne Valley

  Congleton

  Coventry North West

  Crawley

  Crosby

  Croydon South

  Cunninghame South

  Dagenham

  Dartford

  Denton and Reddish

  Derby North

  Dewsbury

  Dudley South

  Dundee East

  Dunfermline East

  Ealing North

  East Devon

  East Lothian

  East Surrey

  Enfield, Southgate

  Epping Forest

  Esher and Walton

  Fylde

  Glasgow Baillieston

  Glasgow Pollok

  Glasgow Springburn

  Gravesham

  Guildford

  Halesowen and Rowley Regis

  Hamilton South

  Harrogate and Knaresborough

  Hazel Grove

  Henley

  Hyndburn

  Leeds North East

  Lewisham East

  Lichfield

  Liverpool, Garston

  Liverpool, West Derby

  Loughborough

  Ludlow

  Macclesfield

  Maidenhead

  Makerfield

  Mid Dorset and North Poole

  Mid Sussex

  Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland

  Milton Keynes South West

  Mole Valley

  Normanton

  North Dorset

  North East Milton Keynes

  North Swindon

  North Tayside

  North Wiltshire

  Orpington

  Paisley South

  Perth

  663W

  Portsmouth North

  Rochford and Southend East

  Romsey

  Runnymede and Weybridge

  Scunthorpe

  Sheffield, Hallam

  Sheffield, Heeley

  Sheffield, Hillsborough

  Sittingbourne and Sheppey

  Solihull

  South Ribble

  South Staffordshire

  South West Bedfordshire

  South West Hertfordshire

  Southend West

  Stone

  Stroud

  Surrey Heath

  Tamworth

  Tatton

  Tewkesbury

  Tonbridge and Malling

  Uxbridge

  Vale of Glamorgan

  Wimbledon

  Wokingham

  UK constituencies: less than ¼ median

  Aberdeen South

  Altrincham and Sale West

  Alyn and Deeside

  Basingstoke

  Billericay

  Birmingham, Erdington

  Birmingham, Hall Green

  Birmingham, Hodge Hill

  Birmingham, Northfield

  Birmingham, Yardley

  Blaby

  Bognor Regis and Littlehampton

  Brent North

  Bury South

  Cheadle

  Chingford and Woodford Green

  Christchurch

  Corby

  Don Valley

  East Hampshire

  East Yorkshire

  Edinburgh West

  664W

  Elmet

  Folkestone and Hythe

  Gedling

  Gillingham

  Glasgow Anniesland

  Grantham and Stamford

  Harlow

  Harrow West

  Havant

  Hemel Hempstead

  Hornchurch

  Horsham

  Houghton and Washington East

  Morley and Rothwell

  Newport East

  North East Cambridgeshire

  North East Derbyshire

  North Warwickshire

  North West Cambridgeshire

  North West Hampshire

  Northampton North

  Ochil

  Rayleigh

  Reading West

  Redditch

  Romford

  Ruislip-Northwood

  Saffron Walden

  Southport

  Spelthorne

  Stoke-on-Trent North

  Stoke-on-Trent South

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  Sutton Coldfield

  Upminster

  Wellingborough

  Wells

  West Renfrewshire

  West Suffolk

  Wirral West

  Worsley

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) which 20 parliamentary constituencies made the greatest number of applications for lottery funding in the last year for which statistics are available; [106052]

  (2) if she will list for the National Lottery Awards For All scheme (a) the average number of applications per constituency, (b) the average number of applications for each Eastern Area constituency and (c) the average number of applications for Castle Point, in each of the last three years for which statistics are held; [106050]

  (3) what the average number of applications for lottery grants for (a) all constituencies, (b) Eastern Area constituencies and (c) Castle Point was in the last year for which statistics exist. [106053]
  665W
  Mr. Caborn
  Comprehensive information on applications for lottery grants is not centrally held at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will set out(a) the average grant given for all constituencies, (b) the average grant given for eastern area constituencies and (c) the average grant given for Castle Point under the National Lottery Awards For All scheme in each of the last three years for which statistics are held. [106051]

  Mr. Caborn
  The following table, which is based upon information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the National Lottery awards database, sets out the average grant given for all constituencies1, the average grant given for Eastern Area constituencies2 and the average award to Castle Point under the National Lottery Awards For All scheme over the last three years.

  1 March 2000 to 28 February 2001

  1 March 2001 to 28 February 2002

  1 March 2002 to 28 February 2003

  Average grant given for all UK constituencies

  3,190.91

  3,516.44

  3,589.95

  Average grant given for eastern area constituencies

  2,985.25

  3,485.96

  3,361.03

  Average grant given for Castle Point

  3,089.17

  3,084.10

  3,202.17

  1 This has been calculated by taking the average grant for each UK constituency, and then identifying the median average of those averages.

  2 We have defined the eastern area as the eastern region. Since regions are defined by local authorities not constituencies some constituencies may cross the regional boundary. This means that some awards will have been included because they are within a constituency, though the postcode may fall outside the region.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the policy of Sport England is on paying instalments of lottery grants directly to project contractors rather than via project trustees of the charities involved. [106582]

  Mr. Caborn
  As a Lottery award is a legally binding contract between Sport England and the applicant organisation, it is Sport England's policy to make payments only to the applicant.

  Sports Facilities
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action she is taking to increase the number of people(a) trained and (b) employed to coach under 18s participating in sport outside school. [105596]

  Mr. Caborn
  Further to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave on 24 July 2002,Official Report, columns 1162–63W, this Department has been planning implementation of the key recommendations of the Coaching Task Force with delivery agencies, national governing bodies, county sports partnerships and other stakeholders. In the coming year, I expect the first phase of Community Sports Coaches to be operational, the majority of Coach Development Officers to be appointed, significant
  666W
  development of the National Coaching Certificate to be completed and support funding for national governing bodies to be in place.

  Tote
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects to introduce a bill to change the status of the Tote; and if she will make a statement. [106141]

  Mr. Caborn
  We plan to bring forward proposals for pre-legislative scrutiny and then a Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Phil Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the costs were of producing the video sent to all registered bodies detailing the application procedures of security vetting procedures for school staff. [104414]

  Hilary Benn
  The total cost of producing the video entitled "Completing Disclosure application forms" that was sent to all registered bodies detailing the application procedures and security vetting procedures was £34,684.74 excluding VAT. It is not aimed exclusively at those wishing to vet school staff, but at the whole range of organisations and business sectors that wish to use the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) Disclosure service. The video aims to guide viewers through the application process and how to ensure that applications are handled as efficiently as possible.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people applying for employment in schools are awaiting clearance from the Criminal Records Bureau in(a) the Bury St. Edmunds constituency, (b) Suffolk, (c) Norfolk, (d) Cambridgeshire and (e) England; [104853]

  (2) how many people applying for employment in residential care and nursing homes are awaiting clearance from the Criminal Records Bureau in (a) Bury St. Edmunds, (b) Suffolk, (c) Norfolk and (d) England. [104820]

  Hilary Benn
  Data on outstanding applications for specific job types in the areas requested is not available because there are no IT procedures at present to extract this data from the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) database. This functionality is expected to be available during subsequent system releases.

  The estimated average turnaround of checks processed by the CRB remains at approximately five weeks. This is measured from the point at which a correctly completed form is received by the CRB, accompanied by all relevant supporting details.

  CCTV
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the funding available for CCTV schemes in the Buckingham constituency. [106371]
  667W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We are providing £94 million in 2003–04 for local crime reduction activities and action against drugs, including CCTV schemes. Aylesbury Vale Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership has been allocated a total of £176,346.

  In addition, we are making available to local police commanders in 2003–04 a special £50 million Basic Command Unit (BCU) fund for them to use in tackling the problems that matter most in their communities. Police commanders will be able to target the extra resources at local level problems, like anti-social behaviour and drugs, deploying CCTV where appropriate. Aylesbury Vale BCU will receive £110,782 from this source.

  Community Service
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives on the types of activity which are appropriate for a person sentenced to community service. [106586]

  Hilary Benn
  Individual probation areas have discretion over the type of unpaid work that is assigned to offenders sentenced to community punishment (the new name for what was community service). Home Office National Standards for the Supervision of Offenders in the Community require probation areas to ensure that unpaid work is physically, emotionally or mentally demanding, so that it constitutes an effective deterrent to offending behaviour and a credible alternative to custody. Further guidance specifies that activities should take into account the needs of individuals, such as those related to gender, ethnicity or ability, meet health and safety requirements and must not replace work that would normally be carried out by paid employees. Typical unpaid work includes canal clearance, removal of graffiti and the decoration of community centres.

  Crime (Humberside)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the population of each prison in Haltemprice and Howden was in each year since 1997. [105203]

  Hilary Benn
  The population of Everthorpe and The Worlds is given in the table.

  The Wolds

  Everthorpe

  1997 (30 June)

  399

  463

  1998 (30 June)

  398

  468

  1999 (30 June)

  394

  463

  2000 (30 June)

  401

  458

  2001 (30 June)

  397

  465

  2002 (30 June)

  409

  374

  2003 (26 March)

  348

  373

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juvenile offenders have breached(a) probation conditions and (b) curfew orders in the East Riding of Yorkshire in each year since 1997. [105231]
  668W
  Hilary Benn
  The Probation Order became the Community Rehabilitation Order in April 2001. Breaches dealt with by courts in the East Riding of Yorkshire, and the relevant Crown court, were as follows:

  Community Rehabilitation Orders

  Curfew Orders

  1997

  0

  0

  1998

  0

  0

  1999

  0

  0

  2000

  1

  0

  2001

  1

  0

  Domestic Violence
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines he issues to local authorities regarding(a) the content and (b) the frequency of review of domestic violence policy at local authority level. [106254]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I have not issued guidelines to local authorities on domestic violence policy at local authority level. I have, however, announced that £14 million will be made available over the next three years to assist with the development of local responses to domestic violence, and that the Home Office will be working with the Local Government Authority (LGA) to fund a post to support this work.

  Prison Statistics
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many female prisoners under the age of 18 were detained in Holloway prison(a) six months ago, (b) one year ago and (c) five years ago; and how many are held there now. [105406]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Population of female prisoners aged under 18 in Holloway Prison

  Month/year

  Number

  June 1998

  5

  January 2002

  13

  July 2002

  11

  January 2003

  10

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) pursuant to his answer of 17 March,Official Report, column 586W, on the Inmate Information System (IIS), what percentage of inmates serving sentences have had their records linked to the IIS; what measures are being taken to address the limitations of the system; and what timetable he has set for rectifying these limitations; [105358]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 17 March, Official Report, column 586W, on the Inmate Information System (IIS), which computer systems are being considered as replacements for the IIS; and what the costs are of the systems being considered. [105359]
  669W
  Hilary Benn
  All prisons and prisoner records are linked to the Inmate Information System (IIS), although any linking of current records to previous custody information is done manually, as I outlined in my answer of 17 March 2003,Official Report, column 586W, to the hon. Member. It is not possible to provide a percentage of the records that are linked in this way, as no central record is maintained of this information.

  However, prisons do routinely receive details of previous convictions from the court or police authorities and everything possible is done to link current records with previous custody information.

  The current IIS system is being reviewed and the linking of information, both on previous periods in custody and more widely with other Criminal Justice agencies, will be a major consideration of that review. This work is at its initial stages and it is not yet possible to give any firm details of likely timescales, costs or computer systems involved in the implementation.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were being held in police cells at police stations within the Greater London area on 20 March. [105270]

  Hilary Benn
  On 20 March 2003, there were no Prison Service prisoners being held in police cells at police stations in the Greater London area under Operation Safeguard.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 6 March 2003, Official Report, column 1243W, on prisons, what measures the Government is taking to ensure the current planned uncrowded capacity for prisons in England and Wales in 2004 is closer to his Department's forecast average prison population for the same year. [105237]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government has provided resources for the Prison Service to increase uncrowded capacity from 66,000 places in 2003 to 67,000 places in 2004. It is recognised that uncrowded population in 2004. However, capacity planning assumes that the Prison Service not only uses accommodation efficiently but that some accommodation can be overcrowded where appropriate services and regime facilities are provided. Care is taken by the Prison Service to assess the risks to safety, security and control which increase as population pressures rise. The risks are monitored and all possible steps, including limiting the number of prisoners held in any prison, are taken to mitigate their impact.

  The Prison service continues to investigate options for providing further increases in capacity over the coming years, as part of the Government's prison modernisation strategy. This is based on a combination of expanding capacity in existing prisons that we want to keep in the long term, and a programme to build new large multifunction prisons.

  Area1

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Cambridgeshire

  145

  115

  88

  85

  91

  66

  Essex

  144

  128

  115

  79

  65

  67

  Police (Leicestershire)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints were made against police officers of the Leicestershire constabulary in the last year for which figures are available. [105634]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Statistics of complaints against the police for the 12 months to 31 March 2002 were published in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin 04/03. A total of 310 complaints were recorded against officers of the Leicestershire constabulary.

  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the success of drug treatment and testing orders with reference to the HM Inspectorate of Probation Report, A long way in a short time, on the implementation of the orders. [105617]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 28 March 2003]: Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTOs) work. They can get offenders off drugs and away from a life of crime and they help to relieve the misery and blight that drugs misuse causes, not only to the individuals concerned but to communities also. We very much welcome the report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation, which is generally very positive and recognises the efforts of the National Probation Service and its partners in ensuring that this new sentencing option is widely available and effectively delivered. The report also reflects a high level of sentencer satisfaction with the DTTO.

  However, we realise there is more that needs to be done, and work has already begun to address this. With the strong foundations that now exist and the extra investment set out in the Updated Drugs Strategy we will continue to make progress.

  Rape Trials
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the research evaluating the effect of section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill 1999 on the admission of previous sexual history in rape trials will be published. [105527]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 28 March 2003]: The research project began in November 2002 and is expected to continue into next year. We hope to publish the findings by late summer 2004

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time to fast track young offenders through the courts in(a) Suffolk, (b) Norfolk, (c) Essex and (d) Cambridgeshire was in each year since 1997. [104799]

  Hilary Benn
  The average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales, from 1997 to 2002, for the Criminal Justice Areas of Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex and Cambridgeshire is listed in the table along with the corresponding national averages.
  671W

  Area1

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Norfolk

  107

  110

  92

  78

  63

  72

  Suffolk

  154

  132

  110

  81

  77

  74

  England and Wales

  141

  125

  108

  93

  76

  69

  1 The area classification is based on the police force that investigated the offence and entered the charge or summons details on the Police National Computer. In a small proportion of cases prosecution and court proceedings may have been in different areas.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Child Contact Orders
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many applications for enforcement of child contact orders came before the courts in each of the last three years for which information is available. [105580]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Applications for enforcement can take various forms. Besides an application for the respondent to show reasons why (s)he should not be sent to prison or fined for breaching a previous order, the applicant may also ask the court for directions as to how a contact order can be made to work or the applicant might make a fresh application for contact. While my Department collects data on applications for contact (55,030 in 2001) this does not differentiate between new applications and repeat applications. Statistics on numbers of applications for Directions or for Reasons to Show Cause (enforcement) are not collected.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the recommendations of the Children Act sub-Committee Report "Making Contact Work" which were(a) accepted (i) with and (ii) without conditions, and (b) rejected; what steps the Government have taken to implement each recommendation; and which recommendations she will implement within the next 12 months. [105581]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government's interim response to the "Making Contact Work" report was published on 6 August 2002. It acknowledged the valuable contribution the report made in addressing the difficult, and sensitive issue of children's contact with a non-resident parent. A copy of the report was placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It set out the work being carried out, with representatives from the judiciary, legal professions, CAFCASS, other Government Departments, academia and the voluntary sector, to achieve the improvements envisaged by the Children Act sub-Committee. Work continues in the four key areas of information and communication, safety, child contact centres; and facilitation and enforcement. A full response will be published in the summer setting out those recommendations already implemented and how we propose to address the changes envisaged by the Children Act sub-Committee.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what research has been undertaken on the number of child contact orders which are complied with. [105583]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A survey on contact issues has been conducted by the Office for National Statistics on behalf of my Department, the results of which are currently being analysed. The aim of the research is to 672W
  establish a baseline of contact by identifying how contact was agreed; parental satisfaction with the arrangements; and what are the barriers to effective contact. In addition, research has been commissioned (for completion in 2004) to examine what makes contact work and the impact of parents getting another partner and step families.

  Court of Protection (Consultation Process)
  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether there is a formal process of consultation with the legal guardians of minors who have compensation payments held by the Court of Protection(a) immediately after a judgement has been made and (b) at any other stage. [105439]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Court of Protection will only become involved in cases where the minor is also a patient, and the award is at least £20,000. In cases where the Court of Protection is involved, it will appoint a receiver. In the case of a large award the Master of the Court will normally meet the parents/receivers to discuss a monthly budget, any capital which needs to be set aside (e.g. for purchasing property, a car, or special equipment), and the investment of the remainder. The Court will approve an investment strategy. Where the award is large enough to warrant a segregated portfolio, the parent (or receiver in cases where the receiver, is not one of the parents) is given the opportunity to agree the investment broker's proposals for implementing the Court's investment strategy. If the parent/receiver wishes to change the investment strategy, he or she needs to satisfy the Court that the change would be in the child's best interests.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Award Schemes
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the award schemes in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002 promoted by the Department; what their scope was when the relevant participating organisations are scheduled to be sent results; and whether other parties will be given notification of the results at the same time. [102065]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Child Support
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many parents with care would have been entitled to receive a maintenance disregard of up to £10 a week if the child support reforms had been implemented on the original planned date; and if he will estimate how much extra in income-related benefits they would have received over this period. [97101]
  673W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not available. Reliable estimates are not available for the proportion of lone parents who would have claimed Income Support or income based Job Seekers Allowance between April 2002 and March 2003 and for whom maintenance would have been both calculated and paid.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his oral Answer of 10 February,Official Report, column 636, on the Child Support Agency, what the latest estimates he has made of the numbers of (a) gainers and (b) losers under the new maintenance calculation formula; and what the average amount (i) gained and (ii) lost is for (A) non-resident parents and (B) parents with care. [98116]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Government is reforming the child support scheme to ensure that more children benefit from regular maintenance. The reformed scheme will enable the Child Support Agency to deliver support more effectively to parents with care and their children, will help non-resident parents meet their responsibilities and will help to tackle child poverty. The new scheme will be more transparent, easier for parents to understand, easier for the Agency to calculate maintenance and enforce payment, so children will get the support they need. It will be based on a simple rate, so non-resident parents will know in advance how much maintenance they must pay.

  Of those non-resident parents who are earning an income, about 60 per cent. of will have a reduced maintenance liability, and about 40 per cent. will have an increased liability. A further 60 per cent. of those non-resident parents on benefit will have an increased liability for maintenance. Currently, 75 per cent. of NRPs on benefit are treated as having no liability; under the new scheme we expect them to pay a flat rate of £5 to the parent with care.

  About 55 per cent. of working parents with care will have a higher maintenance calculation and 40 per cent. will have a lower one. In addition, more than 90 per cent. of parents with care on income support/income-based Jobseeker's Allowance (around one third of a million people) will gain from the Child Maintenance Premium.

  We expect that the majority of changes to maintenance liabilities will be for amounts less than £10.

  This data is based on an analysis carried out in 2001, and reflects the position had all cases converted to the new scheme on the day of the scan. Since then, average income levels of non-resident parents have increased, which would reduce the fall in the level of maintenance liabilities. To mitigate the effect of substantial change in individual cases, changes may be phased for up to five years.

  Departmental Creche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what creche facilities are provided by his Department; and at what cost. [104304]
  674W
  Mr. McCartney
  The current provisions available are:

  Total number

  Places

  Nurseries

  26

  443

  Playschemes

  100

  1,364

  Financial accountability is mainly at local business unit level and so details of the overall costs incurred in providing assistance with childcare are not available centrally. Investment in each childcare facility is based on a business case which must demonstrate business viability and value for money.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many civil servants have been employed by(a) his Department and (b) each of its agencies and non-departmental be dies in each year from 1994–95 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [92400]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 22 January 2003.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many prosecutions have been made by the Health and Safety Executive in each year since it was established. [104151]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The number of prosecutions following HSE investigation in each year since HSE was established is as follows:

  Year

  Separate offences prosecuted (Great Britain)

  1975

  2,956

  1976

  2,169

  1977

  2,768

  1978

  2,582

  1979

  2,127

  1980

  2,438

  1981

  1,892

  1982

  2,351

  1983

  2,238

  1984

  2,209

  1985

  2,321

  1986–87

  2,199

  1987–88

  2,337

  1988–89

  2,328

  1989–90

  2,653

  1990–91

  2,312

  1991–92

  2,424

  1992–93

  2,157

  1993–94

  1,793

  1994–95

  1,803

  1995–96

  1,767

  1996–97

  1,490

  1997–98

  1,627

  1998–99

  1,759

  1999–2000

  2,115

  2000–01

  1,973

  2001–021

  2,035

  1 Provisional

  675W
  Notes:

  1.The figures given are for calendar years between 1975 and 1985 and for planning years (1 April to 31 March) from 1986–87 onwards. The figures before 1985 rely on published data. A figure for the planning year 1985–86 is not available.

  2.In England and Wales, HSE inspectors initiate prosecutions. In Scotland, the Procurator Fiscal decides whether to bring a prosecution; HSE recommends prosecution when this is justified following an investigation.

  Hepatitis C
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 25 March 2003,Official Report, column 171W, on Hepatitis C, what broader issues have been raised; and which Government Departments are involved in the discussions. [106485]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Scottish Executive's proposal to compensate Hepatitis C sufferers who contracted the virus through contaminated blood has raised the issue of the legal competence of the Scottish Executive, which has wider implications for the UK Government as a whole.

  It would be inappropriate for me to comment further until discussions about the proposal have reached a conclusion.

  Income Statistics
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average net income of(a) female workers, (b) male workers and (c) all workers is in (i) Great Britain and (ii) Scotland. [105008]

  Ms Hewitt
  The average weekly net income figures for 2000–01 are in the table:

  £

  Great Britain

  Scotland

  Female workers

  226

  217

  Male workers

  358

  335

  All workers

  299

  282

  IT Facilities
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library copies of guidelines issued to staff in his Department and its agencies on appropriate use of IT facilities; if he will list the dates on which they were(a) published and (b) distributed; and if he will make a statement on the means by which the information was disseminated to staff members. [105576]

  Mr. McCartney
  Since the Department for Work and Pensions was created in June 2001 the following guidance on the use of IT has been issued:Internal Security fact sheets—issued to all staff in July 2002
  Managers Guide to Security—published on the Departmental intranet in August 2002
  Electronic Media Policy—published on the Departmental intranet in August 2002.

  Copies of the guidance have been placed in the Library.

  Hospital Discharges/Readmissions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps his Department is taking to ensure that(a) discharge and (b) re-admission (i) rates and (ii) causes are closely monitored by NHS trusts. [105395]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  Data on delayed discharges and re-admissions are collected centrally every three months. The National Health Service and social services departments have an interest in monitoring these as part of planning to achieve national priorities and targets. In preparing for implementation of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc) Bill, health and social care agencies will also have an incentive in tracking individual patients through the system to understand the causes of delays and re-admissions.

  Child Dependency Increases/Benefits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in which month new claims to child dependency increases in each of the non-means tested benefits will be abolished for new claimants; and how many families in each subsequent year are expected to be affected by the change. [100797]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Child dependency increases (CDIs) in Incapacity Benefit, Invalid Care Allowance, Retirement Pension, Severe Disablement Allowance, Widowed Mother's Allowance and Widowed Parent's Allowance will be abolished for new claimants in April 2003. It is estimated that around 211,000 families currently claim a CDI in these benefits.

  There were around 20,000 new claims to CDIs in Incapacity Benefit, Severe Disablement Allowance and Invalid Care Allowance in both 2000–01 and 2001–02. Figures for Retirement Pension, Widowed Mother's Allowance and Widowed Parent's Allowance are not available.

  From April, families on these benefits will be eligible to-receive the Child Tax Credit—regardless of whether or not they are in receipt of a CDI. Many will become eligible for income-related support for the first time, meaning that 85 per cent. CDI recipients would gain from the introduction of CTC even if existing entitlements were not preserved.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Bill Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Hamilton, South receive the minimum income guarantee. [106578]

  Mr. McCartney
  As at November 2002 there were 2,800 people receiving the minimum income guarantee in the Hamilton, South constituency.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 2002.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to encourage those pensioners who resent means-testing to obtain the benefit of the new pension credit. [105816]
  677W
  Mr. McCartney
  Under Pension Credit pensioners will not be subjected to the old weekly means test, which will be replaced by a new form of assessment that is much less intrusive. Claiming Pension Credit will involve a simple phone call on a free telephone line making it easy to apply for. From age 65 most pensioners will have their entitlement fixed for five years. Only significant changes in their circumstances such as marriage, change of address or death of a partner will have to be reported.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what her estimate is of the number of pensioners entitled to the pension credit. [106447]

  Mr. McCartney
  The number of individuals estimated to be eligible for Pension Credit is 4.9 million (3.8 million pensioner households).

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the first pensioners not currently receiving their pensions by ACT will receive a letter from his Department setting out the future options for their pension payment; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter that has been sent to such pensioners in pilot areas. [105615]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 28 March 2003]: The Department is issuing individual mailings to customers to inform them of the move to Direct Payment. For pension customers this began in January 2003 and will continue until around October 2004. In addition to this we are planning to run national and regional press advertising this month and plan further advertising from May onwards. The aim is to educate our customers about the changes, the options they have and the action they should take. It will be up to the individual to decide the option that best meets their needs and circumstances.

  A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to increase the basic state pension; and if he will re-introduce the link to earnings. [106092]

  Mr. McCartney
  We have already announced that from April 2003, the basic state pension will increase to £77.45 for single pensioners and to£123. 80 for married couples. Additionally, the minimum income guarantee will increase to £102.10 for single pensioners and £155.80 for couples. Restoring the earnings link does nothing to help poorer pensioners. We will be spending around £7.5 billion extra on pensioners in 2003–04 as a result of measures introduced since 1997. This includes around £3.5 billion that is being spent on the poorest third of pensioners—almost six times as much as an earnings link in the basic state pension since 1998 would have given them. Increases in the basic state pension over the last three years have given single pensioners £1.10 a week more than an earnings link would have given them and £1.75 a week more for couples.

  ODPM area-based initiatives for 2000–01

  £ million

  Initiative

  North East Region

  South East Region

  East Region

  London Region

  North West Region

  West Midlands Region

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Wardens Schemes

  Not Established

  0.147187

  0.020455

  0.283927

  0.366662

  0.041

  Neighbourhood Management Pilots

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Staff Travel
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost was of travel by train by staff in his Department in 2002. [106350]

  Mr. McCartney
  The DWP rail travel contract is with Qjump. The contract came into force with effect from February 2002. Details of expenditure since then are as follows:

  February 2002—December 2002 = £10,579,961

  January 2003—February 2003 = £2,633,428

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Accreditation Service
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what support his Department has given to the Accreditation Awareness Campaign run by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. [105489]

  Mr. Leslie
  The former Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, invited the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) to present its range of services to its staff in November 2001. That Department then sent UKAS a copy of its Business Plan setting out its main areas of work and invited UKAS to make contact with its officials where it perceived there was a mutual benefit.

  Area-based Initiatives
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will list area-based initiatives operating in the North East region, giving the(a) annual and (b) regional budget for each since 2000; [104222]

  (2) if he will list the (a) annual budget and (b) regional budget for each area-based initiative operating in the East Midlands region in each year since 2000; [104641]

  (3) if he will list area-based initiatives operating in the North West region, giving the (a) annual budget and (b) regional budget for each in each year since 2002; [104517]

  (4) if he will list area-based initiatives operating in the Yorkshire and Humber region, giving the (a) annual budget and (b) regional budget for each in each year since 2000; [105404]

  (5) if he will list area-based initiatives operating in the East of England region, giving the (a) annual budget and (b) regional budget for each in each year since 2000. [105761]

  Mrs. Roche
  The following tables provide details of area-based initiatives in all regions that are the responsibility of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
  679W

  ODPM area-based initiatives for 2000–01

  £ million

  Initiative

  North East Region

  South East Region

  East Region

  London Region

  North West Region

  West Midlands Region

  New Deal For Communities

  5.3

  2.4

  4.2

  13.7

  4.7

  8.9

  Community Empowerment Fund

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Community Chest

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Community Learning Chest

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Coalfields

  10.63

  E5.27

  Not Established

  Not Established

  0.39

  1.34

  Single Regeneration Budget

  94.5

  48.2

  18.5

  236.6

  141.0

  72.0

  European Structural Fund Objective One

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  505.906

  Not Established

  European Structural Fund Objective Two

  281.082

  17.681

  67.106

  94.892

  305.417

  191.025

  £ million

  Initiative

  East Midlands Region

  Yorkshire and Humber Region

  South West Region

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  Initiative

  North East Region

  Not Established

  Wardens Schemes

  0.016203

  0.111506

  0.01

  Neighbourhood Management Pilots

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  New Deal For Communities

  0.03

  7.0

  2.6

  Community Empowerment Fund

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Community Chest

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Community Learning Chest

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Coalfields

  10.07

  15.89

  0.091

  Single Regeneration Budget

  34.4

  100.7.

  23.7

  European Structural Fund Objective One

  Not Established

  466.175

  183,812

  European Structural Fund Objective Two

  77.645

  227.291

  67,615

  ODPM area-based initiatives for 2001–02

  £ million

  Initiative

  North East Region

  South East Region

  East Region

  London Region

  North West Region

  West Midlands Region

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  26.48

  2.28

  1.748

  41.02

  54.094

  26.992

  Wardens Schemes

  0.729861

  0.724474

  0.282807

  1.461726

  1.712323

  0.579772

  Neighbourhood Management Pilots

  0.543249

  0.189761

  0.085792

  0.332757

  0.728838

  0.255587

  New Deal For Communities

  5.7

  4.7

  9.5

  28.6

  14.1

  17.9

  Community Empowerment Fund

  1.824502

  0.436573

  0.228033

  2.654485

  2.967299

  1.132771

  Community Chest

  1.442878

  0.264003

  0.149057

  3.218024

  2.567774

  1.107349

  Community Learning Chest

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Coalfields

  8.95

  1.50

  Not Established

  Not Established

  0.97

  2.25

  Single Regeneration Budget

  96.8

  59.1

  23.4

  236.4

  157.7

  72.0

  European Structural Fund Objective One

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  497.168

  Not Established

  European Structural Fund Objective Two

  282.085

  16.845

  65.995

  96.403

  319.687

  195.249

  £ million

  Initiative

  East Midlands Region

  Yorkshire and Humber Region

  South West Region

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  13.02

  30.314

  4.06

  Wardens Schemes

  0.238657

  0.850305

  0.490

  Neighbourhood Management Pilots

  0.263493

  0.413704

  0.372377

  New Deal For Communities

  15.6

  14.6

  6.1

  Community Empowerment Fund

  0.905246

  1.386009

  0.465082

  Community Chest

  0.709180

  1.300515

  0.313894

  Community Learning Chest

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Coalfields

  8.70

  7.95

  0.089

  Single Regeneration Budget

  27.9

  118.5

  26.7

  European Structural Fund Objective One

  Not Established

  458.043

  1 78,967

  European Structural Fund Objective Two

  76.694

  222.9

  67,373

  ODPM area-based initiatives for 2002–03

  £ million

  Initiative

  North East Region

  South East Region

  East Region

  London Region

  North West Region

  West Midlands Region

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  39.72

  2.28

  1.72

  41.02

  54.094

  40.488

  Wardens Schemes

  1.177386

  1.288503

  0.903256

  5.189534

  3.353741

  2.050991

  Neighbourhood Management Pilots

  0.432035

  0.341383

  0.325338

  0.468908

  1.456524

  0.522950

  New Deal For Communities

  18.8

  7.0

  13.2

  37.6

  31.0

  22.4

  Community Empowerment Fund

  1.824502

  0.436573

  0.228033

  2.654485

  2.967299

  1.132771

  Community Chest

  2.164318

  0.396004

  0.223586

  3.218024

  3.851661

  1.661023

  Community Learning Chest

  0.577154

  0.105601

  0.059623

  0.858140

  1.027109

  0.442939

  Coalfields

  6.10

  3.13

  Not Established

  Not Established

  0.68

  3.27

  Single Regeneration Budget

  85.9

  40.4

  33.0

  212.1

  131.2

  71.0

  European Structural Fund Objective One

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  Not Established

  487.482

  Not Established

  European Structural Fund Objective Two

  282.516

  15.959

  64.731

  97.747

  304.682

  199.2

  680W 681W

  £ million

  Initiative

  East Midlands Region

  Yorkshire and Number Region

  South West Region

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  19.503

  30.314

  6.09

  Wardens Schemes

  0.701 339

  2.146799

  1.116

  Neighbourhood Management Pilots

  0.825055

  0.981 200

  0.485370

  New Deal For Communities

  15.7

  17.7

  7.6

  Community Empowerment Fund

  0.905246

  1.386009

  0.465082

  Community Chest

  1.063770

  1.950773

  0.470842

  Community Learning Chest

  0.283672

  0.520206

  0.125558

  Coalfields

  16.15

  10.52

  0.995

  Single Regeneration Budget

  32.2

  117.3

  22.3

  European Structural Fund Objective One

  Not Established

  458.504

  174,643

  European Structural Fund Objective Two

  75.55

  217.942

  66,993

  ODPM area-based initiatives annual budget

  £ million

  Total annual budget

  Initiative

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  Not Established

  200

  300

  Wardens Schemes

  1.2

  7.7

  19.3

  Neighbourhood Management Pilots

  Not Established

  4

  11.1

  New Deal For Communities

  48.8

  126

  170.9

  Community Empowerment Fund

  Not Established

  12

  12

  Community Chest

  Not Established

  10

  15

  Community Learning Chest

  Not Established

  Not Established

  4

  Coalfields

  43

  30.8

  41

  Single Regeneration Budget

  769.6

  819.0

  746.07

  European Structural Fund Objective One

  1,155,893

  1,134,178

  1,120,629

  European Structural Fund Objective Two

  1,384,436

  1,372,080

  1,358,323

  The national figures given in the answer given to the hon. Member for Ludlow on 12 March 2003, Official Report, columns 321–22W, were indicative totals based on records held in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The national figures now are the aggregates of the regional figures provided by Regional Development Agencies. From April 2002 the Single Regeneration Budget was incorporated into the Regional Development Agency Single Pot.

  The regional figures for 2002–03 are estimates.

  The European Structural Fund Objective One and Two are budgeted on the calendar year from January to December.

  Commercial Confidentiality
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance his Department issues to civil servants on how to deal with claims from organisations that the information they provide to the Department is commercially confidential. [105554]

  Mr. Leslie
  It is not standard practice to verify claims of commercial confidentiality on receiving information from organisations, as this issue is normally only relevant if the question arises as to whether or not the information should be disclosed to another party. The Code of Practice on Access to Government Information—and the guidance on the operation of the Code—helps officials determine whether such information should be disclosed or withheld in response to an individual request.

  This code provides a specific exemption—exemption 13—for a third party's commercial confidences. In deciding whether or not information should be withheld under this exemption, officials must consider whether "unwarranted disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party". While it is ultimately up to the Office to determine, in accordance with the Code, whether to disclose the information, the third party whose interests may be adversely affected should normally be consulted in order to inform the Office's decision. Even where the exemption prima facie applies, the information in question must still be disclosed if there is an overriding public interest in disclosure, but
  682W
  disclosure of commercially confidential information without consent will usually be appropriate only where the risk to public health, public safety or the environment is substantial and specific.

  A decision to refuse requested information may be made without consultation with the supplier of information where the case for confidentiality is obvious and overwhelming.

  EU Structural Funding
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the amount of Objective One monies spent in each constituency in the last year for which figures are available. [105895]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 21 March 2003,Official Report, column 992W. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not estimate spending in constituencies as this would not provide a meaningful basis for analysis.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many Fire Safety Officers have been employed by local authorities in each year since 1997. [100214]
  683W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is tabled as follows:

  Year

  Fire Safety Officers employed by Fire Authorities in England and Wales

  1997–98

  1,679

  1998–99

  1,738

  1999–2000

  1,863

  2000–01

  1,932

  2001–02

  1,862

  An increased emphasis on prevention is a central component of the Government's agenda to modernise the Fire Service. The Government's proposals will be set out in a White Paper to be published later in the year.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many retained firefighters there were at each fire station in Buckinghamshire in 2002. [105710]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The total number of retained firefighters at each fire station in Buckinghamshire in the year 2002 is shown in the table.

  Name of station

  Number of retained firefighters

  Amersham

  10

  Aylesbury

  17

  Beaconsfield

  8

  Bletchley

  14

  Brill

  7

  Broughton

  13

  Buckingham

  11

  Chesham

  10

  Gerrards Cross

  10

  Great Holm

  10

  Great Missenden

  10

  Haddenham

  8

  High Wycombe

  11

  Marlow

  11

  Newport Pagnell

  10

  Olney

  11

  Princes

  8

  Risborough

  —

  Stokenchurch

  11

  Waddesdon

  10

  Winslow

  11

  Total:

  191

  1 Gerrards Cross and Newport Pagnell fire stations are staffed by wholetime firefighters.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list fire stations which(a) opened and (b) closed in Buckinghamshire in 2002. [105712]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No fire stations have opened or closed in Buckinghamshire during this period.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress towards a resolution of the fire service pay dispute. [106017]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement that my right.hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made to the House on 20 March,Official Report, column 1101.

  Inspectorates
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) staff and (b) staff engaged in inspection work have been employed by the Best Value Inspectorate in each year since its creation. [105873]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested in respect of the Inspection Directorate of the Audit Commission, which is responsible for carrying out best value inspections, is shown in the table.

  Total staff employed by the Inspection Directorate

  Inspection staff Directorate engaged in inspection work

  1997–98

  4

  3

  1998–99

  18

  14

  1999–2000

  73

  58

  2000–01

  324

  262

  2001–02

  438

  332

  Note:

  The Audit Commission's financial year runs from 1 November to 31 October.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will receive answers to his questions(a) 97398, (b) 97476 and (c) 97477 of 6 February. [106576]

  Mr. Leslie
  The questions tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham were answered on 28 March 2003,Official Report, column. 484W.

  Portsmouth (Urban Renewal)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much money has been allocated for(a) housing improvements and (b) urban renewal areas in the Portsmouth area in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [104944]

  Mr. McNulty
  The housing capital allocations made to Portsmouth in the years since 1997–98 are as follows:

  £ million

  1997–98

  7.3

  1998–99

  8.7

  1999–2000

  8.9

  2000–01

  12.9

  2001–02

  16.6

  2002–03

  16.7

  2003–04

  15.4

  The figures cover housing annual capital guidelines (which include an element to be financed from authorities' capital receipts); the major repairs allowance; the Capital Receipts Initiative; and support for private sector renewal, disabled facilities and Cash Incentive Scheme grants. Estate Action scheme funding is excluded. There is no separate ring-fenced funding to support renewal areas. The reduction in 2003–04 mainly reflects a change in the local government capital finance system, which means the housing annual capital guidelines allocation no longer include an element assumed to be financed from authorities capital receipts.

  Social Exclusion
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the number of people helped in social exclusion zones. [105503]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is directing additional resources at a number of the most deprived and socially excluded areas of England.

  In terms of the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) a total of 88 local authority districts receive support. 19.6 million people live in these areas, based on the 2001 Census. Not all of these people are socially excluded or live in deprived areas. It is the task of the local strategic partnerships, community empowerment networks and the local communities in these places to direct NRF resources and so improve service delivery to people living in the areas of most need.

  In terms of the New Deal for Communities (NDC), some 200,000 people live in the 39 NDC partnership areas according to estimates from the NDC evaluation.

HEALTH

  Patients Choice (Battersea)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what treatments are available to patients in Battersea under Patients Choice at hospitals other than those to which they were originally referred; and if he will make a statement. [101832]

  Mr. Hutton
  Patients in Battersea are already able to choose an alternative hospital under the London patient choice project for cataract operations and also under the national coronary heart disease scheme for heart operations.

  From the end of March 2003 these patients will be offering a similar choice in ear, nose and throat, general surgery and orthopaedics. The scheme will roll out to other surgical specialties such as gynaecology, urology and plastic surgery from summer 2003.

  From summer 2004, all patients who have already waited more than six months for treatment in all specialties will be eligible under patient choice.

  Charge Income
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 26 February 2003,Official Report, column 620W, on Charge Income, if he will break down the forecast increase received from each type of charge in (a) 2003–04, (b) 2004–05 and (c) 2005–06. [104871]

  Mr. Hutton
  The forecasts for charge income provided in my answer of 26 February 2003,Official Report, column 620W, were calculated by assuming that total charge income in 2002–03 of £923 million would grow in line with inflation. They were not built up from estimates of the individual charge elements which, in practice, will be subject to a number of factors, including future decisions on charge levels and volume trends in the services in question, some of which are demand led. The forecasts are subject to regular review and revision and we now have more details about forecasts for
  686W
  2003–04, which take account of new prescription charges as of 1 April 2003, announced on 10 March. These are shown in the table. We do not have a breakdown of the charges for 2004–05 and 2005–06.

  Forecasts for charge income 2003–04

  £ million

  Dental Charge income1

  499

  Prescription charges income

  446

  Welfare food sales of subsidised dried milk2

  2

  NHS Pensions Agency data on review of pension mis-selling2

  1

  Total

  948

  1 Includes an estimated £90 million of charge income which may be generated within Personal Dental Service pilot, dependant upon the scale of new pilots to be approved.

  2 2002–03 forecasts uplifted by the December 2002 GDP deflator of 2.25 per cent.

  Food Standards
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the standards imposed on the importation of chicken into the United Kingdom. [103877]

  Ms Blears
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) that the import of chicken from countries outside the European Union is the subject of strict legislation. Chicken must be slaughtered and processed in countries and premises to meet food safety standards at least equivalent to those required within the EU. In addition, it has to meet quality standards required by European Community Marketing Regulations. Third countries must carry out checks on premises to ensure that the required standards are maintained, and take action to deal with failing establishments. The EU also monitors establishments in third countries and can take action to deal with individual establishments or a country that fails to exert appropriate checks and controls.

  Chicken from third countries can only be imported into the EU through designated border inspection posts following prior notification. It is subject to 100 per cent., documentary and identity checks and prescribed levels of physical checks, according to the type of product and country of origin.

  Chicken produced in another EU member states can be traded freely with other member states and is not subject to routine checks at United Kingdom ports. However, the hygiene and quality standards are enforced by each member state. In the UK, these checks are carried out by local authorities.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he will take to ensure that all imported foodstuffs meet United Kingdom food standard regulations. [103879]

  Ms Blears
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency (FSA), which has responsibility for food safety matters, that the European Union operates a strict system of controls on imports of products of animal origin from countries outside the EU. All products of animal origin must be pre-notified and presented to a border inspection post. Consignments are subject to
  687W
  100 per cent., documentary and identity checks and physical checks at a level prescribed by the EU, according to the country of origin and type of product. Products not of animal origin can enter the United Kingdom from third countries, through any sea or airport and are subject to checks, according to the type of product and the country of origin and any rules in place in the EU.

  The FSA is working closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise on imported food issues, as part of a cross-government action plan to further improve enforcement and control of illegal imports. Co-ordination arrangements between the FSA, HM Customs and Excise and Defra are being strengthened to achieve a step-change improvement in controls on the illegal import of meat. HM Customs and Excise is taking the lead responsibility for detection of smuggled imports of meat.

  Community Care (Direct Payments) Act
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will amend regulation 3 of the Community Care (Direct Payments) Act 1996 to allow the spouse of the payee and a person who lives with the payee as his or her spouse to act as paid carer for a disabled person. [105650]

  Jacqui Smith
  The 1996 regulations state that direct payments cannot be used to employ spouses or certain other close relatives. The Community Care, Services for Carers and Children's Services (Direct Payments) (England) Regulations 2003, which, subject to Parliamentary approval, will come into force on 8 April, have relaxed this rule by permitting the employment of close relatives in exceptional circumstances.

  Figures in £000

  Budget

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Comment

  Revenue funding

  National Institute of Mental Health (NIMHE)

  2,000

  2,000

  2,000

  Bids may be invited from private organisations or development centres of NIMHE

  Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services Development

  200

  200

  200

  No national bidding process is expected but bids for specific schemes may be requested

  Older People National Service Framework Development

  0

  2,830

  2,850

  A bidding process for particular projects may take place

  Teaching Primary Care Trusts

  4,000

  3,972

  4,000

  Targeted invitations to PCTs will be issued

  Child care

  15,000

  14,895

  15,000

  Initially allocated to Workforce Development Confederations on the basis of a formula—some of whom may then invite bids locally

  Equal Opportunities

  250

  250

  250

  Bidding for staff support networks

  Community Services for people with severe personality disorder (DSPD)

  0

  2,000

  0

  Bidding process to be open to specific PCTs and the independent sector

  DSPD service development

  0

  3,900

  6,800

  Bidding process to be open to specific PCTs and the independent sector

  Long term low secure accommodation

  0

  2,790

  5,000

  Bidding process to be open to specific PCTs and the independent sector

  Minimise experience of out of area treatment

  0

  900

  0

  Bidding process limited to regional centres of the NIMHE

  Reduce suicide in relation to prevention strategy

  0

  4,400

  4,400

  Bidding process limited to regional centres of the NIMHE

  Support the re-engineering of services—waiting times

  0

  2,029

  2,700

  Bidding process limited to regional centres of the NIMHE

  Sexual health (including chlamydia screening)

  17,500

  12,395

  12,500

  DoH policy leads will be inviting expressions of interest from PCTs

  Rare conditions—pathology

  0

  300

  600

  Bidding for development of three histopathology training schools

  Sub-total (revenue)

  38,950

  52,861

  56,300

  Capital funding

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 13 February from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Dr. M. Gibbs and Dr. S. Hudson. [103747]

  Mr. Milburn
  A reply was sent to my right hon. Friend on 28 March.

  Harold Wood Disablement Services Centre
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding has been made available for cosmesis in prosthetic services at Harold Wood Disablement Services Centre at Harold Wood Hospital in each of the last three years. [104374]

  Mr. Hutton
  Funding for the Harold Wood Disablement Services Centre is drawn from a large number of primary care trusts (PCTs) in London and Essex. Funding for the provision of silicone cosmesis for prosthetic limbs is incorporated in the general revenue allocations to PCTs and not separately identified. Funding levels are reviewed annually between the Harold Wood Disablement Services Centre and the PCT commissioners.

  Health Care Funds
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will list the financial size of each centrally administered health care fund into which health authorities and primary care trusts can bid: and if he will make a statement. [103703]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on central funding against which national health service organisations can bid over the period 2003–04 to 2005–06 is shown in the table.
  689W

  Figures in £000

  Budget

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Comment

  Improving the provision of decontamination services in the NHS

  26,000

  13,000

  43,000

  NHS Trusts will be invited to submit bids

  Modernising hospital manufacturing of medicines

  4,000

  24,000

  14,000

  NHS Trusts will be invited to submit bids

  Pathology modernisation

  150

  500

  0

  NHS Trusts will be invited to submit bids

  Sub-total (capital)

  30,150

  37,500

  57,000

  Total

  69,100

  90,361

  113,300

  Health Protection Agency
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his Answer of 6 March 2003,Official Report, column 1203W, on Getting Ahead of the Curve, if he will estimate the short-term transitional costs in establishing the Health Protection Agency; how these costs will be incurred; and what proposals he has to cut services to meet these costs from within existing resources. [103819]

  Ms Blears
  There have been and will continue to be some transitional costs.

  Initial set-up costs

  These comprise largely the costs of a small implementation team and the input of the constituent organizations, which will form the Health Protection Agency (HPA).

  These costs, which are in the region of 400,000 to 500,000, have been met from the funding of the organizations moving into the HPA. As staff contributed from a wide range of specialisms, there has been no loss in outputs.

  Short to medium term transitional costs

  These comprise the establishment of a small separate headquarters for the corporate functions of the HPA pending rationalization of the HPA estate. The cost will be in the region of £500,000 to £600,000 per annum; and

  the possibility of a small number of redundancies if—following the application of the change management protocol for filling posts—some staff are left without jobs. This is difficult to quantify at present as organizational structures have not yet been established.

  These will be funded from the HPA's allocation from the Department and also underspends/surpluses in 2003–04, which will be rolled forward across the first two to three years of the HPA.

  Underspends of almost £3 million revenue and £2.5 million capital have been identified within the organizations which will be subsumed into the HPA; the Public Health Laboratory Service, the National Radiological Protection Board and the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research (CAMR). This is almost entirely slippage of programmes; there have been no cut backs. In addition CAMR has had a very successful trading year, which has resulted in a cash surplus of £5 million to put towards transitional costs.

  Healthy Living Centre Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications for funding from the 690W
  Healthy Living Centre initiative have been received from projects based in Buckinghamshire; and what the outcome was in each case. [105698]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have been asked to reply.

  The New Opportunities Fund received six applications under the Healthy Living Centres programme from Buckinghamshire. One of these applications was successful:
  Vale of Aylesbury Primary Care Trust have been awarded £753,906 for the South Court and Walton Court Healthy Living Centre.

  Medical Profession (Self-Regulation)
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will withdraw from the medical profession the provision for self-regulation. [105061]

  Mr. Hutton
  No. Self-regulation of the health professions has been a feature of the national health service since its inception. The Government remain committed to modern, patient-centred professionally led regulation.

  NHS Facilities
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) NHS trusts which have wards which do not meet the single sex accommodation standards, (b) NHS trusts which do not meet the additional safety requirements for mentally ill patients and (c) trusts which do not meet the standards for separate lavatory and washing facilities. [102822]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 13 March 2003]: The majority of National Health Service trusts were successful in eliminating mixed sex accommodation by the target date. Over 98 per cent, of wards now meet our guidelines. The remainder will comply once current Private Finance Initiatives and other building projects in 24 NHS trusts are completed.

  These projects affect only 164 out of 10,000 wards—less than two per cent., of all wards. To name the trusts involved would give a false impression that the whole trust is not compliant when that is clearly not the case.

  Foundation Trusts
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether NHS foundation trusts are to be required to reinvest all year-end financial surpluses in ways consistent with the purpose of health-related activity carried out in the public interest. [105127]
  691W
  Mr. Hutton
  Subject to parliamentary approval, a national health service foundation trust may retain any year-end financial surpluses, subject to the requirement that they are reinvested in ways consistent with its primary purpose, which is to provide NHS services to NHS patients.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each(a) NHS region, (b) health authority and (c) NHS trust for each quarter for (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001 the (A) monetary value of approvals to use (1) capital and (2) revenue for capital purposes, (B) number of approvals and (C) total capital allocation. [100712]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 5 March 2003]: The information requested on capital., revenue transferred for capital purposes, and total capital allocations has been placed in the Library. The Department does not collect details of the number of capital approvals.

  Drug Misuse
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the practice of automatic detoxification of patients stabilised in the community on substitute prescriptions has been discontinued. [105182]

  Ms Blears
  The Department of Health has never endorsed a policy of automatic detoxification of heroin misusers. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to say that the policy of automatic detoxification of patients stabilised in the community on substitute prescriptions has been discontinued. The Department's view is set out in its "Drug Misuse and Dependence—Guidelines on Clinical Management (1999)", which states:"It is important to tailor the treatment needs to those of the individual needs of the presenting patient, especially where substitute treatment for dependence is concerned.
  A dose reduction intervention should be shaped by a realistic appraisal of jointly agreed treatment goals and outcomes between the patient, the doctor and other members involved in the patient's care.
  Treatment aims and goals should be adjusted accordingly depending on the patients progress.
  Methadone maintenance treatment, incorporating psychosocial interventions, can enable patients to achieve stability, reduce their drug misuse and criminal activity, and improve health. For these reasons such treatment should form an important part of drug misuse services.
  There is now a choice of substances available for use in opiate maintenance prescribing. There is a need to monitor research progress in this field and to adjust future treatments in the light of new treatment evaluations."

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the allocations per head of population to each primary care trust in England are for(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04. [103766]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary care trust revenue allocations per unweighted head of population in 2002–03 and per weighted head and unweighted head of population in 2003–04 have been placed in the Library.
  692W
  In 2002–03 the Department allocated to health authorities which allocated to their constituent primary care trusts. The Department calculated 2002–03 unweighted primary care trust populations in preparation for direct allocations to primary care trusts in 2003–04. But 2002–03 weighted primary care trust populations were not calculated centrally.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role strategic health authorities have in ensuring that primary care trusts continue to commission the full range of specialist services. [105566]

  Mr. Hutton
  Strategic health authorities are responsible for the oversight and performance management of the commissioning arrangements by primary care trusts. This includes the arrangements for specialised services.

  Private Health Schemes
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his Answer of 11 March 2003,Official Report, column 246W, on private health schemes, what procedures are in place to monitor national health service trusts and primary care trusts to ensure that the offering of private patient services is not interfering with the performance by a trust of its functions or of its obligations under NHS contracts. [104053]

  Mr. Hutton
  Strategic health authorities are responsible for the performance management of national health service trusts and primary care trusts. It is, however, primarily for those trusts themselves to establish arrangements to monitor and review the appropriateness of their private patient provision.

  Public Benefit Corporations
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has made an assessment of the optimum number of members of a public benefit corporation; whether the optimum number of members of a public benefit corporation will vary with the size of(a) its public constituency and (b) its staff constituency; and whether he has made an assessment of the optimum proportion of the number of members of a public benefit corporation in relation to the size of (i) its public constituency, (ii) its staff constituency and (iii) its public and staff constituencies combined. [105121]

  Mr. Hutton
  Subject to parliamentary approval, national health service foundation trusts will be established as public benefit corporations. Minimum requirements for the membership of public benefit corporations are set out in schedule 1 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. Beyond these minimum requirements, proposals for local membership will not be prescribed centrally as governance arrangements will need to be appropriate to the local circumstances of each NHS foundation trust.

  The Independent Regulator will only authorise an application for NHS foundation trust status if he is satisfied that, among other things, the constitution meets the statutory requirements and necessary steps to prepare for foundation status have been taken, including whether all sections of the community are fairly represented.
  693W
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what ways the board of directors of a public benefit corporation will be accountable to(a) the members of the corporation and (b) the board of governors of the corporation. [105143]

  Mr. Hutton
  Subject to parliamentary approval, national health service foundation trusts will be established as public benefit corporations. The minimum requirements for the constitution of public benefit corporations, including the accountability requirements for the board of directors, are set out in schedule 1 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. Subject to approval by the Independent Regulator, individual NHS foundation trusts may add to these minimum requirements under their constitution.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the board of governors of a public benefit corporation will have any role other than to appoint and set the terms of employment of the non-executive directors and the auditor. [105145]

  Mr. Hutton
  Subject to Parliamentary approval, national health service foundation trusts will be set up as public benefit corporations. The minimum requirements for the constitution of public benefit corporations, including the role and function of the Board of Governors, are set out in Schedule 1 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. Subject to the approval by the Independent Regulator, individual NHS foundation trusts may add to these minimum requirements under their constitution.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether public benefit corporations will be able to pay dividends other than those paid to the Consolidated Fund; and to whom these dividends would be paid. [105146]

  Mr. Hutton
  Subject to parliamentary approval, national health service foundation trusts will be set up as public benefit corporations. NHS foundation trusts will not pay dividends (apart from those payable on Public Dividend Capital).

  Skin Cancer
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the effect upon dermatology departments of waiting times for treatment of suspected skin cancer; [105055]

  (2) whether his Department has undertaken an audit of the number of benign lesions which are being referred into secondary care because of waiting times for suspected cases of skin cancer. [105056]

  Ms Blears
  A two-week out-patient waiting time standard was introduced for urgently referred cases of suspected skin cancer from October 2000. In the last quarter (October-December 2002), 98.7 per cent. of urgently referred patients with suspected skin cancer were seen within two weeks of urgent referral. We have issued general practitioner cancer referral guidelines to assist GPs in determining those patients who need to be referred urgently to see a specialist within two weeks, those patients that can be referred for a routine appointment and those who can be safely watched at a694W
  primary care level. The referral guidelines are currently being reviewed by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

  The referral guidelines should be used to agree local referral criteria and referral pathways. The Department has not carried out a national audit of skin cancer referrals but all trusts have been encouraged to undertake local audit to enable the appropriateness of urgent and routine referrals against the guidelines to be fed back to referring GPs.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent efforts his Department has made to publicise the availability of sun safety advice and information; [105058]

  (2) how much money his Department has allocated to sun awareness campaigns in each year from 2003 to 2007; [105057]

  (3) whether guidance has been issued to schools on how to protect school children from the sun. [105059]

  Ms Blears
  A new sun awareness initiative, "SunSmart", was launched on 27 March by Cancer Research UK (CRUK) to make the public aware of the dangers of exposure to the sun. The campaign is based on the successful "SunSmart" campaign in Australia. The campaign has received funding of £120,000 from the United Kingdom Health Departments this year. We will evaluate the effectiveness of the campaign later in the year, with a view to deciding on future funding and campaigns.

  The SunSmart campaign consists of a poster and leaflet for the public CRUK website redesign and links to other stakeholclers, branding and design of "SunSmart", CRUK commissioned research at the Centre for Social Marketing and a part-time health promotion consultant at CRUK for the duration of the campaign.

  The campaign's aim is to increase the profile of the issue of skin cancer and methods of effective sun protection.

  The key objectives are to increase knowledge of the causes of skin cancer, increase awareness of actions that can be taken to prevent skin cancer and to influence positively attitudes to sun protection.

  Subject to further funding, longer-term aims are to reduce sunlight exposure through changes in behaviour and environment, increase the proportion of people reporting with early stage disease and decrease the proportion of people presenting with late tumours.

  The campaign's key messages have been disseminated by way of an alert to the campaign and mailshot pack of posters and leaflets to all GP surgeries and health promotion units nationally, an alert to the campaign and mailshot to secondary schools with 3,500 leaflets and posters and a series of press events over summer 2003 with leaflets/posters targeted in cities and seaside resorts.

  We developed the "SunSafe" web pages last year, which were designed with children in mind, on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/

  695W
  sunsafe. These will continue. Sun awareness information is also contained on the Wired For Health website at www.wiredforhealth.gov.uk/teaching/sun/intro.html.

  We continue to fund annually the Meteorological Office to provide the daily ultra-violet index in the media—on television, radio and the Meteorological Office website.

  The Department also provides core funding to the National Radiological Protection Board, which has expertise on ultra-violet radiation issues.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the number of clinical nurse specialists in skin cancer. [105060]

  Ms Blears
  The Department of Health Workforce Census shows that, since the launch of the NHS Plan, from September 1999 to September 2001, there was a net increase in nurses working in the national health service of 20,740. This increase will enable the recruitment of additional nurses to care for cancer patients. This will 696W
  include increases in cancer-site specific nurse specialists where need has been identified through local workforce planning.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is being spent on timber in the redevelopment of Charing Cross Hospital; which company is providing the doors for this redevelopment; what types of wood will be used in the manufacture of the doors; and what efforts have been made to ensure that the timber used is being sourced from legal and sustainable sources. [105385]

  Mr. Hutton
  The redevelopment at Charing Cross is being done by West London Mental Health National Health Service Trust. The company responsible for all of the carpentry is called Cavendish Joinery. All external doors are made of aluminium and glass. The internal doors are being made from softwood from coniferous sources. Cavendish Joinery has confirmed to the Trust that all wood is from managed and sustainable sources. There are a total of 500 doors at £400 each, totalling £200,000.

TRANSPORT

  Trunk Roads
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  I am today announcing a range of improvements to the strategic road network that will tackle congestion, improve safety and reduce the impact of traffic noise.

  Measures that minimise the effect of traffic on the people who live alongside roads are as important as trying to ensure that people can travel safely and reliably. For this reason we will be installing quieter surfacing on over 60 per cent. of the trunk road network, including all concrete stretches, within the period of the 10 year plan.

  I am now able to announce the timetable for the resurfacing of all stretches of concrete roads and that within the next four years we will resurface the 26 stretches affecting the largest number of people. The remaining stretches will be resurfaced between 2007 and 2011.

  The early work will benefit some 11,500 properties and cost in the order of £77 million. Details have been placed in the Library, along with copies of the report by TRL Ltd that compares estimated noise levels with actual noise levels.

  In the light of the recommendations of the Regional Planning Bodies, the Statutory Environmental Bodies, local authorities and other stakeholders I have asked the Highways Agency to add the following road schemes to the Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI) at a cost of £637 million:
  A14 Ellington-Fen Ditton improvement
  A57/A628 Mottram in Longdendale, Hollingworth and Tintwistle bypass
  A45/A46 Tollbar End improvement

  These schemes will deliver a range of benefits including reductions in congestion and improvements in safety as well as relieving communities of heavy traffic. The improvement of the A14 also demonstrates our commitment to support the Government's plans for accelerated growth in the London-Stansted-Cambridge area, as set out in the Communities Plan.

  I have asked the Highways Agency to take forward work on the following schemes with a view to TPI entry in the near future:

  A38 Derby Junctions improvement

  40/A46 Longbridge roundabout improvement

  A55/A483 junction improvement Chester

  50WS
  However, I am not convinced that the proposal for a new motorway in open countryside between M6 junction 19 and the M56 is acceptable. I have also considered alternative improvements of M6 junction 20, but I do not believe that they represent value for money.

  I have therefore asked the Highways Agency to work with local stakeholders to identify smaller-scale measures for the A556 in Cheshire.

HEALTH

  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton)
  I am publishing today the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency's annual business plan. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The business plan highlights the Agency's achievements in 2002–03 and sets out the key tasks and targets for the coming year.

  This comprehensive plan has been formulated within the context of the Agency's ongoing remit to lead the modernisation of the NHS purchasing and supply function. The Agency has a strategic role to set out a major development agenda for purchasing and supply in the NHS and to develop a co-ordinated implementation plan for doing so. The business plan sets out clearly how the Agency will achieve these aims.

  Learning Disability Services
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith)
  I am today publishing"Making Change Happen", the Government's annual report on learning disability services. The report describes progress made in implementing the programme of action set out in the White Paper Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century (Cm 5086) and contains a response to Making Things Happen, the first annual report of the Learning Disability Task Force, published in January this year.

  People with learning disabilities are among the most socially excluded and vulnerable groups in society. In March 2001 we published Valuing People, which set out an ambitious and challenging cross Government programme to improve the services they use. Over the last year I have been able to report good progress with the Valuing People programme and am now pleased to be able to report that progress is continuing. Since Valuing People was published:
  More advocacy groups are receiving funding and councils are spending more on advocacy;
  More people with learning disabilities are receiving direct payments;
  More people with learning disabilities are in employment;
  More families with severely disabled children are receiving family support;
  The National Forum of People with Learning Difficulties has been set up to give people with learning disabilities a national voice. The Forum has members on the Learning Disability Task Force, which is itself co-chaired by someone with a learning disability.
  51WS
  Today's report describes the setting up of the basic framework for the implementation programme—the Valuing People Support Team, Learning Disability Partnership Boards, the National Forum of People with Learning Disabilities and the Learning Disability Task Force. We are now building on that framework.

  Earlier this year I was pleased to welcome the Task Force's first annual report. The report I am publishing today includes a response to the Task Force and confirms our readiness to work with it as it continues to monitor the implementation of the whole Valuing People programme.

  Today's report is written in an accessible form, using pictures and straightforward, jargon-free language. It is important that people with learning disabilities can see for themselves what is being done to improve the services they use.

  The Valuing People Support Team has made an excellent start in developing links with Learning Disability Partnership Boards and supporting them as they implement the White Paper's proposals at local council level. I can confirm that the Support Team will continue its work until 2006. I can also confirm the continuation of the Implementation Support Fund and the Learning Disability Development Fund.

  Valuing People said that it would take a minimum of five years for its programme to be implemented. We have made good progress towards that target in the two years since its publication.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short)
  The first Afghanistan Development Forum took place in Kabul on 13–14 March 2003. The Afghanistan Transitional Administration (ATA) presented its budget for the next financial year (2003–04) to donors. This was another milestone in Afghanistan's rehabilitation as a functioning state. It was well attended by many Afghan Ministers and a large number of donors, including officials from my Department. Donors welcomed the progress that the Afghans have made in the last 15 months, and acknowledged the huge challenges still to be faced.

  The Afghan Transitional Administration presented its National Development Budget for the coming year (1382). The total budget of $2.3 billion is to cover both the ordinary and the development budgets. The ordinary budget, which covers civil service, police and army salaries as well as operating and maintenance budgets, totals $550m. The development budget covering 12 broad sectors for development as outlined in the National Development Framework, totals $1.7 billion. Whilst donors will continue to fund most of both budgets the ATA plan to raise $200 million in domestic revenue to contribute to the ordinary budget.

  The ATA expressed their commitment to begin to reform the public administration. Reforms announced included the completion in the next six months of a nominal payroll database for civil servants and the enforcement of an immediate freeze on civil service
  52WS
  numbers. A review will also be conducted of ministries' functions and senior staffing levels. While we welcome these announcements on reform we shall continue to seek more detail and press for urgent implementation.

  Donors responded positively to the ATA budget, already pledging over $1.8 billion for 2003–04. My Department reaffirmed our Tokyo commitment to provide at least £40 million a year for five years. We also pledged to increase this amount, depending on performance, especially on public administration reform. We announced a possible additional £10 million for 2003–04 depending on progress. The ATA welcomed this approach and encouraged other donors to follow it.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Home Energy Conservation
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley)
  Data reported by Energy Conservation Authorities in England under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 in the period 1 April 1996 to 31 March 2002 has been placed in the Libraries of the House. This data has also been published on the Department for Food and Rural Affairs' website, at address http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/energy/heca95/index.htm. Authorities have reported an overall improvement in domestic energy efficiency of approximately 10 per cent. as measured against a 1996 baseline.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Côte D'Ivoire: (Overseas Military Units)
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  I am gravely concerned at reports that Northbridge Services Group, a UK company, is recruiting British, South African, French and other ex-servicemen as military units to work in Côte d'Ivoire. The crisis in Côte d'Ivoire has caused enormous suffering for the people of that country, and threatens the stability of the wider region. The Linas-Marcoussis agreement offers Ivorians the opportunity of a peaceful, political settlement, which addresses the key issue underlying the crisis. Ivorians are now making progress in setting up a broad-based government of National Reconciliation, under the terms of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement. Any deployment of foreign military units at this time would seriously undermine the peace process, and the efforts of the UK and wider international community to support a durable, political settlement. We have made it clear to Northbridge Services Group that the UK Government would deplore any intervention of this sort.

  Export Licence (Ghana)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  Following consultations with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry recently approved a
  53WS
  licence to export antennae masts to Ghana. These masts will be used, by the Ghanaian Armed Forces in the UN peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

  The DRC is subject to an EU arms embargo, imposed by a Declaration of 7/4/1993. The embargo was put in place mainly to ensure the safety of international troops and civilian personnel deployed in the DRC.

  The decision to grant an exemption to the EU arms embargo on the DRC was made on the basis that the equipment is needed by bona fide UN peacekeepers and is proportionate to the needs of the Ghanaian peacekeepers. It does not affect HMG's continued support for the EU arms embargo on the DRC.

  HMG fully supports the Ghanaian troops deployed to the UN peacekeeping mission in the DRC. The decision underlines our continued support for the work being done by peacekeepers within the country.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Social Fund
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks)
  I am pleased to announce that the gross discretionary social fund budget for 2003–04 will be £677.5m. This represents an increase of more than £50m over the total gross budget at April 2002. This increase will be funded through higher loan recoveries, plus an increase in net Treasury funding of £20m for this year. The £20m is the first of three annual increases from a £90m boost for the discretionary Social Fund announced in the Autumn 2002 pre-Budget report.

  As part of the 2003–04 allocation, we have increased the community care grant budget by £10m. This is a significant increase that will help the most vulnerable. It has been distributed so that every district benefits by an increase in their CCG budget and districts move closer to meeting the same proportion of demand nationally.

  The loans budget will be £558m, an increase of £40m over that at April 2002. To maintain fairness within the scheme, the loans budget will continue to be allocated to districts to support consistency of outcome for applicants wherever they live.

  £1.5m will be retained centrally as a contingency reserve. For example to provide additional help to districts facing unexpected and unplanned expenditure.

  Details of individual district budget allocations have been placed in the Library.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be making a number of minor changes to the discretionary social fund, with effect from 7 April 2003. The changes to the fund are minor clarifications of guidance and directions, and, in the main, are consequential to legislative changes being made in respect of other social security benefits.

  Details of the changes have been placed in the Library.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  On 7 October 2002 my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced the ending of the routine granting of exceptional leave on a country basis and a review of its use and scope to focus it on those who really need special humanitarian protection but do not qualify as refugee.

  In the past, exceptional leave has been used far too widely—it was only ever intended to be granted to those able to demonstrate compelling compassionate or humanitarian reasons for staying in the United Kingdom. Instead, the widespread use of exceptional leave has acted as a pull factor, encouraging economic migrants to apply for asylum in the United Kingdom in the belief that they will be given exceptional leave when their claim is rejected.

  That is why we have decided to replace the exceptional leave system with a new Humanitarian Protection system. From now on the UK will only offer international protection to those who really need it.

  From today Humanitarian Protection will be granted only to those who, though not refugees would, if removed, face in the country of return a serious risk to life or person arising from the death penalty, unlawful killing or torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

  Under the new system those who qualify for Humanitarian Protection will be granted leave for three years, at which point a person with a continuing need for protection will be eligible to apply for settlement in the United Kingdom. A person with no continuing need will not get any further leave.

  The Secretary of State will also retain the discretion to grant limited leave to those who do not qualify for Humanitarian Protection or leave under the Immigration rules. The circumstances in which Discretionary Leave will be granted will be defined and tightly focused. This leave will normally be granted for two periods of three years, but there is scope to grant shorter periods depending on the individual circumstances. Again, it will not be renewed unless a person continues to qualify for such leave.

  Both the Humanitarian Protection and Discretionary Leave systems will be far more focused and clearly defined than the exceptional leave system. Failed asylum seekers who do not fall into one of these categories will not be granted any leave and will be removed. We are determined that the asylum system will no longer be a short cut to work or settlement in the UK. I believe that these measures, when taken alongside the provisions in the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, will take us even further forward in our efforts to reduce the number of unfounded asylum applicants seeking to abuse our immigration system.

DEFENCE

  Vaccines Interactions Research Programme
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)
  The Ministry of Defence's Vaccines Interactions Research Programme is studying whether the combination of vaccines and nerve agent pretreatment (NAPS) tablets used to protect United Kingdom personnel during the 1990–91 Gulf Conflict can give rise to adverse health effects. The study involves four groups of 12 marmosets. One group was given the full range of vaccines which could have been administered during the 1990–91 Gulf conflict (anthrax, plague, pertussis, yellow fever, cholera, tetanus, polio, hepatitis B, typhoid and meningitis), one was given pyridostigmine bromide, which is the active ingredient of NAPS, one was given both vaccines and pyridostigmine bromide, and the last was the control group, which received neither. The marmosets are being monitored over a period of 18 months and a number of indices, such as cognitive performance, EEG, sleep, endocrine functioning and immune responsiveness, are measured at regular intervals.

  Preliminary results from the first three months of the study are now available and are being presented by means of a scientific poster at the British Toxicological Society's annual conference at Herriott Watt University in Edinburgh. These preliminary results provide data on behaviour, sleep, EEG, body weight, cholinesterase inhibition and muscle function and indicate no apparent adverse health consequences three months following the administration of vaccine and/or pyridostigmine bromide. I am placing copies of the abstract and poster in the Library of the House. They will also be available on the Ministry of Defence's website.

  In addition, preliminary immunology results will be reported at the 3rd international meeting of the Edward Jenner Institute for Vaccines Research from 12 to 16 April. Copies of the abstract and poster presentation will then be placed in the Library of the House and will be made available on the Ministry of Defence's website.

  The study as a whole is due to complete in December 2003 and the results are expected to be published in the peer reviewed scientific literature thereafter.

  Reserve Call-Out
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)
  A new call-out Order has been made under section 56 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to allow reservists to continue to be called-out into permanent service to support operations in the former Yugoslavia. This replaces the existing Order that expired on 31 March. The new Order is effective until 31 March 2004.

  Since 1995, when NATO operations commenced in the former Yugoslavia, the reserve forces have historically provided around 10 per cent. of the total UK manpower in theatre. At present, there are around 230 reservists from all three Services serving in Bosnia and Kosovo. They are providing specialist skills in fields such as logistics, signals and medical support.
  56WS
  I am also announcing two compulsory mobilisations under the new Order. One is an extension of the existing deployment of small numbers of specialist medical personnel (anaesthetists and surgeons) to provide critical support to our forces in theatre. Since April 2002, we have called out 17 personnel to serve three month tours. This will continue for another 12 months. We anticipate a requirement for around six personnel at any one time. Given the small numbers involved, and our intention to spread the burden across the NHS, we are confident that the impact on patients in the UK will be minimal.

  The second compulsory mobilisation will be of further specialist medical and logistics personnel from the Territorial Army. They will provide general practice, ambulance, and postal and courier capabilities in theatre. In total, we will call out around 150 personnel from 251 and 253 Field Ambulance (Volunteers) and up to 20 personnel from 87 and 88 Regiments Postal and Courier Services. Personnel will serve for up to seven months, with the first deployments in June.

  Regional Prime Contract (Scotland)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)
  The Ministry of Defence's Regional Prime Contract for Scotland was awarded yesterday, 31 March 2003 to AMEC Turner Ltd.

  The contract will run initially for seven years with an option to extend to a total of 10 years. Worth £460 million, the contract covers the provision of estate management and construction services to the Ministry of Defence in Scotland. It provides for capital works (known as "core works") and facilities management and property maintenance services ("core services").

  Regional Prime Contract Scotland is the first of a total of five such contracts covering the United Kingdom.

  Defence Estates
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)
  Defence Estates (DE) is being re-launched today as an agency of the Ministry of Defence with new responsibilities. This follows consideration, within Project Alexander, of how the defence estate should best be managed as a corporate asset. In particular, the new arrangements will clarify customer supplier relationships.

  The changes are in line with the overarching and comprehensive strategy for the defence estate, set out in "In Trust and On Trust" in June 2000 and also represent a further application of the principles of Smart Acquisition within the Department.

  In future Defence Estates will be responsible and accountable, through its Chief Executive, for managing the delivery of estate maintenance and new works to meet internal customers' requirements. This will be achieved by:
  managing the defence estate as a corporate asset,
  developing, maintaining and implementing an Estate Strategy, consistent with policies and standards (including environmental sustainability criteria),

  57WS
  devising and implementing an agreed programme with customers that provides a corporate and long-term view of requirements consistent with the Estate Strategy,
  delivering the solutions and estate management services to meet the agreed estates programme to time, cost and quality,
  developing and maintaining an agreed Core Sites Strategy focusing MOD's activities onto fewer, larger sites,
  the management, maintenance and improvement of land, buildings and facilities to standards delivered where appropriate through robust and well-managed contracts with service providers.

  In parallel, and working closely with DE, six Customer Estate Organisations (CEstOs) are being established to specify estate requirements in output terms for each of the main areas of the department (Royal Navy, Army, Royal Air Force, Defence Logistics Organisation, the Centre/Defence Procurement Agency, and the Permanent Joint Headquarters).

  Copies of DE's Framework Document will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

TREASURY

  Financial Services Authority
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown)
  I am pleased to announce that Callum McCarthy has agreed to be the next chairman of the FSA Board. With experience of the public sector, as a senior practitioner in the financial services industry and as chairman of a highly successful regulator, he will prove invaluable to 58WS
  the FSA as it tackles the regulatory challenge of the future. Callum McCarthy will take up his new duties in September.

WALES

  Public Audit (Wales) Bill
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain)
  I am pleased to announce that on Thursday 3 April I intend to publish in draft form the Public Audit (Wales) Bill, together with draft explanatory notes.

  The UK Government is committed to producing more of its Bills in draft form before they are formally introduced into Parliament. This allows advanced scrutiny of the Bill, as well as public consultation on the terms of the proposed legislation, which in turn helps the planning of the legislative process.

  The Public Audit (Wales) Bill sets out proposals to unify the audit scrutiny of Welsh public bodies (including the National Assembly) in a single audit body to be known as the "Wales Audit Office" in English and "Y Swyddfa Archwilio Cymru". The Auditor General for Wales will head the organisation.

  The Bill proposes bringing together the existing functions of the Auditor General for Wales and most of the functions currently exercised by the Audit Commission in Wales under the Wales Audit Office. Further details about the content and the public consultation will be given when the Bill is published on Thursday.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater, having received a writ of summons in accordance with Standing Order 10(3) (Hereditary peers: by-elections) following the death of the Viscount of Oxfuird, took the oath.

Neighbourhood Renewal
2.36 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to those who allege that plans for neighbourhood renewal, though sensible, may be stifled by complex representative structures.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, in order to tackle the diversity of local needs, neighbourhood renewal plans must include structures for engaging with the full range of local stakeholders. We will do all that we can to continue to work with local partnerships as they seek to improve local decision-making and delivery mechanisms. However, this is not an area for prescriptive solutions from central government. Local problems require local remedies, and it is for local communities to decide what is best by way of the arrangements.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government have very wisely and sensibly given no less than £20 million to the cause of neighbourhood renewal in Tower Hamlets? In the light of that, does it not behove them to ensure that sensible arrangements are made in order to provide that that money becomes fully effective? Is the Minister aware that many people fear that instead of effective action, we will get another layer of chatter and bureaucracy just trotting about in the purloined garments of democracy?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I thought that I had dealt with the noble Lord's issue regarding Tower Hamlets in January. I invited him to visit Tower Hamlets, and I repeat that invitation today. The leader of the council would be more than happy to discuss with the noble Lord, on the ground, the effectiveness of the neighbourhood renewal programmes in what is, I must say, the most deprived borough in the country. It is certainly the most deprived borough in London.
The sums involved are £7.9 million last year and £10.6 million next year. The system for delivering that money has been accredited not by my department but by the Audit Commission. Contrary to some rumours peddled by certain people, the number of groups and bodies involved in the delivery to local people is very
1158
modest; namely, some eight local partnerships, five theme groups and one overall management group. There is much public money to be looked after. It is important that it is looked after to local people's satisfaction, which I understand it is, and that it is accredited by the Audit Commission. This is the best way to deal with the problems in that deprived borough.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House how the Government intend to allocate the extra money contained within the Comprehensive Spending Review for next year? Will the money continue to be allocated to the current 88 localities or will it be ring-fenced to hit government targets rather than locally set ones?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not think that that was a very friendly question in the way it was put. So far as I am aware, without notice on the specifics, the programme remains for the 88 most deprived areas of the country. We can easily make big programmes by spreading money thinly. The idea of this programme, over a number of years, was to target it. There are always other areas on the border of meeting the deprivation indices near to the 88. But we decided to concentrate on the 88 areas in order to make a real difference to the lives of people in those communities.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I should like to ask another friendly question. In places such as Burnley, the neighbourhood renewal plans have brought great hope and some joy to people who have suffered decades of neglect. Will the Minister agree that the local strategic partnerships, which are helping to carry out these plans, are doing a valuable job? I could not agree with the Minister more that it must be left to local people. In the case of Burnley, they are doing a first-class job after the difficulties of a couple of years ago.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, my noble friend speaks with knowledge of Burnley. There is evidence that the local strategic partnerships being set up around the country are proving effective in taking out other layers of organisations which have sometimes got in the way. I fully admitted that to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in my answer in January. There were complications in delivering many different programmes in areas. I used the analogy "almost like a bowl of spaghetti" and people not understanding the flow of finances. The local strategic partnerships are cutting through that, reducing the numbers of different organisations involved and it is to be hoped that they are obtaining better value for money.
Earl Russell: My Lords, would the Minister agree with the view that proposals, though sensible, may be stifled by complex representative institutions? It is one which, at different times, has been held by every government who have ever put proposals before Parliament.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, yes, in order to make things happen and do things. No Minister comes to Parliament with bad ideas. They are all very sensible ideas. It is making them a practical reality that touches the footprints and fingerprints of people's lives so that they can see a connection between what is said in this House and another place and what is happening in their local community.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I declare an interest as the chairman of the Neighbourhood Management Board of Castle Vale, the successor body to the housing action trust. Is my noble friend aware that community representatives on the Castle Vale estate have made a brilliant success of the transformation of that pig-sty civic area into something that is now a leading-edge example of regeneration? I can assure my noble friend that they will continue to do so.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I know the area well. There were times in the 1970s and 1980s when many of my constituents who wanted to move broke down in tears in my surgery when they were told to go to Castle Vale. "Please don't send me there", they begged. Now people are queuing up to get into Castle Vale, not to get out of it.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, while applauding the initiatives being taken—particularly those in Tower Hamlets, which is certainly one of the most deprived areas in the country—will the Minister consider returning to the House with a detailed report on how such schemes are working? Having visited two Sure Start schemes in London, which are very impressive indeed in their initial stages, I believe that such initiatives merit more information being given to the House.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall come back to report on these matters as often as the House wishes. I am pleased that there is an interest in this subject. There are pockets of deprivation all over the country—they are not confined to the cities—and we are attempting to change people's lives. All programmes are in their early days—they are only one, two or three years old—and have had an extremely short time in which to make a difference. I believe that the House and another place should keep such schemes under constant surveillance and hold Ministers to account for them.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not only the House that needs to keep these schemes under constant review? In declaring an interest as a resident of Lambeth, what are the Government doing to ensure that the local strategic partnerships draw these schemes to the attention of the 99.5 per cent of the people in their neighbourhoods who have no idea of what is being done in their name?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not wish to nitpick but to say that 99.5 per cent of people do not know what is going on is, frankly, an exaggeration. I met certain
1160
groups of the leadership of Lambeth Council yesterday to discuss matters relating to their planning service, which has in the past been poor but which has seen massive improvements over the past couple of years. Indeed, the council received the fourth highest planning development grant for the new scheme that has recently been announced to reflect its improved performance. I gave encouragement to continue that improvement.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, speaking and declaring an interest as a taxpayer, does the Minister agree that when he says "government money" he actually means "our money"? As taxpayers, we are all interested in seeing that our money is spent correctly and directly on deprived areas and less on the people who are creaming it off and running about, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I dispute that there are people creaming it off and running about. All right, I made a slip of the tongue: all the money is taxpayers' money, whether it is raised locally through businesses or through individuals. It is just quicker to say "government".
Lord Stoddart of Swindon:My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, we have 40 minutes and there are only four questions. As the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House is not getting to his feet, I assume that I can continue.
Does the Minister agree that one of the problems in local government at the present time is the system of cabinet government where only a few people are involved in making important decisions? The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is surely right when he says that people feel a little disenfranchised with local government at the present time. Does the Minister consider that it would be a good idea—as happens in the countryside where there are parish councils—to set up neighbourhood councils in large cities and towns to help with planning and the distribution of the aid available from central government?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is exactly what is happening in some big urban areas in parishes where devolution is taking place. If there is such a large interest in this subject, I hope that there will be a substantial attendance in the House on Thursday when I shall be bringing forward the Local Government Bill for your Lordships' consideration.

Central Line
2.45 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the inconvenience caused by the closure of the Central Underground line, they will take steps to expedite its reopening.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government are well aware of the misery, which is worse than inconvenience, that the closure of the Central Line is causing passengers and businesses. We share their concerns about the considerable time it has taken to restore services. Some services are now running on eastern and western sections of the line and London Underground will announce this afternoon that a through service from Loughton to Ealing Broadway will open on Thursday. The Government will continue to keep up the pressure on London Underground to deliver improvements to the service.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Ten weeks after the accident happened it is good to know that one train might achieve the long distance from one end of the line to the other. Is my noble friend aware that a similar accident happened in Philadelphia in 1990, which involved a motor falling off the bottom of a train? Sadly, four people were killed. On that occasion the line was reopened four days later. Who is responsible for allowing or not allowing the Central Line to reopen? Whose signature has to be the first one on the piece of paper? It seems that everyone is frightened of making a decision, which, as my noble friend said, is affecting many millions of people.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not aware of what happened in Philadelphia. In London the responsibility falls on London Underground and Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate, which is part of the Health and Safety Executive. I do not know what were the engineering conditions in Philadelphia but my noble friend should take into account that here we are talking about a Tube line on which there are 2,800 motors, each as big as a dustbin and weighing half a tonne. There is a motor on every axle of every train. That means that there are 11,000 bolts. Each time a motor is replaced it has to be lifted off the bogies, placed over an inspection pit—there is one at each end of the line—and the new bolts and new safety brackets have to be installed. That is a big job.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, can the Minister explain whether the delay is due in any part to necessary track repairs as well as repairs to the trains? If, as the Minister has said, the trains are being repaired and the motors rebolted, why have not those trains that have been repaired come back into service as quickly as possible?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is not a matter concerning the track, but rather one concerning the motors on the trains. In fact, trains have been coming back into service. The first group were brought back into service on 14th March, the second group on 24th March. Furthermore, as I have said, from this Thursday a through service will operate from Loughton to Ealing Broadway. I understand that London Underground intends for all stations on the line to be served by Easter.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the opportunity
1162
provided by this prolonged closure has been taken by London Underground to carry out necessary track, signal and station maintenance while the line is closed?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, advantage has been taken of the closure to carry out modifications to the bolts and safety brackets for the motors. That has been the most urgent work.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I know that that is not a full answer to the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I hope that she will be able to contain her impatience.
The Central Line is part of the second element of the three public/private partnerships due to be signed within the next few weeks. All the issues raised by the noble Baroness in her question will be tackled by the partnership. There would have been no advantage in seeking to do anything about the situation in advance.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, has there been any news with regard to the bolts and brackets holding the motors on trains on the other Underground lines in London?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Central Line is very peculiar—I say that in full anticipation of the laughter which will follow. The central section of the Central Line has very sharp bends and therefore the trains on that line are designed differently; that is, the trains are put together in two-carriage sets rather than four-carriage sets. For that reason, the trains have motors fitted on every axle of every carriage. That is not the case on any other line and thus there is no reason to suppose that the problems which have arisen with the 1993 rolling stock—those arc the trains we are referring to—could arise on any other of the Underground lines.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when the original contract for the Central Line rolling stock was awarded in the late 1980s, the previous government decided that they would split the maintenance of the trains from the procurement of them? Does he agree that, in retrospect, perhaps that was a mistake? A much greater incentive is generated if those providing the rolling stock also have to take responsibility for maintaining them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Central Line contract was a disgrace. It went way over budget and took far too long. For many months now I have been citing it as an example of the justification for the public/private partnership in your Lordships' House.
Yes, problems arise if engineering contracts are separated from any responsibility for subsequent maintenance. That is exactly what the public/private partnership is all about; that is, it is designed to ensure that those who undertake such contracts bear continuing and long-term responsibility for their work.

Medical Research Council
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to take any action in respect of the policies and performance of the Medical Research Council.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, we note the Select Committee report on the Medical Research Council issued on 25th March and are reviewing its recommendations. We shall make a detailed response in due course, but the MRC is highly renowned around the world for its track record in promoting excellent medical research.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I had intended to mention the report in my Question, but under the procedures of the House, I was not allowed to do so. That is why the Question has been worded as it appears on the Order Paper.
The report states that:
"We have found evidence of poor financial management and poor planning, with too many funds committed over long periods leading to large numbers of top quality grant proposals being turned down".
As someone who has always had a high regard for the Medical Research Council, I was very disturbed to read press reports concerning this Select Committee report, especially as public expenditure of over £400 million is involved. Can the Minister reassure the House that the Government have had no cause to worry about the Medical Research Council and that they continue to value its work?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that question. In view of the press accounts of the Select Committee report, I should like to take this opportunity to assure the House that the report does not suggest that the structure of the MRC is faulty, that money has been wasted or that there has been any financial impropriety. The criticisms have related to the allocation of funds between responsive-mode funding and managed funding, the management of commitment and forward funding, consultation and the way that the peer review of the UK Biobank project was handled. These are complex issues, in many cases involving matters of judgment, and therefore they require careful responses.
I should also say that in the past we have had some concerns as regards the processes of financial planning and commitment. We have been working with the MRC to address those concerns and we are satisfied that good progress has been made.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former member of the Medical Research Council during the 1970s. Even at that time criticisms
1164
were often levelled against the MRC by disgruntled scientists who failed to secure funding for their research. Is it not the case that the MRC has a proud record of achievement which has won for it international respect and acclaim? Does the Minister accept that many members of the scientific community regard a number of points made in the report as being seriously misconceived, not least the fact that so much criticism has been levelled against the UK Biobank project? That project was warmly commended and strongly supported by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology in its inquiry into UK genetic databases.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a number of points. I agree completely and say again that the MRC has gained an excellent world-wide reputation for its funding of medical research, and I do not think that anything in the report suggests otherwise. A number of criticisms have been made of certain specific issues and certainly there is a need to improve some of the financial planning and commitment. However, those problems should not detract from the excellent work carried out by the council in the past.
As regards the UK Biobank project, again I believe that some of the press reaction has rather overstated what is set out in the report. The report itself makes the point that:
"The Biobank is an exciting project and we commend the MRC's efforts to ensure that the UK is taking the lead in harvesting the fruits of the human genome".
Thus even in the report it is understood that this is an extremely important and imaginative project which should be supported.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the paragraph immediately following the one from which the Minister has just quoted goes on to state that:
"It is not clear to us that Biobank was peer-reviewed and funded on the same basis as any other grant proposal. Our impression is that a scientific case for Biobank has been put together by the funders to support a politically driven project".
I believe that the Minister was only partially quoting from the report. Over recent years UK Biobank has received £45 million, the lion's share of funding from the MRC. Will the Minister take seriously the criticisms made by the Select Committee to the effect that it was possible that the UK Biobank proposal was not peer-reviewed. The Select Committee is well regarded, as is the MRC both now and historically, so the Minister should not brush aside lightly any criticisms made by the committee.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I hope that I made it clear in my original Answer that we take the report seriously and shall consider it in detail. However, I do not think that the noble Lord is correct to say that the UK Biobank project was not peer-reviewed. In fact, it was peer-reviewed by an international panel. Furthermore, it was not reviewed on the basis of a normal grant project, but rather as a major infrastructure project. Such projects are never

1165
reviewed on exactly the basis as other projects. UK Biobank is a major infrastructure project and was peer-reviewed by a very distinguished international panel which supported it. On that basis, while there may be criticism, it should be kept in proportion.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I declare an interest as a practising scientist whose laboratory has repeatedly benefited from funding granted by the Medical Research Council, although obviously from time to time we, too, have felt disgruntled when we have not secured a grant.
Is it not fair to say that the Medical Research Council is to be congratulated on the excellence of medical research in Britain, due in large part to its scientific leadership and to the standards and levels of funding which the Government have allowed the Medical Research Council to contribute? May that long continue.
It is essential that large projects such as UK Biobank compete side by side with smaller projects, and that those large projects continue. As a way of improving funding from the Medical Research Council, does the Minister agree that some more attention might be given to extending project grants rather than merely collaborative grants? Collaborative grants are important, but project grants often launch new science in a slightly different way.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I totally agree about the quality of the MRC's science. Project grants versus collaborative grants is another area of debate within the medical research community. We need to look at this very carefully and discuss it more fully with the MRC before we give a reply.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, it is quite difficult to maintain the usual courtesies between the Houses when in a report from another place this immensely imaginative project, the UK Biobank, is described as politically motivated. Is it not a fact that the project is leading the world in bringing together a person's genetic make-up, environment and lifestyle in a unique way—half a million people will be in the survey—which will enable society in future to predict, prevent and cure some of the world's most devastating illnesses?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not quite understand what it means to say that this project is politically driven. I fear it is simply a rather low-level form of abuse to describe it as political. I do not think that that is the kind of abuse another place should indulge in.
I agree with the noble Lord that the project is leading the world in this respect. Various other countries see it as a major and important source of valuable information. I regard it as an extremely important project.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, does the Minister recall the recommendation of the House of Lords Select Committee on stem cells that a discrete
1166
line should be kept between embryos and eggs being used for research purposes and those being gathered from fertility clinics? Will he therefore look again at the way in which the MRC has decided to fund nurses working in fertility clinics, bearing in mind the proscription that is placed on such activity in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990? In upholding the very high standards to which the noble Lord has just alluded, it is important that that separation is maintained.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is an important question. I will take a further look at this to see whether there is any issue on which we should focus.

Mental Health Services
3.3 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering any new initiatives to help people with mental illness.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we have embarked upon a long-term programme of modernisation to increase the capacity of the mental health service, provide better access to effective treatment and care, reduce unfair variation and raise standards. This includes action to implement the national service framework for mental health. Our strategy, as always, will be informed by research and development.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can she confirm or dispute a report that mental illness is the cause of 50 per cent of all measured disability, yet only 12 per cent of NHS funding and 6 per cent of the medical research budget is spent on it? If those figures are broadly correct—and I believe that the research went up to 2001—will my noble friend tell the House what the Government intend to do to change this very sorry picture?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I suspect that no one knows better than the noble Lord just how long a history of neglect mental health has in this country and the extent of the under-funding that we inherited in 1997. We have made mental health a priority in several ways, primarily through the first national service framework that we established, with seven standards aimed at raising standards across mental health services. Those standards are generating improvement in community development services and in many different ways. We have made £300 million extra available for three years to 2003–04 to develop prevention and care services. We have invested in finding out what is needed, primarily by establishing a new institute, the National Institute of Mental Health, which will play a key role in research and development and good local practice. I think that we can look forward to a better future in mental health.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, are the Government satisfied with the availability of the latest forms of medication which can help some of the mentally ill to lead reasonably normal lives safely, outside institutions?
Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords, there is a new range of atypical antipsychotic drugs which seem to be helping people significantly. We understand there have been some concerns about delays, but all PCTs are required to follow the NICE guidance after three months and make those drugs available. We believe that they are making a difference.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister referred to the national service framework. Can she confirm that money will be adequate to implement the national service framework and that it is being received by those trusts to which it has been allocated. Can she also confirm whether the Mind Out mental health campaign, which is an excellent government initiative, will carry on beyond this year, whether it will be funded and whether it will be evaluated by the Government?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, on the first part of the question, we believe that the funds allocated are sufficient. We are beginning to see growth across the service—for example, 22 new early intervention teams are in place in local communities. These are particularly intended to pick up young people who display psychotic attitudes and episodes. We have 63 new crisis resolution teams for people in acute need; we have 191 assertive outreach services. We are already noticing the difference now that we have these community developments in place. For example, where the crisis resolution teams are in place, we have seen a 30 per cent drop in admissions to hospital.
On the second part of the noble Lord's question, I shall have to write to him.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the National Health Service is now working more closely with the Prison Service? Will there be any new initiatives to help those prisoners who are mentally ill, of whom there are far too many?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, that is a very important question when one considers that 90 per cent of people in prison have some sort of mental disorder. Again, the health service has been working much more closely with the Prison Service for over a year; the PCTs will be driving the funding for the Prison Service as of this April. We are seeing a much more integrated service, which is very helpful.
We already have 48 teams working in 48 prisons to develop inreach services and more psychiatric services. We hope that there will be 70 of those by next April. Although it was not exactly a target, we hope that by 2006 every prison will have these additional and very important services.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I welcome the development of inreach services for mental patients in
1168
our prisons. What is being done to make places available for the 500 people in our prisons who still need residential psychiatric care? How will those places be provided?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am not entirely sure which population the noble Lord is talking about, but I can tell him that because of the development of the range of community services as a whole and the development of specialised mental health trusts, there should be increased capacity across the service.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, further to the Minister's answer to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, is she satisfied with the availability of the latest drug to help schizophrenics?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as I said, there have been concerns that the new atypical antipsychotic drugs, which were the subject of NICE guidance last summer, have not been reaching patients quickly enough. However, we have seen the rates of prescription going up, so we think that they are reaching more of the people who need them.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister think that, given the complications caused by mental illness and its diversity, there should be at least some form of legislation to ensure that people who have one episode of mental illness are not discriminated against in employment and so on for the rest of their lives?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, that is an extremely important matter. We are considering ways of ensuring that people with mental health problems are not excluded from employment. For example, the Social Exclusion Unit is about to start work on a report examining social exclusion of people with mental illness. It will examine particularly the employment prospects of such people.
Lord Rea: My Lords, speaking of legislation, can my noble friend give us a progress report on the redrafting of the expected mental health Bill?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, there was an extremely large response to the consultation on the draft Bill. Over 2,000 responses were received. They are still being evaluated. A report will be published but the Bill itself will have to wait for parliamentary time.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, does the Minister agree that research suggests that a healthy relationship between an infant and his or her parents is likely to reduce susceptibility to certain kinds of mental disorder in adulthood? Does she further agree that the work of my noble friend Lord Northbourne—who I see is present—in championing support for parents, that of the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, with Home Start and that of the Government's own Sure Start programme are likely to prevent many children developing certain kinds of mental disorder in

1169
adulthood and may indeed have an impact on those 90 per cent of adults in prison with personality or similar disorders?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I entirely agree. There is no doubt that loving family relationships are absolutely essential for people to develop into sound adults. We are investing in parenting schemes such as Home Start, through which homes are accessed that would otherwise be very difficult to reach, and Sure Start, which helps many families who are not entirely confident about bringing up their children and want advice and support. Those are fundamental building blocks to a better and healthier society in terms of mental health.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the five years from August 1997 the number of people claiming state benefit on grounds of mental illness has dramatically increased? There has been an increase of 78 per cent in those claiming Disability Living Allowance and an increase of 25 per cent in those claiming incapacity benefit. What do those figures say about the state of mental health services in Britain? Do they not underline the priority that the Government should be giving to this area of healthcare?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the reasons for those figures may be complex and diverse. For example, they may reflect an ageing population and the forms of dependence that come with it. As I said, one of the matters that the Social Exclusion Unit will examine is how to increase employment opportunities for people with mental health problems. I imagine that many people on incapacity benefit could be helped with extra support resulting from the changes in incapacity benefit. The figures say a lot about the health of the nation but we are putting new remedies in place.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, one of the most worrying considerations for the Caribbean community is the number of black males in mental institutions and the treatment they receive. Can the Minister tell the House whether there has been any advance in the type of treatment that they now receive, or whether there is any on offer?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we are certainly aware that black and ethnic minority people are disproportionately represented in the part of the population with mental health problems. A report was published in March on how to improve mental health services for black and ethnic minority people which explores some of the reasons services fail. After consultation we shall publish implementation guidance in the summer which will address the question of how we get the black and ethnic minority workers we want; how we deal with language issues; how we build capacity; and how we clear pathways for people in need to get the help they want. We hope that by making that a priority—certainly the National Institute of Mental Health will help us do that—we shall he able to make a significant difference to that population.

Sexual Offences Bill [H.L.]
3.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ackner: I have received indirectly a message from the Chief Whip that if I intend to speak to the Question that the clause stand part I should do so expeditiously. Despite the dulcet tones of the Chief Whip, I intended to do so in any event.
What I wish to say I can put very shortly. Clause 1 is without redemption. We have two matters to consider. First, the clear-cut issue; namely, whether the existing law, which requires the proof of a guilty mind as in all serious offences, subject, of course, to a measure of objectivity—because by statute the jury is told that the reasonableness or otherwise of a belief is evidence of whether the belief was genuinely held—should stand having been in existence for some 40 years without any complaint. Alternatively, we should consider whether the golden thread, as that obligation is known, should be cut and in its stead there should be put in place a new obligation which results in the accused being guilty of rape if he is negligent. That is the clear-cut issue.
The second matter is the feasibility—the practicality—of what is now proposed. In that regard I wish to refer to one and only one quotation. It has already been referred to by me on Second Reading but it is particularly apposite in view of the debate yesterday. It is from an essay of Professor Hogan, written in 1978, and given in honour of Professor Glanville Williams, who was virtually a permanent member of the Criminal Law Revision Committee of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, who gave such an admirable speech yesterday, was also a member. He stated:
"The least that can be said—
he was referring to the existing law on sexual offences—
"in its favour is that it is accessible and even with the accretions of case law, it may fairly be said that a layman possessing ordinary powers of comprehension is not at all hard put to make both head and tail of it. Since the layman, and sometimes the lawyer, is sometimes hard put to make either head or tail of much modern legislation these attributes should never be undervalued. Whether or not a man likes the law that he reads, it is a signal advantage to him to be able to understand it … Again, when in Morgan v. D.P.P. the House of Lords decided that an honest belief in consent was a defence to a charge of rape, the opposition was so considerable that it seemed only a matter of time before the

1171
decision was overturned. But in the end much of the opposition was brought round to accepting the essential good sense of that decision".
That is what I believe has happened as a result of yesterday's debate.
Baroness Noakes: I want to say a few words on clause stand part as it gives an opportunity to reflect on the many important issues debated yesterday. I reiterate that we on these Benches are open to change on the definition of rape and the other sexual offences, but we have always said that those changes need to be demonstrably workable and effective. If one thing was demonstrated yesterday, it was that there were considerable doubts about workability and effectiveness.
We need to be clear that any changes that we make will result in better outcomes. One of the striking facts that came from the Minister yesterday was that the rape conviction rate for those who went to trial by jury was 41 per cent, compared with 73 per cent overall. That shows that there is a problem. Whether we have the right result in the formulation in the clause is very much open to doubt after yesterday's debate.
One of the problems with the way in which the grouping worked out yesterday was that I did not have a chance to sum up in our debate on Clause 78, although the Minister offered to withdraw his amendment at one stage, if I recall. Nothing that we heard during yesterday's debate led us to believe that Clause 78 was workable in any real sense. We will want to return to that on Report.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will not press his opposition to Clause 1 stand part today, because we still have some way to travel in terms of how we can improve the Bill. I hope that the Minister and his officials will engage in constructive dialogue, in particular with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, based on his constructive amendments that we discussed yesterday.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that it may be wise to press any opposition to Clause 1 on Report and give the Government time to reconsider. The debate yesterday demonstrated that the clause as drafted is completely unworkable and will cause enormous problems. Not only is it unworkable, but it is bad in principle.
I have my own bone to pick with the Minister, who suggested that at Second Reading I had,
"proposed that the right way to deal with the matter was for there to be a date rape offence—that is, an acquaintanceship rape offence—and another offence".—[Official Report, 31/3/03; cols. 1151–52.]
When I intervened and said that I had never said anything of the sort, the Minister pressed the matter and said that it appeared that I had changed my position since Second Reading. He went on to reiterate that point.
1172
I have read what I said on Second Reading in case I happened to say something that could remotely justify that comment yesterday from the Minister, but there is nothing to do so in it. I did not refer to date rape or acquaintance rape. In no correspondence or discussions—I have had discussions with and sent memorandums and drafts to him—have I ever suggested that I or we on these Benches draw any distinction between date rape or acquaintance rape and marital rape and stranger rape. That has never been my position. Why did he suggest that it had?
Lord Lucas: I should be most grateful if the Minister could take the opportunity of the debate to tell us how the offences are intended to mesh. What sort of behaviour will lead to a person being charged with one offence or another?
Almost the only difference between rape under Clause 1 and assault by penetration under Clause 3 is that one can rape in the mouth but not commit assault by penetration in the mouth. I am bemused as to why that is. On what occasions would the Minister expect the prosecution to prefer a charge under Clause 3?
I should also be grateful for some enlightenment as to what sort of behaviour we are looking at under Clause 5. Does pinching the passing bottom count as an assault of the relevant type? Where is the boundary drawn? Common sense may be thought to apply but, given some of the actions sought to be outlawed by provisions from Clause 70 on, I am not entirely sure that the drafting of the Bill has had common sense in mind at all times.
To what extent are the offences in Clause 7 separate from those in Clause 3? I do not see how they will mesh. We had so much debate about whether "oral" belonged in one or the other and what the proper compass of such offences was. No other amendment addresses the matter, so I should be very grateful if the Minister would cover it now.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I have no questions to put to the Minister on the long debate that we had yesterday, which he entertained with great courtesy and patience. All that I want to say is that, having moved amendments to Clause 1(3), I hope when we return to the matter on Report to be able to persuade the House that that is the right approach. I had very large support yesterday. I am therefore grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for not preempting that outcome today.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: So far as the opposition of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, to the Question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill is concerned, he rightly identified the issues that we went through yesterday. I do not think that I can assist the Committee by repeating my points in relation to reasonableness or workability. We had a long debate on that.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that we need to reflect carefully on what was said yesterday. I would find it useful to have conversations with her and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, to

1173
discuss the detail. From yesterday's debate, I take the point that several Members of the Committee firmly opposed the idea of introducing an element of reasonableness into the consent issue. In particular, I identify the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who is not in her place at the moment.
I understood the vast range of other Members of the Committee who spoke, including the noble Lords, Lord Alexander of Weeden and Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Walmsley, to take the basic position of exploring whether to put reasonableness in. Some were committed to it, and some tried to put it in in a different way from that used by the Government. We obviously need to reflect on that approach before Report.
I said that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, proposed a lesser offence of date rape because that was my recollection of his speech at Second Reading. I completely apologise if I am wrong. I have not had a chance to read it again My noble friend Lord Bassam has drawn to my attention the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, certainly thought that a more limited offence was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, if not in his speech then somewhere else. Both of us came away with the wrong impression. I apologise in relation to that.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: I should clarify for the Minister's sake that I said that I was happy with the clear range of offences laid out in my noble friend's amendment. That was workable for the courts and understandable for the general public. It also takes account of the problem expressed by some noble Lords yesterday about the difficulty associated with rape in the mouth, which is labelled differently but which is just as serious and just as much of an offence against the privacy and dignity of the person. My noble friend's amendment takes account of that problem and many others.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As I say, I apologise unreservedly to the noble Lord for having the wrong impression in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked me to identify what is involved in the main generic sexual offences that will be created. Rape, which we have already discussed, involves penile penetration of the anus, vagina or mouth. Assault by penetration is penetration of those areas but not with the penis. Sexual assault is any non-consensual assault of a sexual nature. Sexual assault of a child under 13 is different because the consent of the child is no longer an issue. Any child of 12 or under is presumed not to be able to consent. Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent would occur where, for example, a woman forces a man to have sex with her. I could go through those points in much greater detail but I do not believe that it would assist the Committee.
Lord Ackner: I am somewhat surprised that the Minister did not include in his honourable mentions the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, whose speech on the desirability of retaining the law as it is was outstanding.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I apologise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that the speech was outstanding—it was so outstanding that it blinded me to the extent that I completely forgot that it had been made. Now that the noble and learned Lord reminds me of it, I remember that it was a truly excellent speech.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I was blinded to the extent that I thought that the noble and learned Lord had mentioned me!
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I apologise.
Lord Ackner: In future, I shall test the extent to which I have succeeded in making speeches by their effect on the eyesight of the noble and learned Lord. That is a strange way of judging the merit of what one puts before him.
It is clear that the feeling of the Committee is that it wants more time in which to consider the matter. I understand that, although it is certainly not my feeling; matters are clear cut. In those circumstances, I should not dream of opposing the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill, although I reserve the right to do so on Report.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Rape of a child under 13]:
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 2, after "person" insert "aged 16 or over"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 20, 31 and 47.
We turn to a group of amendments relating to very young people. The purpose of these amendments is to prevent the prosecution of boys under the age of consent or 16 years old who participate in sexual activity of any kind with a girl under 13 with her consent. The amendments are not intended to prevent the prosecution of children under the age of 16 where they have committed rape, sexual assault or any other sexual offence in which the victim did not consent because those offences are dealt with under Clauses 1, 3, 5 and 7 and because the age of neither offender nor victim is specified in those clauses.
The amendments are about bringing some common sense, humanity and justice to this important new law, which is designed to protect children from abuse. The Home Secretary said in the White Paper that the existing law was,
"archaic and incoherent—it is also discriminatory".

1175
Without the amendments, the law may remain all of those things. It could produce appalling injustices. For example, a boy of 12 who had sexual intercourse initiated by a girl of the same age would be automatically guilty of rape and liable to a life sentence. It also poses risks to children's health and welfare. One can easily imagine that girls under the age of 13 might avoid approaching doctors because they know that all sexual activity is defined as serious child abuse when those who are under 13 are involved and that the doctor must report to social services; it is also, of course, a criminal offence. Their boyfriend may get into serious trouble and they would fail to get contraceptive and other health advice. I am sure that that is not what the Government intend.
The Government should follow the example of Finland. In 1998, the Finnish Government decided to update their penal law on sexual offences. As in England, 16 was set as the age of consent. However, Section 6(2) of Chapter 20 of the new Finnish penal code provided that sex with an under-16 year-old,
"shall not be deemed sexual abuse of a child, if there is no great difference in the ages or the mental and physical maturity of the persons involved".
Germany and other countries also followed that course. In countries where the age of criminal responsibility is high—15 to 17 years, unlike 10 years in our country—under-age sex is automatically decriminalised for that age group. Many European countries, such as Sweden and Norway, fall into that category. Surely the Finnish approach shows an appropriate modernisation of the law. We may not like young adolescents having sex but it happens, and it does not involve the criminal child abuse that the Bill is supposed to be tackling.
The noble and learned Lord the Minister may say that if we have an age of consent we must stick to it. However, it should be noted that the Bill already allows a defence of consent if someone is charged with raping 13 to 15 year-olds and they are also under the age of consent. So it would not introduce a legal anomaly to say that for under- 16s who are charged with raping under-13s, a defence of consent may also be available.
I hope that the Minister will accept that it is inappropriate to use the full weight of the criminal law in cases where young people who are close in age are experimenting. Educational and health advice—and, in some cases, the child protection system—are much more appropriate ways of addressing that issue. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: I shall briefly clarify the position of those on these Benches. We will consider the broad issue again in relation to child sex offences, when we will debate in particular whether we should criminalise that activity or whether the dominant issue is one of social and medical support.
Let me be clear about our approach to those who are under 13. We believe that a cut-off age of 13 is appropriate and practical. The issue of consent should not be relevant in relation to such young children. We believe that regardless of the age of the defendant. To
1176
have anything less on the statute book would involve a broad assumption that there are circumstances in which it is appropriate or acceptable for a young child to be involved in sexual activity. We do not believe that and therefore accept that the offence should exist in law. I do not suppose that every 14 or 15 year-old who has sexual intercourse with a 12 year-old will be prosecuted but I do not believe that it is right to remove that possibility from the statute book in all circumstances.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, stated, a fundamental justification for the under-13 offence is the age and vulnerability of the victim. We do not think it is right that where the victim is 12 or under the question of consent should arise. There will be many cases where it would be utterly invidious for a 12 year-old or under to have to give evidence in relation to consent. We therefore think that there needs to be a cut-off period. We think we have got the cut-off period right.
The amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, seek to provide that it would not be possible to charge a defendant aged under 16 at the time of the alleged offences with any of the under-13 child sex offences. The noble Baroness prays in aid the Finnish experience in relation to that. The amendments would mean that where the evidence did not support charges for any of the under-13 non-generic offences—that is, rape, sexual assault and so forth—the defendant would have to be charged with a child sex offence which, as the noble Baroness knows, makes no distinction as to the age of the victim.
I recognise, as stated by the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Noakes, that children under 13 engage in mutually agreed sex. I have listened to those who argue with real conviction that it is completely unfair for the law to make it possible for a boy aged 14, for example, to be charged with raping a 12 year-old girl following mutually agreed sexual intercourse. It is worth pointing out that prosecution is certainly not the inevitable outcome where two minors of the ages I have described engage in sexual activity. In those cases where sexual activity between minors is truly mutually agreed and there is nothing to suggest that the activity is in any way exploitative, we would not expect and would not want the full weight of the criminal law to be used against them. Our overriding concern is to protect children, not to punish them unnecessarily.
Where sexual relationships between minors are not abusive, prosecuting either or both children is highly unlikely to be in the public interest; nor would it be in the best interests of the children involved. In such cases, protection will normally best be achieved by educating the children and providing them and their families with counselling services. Even where the sexual activity is abusive, the Crown Prosecution Service may consider that it was not in the public interest to prosecute someone under 16 if other courses of action were likely to be more effective. The CPS has a discretion about whether or not to prosecute in such cases. We would expect it to continue to use that discretion wisely.

1177
I fully understand the legitimate concerns raised by the noble Baroness as regards agencies giving advice to children in those circumstances, and her profound and deeply held desire, shared by many, that that should not raise the risk of criminalisation. As the noble Baroness will know, we will propose an amendment later in these proceedings which seeks to deal with that issue. Perhaps we may deal with that more fully at that point.
Having said all that, if the law is to be effective, there will be cases in which under 16 year-olds commit such crimes where prosecution is appropriate. We must remember that not only children aged 12 and 14 but also children very much younger will be protected by this provision against teenagers of 16 and under. That is where we need the clarity and protection of the criminal law. That is why we believe it would be wrong to accede to the amendment and to say that a person under 16 could not be prosecuted for one of these offences. As we have been told by the agencies dealing with this issue, there are cases in which prosecution of children is appropriate.
I hope I have dealt with the particular concerns raised by the noble Baroness. We believe that this should be covered by criminal law but we recognise that a whole range of alternatives may be more appropriate in particular cases.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My noble and learned friend has helpfully tabled Amendment No. 74 in Clause 15 which would exempt health professionals and others from liability to prosecution under the Bill in the way he described. As he said, we shall discuss that later. However, does he not feel that perhaps in practice there will be difficulties for people working in such agencies who are exempt from prosecution under Amendment No. 74 if the criminal offence he described remains on the statute book as it could prevent people being open in their dealings with young children who they may feel they are advising but who, as he rightly says, may be liable for prosecution in extreme cases?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The provision in Amendment No. 74 is designed to try to remove as much as possible any fears by health professionals in that regard. It goes beyond health professionals and includes anyone seeking to give advice, including a parent. Will the position nevertheless cause the child or young person not to be full and frank because of fear of the law? We believe that probably it will not. In many respects this reflects the current law in the sense that there is still criminal sanction in relation to a whole variety of sexual activity covered by the new law. We do not believe that that leads to inhibition when there should be frankness.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I hope that my noble and learned friend did not misunderstand me. I find Amendment No. 74 extremely helpful. As he says, it goes beyond health professionals in a way which I am sure will be useful. I am concerned only by what may be a practical tension between Amendment No. 74, if
1178
agreed by the Committee, and the remaining inhibitions about something being a statutory criminal offence even though the people dealing with it are exempted in this way.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I understood that and I hope I have made clear the kind of circumstances in which it would be appropriate to use the criminal law. I hope that in practical terms there will not be that tension.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: Can the Minister explain to the Committee what form of assessment he would expect to take place if there were prosecutions under this particular part of the Bill? Does he expect that a psychologist would be involved to consider the level of learning development of the child? Perhaps the details may wait until we debate Clause 14, but it would be helpful at this point if the Minister could advise the Committee on how he sees assessment coming into practice under this part of the Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I believe the question is directed to those cases in which a person aged 16 years or under is prosecuted in this regard. The issue of young people who sexually abuse or commit sexual crimes is complex. In the past it has not received the focus and attention it should. Young people who sexually abuse are a diverse group. Many may have been victims of sexual abuse or may have witnessed domestic violence. In addition, we know that a large number may also have learning difficulties and some may have mental health problems. So there is a real need to address the problems which have contributed to the offending, including providing any specialist intervention that may be required.
As this area has been neglected in the past, there seems to be a lack of knowledge and expertise about how to deal with such young people, including the kind of assessment and treatment methods which are most appropriate. Various bodies within the family of government are considering this issue. The Home Office and the Youth Justice Board have set up an interdepartmental working group with the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills to consider the whole issue of young people who sexually abuse. The group has covered a number of areas where further improvement is needed.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I thank my noble and learned friend for giving way. Having been involved 10 years ago in the work initiated by the NCH and then with the Department of Health following the report on children who abuse other children, I am deeply concerned that any work that is undertaken now is carried through. As the Minister explained, this is an offences Bill rather than a welfare Bill. There are real difficulties about getting on to the face of the Bill which kind of assessments and treatment programmes

1179
would work. There is a large amount of knowledge among professionals about what would work, but that is re-examined on every occasion.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness. It is not appropriate to put on to the face of the Bill how we deal with the problem of a sexually abusive child or young person. I appreciate that this does not bring much comfort, but the problem is recognised. There are gaps in our knowledge and in the approach that we take. There are also gaps in particular parts of the country and in the kind of help available. We need to consider how we fill in such gaps. That is what we are seeking to do.
There must be a twin-track approach; that is, clarity as regards what is the criminal law but also a commitment to deal with the problem much more widely than simply by considering the criminal law. I always feel that when dealing with a criminal offences Bill, the other part of the story tends to become lost. However, I am glad that the noble Earl has given me an opportunity to describe the other side of the process, perhaps more fully than I would have done otherwise. I have also indicated that there are gaps and problems that we need to look at. I am sorry to have talked for so long, but it may help later on.
We are consulting practitioners and experts in the field to help inform the inter-departmental working group. It will report to Ministers later this year; but how much and how quickly we can continue to improve work with this group will depend on resources—in particular the outcome of the next spending review.
Lord Skelmersdale: It occurs to me that the noble and learned Lord relied, both in his wind-up on Second Reading and today, on the good sense and discretion of the CPS. Is that entirely satisfactory? I understand exactly what he said about the difficulties of getting the right words into the Bill. However, I hope that when he comes to look at this with his advisers and perhaps other noble Lords, he will bear that in mind, because it does not seem to be satisfactory.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I understand the point. It is difficult to deal with, save on this basis—there has to be a clear criminal offence. One cannot have something that seems to reflect shades of grey. It has to be clear what is criminal. As there needs to be that criminal offence available for an appropriate case, to some extent one has to trust to the good sense of the police and the prosecutors.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that the noble and learned Lord's reputation will not be damaged by my saying that I am pleased that he is going to resist the amendment. First, the amendments in effect legalise all consensual activity between people under 18, which would otherwise be caught by an age of consent offence under Clauses 9 to 13. It would also almost completely abolish the age of consent. It would
1180
therefore remove key protection for children, which the Government have recognised in devising the clauses for this Bill. The other amendments would leave cases to be dealt with under Clause 1—that is regarding small children. It would mean that children would have to go into the witness box to be cross-examined, which they are protected from under other provisions in the Bill, on whether they consented to sexual intercourse with an accused person under 18. It would become one of the central aspects of that trial. There could be quite an aggressive procedure for eliciting whether the child either gave consent or even understood what that meant. If the child did consent, then the case would have to be dismissed with no case to answer, because that would be the whole point of the trial. Under the present law, that is thought to be unacceptable.
The Minister will argue that the Government have recognised that in the Bill. Under the amendments a 17½ year-old who repeatedly had sex with an uncomplaining 12 year-old could not be prosecuted. Clauses 1, 3, 5 and 7 cannot be used, because they all require proof that the victim did not consent. He could continue with impunity, as long as she indicates her consent. The evidence is that a considerable amount of child abuse is carried out by young people.
Finally, a 17½ year-old who brutally and repeatedly sexually assaults a seven year-old, should be liable to the same penalty as an 18 year-old who does the same thing. Under the Liberal Democrat amendment the 17½ year-old would face the maximum sentence of five years in prison, and the 18 year-old would face life imprisonment. There is an inconsistency.
Whatever else we do, we should continue to keep the key protection for children, which the Bill, as it stands, provides.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the carefully considered speech of my noble friend. I wholly agree with the Minister that there has to be a criminal provision. It seems to be common ground that there are gaps that have to be filled. Could the Lord Chancellor's Department, in consultation with the Home Office, provide a paper for this House to consider how those gaps can be filled? It is only an idea. Does it attract the Minister?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, I will certainly consider it. We have tried in the Bill to provide, as it were, a seamless series of criminal offences that cover everything. The gaps that I referred to in my response to those behind me were the gaps in provision on a public service or other basis for those children and young people who do sexually abuse. Could the state take any measures? I understood that the request of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, related to the legal gaps in criminal law provision. I could certainly agree to provide that, but I do not think that it would

1181
be the Lord Chancellor's Department, I think it would be the Home Office and the Department of Health. Let me see what I can do that might help.
The Earl of Listowel: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for his helpful suggestion. If the Minister was prepared to do that, I would certainly find that most helpful.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in moving this amendment, limited her remarks to Clause 2 and the rape of children under 13. I understand what my noble friend Lady Noakes has said and the position taken by the Opposition—and what the Minister has said.
However, I notice that two other amendments are being taken here—in particular Amendment No. 31. That deals not with a clause that defines rape, but with Clause 6 dealing with a sexual offence with a child under 13. It states that a person commits an offence if he intentionally touches another person, if the touching is sexual, and that other person is under 13. Are we really sensible 10 legislate to make it an offence for a child of, say, 14 or 16 to touch sexually another child who happens to be under 13? I can totally appreciate my noble and learned friend's views on Clause 2 and those of the Government. However, what is meant by "a sexual touching"? Is a kiss a sexual touching? Is a pinch of the bottom a sexual touching? Are we really sensible to legislate to a degree that we are making an offence for any child to pinch another child's bottom, without at least putting some restriction that it should not apply if done by a young boy under 16? It should not be a criminal offence.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I entirely agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken. There are many problems in that area, which should not be lost sight of. One is that girls aged 12 to 16 or even under not only can be the most appalling of flirts, but are also nowadays very often dressed up in such a manner as to lead people to suppose that they are a great deal older. Those problems need to be kept in mind.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I say to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, "sexual" is defined in Clause 18 and "touching" is defined in Clause 81. It covers a huge range of sexual touching, and one can identify minor cases where one would not remotely think that it would be appropriate to bring proceedings. That is particularly the case where the ages of the children involved are close and the activity is patently consensual. But without being too graphic, the definition in Clauses 80 and 81 also embraces extremely abusive behaviour of children who might be 15 and whose victims might be seven, eight, nine, 10, 11 or 12. Just as in the other examples that have been given, one needs to be clear about what the criminal offence is so that it exists and can be used in the appropriate case. As was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, one does not want the child to have to go through the process of proving that he or she did not
1182
consent. One would then hugely undermine the effectiveness of the crime and hugely reduce the willingness of people to complain.
The position under the current law is that indecent assault is the same. Any physical contact can form the basis of an indecent assault charge, but the good sense of the Crown Prosecution Service ensures that an absurd charge is not brought.
4 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Does not the noble and learned Lord recognise that there is a slight danger in placing the reliance that he does on good sense—not that I doubt that the Crown Prosecution Service is entirely sensible? What about the danger of a private prosecution brought by a person less well-endowed with good sense? Plenty of people take an extreme view of these matters, and how does one deal with that and the immense stress and distress that that can occasion?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In practical terms, I do not believe that that causes much of a problem. In balancing the risk of a private prosecution against having clarity in the law so that it can be used in the kind of case I have described, the balance falls on the side of having it there because the other side of the coin is not giving rise to problems in practice.
Lord Northbourne: The noble and learned Lord put a stress on clarity in the law. Clarity is precisely what there is not in the definition of "sexual" touching. We shall come to that under Clause 80 and the Minister may wish to leave the matter until then, but I wanted to make the point now.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: There is clarity in relation to the ages and in relation to those who cannot give consent. There is no sensible way of seeking to embrace in a legal definition every single sort of sexual behaviour and every single sort of sexual assault. Even the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has not attempted any amendment to try to define sexual touching—
Lord Northbourne: On the contrary, I have.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I was hoping that the noble Lord would not mention that. It seems to me that a great difficulty is exposed in this area.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: If it assists the noble Lord, the current definition of "indecent assault" comes from the case of Court in which I appeared for the appellant, my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew appeared for the respondent and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, gave the leading judgment—so it is all in-House. In that case, the issue was the smacking of the bottom of a 12 year-old girl. Was that an indecent assault? When arrested, the defendant, when asked why he had done it, said, "I don't know. Bottom fetish, I suppose". And the issue was whether that coloured what was otherwise a simple assault and made it an indecent assault.

1183
The arguments of both myself and my noble friend Lord Carlile were rejected in the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I recall a discussion taking place about the mental element, when Lord Fraser of Tullybelton inquired whether, if six undergraduates from Balliol debagged an undergraduate from New College—
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: No, from Trinity!
Lord Thomas of Gresford: All right, from Trinity. I am not too familiar with that place. The question was whether if they did that it was an indecent assault. He decided that it depended upon whether some of them gained sexual satisfaction from the debugging, which would turn it into an indecent assault.
The point I am making is that, as always, it is extremely difficult to try to define all the circumstances which will arise in a criminal case in a statute. One cannot ever define everything exactly: it must be left to common sense.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The point I would make is short. My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden took a valid point, which was not wholly answered. But ought there not to be some safeguard against a private prosecution? Ought not that safeguard to be other than with the consent of the Attorney-General?
Baroness Blatch: I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will forgive me for spotting an irony here. We are talking about not having a criminal offence in terms of touching and, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, mentioned, smacking a little girl's bottom. However, in another context, the very same noble Baroness is advocating that smacking a little girl's bottom should be an offence.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, can reply to that irony. I do not know what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, might think, but in my view the idea that the Attorney-General should spend his time reading papers to see whether someone should be privately prosecuted is a complete waste of the Attorney-General's precious time. I can see the point that the noble and learned Lord makes, but we trust to people's good sense. That is not causing a problem at the moment, so let us not solve something that is not causing a problem.
Baroness Walmsley: I thank all Members of the Committee who have contributed to this short debate, in particular the common sense of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, about sexual assault.
I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that these amendments are about under-16s and would not affect 17½ year-olds. It is intended to bring the under-16s out of Clauses 2, 4, 6 and 8, in particular
1184
in situations where there was consent. I believe that cases in which there was not consent would be dealt with in other parts of the Bill.
I welcome the reassurances that the Minister has been able to give me. In particular, I welcome the interdepartmental working group on the issue of children who exhibited harmful sexual behaviour. But I fear that the agencies and organisations which have supported the amendments would have much more confidence in the status quo if it were consistent. We need a consistent framework of assessment before a young person was even charged with any kind of sexual offence; and a consistent arrangement of pre-sentencing reports and assessments available to the courts when they have been charged and convicted; and consistency in the availability of high-quality professional services across the country. We do not have any of those things, which is why I felt obliged to table some amendments, which I am afraid the Public Bill Office would not accept, about issues such as pre-sentence reports and pre-charging assessments. I was told that the Bill had been so tightly drawn that they were not within its bounds.
The Minister spoke about the CPS and its discretion and good sense. However, in order to satisfy those of us who are concerned about these young people, will he provide written guidelines to the CPS that they can use, and not rely only on its common sense and discretion? That would give a great deal more comfort to those of us who are concerned about these damaged young people, whom I shall speak more about when we come to our debate on Clause 14 stand part. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. No doubt we shall return to it later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 11:
Before Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"ASSAULT BY ORAL PENETRATION
Subject to the provisions of section 1(2), intentional penetration of the mouth of a person by a penis without such person's consent is an offence to be tried on indictment for which the maximum sentence is 10 years' imprisonment."
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment yesterday. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, took the view that the better way to deal with this offence was to amend Clause 3. Having read Hansard this morning it seems to me, subject to the view of the House, that he was right. It would be simple to include the amendment on oral penetration in the first line of Clause 3. That would have the effect of differentiating—the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu—between the two offences. That would mean that Amendment No. 1 could be carried on the basis that oral penetration is not sex.
If this offence were included in Clause 3 it would be a specific offence that would carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Having listened with great attention to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said—I did not know about the police information and other information about the gravity of the offence—I was beginning to think that a life sentence could be appropriate, whereas originally I would have thought that 10 years was appropriate. So in those circumstances it would not have been my intention to move the amendment on Report. On that basis, I ask leave to withdraw it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): The noble Lord has spoken to Amendment No. 11 for over two minutes. Therefore I must ask him to move it as other noble Lords may wish to reply to him.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am obliged. I thought I had said that I wished to withdraw Amendment No. 11. The mistake was mine. I apologise to the Deputy Chairman and I apologise to your Lordships. We can all make mistakes. I beg to move
Baroness Noakes: I am grateful to my noble friend for saying that he will not move Amendment No. 11. We debated the matter yesterday, when I said that I could not support the creation of the lesser offence of oral penetration, although we accept that it is capable of being formulated in a different way from that in the Bill. My noble friend did not speak to the other amendments in the group, Amendments Nos. 42 and 43. For the avoidance of doubt, I see no reason for those amendments which exclude oral penetration from the offence of causing a person to engage in sexual activity.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Assault by penetration]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 12, after "or" insert "causes or allows it to be penetrated by"
The noble Lord said: Under this amendment I am concerned with looking at the scope of offences in the Bill. I am interested to know where this fits in: a person using not an object that he manipulates or a part of his own body but a living animal. The noble Lord may have a better spam filter than I have on my House of Lords e-mails, but perhaps he does not look at them. If he looked at the unsolicited e-mails that I receive he would realise that there is a great deal of activity taking place between young women and animals. The suggestion in some e-mails is that the women do not take part entirely willingly. The Romans were similarly inclined, as doubtless the noble and learned Lord knows.
Looking at the offences in Clauses 1, 3, 5 and 7, I do not understand how a person using an animal in that way without a woman's consent will be classified. The
1186
only place that I can see for such an offence is Clause 7, but I am not sure that it is in a high enough bracket as regards the sentence. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The offence of assault by penetration is designed to cover cases where one person intentionally penetrates the vagina or arms of another person with a part of his body or another object without that person's consent. It will cover cases where a person forcibly inserts his hands or fist into a woman's vagina or a bottle or a knife into a man's anus. That is extremely serious offending behaviour that can inflict as much, if not more, pain and physical damage on a victim as penile penetration and is likely to result in similar psychological trauma. No one would disagree with the seriousness of such an offence and the penalty that is provided for there would be life imprisonment.
I believe that the noble Lord refers to what happens when a human uses an animal to penetrate, without the consent of the person involved, somebody else's body. Clause 72(2) deals with the situation in which a person commits an offence if he,
"(a) A intentionally causes, or allows, A's vagina or anus to be penetrated,
(b) the penetration is by the penis of a living animal, and
(c) A knows that, or is reckless as to whether, that is what A is being penetrated by".
That is a maximum period of imprisonment of two years which the noble Lord may consider too short a sentence. I am unsure whether the examples quoted by the noble Lord are living or dead animals.
Lord Lucas: Living animals.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I would need to check whether that clause covers live animals. I suspect that it is covered by Clause 72(2), but it may not be. I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The noble Lord raised the point as to how this would fit with the amendment to which I referred. After the word "anus" there would be the words "or mouth". That would constitute the specific offence. I do not think it would be affected by my noble friend's amendment. I am afraid that I am not very good with e-mails. My computer is out of action at the moment—I have a new box and cannot work it. So I am not able to comment or deal with that situation.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for promising to write to me. I hope that this matter is not something that most noble Lords come across. As we rarely have the opportunity to talk about such subjects, it seems right to ensure that any possible imperfections in the wording are covered, however difficult it may be to talk about them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 15, leave out "or (3)"
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are a replay of the actions of yesterday on Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 to leave out Clause 1(3). We had a long debate yesterday and we are to have a definitive debate on Report. With the leave of the Committee I shall say no more about the matter today.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 14 to 17 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 24, leave out "Section 78 applies" and insert "Sections (Presumptions about the absence of belief in consent) and (Conclusive presumptions about consent) apply"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Assault of a child under 13 by penetration]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 34. leave out "life" and insert "a term not exceeding 14 years"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 21 and Amendment No. 33, which are grouped, are probing amendments about offences against children. I have not gone through the Bill and tabled the consequential amendments that may be appropriate, because I want first to test the Government's views and the opinion of the Committee about the level of sentences provided for in Clauses 4 and 6.
I accept that the levels of sentencing within the Bill have a certain coherence about them, but I am surprised by those levels. In the case of offences against children, we must consider the comparative sentences for other activities that may be equally damaging to children.
Clause 4 provides for a sentence for penetration of up to life. I understand that life is also the sentence for murder. My view is that murder might reasonably be regarded as a more serious offence. Clause 6 provides for sexual touching a maximum sentence of 14 years. I am advised that the maximum sentence for violence against children is 10 years.
It is right to ask the Minister to give the Committee the Government's reasons for those seemingly high maximum sentences. Your Lordships may well ask why it matters what are the maximum sentences, because the court will apply the right level of sentence. There are three reasons. First, good and decent men working in the caring professions—caring for children as professionals or volunteers—are already seriously concerned about the risks to their families, careers and liberty of false accusations of sexual abuse. The long sentences proposed cannot but exacerbate that problem.
My second concern is that it has been put to me by learned counsel working in this area of the law that if the sentences for sexual abuse and for murder are or
1188
seem to be the same, some men, having committed the offence of abuse, will be more tempted to try to destroy the evidence by murdering the child.
The third reason is that those who have worked with families that have often for generation after generation been sad and inadequate know that such families' problems are complex. It is perhaps not surprising that the main bar to disclosure by a child is its fear of the terrible effect that that will have on the family. The family often represents the only security and love that that child has ever known, however inadequate and perverted it may be.
This is not the time to discuss what society ought to be doing about those problems, but I suggest that dramatic increases in sentences for familial child abuse will not solve them and may even make them worse. I should like to hear the Minister's explanation of the Government's reasons for setting those sentences so high. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I support my noble friend's amendment, for more or less the reasons that I mentioned a few minutes ago. Very young girls can fall in love and, if they have had no proper upbringing and have no idea of restraint, they may throw themselves at the object of their affections to such a degree that they make it difficult for him—especially if the child appears to be considerably older than she really is. A judge should have considerable discretion as to whether to imprison at all. There are occasions when it is not the chap's fault, it is the child's fault.
Lord Skelmersdale: That is all very well, but the clause covers a potential assaulter of any age, who may well be a serial assaulter, in which case a very high penalty is indeed appropriate. As I understand it, imprisonment for life is a maximum and therefore an appropriate sentence could be given for the particular offence, once it is proven.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I support my noble friend Lord Northbourne, but should like to ask the Minister a question. I take the view that the appropriate sentence for such behaviour must be available and that there must be a clear distinction and boundary between the young woman and the adult. I therefore disagree with the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun.
In my long experience in Childline and working with the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, my concern has been with the dozens of youngsters who will not come forward because they are determined that they will not put the adults in their lives through that process. That process means them being on child abuse registers, probably being imprisoned, and often takes the breadwinner out of the home.
As the noble Lord said—I am terrible at knowing the correct nomenclature—there is a clear difference in the spectrum of abuse. On one end, there are those who

1189
should never be let out of prison—I am a great believer in indeterminate sentences with continuous assessment. At the other, there are people for whom prison is an entirely inappropriate solution to a family problem.
The great problem that we have with the Bill, because it is insufficiently sensitive to the issues with which it deals, is how we assure ourselves that that spectrum and framework is present, so that the lawyers among your Lordships, when in the courtroom, will be able to achieve the right sort of sentence for the circumstances after assessment and having thought through the question of treatment programmes.
Baroness Blatch: Am I right in my understanding that the sentence is not mandatory but a sentence of up to life imprisonment? When one considers the relatively minor offence described by both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the much more serious offence alluded to by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, it is right that they should both be accounted for. It will be for the courts, as they do in other offences where life is a possible sentence, to take account of the severity or relatively minor nature of the case and ensure that the sentence is appropriate. Many who know what is the maximum sentence are greatly frustrated when the courts dispense a much lesser sentence, but we have always taken the view that that should be a matter for the judge and the courts.
Lord Northbourne: I am not clear which minor sentence I mentioned. I mentioned violence against children. If we consider the Victoria Climbié case, if that child had not died, the maximum sentence would have been 10 years. I am saving that we must get the balance of the maximum sentences right.
Baroness Blatch: I must apologise to the noble Lord if I misunderstood what he said. I thought that the thrust of what he said was that if the maximum possible sentence is life, the temptation on the part of the person committing the offence might be to murder the child rather than be guilty simply of that initial offence against the child, and that the sentence of life is therefore inappropriate.
Lord Northbourne: Yes, indeed, I did say that, but that was another point.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: The purpose of Parliament setting a framework for sentencing is to give an indication of the seriousness with which it regards the offence. To replace the words "life imprisonment" with "a maximum of 14 years" may be taken as implying to the judiciary that for some reason an offence under Clause 2 is less serious than one under Clause 1. I cannot believe that there are not offences of penetration of a horror, degree of bestiality and distress to the victim for which it would be wrong to have a different maximum sentence from that which applied to the rape case, even if the provision were used only seldom.
Lord Northbourne: Would it not be possible to bring such a case under Clause 1?
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: With respect, I do not think that it would. Clause 1 defines rape specifically as penetration by penis. Clause 3 describes penetration of various natures. It may be penetration by an animal, a knife or a fist. It would not be right for Parliament to attempt to send a message to the judiciary that in some way such offences are less serious than the offence of rape. As someone who is bitterly opposed to mandatory sentences, as the Minister knows, I believe that it is Parliament's duty to set the framework in which a penalty should be imposed.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I agree with my noble friend. We seem to be forgetting that the importance of the life sentence is not the time spent in prison but the fact that you are under licence from the time you are released. In these sex cases, that is an important factor. Listening to the debate, it seems to me that it is far better to keep a life sentence because if it is the kind of case where the man should be kept under constant supervision you can award the maximum sentence, the life sentence, and protect everybody. If it is not that kind of case, the judge can impose four years or five years and deal with the circumstances. To throw away the safeguard to the community which exists in the life sentence—the protection of people—would be wrong.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I hesitate to intervene, having been a judge in another jurisdiction just over the Border from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, perhaps the Minister will agree that this part of the Bill endeavours to distinguish between acts of rape of the child under 13 who is the victim, and others. Likewise, Clauses 3 and 4 make precisely the same distinction because consent is not a necessary part of the offence; and likewise in Clauses 5 and 6 where, in Clause 6, consent is not a necessary part of the offence.
From my own experience, I believe that the kind of conduct which is struck at by Clause 4 can extend to just as serious conduct as is contained in Clause 3. As regards Clauses 5 and 6, it might properly be said that a distinction is made in the maximum sentence which can be imposed between conduct aimed at the child under 13 and someone over 12. I should have thought that that could certainly be said to be a proper way to proceed. Under Clause 4(2) the sentence must be fixed to include those who have offended in the past as well as the first time convicted offender. I understand that that is the manner in which all sentences are fixed by statute; namely to have regard to the full circumstances which may arise with regard to the offender by the sentence imposed. I may be wrong in my understanding of what is intended by Clauses 2, 4 and 6 as distinguished from Clauses 1, 3 and 5.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The account of the circumstances by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, is exactly right. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, asks, quite legitimately, for an explanation of why we have adopted these

1191
sentences. The noble and learned Lord's approach is broadly right. Clause 1, rape on someone over 13, not an adult, attracts life imprisonment as the maximum. I emphasise "maximum" because it has been said that it is for the discretion of the judge to determine where, below the maximum, sentence is passed. No noble Lord has suggested that it is not appropriate to have life as a maximum for rape.
Clause 2 relates to rape of a child under 13. It is inconceivable that one would have a lower maximum for rape of a child under 13 than for a rape of someone over 13. Therefore, there can be no distinction there about the maximum.
I believe that the mood of the Committee is to recognise that assault by penetration can, in certain circumstances—particularly if done more than once—be so damaging as to attract a sentence of life imprisonment. That involves a case where the victim is 13 or over.
If life imprisonment is right in those cases, it is again inconceivable that one could have a lower maximum sentence when the victim was 12 or under. For sexual assault, the maximum is 10 years. Should one have a higher maximum when the victim is a child under 13? I should have thought that common sense would suggest strongly that one should.
That is how we have constructed the maximum sentence. The noble Lord gives three reasons why the sentences may be too great. First, he says that good and decent men are already concerned about false accusations. If serious sexual offences are committed, the issue is not whether they should be given a low sentence because they are worried about false accusations. The focus should be on ensuring that before a conviction there is proper evidence and proper process but, once convicted, an appropriate sentence should be passed. That will not mean necessarily the maximum but in the appropriate case one should be able to impose the maximum.
Secondly, the noble Lord raises the possibility that if the sentences are too long it would encourage murder. Again, with respect, I am not sure that that is necessarily right. If the range involves maximums of life, 14 years or 10 years, I wonder whether those distinctions are being drawn in the cases we are discussing.
Thirdly, the noble Lord is right to identify that all too many victims, in particular child victims, are fearful of coming forward because of what may happen when the case is brought to court. I suspect that that issue does not relate to what the criminal law provides. It is inconceivable to say that the criminal law should not exist in this area. The issue is about how one provides support and makes contact with people in that specific circumstance. That is the basis upon which we have approached the matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said that this is too crude an instrument to deal with the whole range of cases that I believe she would recognise as stretching from the most vicious sort of sexual offender who, she would say—quite apart from any other reasons—should be locked up for as long as possible, to those committing much less serious offences. The noble
1192
Baroness is absolutely right. But, again, this is the criminal law part of the story where the crime should be defined with clarity, with the right range of sentences being available to the judge.
In the light of my explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdrawn the amendment.
Lord Northbourne: I stated earlier that this is a probing amendment. I shall, therefore, withdraw it. It seems to me that I shall never be able to argue with the phalanx of lawyers present in this Chamber. I understand the logic from a lawyer's point of view, but my worry relates to the unintended outcomes of the legislation. I believe that the noble and learned Lord referred to "proper process". However, we need to ensure that the unintended consequences of the Bill do not operate seriously to the disadvantage of children with there being nothing like enough male teachers in schools; too few male workers in the youth service; and not enough men prepared to become involved in residential social care. The latter are important consequences that could prove to be extremely damaging to a wide range of children.
I ask the Minister to consider how this problem can be overcome. I wonder whether other amendments could be introduced in that cause. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could ask his officials to consult the Department for Education and Skills and the relevant departments concerned with local authorities. I am sure that he will find that grave difficulties are already being experienced in the recruitment of men to work with children in the care and social work community.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord concludes, I do not want anything that I said during the course of this debate to be seen as an argument against some of the points that he has just made. We have made life very difficult for male teachers, for step-parents; and, indeed, for very many people.
Perhaps I may quickly recount a story regarding the experience of a young teacher, just out of training, who was working in a primary school. The children under his charge were out on what we would have called in my day "a nature walk", studying trees, leaves and collecting samples to take back to school for identification, drawing and colouring purposes. A little girl in the group ran ahead and fell on a gravel path. She grazed her knee quite badly. The male teacher picked up the little girl, dabbed her knee with his handkerchief, and put her on his shoulders to carry her back to school. As a result, he later found himself in very serious trouble. He subsequently left teaching, never to return to it again.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has made some very serious points. However, I am not convinced that they fit into our deliberations on this Bill as regards someone facing a serious charge in court. I do not want the noble Lord to feel that the points he has made and the concerns that he has expressed are falling on deaf ears. That is certainly not so in my case.
Lord Northbourne: I am most grateful for the noble Baroness's support. I accept that the way I have perhaps addressed the question is the wrong way. However, I had to raise the issue somehow. We may be

1193
able to discuss better ways to approach the problem at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Sexual assault]:
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 28 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 9, leave out "Section 78 applies" and insert "Sections (Presumptions about the absence of belief in consent) and (Conclusive presumptions about consent) apply"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 3, line 11 leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 32 and 45. This is the first of a number of groups of amendments that I have tabled on a probing basis to discover the Government's intentions as regards the circumstances in which certain offences under the Bill could be regarded as appropriate for summary conviction, and the much lower penalties that attach to summary convictions.
Clause 5 deals with sexual assault. Conviction on indictment can carry up to 10 years' imprisonment compared with six months' imprisonment, or even a fine, on summary conviction. The offence of sexual assault is widely drawn. It covers a spectrum ranging from the act of kissing at one end to penetration at the other. Potentially serious matters certainly fall within the ambit of Clause 5. Can the Minister say what the Government believe should affect whether a summary conviction or a conviction on indictment is thought appropriate? Can the noble and learned Lord say what guidance will be given to the Crown Prosecution Service?
Clause 6 raises even more concerns, because it deals with the sexual assault of under 13 year-olds. There is the possibility here of a summary conviction, even though conviction on indictment can carry the maximum determinant sentence of 14 years. Can the Minister say under what circumstances such a case might be dealt with on a summary basis?
Clause 7 deals with the offence of causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent. Where penetration is not involved, there is the possibility of six months' imprisonment or a fine on a summary basis, or 10 years' imprisonment on indictment. What kind of non-consensual sexual activity could fall within the category that would appropriately be dealt with on a summary basis?
These amendments seek the clarification from the Government on the points raised. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Amendment No. 30 is designed to probe what is appropriate in relation to indictment. In effect, the noble Baroness answered her
1194
own question on sexual assault under Clause 5. This can cover very serious offences but can also cover cases that are very much less serious. In relation to the less serious offences, the noble Baroness asked what approach the Crown Prosecution Service would take in such circumstances. I cannot give the Committee a comprehensive answer. The CPS must make such a decision based on the seriousness of the offence. It would be quite misleading to try to lay down strict criteria in relation to such matters. Such decisions must be left to the good sense of the CPS.
Clause 6 deals with sexual assault of a child under the age of 13. Where, for example, an 18 year-old kisses a 12 year-old with his or her consent, I am not convinced that it would always be necessary for such a case to be tried in the Crown Court. I can envisage circumstances where it might be appropriate for it to be dealt with in a magistrates' court. Again, the CPS would have to make a judgment about the seriousness of the offence.
Finally, Clause 7 relates to,
"causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent".
Here, too, there could be circumstances where one man causes another to touch his naked body in a sexual manner—behaviour that could well fall within the power of summary trial. But, again, that would depend upon the facts of the particular case. Underlying this perfectly legitimate probing amendment is the fact that there will be a great range of conduct. The question is whether we should always ensure that the case goes to the Crown Court. In each of these offences, we believe that there could be circumstances for which summary trial would be appropriate.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply. However, it was lacking in specificity because it gave examples of extremes that would not offer the kind of guidance that might be required. In particular, the Minister referred to the possibility of an 18 year-old being dealt with by summary conviction. That may be a difficult area and we shall seek the Minister's further guidance.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I referred to an 18-yearold because where the accused is under 18, the proceedings will start in a youth court anyway.
Baroness Noakes: I was just making the point that the issues are whether or not one should prosecute, then the appropriate place. I will carefully read the Minister's remarks. Other amendments raise more substantive issues than this group, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Sexual assault of a child under 13]:
[Amendments Nos. 31 to 33 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent]:
[Amendments Nos. 34 to 40 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 3, line 40, leave out "Section 78 applies" and insert "Sections (Presumptions about the absence of belief in consent) and (Conclusive presumptions about consent) apply"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 not moved.]
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 4, line 7, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 44, 46 and 65. This group of amendments is about the appropriate way of dealing with teenagers close to each other in age who participate in under-age sex. The purpose is to ensure that there is a defence of consent for under-18s who participate in sexual activity with someone between 13 and 15 and to ensure that the penalty for non-consensual sex committed by under-18s is consistent in the Bill at a maximum of five years. For example, Clause 14 determines that the maximum sentence shall be five years.
We want to prevent the prosecution of, say, a 17-yearold boy who has sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend with her consent but where her parents make a complaint to the police. The amendment would not prevent the prosecution of a 16 or 17-year-old if there has been no consent. Then the offender can be prosecuted under the provisions of Clauses 1, 3, 5 and 7. While we may not wish to encourage under-age sex, we must be realistic, accept that it happens and take appropriate measures.
Young people close together in age cannot be viewed in the same light as a much older man who takes advantage of a young girl. The law should not present a barrier to a young girl who may wish to receive sexual health or contraceptive advice but fears doing so in case she gets her boyfriend in trouble. Again, it is a matter of unforeseen consequences. We should be in the business of harm reduction and the law should play its part. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: Clause 7 is rather curiously worded. It is entitled "Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent". That does not necessarily mean that only two people are involved. A third person could be involved and hence is prosecuted. One has in mind a man encouraging another man to have sex with a woman of whatever age. Under Clause 7, that seems perfectly possible.
1196
I have nothing to say about the amendment itself but I am confused by subsection (6):
"Unless subsection (5) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable".
That is fine but what happens if subsection (5) does apply? I have got lost.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I cannot quite follow the noble Lord's question. Is it about Clause 6?
Lord Skelmersdale: I was referring to Clause 7(6).
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: If subsection (5) applies, the maximum sentence is life. If it does not, the maximum sentence is 10 years.
Amendment No. 44 is much more wide ranging than the noble Baroness let on. It is grouped with Amendment No. 65, which states that for all sex offences in Clauses 1 to 8—including rape, assault by penetration or sexual assault—the maximum sentence for someone age 18 or under should be five years. Once that is clear, I can easily put our case.
Of course the defendant's age will have an effect on the sentence passed in many cases but a number of sex offenders aged 18 and under commit serious sexual offences—for example, rape—and do so more than once. For example, there are 14-year-old and 15-year-old serial rapists. It would be wholly inappropriate to say that the maximum sentence in those cases should be five years—which would be the effect of the amendments.
We return to the question that we have examined before—set a maximum, recognise that age will plainly play a significant part in the penalty but acknowledge that courts need the flexibility required to impose a sentence that fits the crime. We strongly oppose the amendment.
Baroness Walmsley: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his comments. It all boils down to the concern felt by myself and other noble Lords, many children's charities and agencies such as the Family Planning Association, as to the way in which young sex offenders are dealt with and the danger of criminalising young who have sexual activity with consent—which is entirely different from the sexual abuse that the Bill attempts to address. If we were more satisfied about the framework, consistency, quality and availability of services for young people, we would be much happier with the Minister's intentions in setting down criminal activities and maximum sentences. It is a matter of practice.
Many young people commit such offences because they have themselves been victims and are damaged. They must be dealt with in a way that is appropriate to them. Society has failed many of those young people and we should try to put things right. We should help and bear in mind their welfare by providing appropriate treatment—and by doing so, protect other young people from inappropriate sexual behaviour. We shall return to this issue later today and at other stages in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 not moved.]
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Causing a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity]:
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Sexual activity with a child]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 4, line 36, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
"(d) either—

(i) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or

(ii) B is under 13."

The noble and learned Lord said: This group of amendments in effect suggests the deletion of Clause 76 and makes consequential amendments. The policy intention behind Clause 76 was to ensure that where someone engages in sexual activity with a child under 13, he must be found guilty of one of the specific offences designed to protect children under 13. They are Clause 2, rape of a child under 13; Clause 4, assault of a child under 13 by penetration; Clause 6, sexual assault of a child under 13; or Clause 8, causing a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity.
Our purpose was to ensure that anyone engaging in sexual activity with a child under 13 should be charged with an offence of strict liability, where any ostensible consent of the child is legally insignificant, there can be no defence of mistaken belief in age and a guilty verdict results in a serious penalty that reflects the gravity of the crime.
However, we have realised that, despite our best intentions, there are difficulties with the way that Clause 76 would operate in practice. For example, where a defendant had engaged in ostensibly consensual sexual intercourse with a child who was believed to be 14 at the time, the Crown Prosecution Service would charge the defendant with the offence of sexual activity with a child under Clause 9. However, should it emerge during the trial that the child was, in fact, aged only 12 at the time of the alleged offence, the prosecution would, because of the effect of Clause 76, have to apply to the judge to amend the indictment to include a charge of rape of a child under 13, pursuant to Clause 2.
Judges have the discretion to amend an indictment during a trial but can be reluctant to do so, especially in circumstances such as these in which the indictment would be amended to reflect a more serious offence. Depending on the lateness of the amendment, the later it is, the less likely the judge is to agree to it.
If, in such a case, the judge were to refuse to amend the indictment, the unfortunate result would be that the defendant would have to be acquitted because the wording of Clause 76 has the effect of making it impossible for him to be convicted of an offence under Clause 9 if the victim was under 13. That would lead to a serious injustice since the defendant would be acquitted on a technicality despite having engaged in sex with a
1198
12 year-old. That is clearly not the effect that we intended and I ask Members of the Committee to approve the changes to the Bill to rectify this position and to ensure that the law provides maximum protection for children under 13.
I oppose Clause 76 standing part. That is with a view to striking Clause 76 from the Bill. This would have the effect that, should it transpire during a trial for an offence under Clause 9—sexual activity with a child—that the victim was under 13 at the time of the offence and that the judge is not minded to allow for the indictment to be amended to a charge of rape of a child under 13, the defendant could at least be found guilty of the offence of sexual activity with a child.
Amendments Nos. 48, 50, 100, 101, 113, 114,176 and 177 amend all those offences which, as a result of Cause 76 being dropped, could be charged in relation to sexual activity involving a child under 13, to provide that where the child is under 13 there shall be no defence of mistaken belief in age.
For completeness, Amendments Nos. 49, 51, 76, 106, 119, 183, 216, 219, 222, 223, 228 and 237 all have the effect of removing references in other offences to the application of Clause 76 which will no longer exist. Together, these Government amendments will preserve our policy that the law should provide maximum protection for children under 13. For these reasons, I invite the Committee to accept the amendments. I beg to move.
5.00 p.m.
Lord Rix: I thank the Minister for proposing Amendments Nos. 216, 219, 222, 223, 228 and 237. It saved me the trouble because they apply to learning disability. I am grateful to the Government for listening to our pleas. I have the greatest possible pleasure in supporting these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 4, line 37, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Causing a child to engage in sexual activity]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 50 and 51:
Page 5, line 6, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
"(d) either—

(i) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or

(ii) B is under 13."

Page 5, line 7, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Inciting a child to engage in sexual activity]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 5, line 19, leave out from "indictment" to end and insert "—

(a) where subsection (3) applies, to imprisonment for life;

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

(3) This subsection applies if the offence was against a person under 13 at the time of the offence and the activity incited involved—

(a) penetration of B's anus or vagina,

(b) penetration of B's mouth with a person's penis,

(c) penetration of a person's anus or vagina with a part of B's body or by B with anything else, or

(d) penetration of a person's mouth with B's penis."

The noble and learned Lord said: Under existing legislation, sexual intercourse with a child below the legal age of consent is unlawful, even if the child willingly engages in the activity or even encourages it. It is our intention that this situation should be maintained, but that the protection offered by the law should be extended to protect children not only from sexual intercourse but from all forms of sexual activity, including those that do not involve physically touching the child.
We have therefore introduced a range of child sex offences to protect children under 16 from all forms of sexual activity. The offences of sexual activity with a child and causing a child to engage in sexual activity are designed to protect children aged 13 and over, but under 16. The maximum penalty for these offences has been set at 14 years to reflect the fact that the sexual activity covered by these offences is ostensibly consensual. Where activity is non-consensual, the offence would fall to be charged under one of the generic non-consensual offences; that is, rape, assault by penetration, and so forth. In relation to children under 13, we have adopted the policy that they are not capable of giving legally significant consent to sexual activity in any circumstances.
Physical sexual activity involving a child below that age will therefore be charged as one of the specific offences relating to children under 13. They are rape of a child under 13, assault of a child under 13 by penetration, sexual assault of a child under 13, or causing a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity.
The maximum penalties for the offences of rape of a child under 13 and assault of a child under 13 by penetration are the same as for the generic offences; that is, life imprisonment. The offence of causing a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity also carries a maximum life penalty where the activity involves sexual penetration of, or by, the child.
As currently drafted, the offence of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity at Clause 11 carries a maximum penalty of 14 years, regardless of the age of the child or the type of sexual activity that takes place.
Amendment No. 53 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, would have the effect of introducing a maximum
1200
penalty of life imprisonment for this offence. I cannot accept that amendment because I consider that a maximum life penalty is too severe for an offence that covers ostensibly consensual activity with a child aged between 13 and 15.
However, I accept that the current penalty attached to the offence is inconsistent with our policy on providing maximum protection for children under 13 who are deemed incapable of giving legally valid consent. This offence is different from the Clause 9 and 10 offences as there is no equivalent under-13 offence. Therefore, this offence will be used where a person incites an under 13 year-old to engage in sexual activity.
I am therefore proposing government Amendment No. 52 that will bring the maximum penalty in relation to victims under 13 in line with that for the offence of causing a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity—that is, life imprisonment for cases involving the incitement of sexual penetration, otherwise 14 years. In the light of my comments, I hope that in her amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, will accept the approach that we are adopting. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: We come to one of those areas of the internal consistency of the Bill. Amendment No. 53, which proposes a maximum life sentence for the offence of incitement, is based on a comparison to the corresponding offence in Clause 35, under which the incitement involves a person with a mental disorder or learning disability, because that offence carries a possible life sentence.
The comments made by the Minister are partially welcome. They align the potential penalties between Clauses 11 and 35 where the offence involves both a child under 13 and penetration. But I remain mystified by the lack of alignment on the incitement offences. I do not understand why incitement of a child under 13 to non-penetrative sexual activity or for other children is less heinous than with a mentally disordered person.
Looking forward in the Bill, Clause 35 makes no distinction between penetrative and non-penetrative sexual activity. I understand what the Minister said about the logic in regard to offences described earlier in the Bill but I have been looking forward in the Bill to offences involving mentally disordered persons. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain the logic in those kinds of cases.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I shall need to come back on the point of why Clause 35 makes no distinction between penetrative and non-penetrative offences.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child]:
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 5, line 32, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: I shall be brief. This group of amendments concerns summary proceedings and indictments. Amendment No. 54 relates to Clause 12

1201
and the offence of engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child; and Amendment No. 63 relates to Clause 13 and the offence of causing a child to watch a sexual act. As the Bill is currently drafted, there is the option of a summary conviction even where the child involved is under 13. I find that difficult to understand.
Amendment No. 77 relates to Clause 15. Can the noble and learned Lord indicate the kind of circumstances that would lead to the conclusion that a summary conviction was appropriate? This group of amendments is particularly concerned with the under-13 category and the interaction with Clauses 12 and 13. beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The Bill makes provision for the offences of "engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child", "causing a child to watch a sexual act" and "arranging or facilitating commission of a child sex offence" to be tried either way. The effect of Amendments Nos. 54, 63 and 77 would be that these three child sex offences would be triable on indictment only.
The noble Baroness is aware that these offences cover a wide range of offending behaviour and, as I have said before, I do not accept that trial in the Crown Court will always be necessary. For example, although sexual gratification is a key element of the offence of "engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child", where the relevant act is an 18 yea r-old masturbating in front of a 15 year-old the case might be more appropriately heard in a magistrates' court.
Similarly, if a 15 year-old were to be charged with the offence of "arranging or facilitating commission of a child sex offence" because he has made arrangements for his 17 year-old cousin to have sexual intercourse with a 15 year-old friend at his house while his parents are out, it would not seem necessary for such a case to be tried in the Crown Court.
By the same token, causing a child to watch a pornographic movie might be considered serious enough to merit trial in the Crown Court where the defendant is an adult and the complainant is a 10 year-old, but the circumstances surrounding an 18 year-old causing a 15 year-old to watch the same movie might make the case more suitable for trial in a magistrates' court. Similarly, where the child is 12 the case might be suitable for a magistrates' court.
It is not appropriate for the Sexual Offences Bill to add unnecessarily to the workload of our Crown Courts. It would increase delays and overburden the system with cases that could equally be heard by magistrates.
These are probing amendments. The difficulty is that there is a range of offending behaviour and the seriousness with which cases are treated will have to depend on the facts. I fully appreciate and accept why the noble Baroness has tabled the amendments. I hope that she accepts that there is a range of such behaviour. We shall not make much progress on this issue unless she accepts that there has to be discretion.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that answer. I shall read what he said in detail. He indicated that age would influence whether an offence was directed towards the magistrates' court rather than the Crown Court. I shall want to reflect on that in regard to these clauses and others. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Causing a child to watch a sexual act]:
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Thornton Baroness Thornton moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 5, line 38, after "gratification" insert "or for gain"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 55, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 57, 58, 59, 61 and 62, which all relate to Clause 13. They stand in my name, with support for some of them from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for which I thank her.
Clause 13 concerns causing a child to watch a sexual act. The amendments are logical and sensible and seek to update the Bill in that they recognise that images are available in many forms.
Amendment No. 55 seeks to add the words "or for gain". The reason for this is that it seems odd that the Bill, as currently drafted, proposes to make it an offence for an adult intentionally to cause a child under 16 to watch a third person engaging in a sexual act or to look at a photograph or pseudo-photograph of the same where obtaining sexual gratification is his reason for so doing, but if the same person did it for gain it would not be an offence. So you can sell the stuff and that is okay. Surely not. That is not the intention of the Bill.
I appreciate what has been said elsewhere about the provenance of the Bill but I none the less consider it important to continue to promote an amendment which seeks to put similar conduct done for gain on the same footing as conduct done for sexual gratification. The intention behind the amendments is to raise the duty of care which online publishers will be expected to observe in relation to pornographic material—that is, that, at the very least, no website should present pornographic images on its home page. Anyone selling or promoting such material should, at the very least, interpose a warning page which, if you click on to it, will warn you that are about to see adult material. The standards I have in mind in relation to the display are those in the Indecent Displays (Control) Act.
Amendments Nos. 57 and 61 seek to add the word "recklessly" at different points. This means that publishers will be expected to take steps to verify the age of people to whom they might be selling or promoting material. Amendment No. 58 seeks to add the words "or allows" to make it clear that a person would be guilty of an offence if he simply failed to take reasonable steps to prevent someone watching a video or seeing a picture of a sexual act.
Amendment No. 59 is intended to catch not only pornographic photographs but other kinds of pornographic images—for example, cartoons. There is an increasing amount of such material in circulation

1203
through, for example, Japanese Manga and Anime. This should be caught by the Obscene Publications Act but this clause would avoid the necessity of having to go via that more complicated route. Amendment No. 62 seeks to include obscene texts but only in the context of an adult selling them or promoting them to children for gain or for sexual gratification. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: I shall speak to my Amendment No. 56 and to Amendments Nos. 57, 58 and 59, to which I have added my name to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. I agree with almost all the points raised by the noble Baroness. There are many issues of concern about the way in which the clause has been drafted.
Amendment No. 56 is a probing amendment. It seeks to delete the word "intentionally" from subsection (1)(a). "Intentionally causes a child to watch a sexual act" has connotations of coercion. The Explanatory Notes refer to a person who forces a child to watch a pornographic film. We have had helpful discussions with members of the Metropolitan Police who have told us that paedophile behaviour is often much more subtle. Paedophiles will leave pornographic material lying around in the hope that children will look at it out of natural curiosity.
We support Amendment No. 57, which seeks to add the words "or recklessly". Our amendment is in an alternative format. It does not inquire into the mind of a defendant; it merely states that if by his action of leaving material lying around he causes a child to see it, he will be guilty of the offence on the basis that those who are involved in exposing children to this kind of material should beware.
We wholeheartedly support Amendment No. 59 which seeks to extend the material to any other visual depiction. Again, we have received clear advice from the Metropolitan Police that we need to include cartoons, tracings, drawings and other visual representations which, in the view of the police, are often very much more disturbing than photographic pictures and so forth.
I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the majority of this group of amendments.
Baroness Walmsley: I rise to express my general support for the amendments. They are sensible and it is absolutely vital that the law keeps up with new technology. If the provisions place a small extra burden on those with Internet businesses, I really do not care, as long as the law protects children. Given the technology now available, every effort should be made to keep such material away from young people.
I agree absolutely with Amendment No. 59. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, pointed out, cartoons can be just as distressing and damaging as studio photographs. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendments.
Baroness Blatch: I, too, rise to support the amendments. They go a long way towards protecting children from what might be called 21st century technology. I shall pick up on a point made by my noble friend: the subtlety with which some people operate is astonishing. We know that they are some of the most manipulative people in the world. They are extremely clever and will resort to new techniques to bring awful material before children.
I wish to make a further point, one which I make given my experience of serving on the Government Front Bench. When departments produce a Bill and lay it before Parliament, they are loath to see it tampered with in any way whatever. They will go to enormous lengths not to accept amendments. However, I think that the amendments before the Committee are unarguable. While it is possible for the Minister to say that, while he agrees with them, the wording is not right in every sense and so government amendments will be brought forward to make them technically correct, there is no argument for rejecting them. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will fight the corner in his department to ensure that this change is made. Indeed, I think that it would also be welcomed in another place.
One matter that does not divide Members of any party in either House is the belief that we should do everything we can to protect children, without being overly burdensome or bureaucratic. These amendments go a long way to achieving that.
Lord Skelmersdale: I certainly go along with all that has been said. However, this clause does not cover only the Internet and access through that medium to these particularly pernicious pictures and pseudo-pictures—or whatever they are called nowadays—but also material left lying around at home, in an uncle's home or in the home of the babysitter. I should like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, whether the term "other visual depiction" includes videos and compact discs. If it does not, it jolly well should do.
Baroness Thornton: It is my intention that the amendment should cover such material.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The purpose of the offence of,
"causing a child to watch a sexual act",
is to protect a child from being an unwilling witness to sexual activity, whether live or recorded. I fully agree with what has been said by all noble Lords; namely, that such material is frequently used to sexualise young people with a view then to taking advantage of them.
As drafted, the offence covers any situation where an adult intentionally, for his own sexual gratification, causes a child to watch a third person engage in a sexual act, whether that act is live or recorded and whether that recorded act is a still or moving image. Since the provision refers to pseudo-photographs, it also covers the situation where the adult causes the child to look at pornographic material which does not involve a real person.

1205
Amendment No. 55, proposed by my noble friend Lady Thornton, would make it an offence for someone to cause a child to watch a sexual act "for gain". The purpose of the provision as presently drafted is to criminalise the actions of anyone who makes a child watch a sexual act because doing so gives him, the defendant, sexual pleasure. This is deviant behaviour of a personal and intimate kind that merits being treated as a sexual crime and in relation to which it is right that the perpetrator should be regarded as a sex offender.
The "for gain" element, which I assume the noble Baroness suggests is an alternative motivation, would suggest that we should criminalise, for example, the film company that uses an image of a naked couple in a sexual embrace in order to advertise the film and to encourage people to pay to see it, or even the publication of a newspaper that includes photographs of models in various stages of undress. Plainly that would be going too far.
Equally the amendment would cover a teacher who is paid to deliver sex education and who distributes perfectly appropriate illustrated material or shows videos as a part of the lessons that he is providing.
Baroness Thornton: I thank my noble and learned friend for allowing me to intervene. The point of the amendment is that if someone uses as a defence the fact that they were being paid or doing this for gain, at the moment it appears that that will not be covered by the Bill.
If the acts were committed for sexual gratification, possibly and probably they would be caught by the legislation, but what if a defendant says, "Well, actually I wasn't doing it for sexual gratification. I was being paid to do it"?
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I, too, may intervene at this point. Where teachers are doing the decent thing by children, of course they will not be caught by the amendment. Furthermore, I do not believe that that is what the noble Baroness intends in her proposal. However, under an amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord that we shall discuss later in our proceedings, a whole raft of people are to be given immunity from prosecution simply because they will be able to claim that they did something for educational reasons. It is possible that some people will take advantage of that.
I have on file for the purposes of our discussions on this Bill some horrendous material, including videos, to which children have been exposed for so-called educational purposes. People who do that cannot be allowed to claim immunity from prosecution simply because they say in defence that what they were doing was only for educational reasons.
If someone is caught in these acts for sexual gratification, for personal gain or for commercial gain, the noble Baroness has a real point with her amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I understand the argument, but the effect of the amendment would be
1206
this. If someone depicted any act of a sexual nature for money and children saw it, that would be made a crime. I understand entirely the point being made by my noble friend Lady Thornton; namely, that certain people, for bad motives, will seek to show children sexual activities in live or recorded forms. I have no difficulty with the concept of "for sexual gratification", but the term "for gain" is more difficult.
I think that both my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, are trying to target those who do it for money, but have in the background a sexual motive for their actions.
Baroness Thornton: It is quite possible that the wording may not be correct. Perhaps the Minister has another form of words to express the matter. However, as it stands I do not think that the Bill covers all eventualities; that is, it does not cover all the reasons why people may depict sexual acts to children.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I think that there may be a fundamental point here. What both noble Baronesses are proposing is that, while we all agree that the motive of sexual gratification is covered, we should also cover circumstances where it is done only for money. Thus, when a person sells a magazine or a film which depicts a sexual act in order to make money, and to some extent the material could be targeted at children, that would become a crime. Is that what is intended? If that is the case, I respectfully submit that that would be going much too far. Some limit needs to be put on what the words "for gain" are intended to cover.
I am not remotely unsympathetic to the paint, but if my noble friend has in mind some form of limitation, I invite her to help us to identify how to define it precisely. I say that because I do not think that the House would thank the Committee if we sought to make the Radio Times or a perfectly legitimate children's magazine depicting a sexual act guilty of doing something criminal.
I have a sense of what the noble Baroness seeks to achieve here—
Baroness Walmsley: In supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, perhaps I may call the noble and learned Lord's attention to line 38 on page 5. It refers to a person committing an offence if, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification,
"he intentionally causes another person … to watch a third person".
Surely "intentionally" would remove the possibility that the Minister has raised of a film made mainly for adult consumption falling into the hands of a child by accident or a newspaper publishing an advertisement for a film in which a couple with no clothes on engaged in sexual activity. The provision would not catch them either because they would not be intentionally aiming their products at children. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is trying to catch those people who are intentionally aiming their products, services or images at children. That is possible, as long as the Bill is amended in line with the noble Baroness's proposal.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Let me deal with that important point. A film specifically aimed at and sold to children could contain the depiction of people kissing. We certainly do not want to criminalise that, but that appears to be the consequence of including the words "or for gain". Can the noble Baroness give me an example of what she wants? That is really what I am after.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: Will the Minister look at this again? He quite rightly says that the clause is aimed at a person carrying out these acts for his personal sexual gratification. The point is that that may sometimes be accompanied by a gain. I am speaking off the top of my head, but perhaps a phrase such as, "whether for gain or not" could be included in relation to sexual gratification, rather than making gain an alternative. As an erstwhile prosecutor, I think it would cause considerable difficulties to add an element to sexual gratification as an alternative and not an addition, which is what the amendment may be striving to achieve. I make these points for the Minister to think about; perhaps he could look again at the clause.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: As I read the amendment, I thought there was a distinct point to it. I may be quite wrong, and it may not be the point. What if a person shows a child a video, a film or something on the Internet not just for his own sexual gratification but to attract someone who has paid him money for it? I could be wrong and that may not be what is meant. However, I have in mind some of the horrors that have been going on in America via the Internet. There is grooming, not to mention the list of about 6,000 potential paedophiles resulting from a case that was exposed there. That certainly was for gain, as those people made millions. The whole area needs amending, in the Communications Bill as well as this one. This will be very important in the future.
Baroness Walmsley: Perhaps I could make one more point before the Minister replies. The Minister referred to a film aimed at children in which a couple of people might be kissing. Clause 80 gives a definition of what is sexual and says of various activities that,
"a reasonable person would consider that it may (at least) be sexual",
and that,
"a reasonable person would consider that it is sexual",
in this particular context. I am sure that that is what it means. Given that definition, the example that the Minister raised would not fall prey to the amendment. Besides which, surely the CPS would not bring a case against a film-maker in those circumstances. A little earlier, the Minister was praising the common sense and discretion of the CPS. Perhaps we could rely on that common sense and discretion in a situation such as this.
Baroness Noakes: I was going to make the same point about the definition of "sexual". If the Minister has that
1208
problem in relation to minor acts under this clause, the problem will exist in relation to virtually every other offence in the Bill. If we hit that problem here, perhaps we should look again at the definition of "sexual".
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: There is obviously great enthusiasm here, and I understand why. We need to work on defining what we are looking for. The intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, was helpful, as was that of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, in defining what that is. But if two hurdles have to be overcome, that will not ultimately help anybody. We must be quite careful about exactly the activities we want to catch. I would find it helpful to have a conversation with the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Blatch, to identify precisely what conduct we are trying to catch that is not covered by "sexual gratification". I cannot give any guarantees that it will produce anything, but it is well worth making the effort to find out whether there is something that has not been caught.
There is some help in relation to pornographic and unsolicited commercial e-mail which I do not think is the only thing that the noble Baronesses who have spoken are after. There is an issue that needs to be addressed. The Department of Trade and Industry is consulting on unsolicited commercial communications in Chapter 6 of its wider consultation on the EU directive on privacy and electronic communications. I believe that that is one of the bodies to examine the problem of pornographic and unsolicited commercial e-mail.
Amendment No. 56 is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, and, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton—no, she is denying it. This would remove the intentional element of the offence. It would mean that a person who obtained sexual gratification from accidentally causing a child to watch a sexual act would be captured by the offence. It is quite difficult to conceive of a situation in which someone could accidentally cause a child to watch a sexual act for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification. If one carries out an act for a purpose, that must mean that one has acted with that intention—in other words, intentionally. The deliberate leaving around of pornographic material in the hope that a child will find it is plainly an intentional act.
Perhaps the thinking behind the amendment is that it is unnecessary to say that the causing must be carried out intentionally, given that it must be carried out for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification. Removing "intentionally" on this basis would mean that the offence was no longer consistent with all the other child sex offences, all of which require the activity in question to have been carried out intentionally.
Amendment No. 57, which I suspect goes with Amendment No. 56, proposes a different amendment to the state of mind necessary to commit the offence. It would mean that a person would be guilty of this offence if he were reckless about letting a child witness a sexual act, even if it was not his intention that the child should witness the act. Is that desirable? For example,

1209
such a provision might cover parents who leave their bedroom door unlocked so that their child can seek comfort during the night. The child comes into the room quietly and unnoticed while they are having sexual intercourse. Any parents who, having noticed the presence of the child, continued their lovemaking, would fall within the meaning of the term "intentional" and would be covered by the offence, but we would not wish to catch those who are unintentionally observed.
A recklessness provision would also catch anyone who mistakenly, rather than intentionally, left videos or photographs in a place where a child could find them. It is not unreasonable to expect adults to take care to keep sexually explicit material out of the reach of children. However, I do not think it would be right to bring the full weight of the criminal law against someone in cases where a child finds and looks at such material.
Our offence requires defendants to take positive actions that cause a child to watch a sexual act. It should be possible to be found guilty of this offence only if it can be proved that it was their intention that a particular child or children should be subjected to such activity.
In a similar vein, Amendment No. 58 is intended to broaden the scope of this offence to cover those who intentionally allow (as opposed to cause) a child to watch a sexual act. Our purpose is to criminalise those who purposefully expose a child to pornographic or sexual images purely for their own sexual gratification. Do we want to criminalise, for example, parents who consider that it is acceptable for their 15 year-old child to watch an X-rated movie or to look at a pornographic magazine and knowingly allow him to do so? That is where some of the amendments we are discussing would lead.
The effect of Amendment No. 61 would be to import an element of recklessness about the age of the child into this offence. I can see no justification for treating the question of the defendant's knowledge or belief about the age of the child any differently in relation to this offence than it is treated in relation to all other offences in Part 1 of the Bill.
Where a defendant has intentionally caused a child to witness a sexual act and he is able to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he reasonably believed the child to be 16 or over, he should be acquitted of this offence. In any event, if a defendant is reckless about the age of the child and it transpires that the child was under 16, he is extremely unlikely to be able to satisfy the jury that he reasonably believed the child to be at least 16.
The effect of Amendment No. 59 would be to bring visual images other than photographs and pseudo-photographs within the scope of this offence. That plainly requires consideration. I hope that I shall be able to help in that regard.
Amendment No. 62 would extend the scope of the offence to cover written material of an obscene nature shown either for gain or sexual gratification, intentionally or recklessly. I have already mentioned what seem to me to be the problems in relation to the concept of "for gain" although I have indicated that we need to consider that further. As regards the concept of "recklessness", I have
1210
indicated what I think the dangers are in that regard. Obviously, we cannot accept the amendment as it is drafted.
The amendment also introduces the idea of,
"text which a reasonable person would be likely to understand to be obscene within the meaning of the Obscene Publications Act 1959".
That would mean that the court would have to find that a "reasonable person" would be likely to understand that the material was liable to deprave and corrupt, which is likely to add complication and difficulty to making out the criminal offence. However, we need to consider the principle of whether intentionally showing text to a child for the purpose of gaining sexual gratification—which I suspect is broadly what the noble Baroness seeks to catch—should be covered in the same way as we propose showing photographs or pseudo-photographs should be. I do not believe that the noble Baroness is particularly wedded to her drafting. The drafting is not the problem; we need to look a t that along the lines that I have indicated.
I hope that I have indicated that we can consider much of what has been said. I can give some assistance in relation to the material I referred to at the end of my speech. As regards the other matters, we need to look at them and try to define precisely what we are trying to cover. I hope that in the light of those remarks the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: I thank all Members of the Committee who supported me so wonderfully. One innocently tables a measure that appears sensible. That just shows what happens when one "mixes it" with lawyers. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his comments. I shall certainly beat a path to his door to discuss certain issues. I am certainly not wedded to the words of my amendment but I am grateful for the discussion which has taken us a long way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 56 to 59 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 5, line 40, leave out second "a" and insert "any"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 60 is grouped with Amendment No. 140. They are purely technical and make no change of substance. Instead of referring to "a" person engaging in sexual activity, the Bill will now refer to "any" person engaging in sexual activity. The amendments are intended to bring Clauses 13 and 22 into line with the parallel offences in relation to those with a mental disorder and learning disability at Clauses 37, 42 and 47.
Amendments Nos. 60 and 140 will simply change the phrase,
"to look at a photograph or pseudo-photograph of a person"
to,
"to look at a photograph or pseudo-photograph of any person"

1211
in the two relevant offences and will thus make it perfectly clear that it is an offence for a person to cause a child to look at a photograph or video of himself engaged in a sexual act.
I invite the Committee to agree the amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 61 to 63 not moved.]
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Child sex offences committed by children or young persons]:
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 6, line 11, after "18" insert "(A)"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 64, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 66 to 68 and to Amendment No. 71 with which it is grouped.
In our earlier debates we touched on the issue that is at the heart of these amendments; that is, whether consensual sexual acts involving teenagers should be criminalised by the Bill. The issue attracted a number of comments during the Second Reading debate. Many noble Lords who spoke were concerned that the Bill was out of touch with the realities of modern day teenage life. Several of the groups that have provided briefing, notably various children's charities, support the case for amending the Bill.
The Minister said on Second Reading that in order to protect children,
"That will mean, as it does now in relation to current offences, that one must criminalise certain activities that, on the facts of a particular case, would never merit a prosecution because it would not be in the public interest for there to be one".—[Official Report, 13/2/03; cols. 875–876.]
I challenge that proposition. I do not believe that it is always necessary to criminalise activities where it would not be in the public interest to prosecute. Indeed, I think that it is dangerous for the criminal law to be written in a way which criminalises activities that are regarded as normal activities.
We are not talking about exceptional activity whether or not Members of the Committee approve of teenage sex. It is a fact of life that it takes place. We should get the matter in context. Clauses 9 to 13 deal both with full sexual intercourse and with sexual touching, for example, kissing and all the activities that make up heavy petting, which Members of the Committee may remember from their youth.
The Bill could criminalise a game of postman's knock, or whatever it is that teenagers play nowadays. If two 15 year-olds were involved, both could be guilty of an offence under Clause 14. The offence of causing a child to watch a sexual act could catch a couple of 15 year-olds looking at a dirty magazine together, as I understand that 15 year-old boys down the ages are wont to do. If a Martian came down to Earth, I do not think that we could rationally explain why activity which is widespread and barely condemned in society is made illegal by this Bill.
The Minister will doubtless say that the Bill makes no changes to the current position where underage sex is a criminal activity. But I have to say to the Minister that we should not miss the opportunity offered by the Bill to ensure that the criminal law reflects society as we find it today and not, for example, as it might have existed when the Sexual Offences Act 1956 was passed.
I turn to my amendments. Amendments Nos. 64 and 66 do not give a blanket exemption for teenage sexual activity. They provide that a person under 18 can be charged with something that would be an offence under Clauses 9 to 13 unless the other person involved—the child under 16—has the capacity to consent and does consent. We defined capacity to consent in Amendment No. 66 as the child under 16 being capable of understanding the nature, implications and reasonably foreseeable consequences of the activity or conduct.
These amendments draw no distinction between those who are under 13 and those who are between 13 and 16. I have already said in relation to the amendments to which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, spoke earlier that we accept a threshold of the age of 13. If the Minister were minded to accept the thrust of the amendment, I should be happy to see a restriction on the ability of under 13s to consent.
Although I hope that the Minister will see that the amendments are rational and in keeping with the facts of life today, I have tabled two further amendments in case he dashes my hopes. Amendment No. 67 seeks to leave out the sentencing provisions in Clause 14(2), and Amendment No. 68 seeks to delete only Clause 14(2)(a). They are probing amendments to try to find out how the Government would seek to apply the wide-ranging offences via the CPS. We have had some discussion on that today. We understand that much would be left to the CPS, which might make it difficult for such a wide range of potential teenage sexual activity to be handled. There would be no clarity for those young people as to what they could and could not do.
It is not easy to identify the extremes in relation to children. I expect that the Minister would say that consensual petting, consensual looking at pornographic magazines, and perhaps even consensual intercourse without aggravating circumstances should not be prosecuted. However, the dividing lines are important. We need a greater understanding. If the Minister is unwilling to amend the Bill, we need to press the Government to be much more specific about the kind of circumstances in which they think that the offence would be prosecuted.
My final amendment in the group is Amendment No. 71, which requires the Attorney-General to issue guidance to Crown prosecutors when considering whether to prosecute those under 18 for sexual offences. That continues the theme that, if we have to have the law as drafted in the Bill, we should be clear about what guidance is to be given to Crown prosecutors for applying that. That amendment is supported by the Law Society, various children's charities and Liberty. If the Government are wedded to the Bill as drafted, we believe it extremely important that guidance be publicly

1213
available to young people so that they know when their activities would be regarded as criminal, and when not. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: It grieves me to take issue with my noble friend because I know how thoughtful she has been on the subject, and that what I shall refer to is not what she would intend for the amendments. However, we have an age of consent. We argued long and hard about it, and Parliament decided that there should be one. The effect of the amendment, like previous amendments, would be to abolish it. As a Parliament, we have to think hard about simply removing the age of consent.
Amendment No. 66 effectively abolishes the age of consent where both parties are under 18. It allows the defendant to claim that his victim consented to the activity. The amendment imports the concept of the "Gillick competence" into the age of consent offences in Clauses 9 to 13. It does not affect the non-consensual penalties, but for the age of consent offences it has much the same effect as the earlier amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Amendment No. 71 would require the Attorney-General to issue guidance to Crown prosecutors about how to decide whether to prosecute under-18s for sexual offences.
The amendments open up the possibility of endless courtroom arguments about whether the child victim had the capacity to consent to the sexual activity and whether the child in fact consented. That would place a huge burden on the child, who would have to give evidence of her capacity and try to persuade the court that she could not or did not consent. On an earlier amendment, I said that it would be grievous to have a child in court to defend their position as to whether they gave consent.
Many prosecutions would be dropped simply because prosecutors fear getting bogged down in a defence argument that the victim was competent to consent. The whole purpose of an age of consent offence is that the law assumes that a person under the age cannot consent. If it is proved that sexual activity took place when the victim was under 16, the question of consent is irrelevant. Amendment No. 66 demolishes that.
It is true that the clauses allow the perpetrator to argue that he reasonably believed that his victim was over 16, but that is easier to resolve than questions of consent. Furthermore, the Bill, combined with government amendments, will not allow that argument to be raised where the victim is under 13.
Amendment No. 66 does not recognise the under-13 age limit. That would allow a 17-and-a-half year-old to have sex with a 12 year-old and then claim that she was "Gillick competent" and gave her consent. An 18 year-old would not have that option. The amendments have some side effects that need to be thought through.
Amendment No. 71 suggests further scope for undermining the age of consent by requiring extra guidance on prosecuting under-18s. Presumably the intention is that the guidance will indicate that prosecutors should be more lenient on under-18s.
1214
I know the area of concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and my noble friend Lady Noakes, but this is free-voting territory and I believe that we speak as individuals in the Chamber. I certainly speak as an individual who fought very hard against lowering the age of consent. Having lowered it to 16, I think that we should do what we can to preserve it.
Baroness Walmsley: The Committee will perhaps not be surprised to hear that I generally support the amendments, as I generally oppose the inappropriate criminalisation of young people, particularly those of proximity in age who experiment in a sexual way. However, my main purpose in speaking is to oppose the Question that Clause 14 stand part of the Bill, which is part of this grouping. In a way, that is a protest about how tightly the Bill has been drawn with regard to young people who commit sexual offences, thereby preventing us tabling amendments about their treatment. Opposing the Question is the only way in which we can have that debate.
It seems to me that young people who demonstrate sexually harmful behaviour are very damaged. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and I recently visited a centre where such people receive expert help from a highly-trained multi-agency team of professionals. It became apparent to us as we listened to some of the case histories that society had failed each and every one of them. Every one had suffered neglect, physical or sexual violence, or severe deprivation of some sort. Research shows a very high correlation between being subjected to physical violence as a small child and the development of some sort of sexual dysfunction or aberrant behaviour later in life.
How inappropriate then to deal with such young people by the criminal law. They are victims themselves. The more I looked into the research, the more it became very clear to me that a great deal could be done to help those children to avoid reoffending. The earlier the treatment is begun, the more successful it will be. Sadly, there are not enough centres such as the one that we visited and those run by the NSPCC all over the country.
It is also sad that there is currently no obligation on the police to consult a multi-disciplinary professional team about the best action to take, with regard to both the welfare of the child and the safety of society, when a complaint is made. In addition, if the case goes for prosecution and the child is convicted, there is no obligation on the youth offending panel or court to obtain a professional assessment before deciding on the sentence.
There is some very good practice, however. In Greater Manchester there is a protocol for such cases, and an initial assessment is carried out to decide what is in the best interests of the child and society before proceedings get under way. That is getting very good results but is not happening everywhere, despite the guidance on the final warning scheme issued by the Home Office juvenile offenders unit. The guidance encourages prior assessment by the youth offending teams to inform the police decision about whether to

1215
reprimand, issue a warning or prosecute. The police themselves welcome that approach, as they do not feel able to make such decisions. They should obviously be made by specialised professionals.
Similar arrangements already exist for adult sex offenders when they have been convicted. Given the importance of the welfare of the child, however, it is important that those arrangements are made prior to prosecution everywhere in the country.
"Prosecution" and "sentence" are inappropriate words in respect of those cases. "Treatment" is a much better word. Treatment—either in a residential or non-residential situation, depending on the properly assessed risk—is much more effective than putting such a child in the normal youth custody situation, where he may not receive the specialist help that he needs. Surely our objective must be to put right the damage that the parents or society at large have done to those children and prevent re-offending. That would protect other children from possible future predation. Surely they have a right to expect that. That should be mandatory, not optional. We have failed them, which is bad enough. However, to compound their misery by punishing them instead of treating them and helping them to put their lives in order is appalling in a society that calls itself civilised.
I beg the Minister to find a way of reassuring me and of ensuring that children in this situation will have a right and an entitlement to have their welfare taken into account if they offend. We should keep them out of the criminal justice system wherever possible and put them into the child protection system instead when they commit acts that society rightly abhors.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: I will speak to the Question whether Clause 14 stand part of the Bill. I will also briefly speak to Amendment No. 67, which stands in my name. Before doing so, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for speaking so eloquently about the need to treat children as children in this regard.
We are well aware of what needs to be done. The Minister earlier made it clear that we know what needs to be done, although it is not now being done. In, I believe, 1991, the NCH produced a report clearly laying out the range of services and interventions necessary with this group of children. In 1999, I believe, the Department of Health produced guidance about safeguarding children which clearly laid out the range of services needed by those children, who are at risk and are children in need. That depends on close co-operation between many different agencies. Each child behaving in that way needs an assessment. The Minister kindly wrote to me—
Baroness Blatch: It is right to be concerned about vulnerable children and children in need and those needing a great deal of support. However, does the noble Earl agree that this catch-all group of amendments also involves robust and extremely mature—sometimes not mentally mature, but certainly
1216
physically mature—14, 15 and 16 year-olds, and very immature seven, eight, nine and 10 year-olds? In this context, there can be extreme wilfulness and the understandable situations—one would expect the Crown Prosecution Service to take them into account—described by the noble Earl.
The Earl of Listowel: I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention; what she says is quite true.
One must bear in mind that some of those young people are deliberate about what they do, have no remorse and are very unattractive. A range of children is involved. Most of those children are of the sort described by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley; they have experienced abuse and neglect. Even those who demonstrate such a lack of compunction for what they do have often also had very poor experiences. All the same, it is important to make it clear that they are responsible for their actions. It is therefore acceptable and desirable for a small minority to be entered on the sex offenders' register.
This is a complex area and I do not seek to argue that there should be only one approach. The research clearly shows—this is well evidenced—that often in cases of children abusing other children, the children who abuse are often themselves in need. I have spoken to therapists who have worked with such children, and they say that it is quite difficult to like them and to want to work with them. They do not demonstrate any compunction for buggering several children, for example. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why there has been admitted slippage in this regard; I believe that the Minister will admit that this area has been neglected for many years. I have heard that from many organisations working in this field. One reason for that is because so many of the children are so unattractive.
We know what needs to be done. Are the services that are necessary to address the needs of those children out there? We should also consider the risk that those children involve; we cannot have them continuing to abuse other children. We should remember that while many of those children grow out of such behaviour, many adult sex offenders report that their behaviour began in their adolescence. This is an important matter of public protection.
If we intervene early and effectively, the great consensus of professional opinion in this area is that if one wants to stop adult offending behaviour, it is best to get in there as early as possible—perhaps even before adolescence starts—with an effective, multi-agency approach to the problem and to the child. It is imperative that there is a clear strategy in this area. That has been lacking for many years. The National Organisation for the Treatment of Abusers made that clear in literature that it sent to me.
This matter involves public protection and child welfare elements. To illustrate that, I give the example of Darren, a five and a half year-old boy, who was, I believe, severely neglected when he was less than two. His brother had abused two girls and at the age of five and a half Darren was displaying severe difficulties with concentration and unacceptable sexual behaviour. One

1217
worries about his welfare very much. Another example is that of 14 and a half year-old Neil, who was having sex with animals, who had buggered many children and who was displaying very distressing modes of behaviour. Despite that, he was allowed to continue until he successfully abducted, raped and killed a child. No intervention was made to protect other children by assessing him and making available the right sort of treatment.
I was grateful to the Minister for acknowledging earlier the gaps in service provision in that area and the need to give more thought to the needs and risks associated with the children and an appropriate response. What timescale does he have for pulling together what must be done to address those children's needs, and who is responsible? Responsibility falls principally between the Department of Health and the Home Office, but several other agencies can be involved, such as the Department for Education and Skills. Is Hilary Benn, the Minister who has taken over from John Denham as the Minister responsible for children, now responsible for that area?
Amendment No. 67, which also appears in my name, would leave out subsection (2). It is a probing amendment; more specifically, my concern is that there should be a preliminary assessment in nearly every case where a child abuses another child. That assessment would inform the decision taken by the Crown Prosecution Service if the case goes that far. Such an assessment would ensure that the welfare of the child is borne in mind as he goes through proceedings, if that is the course of action which is decided on. If there is a question of the child being included on the sex offenders' register, there should be a more thorough assessment. That assessment should involve a child psychologist, because many of the children concerned have learning disabilities and only a child psychologist is equipped to detect them. I look forward to the Minister's response.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: At Second Reading and, indeed, in the short debate on the White Paper, I was one of those who raised the question of whether we were attempting in this way to overcriminalise acts which were more appropriately dealt with by the kind of multi-agency approach referred to by the noble Earl. In both those instances the Minister replied that, indeed, he saw the force of that argument and that such an approach was desirable but that that was not the point of this piece of legislation.
I agree with the general tenor of the remarks by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, concerning the difficulties which may ensue precisely because of the kind of points raised in earlier debates today about relying in this instance on, for example, the discretion or good sense of the criminal justice system, and in particular the CPS, in deciding whether or not to prosecute such cases as may come before them.
I am sure my noble friends will say that discretion will be used in such instances. However, difficulties may arise because of a disjunction between what is formally proposed and enacted and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said in her opening remarks, the general behaviour of many young people who
1218
would fall into the category of criminalisation if this were carried out to the letter of the law. I remind the Committee that we are talking of a society in which the average age of sexual experience in the way we have discussed, not necessarily sexual intercourse, is now 14 for girls and 13 for boys. So, we are talking about general behaviour, not aberrant behaviour.
I believe that problems will arise in a situation where this kind of behaviour may be investigated, even if not formally prosecuted, because we will create an environment in which it would be difficult to take the kind of multi-agency approach vividly described by the noble Earl in relation to children with particular difficulties and special needs but also more generally with children who simply behave in the way their peers in 2003 may behave. As several noble Lords have said, such behaviour may not necessarily be something we congratulate on or approve of, but it is undoubtedly the case that it takes place.
I hope my noble and learned friend will not simply say that he accepts that a multi-agency approach is appropriate, but that that is not the remit of this piece of legislation. In addition, perhaps he could comment on another point raised at Second Reading, I believe originally by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in the context of mental disability but also by me in relation to under 13 year-olds; that is, the present inquiry by the Department of Health into the legal concept of capacity—I am not sure of its formal title—which is relevant to under 13 year-olds.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I support the general points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and my noble friend Lord Listowel, even though they are a "pretence", if I may use that word, for bringing forward such matters for discussion. I also support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.
We must realise that the extreme forms of behaviour which lead ultimately to the kind of centre I visited the other day with two colleagues are horrendous. By the time the 15 year-old whose case we discussed had arrived at that age, there was practically no hope for him. Without doubt, he will be one of tomorrow's sexual offenders on the sex offenders' register. Equally, the centre was struggling with a five year-old who had abused a three year-old.
Many such children are in care, and we should think of the added risks of multiplication of such offences. These are children about whom we should be particularly concerned and with whom we should be taking particular care. I believe that the suggested form of treatment has an important part to play, but not for all the offences referred to. By the time such children reach the age of 16, or 13 in the case of those who abuse under 13, the offences committed will be horrendous.
As a juvenile court chairman over many years, such children have come before me. There have been various methods of taking them into care and. not dealing very effectively with them. However, I have seen the specialist at the centre I referred to as a

1219
professional over many years and, my goodness, she is a professional. When the children are really difficult they are brought to that centre and begin to make a relationship. Then, what happens? The local authority thinks that that costs too much and withdraws the child, thereby making the position even worse in the long term.
Whereas I disagree with some of the points made, some cases in which matters have been left for too long will have to be brought before the courts and there will have to be a criminal record. I would rather like to see followed a suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on our tour. If that point is reached, there should be an entitlement to treatment, which may be compulsory. Before that stage is reached, at pre-court assessments, if permitted there could be an opportunity for the family and children to consent to that rather than a criminal case being brought.
There is much that can be done. I refer back to a point I made earlier. There is an increase in pornography and the extent to which paedophile material is available via the Internet, and so forth. This situation is not likely to get better. It will get worse if we do not nip in at an early stage. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, insisted that we get to these families at an early stage and give them the support and help they need. That is where the emphasis should be. I am glad to say that that is where the Government are beginning to put a lot of emphasis and resources. I hope that those points will be borne in mind.
6.15 p.m
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps the noble Baroness will answer this question. As I said earlier, many sexually active young people are healthy, worldly and extremely streetwise. What would happen in the case of three to four very bright 15 year-olds, who gang rape a much younger girl? If the amendments are agreed to, the only way that child could defend herself would be by going to court to give evidence that she did not give consent. It is possible that she would be so frightened she simply would not argue with the boys who had defiled her in such a way.
It seems to me that there is no allowance. Once this is decriminalised for this age group it is decriminalised. If one is to nip in the bud such terrible, abhorrent behaviour there needs to be a mechanism through the courts to declare that the behaviour is wrong is law and then to deal with such people in the way suggested by the noble Earl. If appropriate, that could be through treatment. The courts are free to leave someone to go back into the community just for treatment or to pass a custodial sentence together with treatment. It seems to me that to decriminalise would leave many young people extremely vulnerable.
Baroness Noakes: I remind my noble friend that these amendments deal only with consensual sexual activity, and so the issue of a 15 year-old being gang-raped by some teenagers is exactly the same as far as that girl is concerned. It is taken that it is non-consensual, as is the basic offence of rape in Clause 1.
1220
I do not see what the problem is in relation to the points my noble friend has just put, because my amendments are about consensual sexual activity between teenagers, not non-consensual activity.
Baroness Blatch: I know what my noble friend Lady Noakes means. However, existing law deems that a child under 16 cannot give consent. Therefore, it is possible for the boys to say that they believed the person consented. In some strange cases, it could be that the girl did consent. However, if the amendments are accepted, the only way that the girl can defend her own position is to go into court and have to prove that she did not give consent, rather than consent being deemed not to have been given for being a child of that age.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: Perhaps I may reply as the question was addressed to me. I do not believe that there is any doubt about common sense in that case. I should be glad to hear that confirmed, or otherwise, by the Minister. If there is a case of gang rape involving three young men and a woman, it is clearly a case that has to go for prosecution, as long as the girl is under 13. Over that age, with consent, maybe.
Baroness Blatch: That was my point. The case would be heard under Clause 1 conditions, and the child would have to be cross-examined in court, sometimes very aggressively. I think that a child of that age deserves the protection of the law. Consent should not be deemed to have been given at all.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I have some sympathy with the points that have been made about the age of consent. We should not drift into changing the law, without confronting that issue head-on and properly. We have been around that circle a number of times in this House. I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Baroness's argument. The Minister could help by recognising that sometimes the courts can be of assistance by using their authority to summon agencies to ensure that the right services are brought to bear when children and young people have particular and special needs. The family courts are well able to do this over the placement of children. I should have thought that with the right skills and development, it would be possible to ensure that we developed services that did exactly what people have asked for; namely, using the authority of the courts to ensure that the services are provided for children in these situations. We could square the circle if the Minister would indicate how we might more effectively use the system as set out in the Bill. Sometimes the courts can help, and may rescue us from the label "criminalisation" by the way in which we as a society use them to address the issues.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for allowing me for the third time in this debate to say that this Bill is not sensitive enough to deal with these issues. I am not dealing with the issue of consensual sex with young people. We have to keep that clearly separate—

1221
recognising that young people will engage in sex. There is a debate about the age of consent, which, I agree with the right reverend Prelate, we should not be mixing with this present debate. That is because the issues of non-consensual sex and dealing with the range of abuse are so important. I shall not repeat all of the speech given by my noble friend Lord Listowel who put the issues so well. I want to raise one or two other matters.
There is a body of research about these children, over what works in their treatment, and what needs to be provided. I repeat that if, having gone through all of that research, yet another committee is to examine this, we will simply delay the possibility of providing services. I know the issue is about resources. This is not cheap. Another issue is that in providing for abusers, one also has to make sure that there is provision for victims. That is what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was trying to make us face up to. If we give good provision for those who have committed the offences, but fail to remember the victims, that causes us great difficulty.
The sensitivity of assessment is crucial. That will tell us the range of services that someone will need. It will also tell us the likely problems that will be faced over reoffending. I am vice-chair of the Faithfull Foundation, which treats adult offenders with clear behavioural problems. We know that behaviour can be changed, even in adult serial abusers, if the right steps are taken. As I have said, some men cannot be changed and I hope that one day they receive longer sentences, because it is the only way to give protection.
If the services could be developed, that would be good child protection. Whatever we say, these abusers are going to go back into the community. I should like to disabuse the Committee of the myth that all such people are contained. Large numbers of such children are in ordinary children's homes where the people in charge are going quite mad over how to prevent those youngsters harming other youngsters in their care. This has been going on for 10 years, and we still do not have proper provision or advice for those carers in institutions who are still struggling to deal with such youngsters. They give those difficult youngsters a great deal of care. Some of them are extraordinarily difficult to like. They are painfully difficult to get through to; they do not listen and—as one carer recently said to me—they would sell their grandmothers. Yet one has to care for them and turn their behaviour around. It takes skill, understanding and endurance.
My only other point is about getting the right kind of orders for those children. I have picked up the point in the wider debate made by the right reverend Prelate about the court system. It is not equipped to listen to the issues, to make assessments and to take the planning through. An adversarial system will not get to the truth. That is because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, many young women will not go to court and tell of their experiences. I know of dozens of young women, who have been hurt in sexual ways, who will not go to court—frankly because the court process is more painful than what they endured in the sexual offence.
1222
If we are really serious about making a difference, we must do so at the structural end, at the court end—and I recognise how long term that may be. We have to look also at the resource end to ensure that there is good treatment, and at the societal end also by making sure that there is good education. Public health education programmes aimed at understanding child sexual abuse—like the "Stop It Now!" programme—need to be extended throughout the country.
6.30 p.m
Baroness Walmsley: Perhaps I may make one or two more points before the Minister replies. Those of us who have been pressing for changes to be made in the Bill as regards young people are not arguing for any kind of drift in the age of consent. That is not what we are about. Nor are we suggesting that many of the offences to which we are referring should be ignored.
Despite its complexity, the Bill does two things. It outlines the offences and the consequences: five years; seven years; 14 years; life; custodial sentence; and so forth. It is right that society draws a line in the sand and says, "This is not acceptable. We don't want you to do it". There is a consequence. But as regards young people, there is potential for intervening in a way that will stop them ruining the rest of their lives and protects society. That is what we are trying to do. That was the name of the White Paper.
We must have appropriate consequences, and they are not seven years, 14 years, life imprisonment, or lock them up and throw away the key because that is not a positive way of dealing with the offences. It is a negative way and it will not stop re-offending, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, rightly said, when young people return to society.
Some of us have been struggling with the Bill, trying to amend it to include provisions appropriate to young people and to achieve the positive outcomes that we all want. But the Bill does not allow us to do that. Can the Minister indicate that the law can be drawn in a way that will allow young people to have the appropriate treatment, thereby preventing the abuse of potential victims? That will take a programme of many years because it takes time to train people in that work. We need a national strategy for that.
Young people in these situations need an entitlement to treatment but we cannot provide that tomorrow. We need a national strategy to produce the people with proper professional training to deal with these serious offences. This is a growing problem, it is not diminishing, because society is becoming more overtly sexualised. Any child who has been suffering the neglect and abuse to which we have referred in this mini debate, and who tends towards harmful sexual behaviour, will be encouraged in that behaviour by everything that he sees around him.
It is a growing problem and we must grasp this nettle. We must have a long-term national strategy to produce the professionals who can undertake the work. We must give young people, for their own sake and for the protection of the rest of society, an entitlement to that treatment. It is possible and it works. The noble

1223
Baroness, Lady Howarth, referred to plenty of research—good quality, peer-reviewed research and we must get hold of it. I hope that the Minister will help us in that respect.
Lord Northbourne: I want to intervene only briefly. The noble Baroness and many other noble Lords have spoken about the therapeutic treatment of these problems shortly before, at the time of or after the offence. The reality is—and it is a matter to which research should be devoted—that at a fraction of the cost one could prevent many children ever reaching the state of impoverished relationship ability, lack of self-esteem and an inability to relate to others which make them assert themselves through sexual activity.
I believe that the Government's strategy ought to be to ensure that 50 or 70 per cent of children who commit these crimes never do so through support for their parents and improving the environment in which they live. Another 50 or 70 per cent of the balance should be treated as the noble Baroness recommends. The noble Lord will be amazed how the cost of putting children in prison will drop. I suspect that it will probably finance the whole operation.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: This has been an interesting debate which raises two separate issues. The first is raised by the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. In effect, it states that many people under 16 are committing various acts of sexual activity which no one would remotely regard as criminal. Therefore, the noble Baroness proposes that even though this might be sexual activity between two 12 year-olds, if it were truly consensual it would not be an offence under the child sex activity offences. It might be an offence under Clause 1, but it would not be criminalised by the child's sex activity. She is saying that we should abandon the age of consent except where the sexual act is committed by an adult with a child.
Baroness Noakes: My amendment certainly implies that, subject to the offences at the beginning of the Bill. I modified that when I introduced it and would prefer to see it restricted to the age of 13.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I understand why the noble Baroness is saying that. What is the right way to approach it? Assuming that one raises the age to 13, the amendment provides that the age of consent does not apply to activity between minors. It is a difficult issue but one of the underlying principles of our reforms is better protection for all children and the vulnerable.
Research estimates that adolescents commit about one-third of all sex offences and it is likely that many of the victims of those sex offences—I use that word advisedly and I mean offences which people would regard as serious offences—committed by adolescents will be other adolescents and children. In framing the Bill, we must have regard not only to the needs of those who commit the offences but also the victims.
1224
It would be misguided to provide coherent sanctions to protect children from sexual abuse by adults but not provide adequate sanctions for protection from abuse by other children or young people. To be effective in this respect, the law has to be clear about the age of consent and that sexual activity below this age is not lawful. If it is not achieved, as everyone will agree, we are damaging a fundamental plank in our raft of child protection measures.
Any lack of clarity in this area will bring uncertainty and open the way to further change. For example, if we decide that sexual activity is lawful in some circumstances—say, between consenting children—what about young adults? We will be losing the ability as far as the law is concerned to draw the line in a firm and justified place. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said that it is important to have a line somewhere.
However, we must recognise that this unlawful activity will include a wide variety of circumstances. Where the sexual activity is mutually agreed between two people below the age of consent and it is genuinely consensual, it is extraordinarily unlikely that the CPS will decide that prosecution is in the public interest and there is no problem about this issue at the moment. The number of children in 2001 aged below 16 who were prosecuted is as follows: 368 children were cautioned for sex offences; 593 were prosecuted, of whom 273 were found guilty; of those 273, 42 were sentenced to custody; and 193 were given community sentences.
I fully accept that the law must be relevant, but as regards the idea that there is a problem or an issue in the way the current law operates which makes unlawful sex below the age of consent, I am not hearing people saying that there are wrongful prosecutions.
Baroness Walmsley: Can the noble and learned Lord tell the Committee how many of those young people receive treatment?
6.45 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not know the answer. I am sure that not enough are receiving treatment. The second problem that we have to deal with is what we are doing about those children. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Howarth and Lady Howe, have graphically described what children in those situations are doing. We want to stop them offending. Should we say that the criminal law has no part in that? The second part of the debate poses that question. The first part of the debate is that, in order to avoid criminalising those things that should not be criminal—and most of us would agree that there is a lot of activity here that the criminal law has no part in—do we in effect make the age of consent optional, which is what the proposal involves?
As I have indicated, the CPS can make decisions. There is no indication that there is a problem at the moment. Where it is agreed that sexual activity has taken place—that would be covered by the amendment of the

1225
noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—but there are clearly abusive circumstances—for example, one child is engaged in sexual activity with a number of other children or has pressurised the other children into agreeing—it is possible that the most effective way of preventing the child causing harm to children in the future may be psychiatric help or child protection procedures. But the criminal law has to be available for that to be the most effective option in such cases, particularly where it will enable the child's behaviour to be tackled properly.
The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, talks about consent and consent where the non-defendant—if I may use that phrase—has a full understanding of what has happened. How are those problems to be resolved when one is dealing with possibly abusive circumstances, where there is peer pressure or pressure by the defendant that may have caused what is, in effect, abusive conduct? There is such a wide range of circumstances that one does not want to make the law much more complex and make it harder to intervene where necessary.
We all agree that there may be cases in which the behaviour is so serious and so abusive that the criminal law has to intervene, even when those committing the abuse are children. How are we to define those circumstances? We cannot take such decisions in Parliament. We cannot capture the complexity of each case that may arise. Such decisions need to be taken on a thorough assessment of the circumstances of each case. The criminal law cannot provide a tailor-made response, which is why the Crown Prosecution Service takes and continues to take a decision on whether a prosecution is in the public interest in every case. Where prosecution is appropriate, I am sure that it is wrong to have a situation where nuance and difficulty—the result of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—become the order of the day in relation to what happens in court.
The age of consent most certainly has benefits, but only if it is clear. That is the effect of the current position. If public protection for children is one of our aims, and there is not a real difficulty in the way in which the law operates in what may be regarded as innocent circumstances at the moment, surely we should err in favour of the protection of children. The criminal law needs to provide a strong framework to deal with the most serious behaviour, but a prosecution does not have to be pursued in every case. That is exactly the same as the current position. It does not remotely mean that the criminal law will be invoked in every case if an alternative course of action will be more effective in protecting children. That will apply to circumstances in which it is patently abusive behaviour. But maybe the invocation of the criminal law is not the right course. I hope it goes without saying that it certainly does not mean that a prosecution will be pursued in cases where the behaviour is genuinely and mutually agreed.
Recognising the difficulties of the problem that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, seeks to deal with in her amendment, we believe that the right course is a clear age of consent. Not putting either the courts or
1226
children in difficulties in certain circumstances is the best way to approach the matter. One then has in one's armoury the power to deal with it when there is a problem. If at the moment it is not proving to be a problem in practice, we do not want to cause other problems in relation to public protection.
The second issue raised fairly and squarely by many noble Lords is what we are doing about those who are plainly guilty of abusive, criminal behaviour. Are we providing enough for them? I touched on that in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, earlier. It is a complex issue. I repeat that it has not received the focus and the attention that it should. Young people and children who abuse are a diverse group. From the interventions made in this short debate it is plain that many noble Lords have greater experience than I. as many have recently visited somewhere that provides treatment for such people. We need to look at that; there needs to be a strategy. It is an area that has been neglected in the past.
We have taken some steps to address the problem. We are funding a dangerous and severe personality disorder study to look at the characteristics of children and young people who commit sexual offences. The National Probation Directorate funded a two-year pilot project developing assessment and treatment tools. The Youth Justice Board has issued effective practice guidance and is evaluating the effectiveness of an initial assessment tool for practitioners; and together with the National Organisation for the Treatment of Abusers and the NSPCC, the Youth Justice Board is funding a national research project that is mapping the nationwide availability of services for young people who sexually abuse.
As I have indicated, the Home Office and the Youth Justice Board have set up an interdepartmental working group with the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills to look at the whole issue of young people who sexually abuse. I accept that a strategy is required. The group will report to Ministers later this year. I openly indicated that the strategy will depend in part on resources and, in their turn, resources will depend on the result of the spending review in 2004. I recognise the problems, I have said that officials are looking at them and I have explained that more needs to be done, but I cannot give any assurances as to what may be done.
A theme that came through many of the speeches was that as early as possible we should identify children who are at risk of becoming inappropriately sexually active as sexual abusers and at risk of being abused themselves. I thoroughly and wholeheartedly agree. It is not simply a matter of identifying children but of having an effective process by which intervention can take place. Those who are involved know full well that the interventions required will not be just the social services or just health or just the criminal law or just the Connexion service. We need to make all the agencies work together and focus on the individual to achieve the best result for him or her and for society. We need to consider ways whereby

1227
someone is responsible for ensuring that all agencies are brought to bear for individual children at risk, whether victims or offenders.
The Children at Risk Green Paper is due to be published in May. It focuses on three key outcomes: maximising the potential disadvantage to children in terms of educational achievement, employability, life skills and mental, sexual and physical health; preventing children from becoming victims of crime, abuse and neglect; and reducing offending by children and young people. The group about which we are talking is a small group within that wider group. The Children at Risk Green Paper will seek to address all those issues.
That is our answer in policy terms to the second range of issues posed. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said twice, in the most hurtful way imaginable, that the Bill is too insensitive to deal with the problems. She is right in the sense that the Bill does not seek to embark upon the problems. It seeks to provide a framework of criminal law that is able to deal with the most serious cases, providing protection for victims. That means that high maximum sentences have to be available and that the process by which a crime is made out does not involve great difficulties of brief. There are also the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, rightly made about secondary victimisation in court, where a child victim of another child abuser is forced to go through a prolonged cross-examination of precisely whether or not he or she did consent to the activity. I fear that would be the consequence of the amendment. I do not believe that the noble Baroness was asking me to defend all of all Clause 14 but was seeking a debate.
Amendment No. 71 would place a statutory obligation on the Attorney-General to produce supplementary guidance specifically in relation to the prosecution of children under age 18. The code for Crown prosecutors and other CPS documents contain detailed guidance about the circumstances in which prosecution would be in the public interest. Those will be updated as a matter of standard practice following the Bill's enactment—though the problems that current law raises, in terms of lots of activity that one would not remotely think of criminalising, are set out in the code.
In those circumstances, the statutory obligation on the Attorney-General to produce the guidance envisaged in the amendment is not necessary. It is standard procedure for prosecution guidance to be updated whenever existing legislation is changed in any way. Once the Bill has been given Royal Assent, the guidance will be updated in respect of prosecuting not only children but all offenders.
The Earl of Listowel: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I welcome his clear acceptance of the lack of action until now and his commitment to doing something in the future. Does the Minister agree that more could be done—and soon—to spread best practice?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Earl will forgive me for interrupting before my noble friend
1228
Lady Jay leaves the Committee. The Lord Chancellor's Department has done work in respect of mental incapacity. I cannot say when it will be published but will write to my noble friend.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I apologise for being about to leave the Committee but the amendment has been debated for more than one hour and I have an unbreakable engagement at seven o'clock. I thought that my noble and learned friend had ignored my point and I was going to take it up with him privately. I am grateful to him for responding.
The Earl of Listowel: Can the Minister give some indication of whether there can be more action now in terms of spreading best practice? He mentioned that the CPS assesses children who sexually abuse others. My reading of Manchester was that one quarter of the children prosecuted for sexually abusing other children did not receive an assessment. The good people of Manchester working in that area took the matter into their own hands and have introduced an assessment process over the past two years, which is widespread and has been well received. While we await the Comprehensive Spending Review and for the wheels of Government to turn, what can be done to spread best practice more widely?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I hope that I did not imply for one moment that nothing happened until then. The Youth Justice Board has issued effective practice guidance on young people who sexually abuse, which has been sent to youth offending teams and others to support consistency of assessment and work. In addition, the board is currently evaluating the effectiveness of an initial assessment tool for practitioners based on multi-agency working. A number of local areas are already using that model and as it develops, the YJB will decide how best to spread good practice. That does not meet all the noble Earl's points but he is right to say, "Do not wait—do what you can."
Baroness Noakes: I thank all members of the Committee who took part in this useful debate about the way that damaged children are handled by the system. I am sure that noble Lords will continue to pursue that matter, though that is difficult in the context of the Bill.
The Minister rightly identified that consensual teenage sex was the subject of my amendment. There may be a distinction to be drawn between the age of consent that applies to sexual intercourse between children and a range of activities that parts of the Bill criminalise—including looking at dirty magazines.
I remain concerned that we are potentially criminalising certain acts. I referred on the first day of Committee to guidance for schoolchildren sponsored by the Department of Health, which teaches them about levels of intimacy—something other than full intercourse—and therefore encourages young children to experiment sexually other than by full sexual intercourse. I am sure that there are good public policy

1229
grounds for pursuing that approach. We have an environment in which we are encouraging children to participate in sexual activity of that nature. On the other hand, we are saying that it is potentially criminal. I will reflect on the Minister's comment that it will never be a problem in practice because such activities would never be prosecuted. I thank the noble and learned Lord for his comprehensive reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 65 to 68 not moved.]
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 6, line 14, leave out "imprisonment" and insert "detention"
The noble Baroness said: My understanding is that the word "imprisonment" is not used for custodial sentences on persons age 18 or under. The word used is "detention". The Minister's officials, in the helpful briefing that they gave me and my colleagues prior to Second Reading, agreed that was the case and said that nothing was meant by the use of "imprisonment" rather than "detention". I hope that the Minister will confirm that there is no hidden intent behind using "imprisonment". If that is the case I hope he will be able to agree that it would be less confusing for all concerned if the Bill used conventional terminology. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The amendments would provide that children and young persons convicted of such offences should be sentenced to detention rather than imprisonment. That technical change would be a total departure from the way in which all other criminal legislation is drafted. The appropriate punishment for children and young persons aged under 18 convicted of a criminal offence is governed by the provisions of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, which applies to all criminal offences. Section 89 of that Act provides that a person shall not be sentenced to a period of imprisonment if he is under 21 at the time of sentence; and Section 92 makes provision relating to the place in which he is to be detained.
There is no reason to suppose t hat the provisions of that Act will not continue to operate effectively in relation to new sexual offences legislation and we do not want to include in the Bill any provisions that might be seen to cast doubt on the way in which the provisions of the Act should be applied.
We have special measures in place to ensure that children and young persons who abuse are treated fairly by the criminal justice system. Although children and young people who commit sexual offences should clearly be held responsible for their abusive behaviour, we recognise that they are likely to have considerable needs themselves—we have discussed that. Our aim is to achieve a co-ordinated approach on the part of youth justice, child welfare, education and health agencies. The lower maximum penalties for children who commit any of the child sex offences are part of that strategy.
1230
So, yes, I give the assurance that there is nothing sinister.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that reply, but I shall have to read it in Hansard, because he read it so fast that I could not take in the words. I shall consult my legal adviser who suggested that I table the amendment but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 72:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
"SENTENCE REVIEW
Where a young person under the age of 18 has been convicted of an offence under this Part, the Court or Youth Offending Panel shall review the sentence when the young person reaches the age of 18."
The noble Baroness said: Given all that has been said about the importance of treating young children differently from adults when dealing with sexual offences, it seems only right that when young people have been convicted and sentenced, the sentence or treatment should be reviewed when they reach adulthood. We hope that some treatment will have been made available to them, in whatever situation they find themselves after conviction. It would be good—especially where such treatment has been lacking or unsatisfactory—for the court to reconsider their case when they reach 18. An assessment could then be made of how well the young person has responded to treatment, what risk he now poses to society and whether his welfare and the safety of society would be better served by changing the arrangements for his treatment or custody.
When a young person is in care, new arrangements are made for him when he turns 18. The same thing should happen to a young person serving any kind of sentence for a sexual offence. In Sweden, which I recently visited to view their arrangements for dealing with young offenders, all young people who have offended up to the age of 21 are deemed to be in the care of social services. Appropriate treatment and care is provided with humanity and professionalism. We can learn some lessons from that system.
A young person who commits an offence at 14 may well be a different person when he grows to be 18. We should have arrangements in place to take account of that. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I am baffled as to why there should be such sympathy for some of the cases that we are discussing. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, can even imagine the nature of the offence that could elicit from the courts a sentence of, say, seven years. It would be extremely serious. The child could be aged 15 and a half when receiving that sentence. In awarding that sentence, the judges would

1231
have considered the age of the child and would certainly have given a great deal of consideration to the nature of the offence.
Anyway, at about the halfway point of the sentence, it would be reviewed. For the concern of the noble Baroness for a review at 18 to be real, if the child were 13 or 14 when receiving such a sentence, the mind boggles at what sentence he would have been given still to be in prison at the age of 18. But if the child is aged 15 or so, which is much more likely, if he has committed something serious and is sentenced, the judicial system allows for proper review of sentences and, indeed, proper parole arrangements for those who can be released from prison.
In my view, it should be left to that process. There should not be any special arrangements for someone who is 14 or 15 who receives a sentence in the courts in the full knowledge of the child's age and the nature of the offence. The amendment certainly does not receive my support.
Lord Skelmersdale: It is even worse than that, is it not? The young offender may well be aged 17 and a half. Why on earth would one want to review a sentence that has been running for only six months?
The Earl of Listowel: The amendment allows me the opportunity to raise a point that I should have raised earlier—the Committee will tell me whether I am in order. That is the issue of registration on the sex offenders' register. Although young people aged under 18 who are registered may end up with only half the tariff of an adult sex offender—so they would get seven years if the adult were to get 14 years—there is concern that if a 14 year-old, say, were entered on the sex offenders' register for seven years, he may change a lot in two or three years. Children change at a faster rate than adults. It may then be appropriate to review his presence—his enrolment—on the sex offenders register.
Will the Minister tell us whether consideration is being given to how the sex offenders' register is applied to children—to the review of their registration, to how a child is placed on the register and to involvement of professional groups in advising on the appropriateness of including a child on the register?
An especial concern of mine is that the use of the sex offenders' register may change in future and that it may become a much more public document. I also understand that it may be useful to have a child on the register—because the child is dangerous or to make clear to the child that it has committed a serious offence for which it is being held responsible.
Baroness Noakes: It may help the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to know that we have tabled later amendments that specifically concern children and the sex offenders' register. He may welcome a debate on that issue when we reach those amendments.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness,
1232
Lady Walmsley, for two reasons. First, all children in prison should be covered by the Children Act 1989 and be given the proper care and concern that children have under that Act. Secondly, when a case is reviewed, the programme of treatment that may or may not have been given is reviewed, as is the level of dangerousness. So that is not only for the welfare of the young person but for the protection of society. One may decide that the young person is so dangerous that other action needs to be taken before the young person is released back into society. So the provision is both ends on: it protects victims as well as the welfare of the young person.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is right: if, as a very young person, one is sentenced for a very long period in prison for a sexual offence, it would be an incredibly serious offence. In considering the length of sentence, the court will have regard to the age of the defendant and the seriousness of the offence. That judgment must be made at the beginning. It would not be appropriate in relation to any offence for the sentence to be reviewed when the person reaches the age of 18, unless that is in accordance with the normal parole arrangements. It is important to have regard to society as a whole, but especially the victims and what they would feel about that. It is difficult to see justification for the amendment in relation to the long sentences.
With regard to the shorter sentences, the noble Lord. Lord Skelmersdale, is right. It is inappropriate to sentence someone at, let us say, 17½ and then to have a review shortly thereafter. It would make the position of the sexual offender unique as regards a particular concession in sentencing. I believe that the right course is to leave the matter to sentencers. While understanding the reasons for the amendment, we cannot support it.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister did not respond to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. The amendment asks for the sentence to be reviewed, not for an assessment of the treatment given or the handling of the case. I agree with almost every noble Lord who has spoken: that someone sentenced to prison at the ages we are discussing should be subject to treatment and proper remedial programmes. However, the amendment seeks review of the sentence.
Baroness Walmsley: I thank noble Lords who have both opposed and supported the amendment, and thank the Minister. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that in bringing forward the amendment I have no lack of sympathy for the victims; indeed, quite the opposite. I accept that the approach underlying my amendments relates to the offenders themselves because they are damaged young people whom society has failed. However, in treating them appropriately it is to be hoped that we shall prevent them from reoffending, thereby protecting other children. If those young offenders are released into society without treatment, other children may be abused by them. If we deal properly with the situation, there are children who will never suffer the anguish of

1233
sexual abuse. That is why I seek review at appropriate stages, appropriate treatment, expert assessment and all the other matters I have been arguing for.
I see no reason why the age of 18 should not be significant. It is a significant age for children in care. For example, better treatment may have become available since the original sentence. I argue for special arrangements for these young offenders because of the special nature of the offences. In 99.9 per cent of cases, the offences are the result of mental and emotional problems brought about by years of neglect, abuse and violence against those young people. At the end of the case history, those of us who visited the centre to which I referred earlier asked, "Do you have any patients who have not been subjected to some of these terrible situations?" The answer was, "No. They may not manifest themselves when the young person comes to us but when we dig a little deeper we always find them".
These are special, unfortunate young people who commit appalling offences; I am the first to accept that. I want to protect other young children from their predations. However, I ask the Committee to bear in mind that a review at 18, half-way through the sentence, or whenever the court thinks appropriate, will be a positive factor, moving things in the right direction. Research and treatment programmes are moving on all the time. If we can review periodically what is happening to these young people, there is a better chance that they will leave custody able to enter society with the absolute minimum of risk. That is what we all want. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Clause 15 [Arranging or facilitating commission of a child sex offence]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 6, line 19, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
"(1) A person commits an offence if —

(a) he intentionally arranges or facilitates something that he intends to do, intends another person to do, or believes that another person will do, in any part of the world, and

(b) doing it will involve the commission of an offence under any of sections 9 to 14."

The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to make clear that the offence of "arranging or facilitating commission of a child sex offence" can consist of arranging or facilitating child sex either for oneself or for others. The amendment also makes clear that the offence applies wherever in the world the sex is intended to take place. I beg to move.
Lord Brennan: I welcome the amendment introduced by the Government, first, because it deals with a most serious international problem affecting children, especially those in the poorest countries. I declare a connection with the organisation in this country, Consortium for Street Children; and with Anti-slavery, an NGO which has a particular interest in protecting
1234
children in those poor countries from sexual exploitation by those deviants in the developed world who go to those countries to take advantage of children and in doing so commit offences ranging between those set out in Clause 9 up to that in Clause 14. That is a commendable objective.
Secondly, although the clause refers to anywhere in the world, it embraces equally the commission of the offence in this country. Anyone who has served on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, as I and others have, will readily confirm that organised paedophilia, nationally and internationally, is a major source of damage to children here and abroad. I commend the Government's amendment.
I note that it is to be associated with two related courses of action that I understand the Government are presently considering. The clause attacks the organisers but the offenders directly involved would be sex offenders if convicted. And the Register of Sex Offenders, I understand, is subject to review as to how long a trip abroad can be undertaken by a sex offender, within which time he is required to give notice of the trip abroad to the local police in this country. At the moment, because of regulations passed in 2001, a foreign trip of eight days or more qualifies for the giving of notice. If the Government's intention is carried through, I understand that that period is to be reduced to three days, which makes it effectively impossible to get to the countries in question.
What is the consequence of that for sex offenders? It curtails their activities abroad. That fits in with Clause 15 and the people organising those trips. If we add to that another intended government action—that the sex offenders' register will embrace in future the commission of offences abroad, not just in this country—the register will be effective for crimes committed anywhere against children; the timescale will be short; and Clause 15, coupled with that, will give much greater protection to children than we have been able to give in the past.
I close my welcome to the clause with one comment. It is to be noted in Clause 15 that the penalty on indictment for the commission of the organising of paedophilia is up to 14 years' imprisonment. I confidently expect the courts to impose draconian sentences against the organisers of this kind of national or international paedophilia, against which offences this clause is commendably directed.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: There is very little for me to say in reply. However, I should like to confirm the two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. We are consulting on shortening the period from eight days to three days. We are also very urgently reviewing the issue of offences committed abroad and their applicability to the sex offences register.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his support. As he said, this amendment will sharpen up the clause in the way that he outlined. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 6, line 24, at end insert—
"(1A) A person does not commit an offence under this section if—

(a) he arranges or facilitates something that he believes another person will do, but that he does not intend to do or intend another person to do, and

(b) any offence within subsection (1)(b) would be an offence against a child for whose protection he acts.

(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A), a person acts for the protection of a child if he acts for the purpose of—

(a) protecting the child from sexually transmitted infection,

(b) protecting the physical safety of the child, or

(c) preventing the child from becoming pregnant,

and not for the purpose of causing or encouraging the activity constituting the offence within subsection (1)(b) or the child's participation in it."
The noble and learned Lord said: Many of the offences in the Bill are designed to protect children from those who seek to abuse and exploit them. We have no wish to interfere with the work of those who seek to protect young people from pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. Under existing law, we believe that such people will not be viewed as aiding and abetting a criminal offence while working within professional or agreed policy guidelines.
It was firmly established by the House of Lords in the case of Gillick in 1986 that a doctor exercising his bona fide judgment about what he honestly believes to be in the best interests of his patient would not be criminally liable if he prescribed contraceptives for a girl under 16 years of age. That judgment would provide a defence to anyone who was acting within the guidelines it establishes, known as the Fraser guidelines, and giving legitimate contraceptive or sexual health advice to a young person under the age of 16. This will apply to doctors, other health professionals, and anyone exercising his or her bona fide judgment within the Fraser guidelines to provide legitimate contraceptive and sexual health advice and treatment.
I listened very carefully to the significant number of people who have made representations to me in recent weeks about the concerns that still exist, and the fear that people will be deterred from providing advice and treatment to children under 16. I am sympathetic to those concerns. We have come to the view that the matter needs to be settled by clear statutory provision.
A statutory exception needs to provide protection from prosecution for the offences of aiding, abetting, or counselling, the offences that cover sexual activity with children—the child sex offences, the familial child sex offences, the abuse of trust offences, the offences relating to those with a mental disorder or learning disability who are children, and the specific offences relating to sexual activity with children aged under 13. The exception also needs to cover the offence of arranging or facilitating child sex.
I am of the firm opinion that we need to draw the exception more widely than the Gillick case, to provide protection for people other than doctors and health professionals who should be able to act in the best
1236
interests of a child without fearing prosecution—for example, parents, teachers and voluntary youth workers.
Government Amendments Nos. 74 and 375 will make it absolutely clear, in statute, that those who act with the purpose of protecting a child from sexually transmitted infection, protecting the physical safety of a child, or preventing a child from becoming pregnant, are not liable to prosecution so long as they do not act to cause or encourage the sexual activity to take place. I believe that the provisions we are making provide effective protection for those who are genuinely acting in the best interests of a child, but they do not protect anyone whose actual purpose is to bring about the commission of the child sex offence.
I am most grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Walmsley, and to the noble Lords, Lord Astor of Hever, and Lord Thomas of Gresford, for tabling Amendments Nos. 75, 459 and 78. These amendments would introduce an exception to the offence at Clause 15 of arranging or facilitating a child sex offence, and to the making of a risk of sexual harm order, where someone is involved in the provision of sex education, sexual health advice, or contraceptive services for a child under 16. However, I cannot accept the amendments as they stand. As I explained, they are not drawn widely enough to provide the protection from prosecution that is sought in relation to the offences in Part 1 of the Bill.
The risk of sexual harm orders will be made only where a person has actually, on at least two occasions, carried out one of the acts listed in Clause 110(3) and there is reasonable cause to believe that it is necessary for such an order to be made for the purpose of protecting children. In view of these criteria, I cannot see how someone who was acting in the best interests of the child could ever be the subject of one of these orders. Therefore, I consider it unnecessary for the exception in this context. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for introducing his amendments. As he said, they respond to a number of concerns expressed to him regarding those involved in sex education, the provision of sexual health advice, and contraceptive services. Had the Bill remained as originally drafted, there would have been a danger that those who have never accepted the Gillick judgment could have used this Bill to make life difficult for those providing advice to young people.
Several questions arise as a result of the Minister's amendments. Can the noble and learned Lord clarify the position of a person providing sex education or information to a child who then goes on to commit an offence under the provisions of Clauses 9 to 14? Further, does the provision of sex education always fall within the "protection of the child"? If it does not, can the Minister tell us what would not be included? In all the circumstances, I am unsure whether sex education or information would fall within the terms of protection from sexually transmitted infections, protecting physical safety, and the prevention of pregnancy provisions. We need to be absolutely clear that matters covered by sex education would fall

1237
within that category. If the Minister's response to that is positive, my much more modest Amendment No. 75 will be superseded.
I heard what the Minister said in respect of Amendment No. 459, which relates to sexual harm orders. I toyed with degrouping this amendment in order to discuss it later tonight, but I have allowed it to be dealt with now in the interests of speeding up the proceedings. I understood the Minister to say that it would be unlikely that a risk of sexual harm order would be taken against such a person. However, the provision of sex education and contraceptive advice would fall within paragraphs (c) or (d) of Clause 110(3). We would not want the people who provide such advice to fall unwittingly within the basic criteria, which could trigger an application for a risk of sexual harm order. That is the reasoning behind the tabling of this amendment. I look forward to the Minister's response.
Baroness Walmsley: I very much welcome the Government's amendments, which I believe move us in the right direction. However, my worry is that they may be a little overcomplicated in that they are too prescriptive. I fear that they may trap someone who, with the best of intentions, may be advising a young person, say, about the emotional side of sexual relations, which is not listed in the purposes specified in Amendment No. 375.
My amendment would protect not only teachers and health professionals but also bona fide nonprofessionals, and workers employed by agencies such as the Brook Centres, which provide sexual health advice and distribute condoms to young people. Such people have expressed considerable concern about whether they would be trapped by the provisions of the Bill while going about their bona fide work. Although they are not health professionals, they provide a valuable service, supervised by professionals working for a competent and well-regarded organisation. Can the Minister reassure both myself and those agencies that, under his amendment, they would not be liable for prosecution if they continue with their valuable work in the best interests of young people?
Increasingly, in order to reach out to those young people most at risk of unwanted pregnancy, AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, agencies such as Brook and the FPA have to take part in outreach programmes, meeting youngsters in their home environment—such as clubs, community and youth groups, and even on the streets. Young people working in their own communities are often the most acceptable to the young in providing such services. It would be a tragedy if such work had to be curtailed. Perhaps the Minister can reassure me and people from agencies like the Brook Centres.
Baroness Blatch: Amendments tabled by all Members of the Committee are certainly well intentioned. Indeed, it is not my intention to knock them. However, I believe that these amendments would create a paedophile's charter; and I say so with some feeling. Perhaps I may explain why. Many have
1238
supported the Bill because it will achieve a great deal as regards protecting children from sexual abuse—an objective that we all applaud. However, I seem to be on my own in the Chamber in seeing protection for children as being absolutely paramount. It is disappointing that the Government are seeking to amend their own Bill in a way which will reduce that protection.
I understand the motives of the Government and others, including my noble friend Lady Noakes, in proposing amendments relating to sex education. They want to protect those people who are honestly working with young people and doing a job that we all applaud—a job that, sometimes, parents will not do. But this is a totally catch-all set of amendments.
Government Amendment No. 74 gives a blanket exemption from Clause 15 if a person can make a case that he was protecting the child from sexually transmitted infection, protecting the physical safety of the child or preventing the child becoming pregnant. That becomes a total defence. Anyone can say, "That is what I was doing". They do not have to be a professional, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said. Anyone can say, "I was dealing with a sexual difficulty", or, "I was dealing with sex education in some way".
Therefore, an act that was clearly facilitating the Clause 13 offence of causing a child to watch a sexual act could escape prosecution if the perpetrator claimed to be protecting the child. He could he facilitating an adult who acts on the words of Clause 13,
"for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification",
and causing a child,
"to watch a third person engaging in an activity, or to look at a photograph … of a person engaging in an activity",
that is sexual.
It is extraordinary that the Government should be trying to create such a broad exception. There is no requirement that the person be a doctor or a nurse. The defence is effectively available to anyone who claims that he or she is giving sex education or giving advice on contraception or sexual health. It even covers facilitating actual sexual activity between an adult and a child, under Clause 9, or facilitating a person who engages in sexual activity in the presence of a child, under Clause 12. The mind boggles at that.
What kind of sex education necessitates facilitating sexual activity in the presence of a child? What kind of sex videos are to be shown to young people which require special exemption from prosecution? It would not matter how pornographic the video was. Clause 15 gives a blanket exemption to the person who allows someone to show a video to a child so long as the person can make out a case that he or she acted to promote safer sex under Clause 15(1B)(a) and (c).
The Government appear to have drafted the amendment to give an exemption to a person of any age, including those under the age of 18. Therefore, why is it necessary for children to have this special exemption from Clauses 8 to 14 for the purposes of sex education?

1239
Amendment No. 75 stands in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes. It has a similar goal. It seeks to amend Clause 15 to state:
"Nothing done only for the purposes of providing sex education, sexual health advice or contraceptive services shall be treated as an offence".
Anyone saying that that is what they were doing has a defence for all kinds of dreadful activities that we have been describing today. That very broad wording would exempt even more behaviour from the ambit of Clause 15. A defendant need claim only that sex education was his "purpose" in order to escape conviction. That is an even easier test than that in government Amendment No. 74.
Amendment No. 78 stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. It is less broad, but still it would present a potential defence to a paedophile who gets a sexual thrill from talking to children about sex or showing them books or photographs on the subject.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Why can doing something in the child's best interests be a paedophile offence?
Baroness Blatch: Because that is what the person could claim to be doing. I have some examples which I shall turn to in a minute. A person befriending the family or befriending the young person could say to the parents, "Your child is sexually confused. You allow me to work with your child and I will help them with their sexual confusion". Their motive could be completely dishonourable but they would have a defence, in law, because of the way in which these amendments would work.
Of course, no one wants to see an adult who acts in the genuine best interests of a child—the point just made by the noble Baroness—convicted of a child sex offence with all that that entails. Any professional teacher taking a sex education lesson would never need any immunity from prosecution, such as that offered by the amendment. No sensible court would entertain such a case, let alone convict.
I ask myself: why would any professional person want to facilitate activity in front of a child which is so sexually explicit that for any ordinary person it would constitute a criminal offence? Surely, questions must be asked about whether such an activity is appropriate in the first place.
Those who believe that legitimate sex education is in danger of becoming criminalised by Clause 15 have fears and concerns which are unfounded. I simply cannot imagine that the police would entertain a case against a respectable professional acting in the normal course of his employment. I certainly cannot imagine a court convicting such a person. I should like to think that some action could be taken against the Marie Stopes clinic which is inviting young people to contact it on the Internet to receive free condoms—at the age of 11, 12 and 13. That is inappropriate and even
1240
parents are not in a position to control that kind of offence. But the clinic would have complete exemption under these amendments.
If this special exemption from sexual offences is granted, paedophiles will exploit it as a loophole. We all know that they infiltrate scout and youth groups and work with children with disabilities. They are the most clever, manipulative people. These provisions, allowing them to say that they were helping a person with their sexual health or their sexual education or helping them through the difficult pubescent years, would hand them a defence on a plate.
Paedophiles commonly seek to get themselves into positions where they are responsible for young people. A paedophile who gets a thrill from talking about sex to young people could rely on the defence provided by these amendments. It is well known that paedophiles seek to break down the resistance of young people by talking about sexual activity or by facilitating someone who shows them pornographic images. It is known that paedophiles seek to put themselves in positions of responsibility over young people. This amendment provides a strong incentive for a paedophile to take up employment in the field of sex education.
Of course, there are checks on those who take up positions with young people. But those checks are completely useless if the paedophile's activities are undiscovered. In many cases, they go undiscovered for a very long time. At the primary school that my children attended, one young girl was abused over a very long period because the teachers were afraid to say anything. When the parents came together and the local policeman went into the school and confronted the headmaster, it was discovered that a young girl had been taken into the stock cupboard over a period. The defendant received only a fine. The defendant was the headmaster. When he went to court, his defence was that the child needed support because the child was having difficulties at home. That example is not exactly the same and that person would not be caught by these amendments. But the defendant need only say that he was helping the child with her sex education and that would be a defence.
The government amendment removes the protection of the criminal law from young people. Parents have a right to know why this is thought to be necessary. If such exemption was ever needed, surely it could be justified only for a qualified medical professional, such as a doctor. Under the amendment, a paedophile who worked as a teacher could satisfy the condition in subsection (1A) by saying. I would much rather the children in my class didn't have sex with anyone. But, since you can't stop them, I just try to make sure that, whatever they do, they do it safely. That is why I talk so explicitly about sex. I tell them to be careful. What more can you do?"
Teachers have never needed special exemptions from sex offences with children. To suggest that this is necessary calls into question the very activities which are proposed. Sex education carried out by professional people does not need to be exempt from a charge of arranging or facilitating a child sex offence. The

1241
amendment is unnecessary and an insult to the professionalism of those who work with young people and the good sense of the police, the prosecutors and the courts.
Government Amendment No. 375 relates to aiding, abetting and counselling the commission of sexual offences against children. It uses the same formulation to do with protecting the child from sexually transmitted infections, physical harm or pregnancy.
The same convoluted form of words is used in Amendment No. 74, which states,
"he arranges or facilitates something that he believes another person will do, but that he does not intend to do or intend another person to do"
As long as the defendant can say that he did what he did because "children will have sex whether we like it or not" and that he was acting to provide sex education, the amendment provides a defence.
It applies to the non-consensual offences: the rape of a child under 13 in Clause 2; the assault of a child under 13 by penetration in Clause 4; the sexual assault of a child under 13 in Clause 6. It applies also to Clause 9, sexual activity with a child; and, where the victim is under 16, to Clause 18, abuse of a position of trust. It also applies to Clause 28, familial child sex; to Clause 33, sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder or learning disability; and to other offences.
It is astonishing that anything which genuinely amounts to aiding and abetting such offences should escape prosecution. Once again, what kind of sex education is envisaged? It depresses me that I am the only person speaking up for children in this area because it is where entrapment and activities of this kind can take place.
For the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I shall quickly name some people. A trainee church minister was gaoled for 12 months. The man's name was Gregory—so it is in the public domain anyway—and the court heard that his duties as a trainee minister at Kings Heath Baptist Church, Northampton, included giving a course of sex education lessons to a youth fellowship entitled Faith and Sexuality— Let It Be Real. That case ended up in the courts. Under the amendment the offender would have a defence because he was dealing with the sex education of young people.
I could go on but I have spoken for long enough. If the Committee requires further examples, I have cutting after cutting after cutting in which people profess to be dealing with sex education, sexual confusion, the sexual problems of young teenagers—all of whom, under the amendment, would have a defence. It is outrageous that we should hand such a defence to people who are genuinely looking to obtain self-gratification from our young people.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I shall not attempt to reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, except to say that all of us who support the Bill, and who are considering it in great detail, arc looking to the care, protection and support of children. It must be clearly understood that that is our aim That is why we are working so hard on the Bill.
1242
I should also say to the noble Baroness that all that Amendment No. 74 seeks to do is to create the situation that already exists. Rather than believing that the amendment is an insult, the organisations concerned asked for it to be tabled to enable them to continue the valuable work they currently do to help and protect young children. I do not believe that they will feel even a little insulted by the amendment; rather the reverse.
I declare an interest, again, as president of the FPA. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I welcome the amendment. The Minister has listened to the concerns of the organisations that provide contraceptive and sexual health advice and education to young people and has introduced this statutory provision. It was very clear that neither the Gillick case nor the Fraser guidelines were sufficient to provide those organisations with the protection and support they needed to be able to continue their important work.
I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that there is an urgent and continuing need for realistic education to reduce teenage pregnancy and to avoid the spread of HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases among young teens. Not to have the organisations doing this work would ensure that all those problems occur in excess. We are trying to prevent that happening. I am sure that the noble Baroness would not wish that to happen.
My understanding of Amendment No. 74 is that it is designed to protect adults who seek to arrange or facilitate something for children who they know will engage in underage sex and who might otherwise be guilty of an offence. It gives them protection against prosecution in two ways. First, although they know that sex is likely to occur, they do not intend to take any action to cause or encourage that sex; and, secondly, the purpose of their actions is to protect children from sexually transmitted diseases, to ensure their physical safety or to prevent them from becoming pregnant.
I make these points because, while the first defence is fine, the second is a little narrow. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, made the point about a child's emotional health and wellbeing. There is nothing in the list of provisions which covers that issue. We all know that when young people come to these organisations for help, they have problems with large emotional and social components. The organisations need to be able to deal with those problems and one worries that the clause is not wide enough to enable them to help the physical and emotional health of the child.
I do not understand whether the words "arranges" and "facilitates" cover also the giving of advice and information as suggested in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, Amendment No. 78. It has been suggested to me that the words do not cover talking to a child and that it may be possible for a litigious group or parent to use the omission to sue a well-intentioned adult who had simply talked to a child about that child's problems in regard to underage sexual relationships but had not given him or her any other advice. Do the words

1243
"facilitates" and "arranges" cover the question of a professional or someone from any of the organisations which provide support having a chat with a child? I am sure that the organisations would like an assurance that there are no loopholes in the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: We cannot all wax as lyrical as my noble friend Lady Blatch but we can all—and have done so throughout the day—condemn paedophilia. To say that the government amendment—or, to an extent, the amendment of my noble friend Lady Noakes—is a licence to promote paedophilia is not how I and the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, have read the amendment.
I take great comfort in the words at the end,
"and not for the purpose of causing or encouraging the activity constituting the offence within subsection (1)(b) or the child's participation in it".
That covers the issue raised by my noble friend about the churchman and his particularly disgusting form of sex education.
As regards sex education, I am not sure whether the Government's amendment covers the issue of teachers in a classroom. The amendment of my noble friend Lady Noakes mentions it, as does the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Proposed new sub-section (1A)(a) may cover the point but I should like to see it made much more obvious in the amendment. If the noble and learned Lord will consider adding something to the amendment to deal with the issue of properly constituted sex education by teachers, we would all go home very happily indeed.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I should like to ask a simple question. As currently set out, will the amendment cover Childline volunteers? I declare an interest as the former chief executive of Childline. Volunteers answer numerous questions about sex and sex education put to them by young people. Indeed, a high percentage of the work of Childline is devoted to responding to young people with such concerns.
I should say that many of those concerns result in paedophiles being identified and caught, because young people are prepared to talk openly about those issues with Childline volunteers.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I, too, wish to put a question to the Minister. Having put the first part of the new subsection into an international context, does the second part apply to those working for international aid and development agencies in other parts of the world? Will it affect workers from agencies based in this country who may be working with child prostitutes, offering education to children with HIV/ AIDS or working with street children? Will the clause extend by implication, through the changes already made, to aid and development agencies and their workers?
Baroness Walmsley: Perhaps I may reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that she is not alone in speaking up for children. I believe that all noble Lords in the Chamber are speaking up for children.
1244
I would not want to provide a paedophile's charter, but I believe that any child's best defence against paedophiles is a good quality sex education. If children understand the issues surrounding sex, if they are confident in themselves and in their own understanding and develop a good relationship with their parents or professional advisers about these matters, they are much more likely to be able to come forward and speak to a responsible adult, should they be approached by someone with harm in mind. Knowledge is a child's best defence and that is why good quality sex education is so vitally important, and the people who offer that education need to be protected.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I shall deal with the questions that have been raised. First, I turn to the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about sex education. Where a person provides sex education to a group, we do not consider that he would normally commit an offence of aiding and abetting child sex. That is because to aid and abet, which is what the provisions seek to deal with, a person needs to have a certain amount of knowledge about the offence that is to be committed. While that may arise where, for example, a child tells his doctor that he is planning to have sex with his under-age girlfriend and asks for contraception, it is difficult to see how it could arise in the context of group education.
If, however, the teacher gives one-to-one advice to a pupil about sex matters, then it is possible that he would commit an offence of aiding and abetting. If so, the exception would apply to him if he had given advice in regard to one of the three permitted purposes and did not intend to cause or encourage under-age sex, but not otherwise. So he would be protected if the one-to-one advice concerned how to prevent pregnancy, but not if it concerned how to have enjoyable sex. That seems to be the correct place to draw the line.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked whether physical safety is too limited; what of emotional and psychiatric needs. She asked me whether I would consider that. My noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton mentioned the same point. I shall think about it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was kind enough to describe these measures as "well-intentioned-. She also said that she was the only person in the Chamber who was speaking up for child protection. In my own case, I do not agree with that. Like all noble Lords in the Chamber, we are seeking to deal as best we can with child protection. It may be, therefore, that certain noble Lords who have been deeply involved in child protection matters during their lives may not have been that impressed by the noble Baroness in her comment that they were not concerned about child protection.
Baroness Blatch: I think that I have said on a number of occasions during our debates today that I believe that, in that sense, all noble Lords are very concerned about children. However, I said that it was rather depressing to note that I would probably end up

1245
the only noble Lord concerned about the kind of person who thinks that if an educational context could be used as a defence in law, then becoming a part-time teacher in a school—with no protection under the abuse of trust clauses in the Bill—or working in the Scout movement will provide such people with a defence that they were simply concerned about the sexual education or sexual confusion of a child. That can be used as a defence to justify activities such as showing videos and engaging in other acts set out in the Bill.
I do not refer to all those bona fide teachers and so forth who are doing a good job in ways that have been described and praised by many noble Lords, but once such a defence is enshrined in law, then many people will regard this as a serious loophole. It will provide a way of allowing them to seek all the unpleasant gratification they want from their activities, but they will have to hand a defence that has been put on the statute book by the Government themselves.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I understand the point being made by the noble Baroness. The part I misunderstood was that I thought she had said that she was the only person in the Chamber speaking up for child protection. I am very glad to learn that I did misunderstand her. However, noble Lords on the Benches behind me are commenting that the noble Baroness did use those words. However, I understand that the noble Baroness is now making it absolutely clear that she said no such thing. I accept that without reservation.
Baroness Blatch: If I did say something like that, then I said it unwittingly and I apologise unreservedly for doing so. What I meant to say was that, in the context of these amendments, I would probably be the only noble Lord to speak against them in the interests of the protection of children. It seems that that is in fact the case.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I shall respond to the specific points made by the noble Baroness. She described the amendments as a "paedophile's charter". As various noble Lords have pointed out, the amendment states that no defence of any kind is provided where the acts involved are,
"not for the purpose of causing or encouraging the activity constituting the offence within subsection (1)(b)",
or similar ones in the other offences to which it refers.
I was not able to understand the examples cited by the noble Baroness. She referred first to the headmaster of the school which her children attended. He took someone into the stock cupboard. It is inconceivable that this provision could possibly provide a defence against such an act. Furthermore, I should be interested to hear the details about Mr Gregory, to whom she referred, and how the amendments could possibly provide any form of defence. Before this Bill, those acts would not even have constituted a criminal offence. Simply to speak
1246
on certain subjects to ordinands would not have been an offence; therefore something more must have taken place.
Baroness Walmsley: As I recall, the cases quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, all resulted in prosecutions and everyone concerned was found guilty. Therefore the common sense of the courts was clearly demonstrated.
Baroness Blatch: The point I sought to make was that if these amendments are included in the Bill, then such people would have a defence against such a prosecution. In the Gregory case, he claimed that he was conducting sex education with a group of young people, but it turned out that his intentions were malign.
As the Bill was originally drafted, it was very protective of children, but the amendments will give that kind of person a defence and a person like Gregory would probably not have been prosecuted.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Although not at this moment, I should like to learn the details of what happened in the Gregory case. However, I am not persuaded that the headmaster in the stock cupboard, one of the examples cited by the noble Baroness, would even remotely have a defence as a result of these provisions.
We considered the issues very carefully before the amendments were brought forward. We asked whether the provision would provide too much or, indeed, any defence for people with malign intentions. After careful thought, we concluded that it would not do so. That is why I think that the example cited of the headmaster is not persuasive so far. However, I would be anxious to hear from the noble Baroness about any other examples. As I have said, we have considered this matter with great care. We are just as concerned as the noble Baroness to ensure that children are protected from paedophiles and we do not believe that these provisions would have the consequences that she fears. However, we shall be more than willing to consider any further examples that she may cite.
I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Gould. She pointed out that professional organisations wanted the Government to bring forward amendments of this kind. Child protection involves protecting children against the acts of paedophiles, but it also involves offering protection against physical harm through sex, from the activities of familial abuse, from early pregnancy and from sexually transmitted diseases.
My noble friend also asked the same question pm to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley; that is. would the abuse include talking? Yes, it would do so. I draw my noble friend's attention to government Amendment No. 375, which makes the position clear. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked how education would be affected. I believe that I answered those points in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, asked whether the provision would cover volunteers

1247
working with Childline. Obviously, so long as the volunteers were acting in bona fide pursuance of the three aims—physical harm, pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases—then of course the provision would apply. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford asked whether it would apply to those agencies assisting with the foreign element. If and in so far as it would be a criminal offence otherwise, then the provision would apply.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was not alone in speaking up for children, and I entirely agree.
I hope that in the light of those explanations, the House will feel able to agree to the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 6, line 25, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 not moved.]
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, may I suggest that the Committee stage of the Bill begin again not before nine o'clock?
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Railways and Transport Safety Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Variation of Specified Documents) Regulations 2003
8.2 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it may be for the benefit of your Lordships if I speak to the draft order at the same time.
As noble Lords know, the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, which introduced measures to minimise the opportunity for fraud while protecting the right of individuals to exercise their franchise, has already been subject to extensive consultation and debate involving the House, the Northern Ireland political parties, the Northern Ireland electoral office, the Electoral Commission and the electorate. These regulations, which follow on
1248
from the Act, introduce the electoral identity card—a matter of great significance to this House—into use for parliamentary and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland.
The regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and are being made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 201(1) and (3) and rule 37 (1F) of Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983. Specifically, these regulations amend paragraph 1E of rule 37 of the parliamentary elections rules set out in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983.
The purpose of the amendments is to remove all non-photographic forms of identity documents from the list of specified documents set out in paragraph 1E of the parliamentary election rules. Rule 37 (1A) stipulates that a ballot paper shall not be handed to a potential voter unless he or she has produced one of the specified documents to the presiding officer or clerk.
I take this opportunity to remind noble Lords of the four specified documents. They are: an EU member state passport for Assembly or local elections; a Great Britain or Northern Ireland photographic driving licence; a Senior SmartPass, issued under the Northern Ireland concessionary fares scheme; and, of course, the electoral identity card. For parliamentary elections, a UK/Irish passport is also required.
The Government are aware that some concerns have been raised recently by those who consider that we should wait until after the forthcoming Assembly election before enacting this measure. They believe that removing non-photographic identification at this time risks disenfranchising a large number of eligible voters. They cite the relatively small uptake for the electoral identity card. There have been 57,000 applications, whereas 235,000 people indicated on their electoral registration form that they required the card.
I should say straight away that the Government have no intention of taking away people's democratic right to vote. If we believed that thousands of voters would not be able to vote because of this measure, we would not be introducing it at this time. However, it is of course right that, as the Government, we should do everything in our power to ensure that anyone who requires a card receives it in time.
For that reason, the Secretary of State met last week with the Chief Electoral Officer and the Electoral Commission to agree a co-ordinated strategy to ensure that those who need the card have every opportunity to get one. As a result of that meeting, we are putting in place a number of measures which we believe should increase confidence in the card. Not only will it help those who need the card to get one, it should also inform us why a large number of people who indicated that they needed a card have not subsequently applied for one. The measures include writing to those who originally expressed an interest in the card but who have not applied or presented a complete application for one. This number is estimated at

1249
180,000 people. A new application form will be sent to all these people in good time for them to be able to have a card, should they wish, in time for the election.
The Electoral Commission will conduct research with a representative sample of the Northern Ireland population to determine if they ticked the box on the registration form requesting an application form for an electoral ID card. If they requested a form but did not subsequently apply for a card, they will be asked why they did not apply and if they have other eligible ID.
Another measure will be to take the mobile application centres into other areas where people gather, such as shopping centres and supermarkets. Targeted publicity will tell eligible voters that they require photo ID to vote, and how to get it.
The political parties have, of course, a role to play, and I would like to use this opportunity to ask them to join me in playing an active and positive role in raising awareness of the card and of photo-identity in general.
People still have seven weeks to apply for a card. The Chief Electoral Officer has guaranteed that all correct applications received by 16th May will be processed in time for the Assembly election. People can apply by post or in person at a number of mobile application centres.
In conclusion, I hope that noble Lords recognise the importance of these changes in improving confidence in the electoral system in Northern Ireland and tackling abuse at the polling station.
I wish to speak also to the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2003. The local elections order does not have an SI number. The Privy Council cancelled its April meeting and as a result we had to relay the order yesterday morning due to the commencement date on the original order now being wrong. The draft order was reconsidered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments this morning. Copies of its report are now available in the Printed Paper Office. The committee found the order satisfactory. The order is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and is being made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 84(1) and (3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
I shall try not to repeat myself as the order mirrors the regulations to which I have just referred. The order applies to local elections in Northern Ireland and specifically amends paragraph 6 of rule 34 (voting procedure) of the local elections rules in Schedule 5 to the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962, as substituted by Schedule 1 to the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. The next local elections in Northern Ireland are scheduled for May 2005.
The purpose of the amendments is to remove all non-photographic forms of identity documents from the list of specified documents set out in paragraph 6. Rule 34(2) states that a ballot paper shall not be handed to a potential voter unless he or she has produced one of the specified documents to the presiding officer or clerk. The specified documents are the same as for the regulations.
In conclusion, the introduction of the electoral identity card is a matter of great importance to this House. I hope, therefore, that the regulations will be approved. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, we on these Benches pay tribute to the efforts of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal in setting these arrangements in place. We welcome this small but essential progress towards the reduction of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. I have only one question for the Minister: as regards the very specific and comprehensive arrangements for the issue of the documentation, can she assure us that the software is in place?
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing the regulations and the order. As we heard from the noble Baroness, the purpose of the regulations is to remove all non-photographic forms of identification from the list.
During the passage of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, much debate took place on non-photographic forms of identification which could be open to abuse, for example the medical card. The Conservatives and these Benches argued that only photographic identification should be used to obtain a ballot paper. The Government introduced the electoral identity card and said that it was their intention to remove the non-photographic forms of ID from the list before the Assembly elections. However, they wanted to ensure that there was a sufficient take-up rate of the identity card so that no one would he deprived of their right to vote simply because they had the incorrect type of identification.
Concerns have certainly been raised about the electoral identity card, in particular the number of people who have not returned their application for one. About 200,000 people have stated that they required the ID but have not received it. One lady applied for her card in November but received it only yesterday. My concern is that the great length of time that it has taken for that to be received could be replicated for great numbers of people in Northern Ireland. We certainly support the intention behind the regulations. We have been looking for the Government's reassurances that such matters will be looked into, and that no one will be denied the right to vote because they do not have the correct identification. I am heartened by the Minister's response to that, giving us a number of assurances that have been put in place. I thank her for that.
I shall move on to the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order, which removes all non-photographic forms of identity. It is consequential on the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Variation of Specified Documents) Regulations 2003, and provides that a ballot paper will not be delivered to the voter unless he or she produces one of the

1251
documents to the clerk or presiding officer. That therefore ensures uniformity across all elections in Northern Ireland, and we support the measures.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I am happy to offer the support of the Ulster Unionist Party for these long overdue measures. The obvious need for the regulations is well known and, as such, I am going to resist the temptation to detail some of the more innovative techniques employed by republicans down the years in their attempts to cheat their way to electoral success.
Suffice it to say that, although Sinn Fein has significantly increased its representation in elected forums over some years, it would certainly not have done so to such an extent if the regulations had been in place. For example, the chairman of the Ulster Unionist Party, Mr James Cooper, would now be representing the proud constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone in another place, rather than Sinn Fein's Michelle Gildernew. Of that I am quite sure.
My principal concern surrounding electoral identity cards is that take-up among the electorate in Northern Ireland will not be as high as one would wish, simply because of ignorance. Believe it or not, interest in all things political and electoral is not as high in the community at large as it is in your Lordships' House. Even though the Government have taken steps to publicise the existence of the cards, I believe that more could and should have been done. I hope very much that it is not a case of too little, too late, although I fear that that might well be so. None the less, I support the regulations.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be surprised that I can give her my full-hearted support, which makes this rather an unusual occasion. I think that those who would have tried to prevent the legislation coming before the House until after the election had something to gain from that attitude.
The very fact that the statutory instruments have come before the House is an indication about the assertion once made in another place that Northern Ireland was as British as Finchley. One does not have regulations such as these in Finchley or any other part of the United Kingdom. They show that Northern Ireland was unique in its fraudulent elections that took place over many years.
I have a slight concern, which I hope that the noble Baroness can ease. Many people in Northern Ireland, particularly old people, are averse to having their photographs taken. I know that from people in my own family on medication such as cortisone, which leads to physical attributes including swelling of the face, particularly in women. It puts people off having their photographs taken. I hope that the Government will make every effort to ensure that the absence of a photograph does not lead to the denial of a vote in Northern Ireland.
1252
I was particularly heartened by what the noble Baroness said about the mobile units that are to travel Northern Ireland to advise people on their eligibility for a vote. I hope that enough staff would work in the mobile units to handle the applications and assist people to fill them in. If political parties are to travel around and make an application on someone else's behalf, or help them to make it, the applicant may feel compelled to support that political party. However, if the application is helped to become valid by government agencies, there would be less compulsion for people concerned to vote for a particular political party.
I am very happy to support the legislation. It has been long overdue in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am delighted that it is one of those rare occasions when speakers from all parts of the House have agreed with one another on the subject of Northern Ireland. In the absence of certain noble Lords, I could be emboldened to say to my noble friend Lord Fitt that not only is Northern Ireland not Finchley, but Finchley is not as beautiful as Northern Ireland, in spite of the beautiful trees in parts of it. I believe that we could probably all agree on that.
All noble Lords who spoke referred to the need to ensure that people know how to get help. I stress that there is a helpline telephone number that people can use for confirmation of programme dates and venues.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, asked about the system of software. The equipment being used in relation to the card is state-of-the-art technology and the electoral office has the ability to cope more than adequately with the increased demand. I hope that that also reassures the noble Lord, Lord Laird. I am sure that the noble Lord does not expect me to comment in any way on his view about what happened in previous elections.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, applications for the card started only in January, and nearly 60 per cent of those who applied have received their card.
While recognising that a photograph is the best way of ascertaining a person's identity, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that there will be enough staff on hand. I understand what he said about people feeling under pressure if a political party helps them to complete their form. There is a programme of mobile application centres at which eligible applicants, such as those on the electoral register, can apply in person for an electoral identity card. At the centres, people can have their photograph taken and their application completed. I stress that that process is free of charge. Over the next few weeks, the centres will visit shopping centres and housing estates throughout the Province.
I thank all noble Lords for their support and commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2003
8.22 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st March be approved.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice on Video Recording of Interviews) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003
8.23 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, very simply, this order puts into practice a revised code of practice governing the video recording of interviews under the Terrorism Act 2000. I should remind noble Lords that the purpose of the code is to provide protection to both the person being interviewed and the officers conducting the interview, ensuring that no one can mistreat or falsely accuse the other.
The main revisions have been made at the request of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, to allow greater flexibility in the practical application of the code without diminishing the security that it provides. First, we have changed the text, which previously referred to the recordings being made on Super VHS, to say that recordings shall be made on Super VHS or an equivalent or superior format. That will allow them in future to use digital tapes or disks. A number of necessary changes in language have been made flowing from that basic change.
Secondly, a new paragraph has been added saying that, where possible, the recording equipment shall keep an audit trail of who views and copies the recordings. Of course, such an audit was kept manually under the existing code, but this allows for the equipment to keep that audit automatically. This refers to a specific system that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has been piloting.
The normal procedures for sealing videotapes have been kept for individual tapes or disks, but the code also allows for the police to introduce an alternative system as long as that system ensured the same or higher levels of security and accountability but without using seals. Again, this refers to a specific system being piloted by the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
The Government have also taken the opportunity to update the code, changing one or two names as necessary and extending the list of alternative formats in which the text can be made available. In line with the Home Office's draft amended PACE codes the statutory term "mentally disordered" has been widened
1254
by the addition of the term "mentally vulnerable". The notice given to those formerly detained of the destruction of recordings has been extended from two weeks to four.
As I am sure noble Lords can see, these are small amendments. They do not alter the substance of the code but make it more adaptable to the realities of technological change. They also allow for future developments without necessarily requiring the code to be amended further. I am confident that the revised code will serve the police well as they carry out their sensitive counter-terrorist responsibilities. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, we welcome this measure as a further advance in the effective policing of Northern Ireland. We particularly welcome the provisions for flexibility and advancement in technology, which will save the requirement for further orders in that respect. Will the video technology be available in every detention centre where interviews are likely to take place?
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, we too welcome the order. As we have heard, the Police Service of Northern Ireland asked for the code to be revised to ensure that the police are not prevented from using more advanced technologies than originally specified in the code. That is a sensible change, which we support. I am particularly pleased to hear of the flexibility for future use of new technologies, so that we shall not have to return for new orders every time there are improvements in technological expertise.
Lord Laird: My Lords, again, I am happy to offer the approval of my Ulster Unionist colleagues for this order. As a strong supporter of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, I am delighted that these provisions will offer much needed protection to officers from allegations of heavy-handedness from detainees, and they should be welcomed for that reason. It goes without saying, of course, that detainees themselves will be offered similar protection. If that leads to a resultant increase in the community's confidence in the PSNI, that is a good thing.
I note that the other principal effect of the order is that, at the request of the PSNI, more advanced technologies than those originally specified in the code of practice can now be used. I support the order.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their support. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Laird, the hope and belief that the order will help to strengthen confidence in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Perhaps I may say to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that a brand new centre is to be opened in Antrim this week. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for her support and say how

1255
pleased I am that there will be a facility to update without necessarily always having to bring an amendment before your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 9 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 8.29 until 9 p.m.]

Sexual Offences Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Clause 16 [Sections 9 to 15: marriage exception]:
Baroness Thornton Baroness Thornton moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 6, line 37, after "involve" insert "the taking or making of"
The noble Baroness said: This is a small amendment, and it could be that I put it down because I am being dim. I could not make sense of the clause unless it had something in it which was related to what was actually happening—whether a photograph was being taken, made, seen or whatever. So I decided that "taking or making" the photograph might make that clear. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The purpose of the marriage exception in Clause 16 is to make sure that the criminal law does not interfere unnecessarily with the right of individuals to engage in sexual activity within a lawful marriage. Marriages may be lawfully contracted overseas by individuals who then visit or come to live in this country, but who none the less are below the age of consent here.
The exception clause has been carefully drafted with the intention of making sure that the criminal law does not interfere with "normal" sexual behaviour within marriage, while ensuring that it does not inadvertently legalise abusive sexual behaviour within marriage. In order to protect children from being coerced into what many would consider to be abnormal sexual activity, the marriage defence provides that where the sexual activity complained of involves a third party, or involves photographs or pseudo-photographs of a third party engaging in sexual activity, the fact that the defendant and complainant are lawfully married will not absolve the defendant of criminal liability. That means in practice that if, for example, for the purposes of his own sexual gratification, a man makes his 15 year-old wife look at pornographic images as he downloads them from the Internet, or makes her look at pornographic photographs in a magazine, or makes her watch a pornographic movie, he will be guilty of the offence of,
"causing a child to watch a sexual act".
The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, would have the effect of broadening the scope of the marriage exception, so that it would only not apply where the activity complained of
1256
involves a third party, or where it involved the "making or taking" of photographs, or pseudo-photographs of a third party engaging in sexual activity. If the amendment was incorporated in the Bill, a man who, for his own sexual gratification, made his wife look at pornographic images that he had downloaded from the Internet, or made his wife look at photographs or videos he had taken of a third party engaging in sexual activity, would still probably be committing an offence. However, it would no longer be an offence for him, for the purpose of sexual gratification, to make her watch pornographic movies or to look at photographs taken of a third person. That would reduce the protection from abuse that is offered within marriage.
There is a technical problem with the amendment, although it is in a different order. I do not believe that there is much point in going through the technical difficulties, because the noble Baroness is after some clarity on the point of principle. I believe that we have the balance right in the marriage exception, in that it does not interfere unnecessarily with mutually agreed activity, but it still protects children from behaviour within marriage that is abusive. I hope that helps the noble Baroness.
Baroness Thornton: I am not sure whether it helps. However, I shall read the Minister's words with care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Meeting a child following sexual grooming etc.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 7, line 3, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

"(a) having met or communicated with another person (B) on at least two earlier occasions, he—

(i) intentionally meets B, or

(ii) travels with the intention of meeting B in any part of the world,"

The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 17 is intended to cover situations in which an adult establishes contact with a child—for example through meetings, telephone conversations or communications on the Internet—with the intention of gaining the child's trust and confidence so that he can arrange to meet the child for the purpose of committing a sexual offence against him or her.
The communication or contact between the adult and the child can take any form. However, the offence will be committed only if the adult meets or travels to meet the child with the intention of committing a sex offence against the child at the meeting or on a subsequent occasion. It stems from work undertaken by the Government's Internet task force on child protection. On indictment, the maximum penalty is five years, but we would seek by way of amendment to persuade the House to agree to seven years.
There is presently no offence with which such a person could be charged and this important measure fills that gap. This new offence enables earlier intervention than is otherwise possible. It is designed to intervene at an earlier stage in the preparatory process which adults may use to gain access to children to abuse sexually. I have indicated the intention of the offence.
It is our intention that the adult should commit an offence wherever the meeting he is travelling to is intended to take place. The offence would be committed provided that some part of the journey to the meeting takes place in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. So a person commits an offence if he uses a computer at home in England to communicate with a child in, for example, Thailand and sets out to travel to that meeting provided that the travel or part of it takes place in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. The government amendment makes that explicit. This is because we see no reason to distinguish between situations where a person travels to meet in this country or abroad. However, the offence as drafted does not make that specifically clear.
I thank my noble friend Lady Thornton for tabling Amendment No. 81 to that effect. I confirm that we entirely agree with the objective she is trying to achieve and have tabled a government amendment to that effect. In the light of the government amendment prompted by her amendment, I trust that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment and support mine. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornton: I greatly welcome the amendment. I spoke on the matter at Second Reading of the Bill. It is an important amendment and it sends an important message to men who would prey on children in other countries. I am most pleased that the Government have tabled the amendment and I shall not move my amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I, too, welcome the amendment. I re-read the occasion on which I introduced these amendments to a Bill in this House and I re-read the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, most cogently and elegantly put, as to why they could not and should not be included in the statute. I shall not say, "I told you so", but I am hugely pleased that they are now part of the Bill.
Clause 17 is a major step forward in addressing the mechanism whereby paedophiles seek to befriend children and lure them into situations where sexual activities can take place. It is important to address grooming in the context of the Internet and the enormous range of opportunities it presents to the determined paedophile. By tabling the amendment, the noble and learned Lord has sent a message that the Government are taking the matter extremely seriously.
The new grooming offence would enable the police to arrest the predator before the child was physically or sexually abused. That was always our concern. Under the law as it stood, the child had first to be attacked or abused before the police could take action. The police will be able to make an arrest once the
1258
predator met or travelled with the intention of meeting a child under 16 with the intention of committing a sexual offence. The intent will be drawn from a course of conduct; either the communication itself or other circumstances such as going to a meeting with pornography or condoms.
I am aware that Liberty, in its briefing, talks about,
"criminalisation of an act that is not in itself criminal".
It goes on to state,
"In its admirable desire to prioritise child protection, the government should be careful of creating what is effectively 'thought crime'".
That is an extraordinary approach. We are talking about someone who has embarked on a course of conduct designed to result in the commission of a child sex offence. That includes actual contact with the child victim that is linked, incontrovertibly, to arrangements for meeting with the purpose of committing a sexual crime. In order to be prosecuted the person must have set out on his journey to meet the child in order to perform his particular sexual fantasies upon that child. I regard that as much more than thought.
The Metropolitan Police are strongly supportive of the new offence and consider it,
"an essential piece of preventative legislation …It fills an important loophole that has caused significant concern to police and risk to children".
They say,
"The inclusion of 'meets or travels with the intention of meeting' is essential, as our own risk assessments will never allow a child to physically meet an adult who is believed to be a danger to them".
The police have evidence of one individual who sexually abused three children within 15 minutes of meeting them. They also confirm that this legislation will not be used to target those whose communications with children are innocent. They say,
"It is our intention to use this piece of legislation with the care and consideration it deserves. The police will not target people or consider the use of this legislation unless there is significant evidence or intelligence suggesting that the person involved is attempting to groom children for sex".
The Met also say that the penalty should be increased from five to seven years, commensurate with other sentences in the Bill. So I am pleased to see that the Government have lent their name to Amendment No. 96 in the name of my noble friend, which appears to agree with that view.
Amendment No. 80 is a sensible amendment that tidies up the drafting of subsection (1)(a) and extends the protection to cover cases where the perpetrator is travelling to meet a child abroad. There is no reason why a man who uses the Internet to seduce a child in Portugal or in the USA should be able to set out on his journey to meet the child free from the reaches of this new law. That is especially true given the Bill's other provisions tackling sexual abuse of children abroad by people operating from within the United Kingdom.
Amendment No. 81 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, which also extends the new offence to protect children abroad, has effectively been adopted by the Government. I welcome that too.

1259
I strongly support the new offence and I support its extension in this way. However, I have concerns, as the noble and learned Lord will have noticed from the Marshalled List, about whether Clause 17 goes far enough. I shall address those concerns when speaking to my Amendments Nos. 82 and 86. I am truly grateful for what the Government have done in this respect.
Baroness Walmsley: From these Benches we welcome this part of the Bill and the Government's amendment to it. The noble and learned Lord will be aware that at meetings about the Bill off the Floor of the House we raised concerns about the quality of the evidence that would be required for a conviction of someone under this new offence. The amendment clarifies matters considerably. We are delighted to know that the police have experts who can get into computers and find e-mails as their contents may make the accused's intention clear, which is important. Initially we had considerable sympathy with the concerns of Liberty, but the reassurances that we have received from the Minister have set our minds at rest. We shall have to see how the Bill works in practice. However, we certainly welcome the new offence which is an advance in child protection.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes: As Amendment No. 80 has been agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 81 or 82 due to preemption.
[Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 not moved.]
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 7, line 5, at end insert "and subsection (IA) applies"
The noble Baroness said: I welcome Clause 17 because it attempts to deal with sexual grooming. Amendments Nos. 83, 84 and 87 have been tabled to explore the preparatory nature of the activity essential for this offence. The Minister will be aware from the Second Reading debate that Clause 17 does not refer to sexual grooming as such. I was concerned to ensure that it encompasses an element of preparation. The offence just requires that a person has met or communicated with a child on at least two occasions before meeting the child or travelling with the intention of meeting the child. Nothing there is preparatory to the act that will involve a sexual offence.
Most communications and meetings with children, whether face to face or via the Internet, have no evil intent but all such communications potentially fall within the clause. My noble friend Lady Blatch and I were briefed by the Metropolitan Police, who believe that Clause 17 is essential preventive medicine. We heard how the Metropolitan Police deal with paedophiliac offences, which was something of an eye opener. The Metropolitan Police say that they will prove evidence of the intention that is required by Clause 17(1)(b) to commit a sexual offence in part by
1260
the content of the messages or communications. They have examples that clearly show that the communication is sexual or where sex is not mentioned but the phrases used plainly demonstrate the intention.
A ploy used by persons involved in grooming is to pretend to be someone much more like their intended victim or to allow trust to build up. Amendment No. 87 tries to capture those two possibilities where the communication is of a sexual nature or the offender has used impersonation to make the child believe that it would be safe to meet the person. If other words would capture the essence of grooming, I shall be pleased to consider them.
My noble friend Lady Blatch said that the offence under Clause 17 is essentially a thought crime that penalises a state of mind. The intention to commit an offence actually triggers the offence. I have no fundamental problem with that concept, provided that the clause offers sufficient safeguards. The Criminal Bar Association believes that safeguards are needed because of the potential that the earlier communications were entirely innocent. The CBA has suggested the words in Amendment No. 84, which requires that there be proved the intent to commit a sexual offence at the time of the two earlier communications. While that is different from Amendment No. 87, the intention is the same—to require more evidence about the defendant's behaviour or intentions before the meeting or the travelling that triggers the offence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned that Liberty has expressed concern about prosecuting individuals not for what they have done but for what someone thinks that they might do. Liberty believes that people will become afraid of talking to children and that the impact on neighbours or communities will leave children less safe than at present. My noble friend Lord Astor of Hever pointed out at Second Reading that the Climbié inquiry taught us that we have to encourage neighbours to look out for children. We must not by this Bill make people scared of talking to children for fear of false accusations of paedophiliac offences.
As I am sure that the Minister is aware, Liberty would prefer the complete removal of Clause 17 but, failing that, supports Amendment No. 87. I stress that I have no desire to make the offence of sexual grooming any less effective; I am merely trying to ensure that the offence is clearly aimed at sexual grooming behaviour and, by doing so, does not become a trap into which the unwary innocent may fall. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: First, I am sorry that I was unable to move Amendment No. 82. Normally, we are told at the outset when an amendment is moved whether it pre-empts other amendments. I should have spoken to Amendment No. 82, if only to persuade the Minister to consider including its provisions in a later part of the Bill. Perhaps I shall have to reconsider that.
I want simply to pose some questions about the amendments. Amendments Nos. 83 and 87 would make it more difficult to convict under Clause 17,

1261
because they require proof that the communications with the child were sexual or that the predator pretended to be someone else to win the child's trust. The problem is that that excuses a paedophile who is honest about who he is, or who simply does not say anything about his identity or age. As long as the communications remained romantic rather than sexual, he would escape conviction, although the endgame may be the same.
Amendment No. 84 would also make it unnecessarily difficult to convict for grooming. It requires the prosecution to prove that on two earlier occasions where the perpetrator met or communicated with his victim, he intended to commit a sexual offence. The offence already requires the prosecution to prove that there was an intention to commit an offence at the time of the meeting in question. To add to that a burden of proving a similar intention on two earlier occasions would drastically reduce the number of prosecutions and convictions.
The fact that two examples are required gives rise to the dreadful scenario that a single, blatantly sexual advance would not suffice for a conviction under the clause. In fact, it could be a single, very long contact with the individual. A paedophile may have a series of entirely innocuous communications with a child which, unbeknown to the child, are intended to lull him or her into a false sense of security. That is a particular tactic of paedophiles. If he then sends a single e-mail asking the young person to meet him to perform specific sexual acts, he could escape conviction, since that falls short of the two examples required by Amendment No. 84. I ask the Minister to confirm that that would be the effect of the amendments.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Three amendments are grouped: Amendments Nos. 83, 84 and 87. Amendments Nos. 83 and 87 would restrict the offence of,
"Meeting a child following sexual grooming etc.",
to those situations where the prior communication between the adult and the child is either explicitly sexual or involves the adult impersonating another person in such a way as to lead the child to believe that it would be safe to meet the adult.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, the offence would be committed only where it could be proven that an adult, having communicated with a child on at least two previous occasions, travelled to meet or met that child with the intention sexually to abuse the child at the meeting or subsequently. The sexual intent at the final meeting must be proven in order for the offence to be made out. It would, therefore, seem unwise to limit the communication to only those of an explicitly sexual nature or where the adult had impersonated someone—for example, a person of similar age to the child—in order to lead the child to believe that a meeting would be safe and appropriate.
In some cases, where adults are seeking to gain the friendship and trust of children so that they can abuse them, they may not lie about their age or their identity.
1262
They may not be explicitly sexual in their communication. However, if there is evidence which proves the intent to commit a sex offence—-for example, something said to a third party—it is difficult to understand why they should not be liable for the offence. So it is difficult to understand the logic behind Amendments Nos. 83 and 87.
Perhaps I can test that by way of example. A man in his 20s may communicate with a child of 13 or 14. The man may talk on the Internet to the child about his favourite pop group, or what he likes to watch on television. In this way he may befriend the child and travel to meet him with the intention of committing a sexual offence against him. He may even communicate, as happens, details of the sexual offence he is intending to commit to another adult with similar sexual interests to his own, but he has neither tried to impersonate someone else nor been remotely sexual in his communication. That man would not be guilty of a Clause 17 offence. Is that what we want? I do not think that it is. With respect to the noble Baroness, I believe that these are unwise amendments.
The effect of Amendment No. 84 would be to make, in some cases, prosecution under Clause 17 for the offence of meeting a child following sexual grooming extremely difficult. The effect of Amendment No. 84 would be that the intention would have to be present before each of the meetings. I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, have tabled the amendment in order to prevent wrongful prosecutions against adults who have innocent non-sexual communications and intentions towards children and that the offence should be committed only where the future sexual intent can be proven at the time of the earlier communications as well.
In fact, such innocent and altruistic communications where there is never any sexual intent would never bring conviction, as the offence is committed only following those communications where the adult travels to meet the child and a sexual intent at that stage can be proven. It should not matter, when an adult travels to meet a child with an intention sexually to abuse that child, whether or not you can also prove that he had that sexual intention in previous communications with the child. It is enough that he has befriended that child and now travels to meet him or meets him with that intent.
I understand why the amendment has been tabled, but in effect it creates great difficulties. All you would have to prove to get away with the offence would be that one of the occasions was entirely innocent. That would be enough, even though there might be conduct or communications, for example, with a third party that indicated that the meeting was intended to lead to illegal sexual activity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to preemption and asks why there should be two occasions rather than one. This is a sensible, effective but quite far-reaching offence. It depends upon a course of conduct before the meeting. The course of conduct would not be established by just one meeting; you

1263
would need two. I fully accept that one can envisage circumstances, as the noble Baroness says. Let us compare, for example, a chat room conversation on the Internet that lasted eight hours with one e-mail. There needs to be some basis upon which one can establish a course of conduct. We think that two is the minimum number which can form the basis of such a course of conduct. I was not clear about the noble Baroness's final example. It appeared to involve some contact followed at the end by an e-mail. That seems to me to satisfy the two meetings or communications requirement.
Baroness Blatch: My second example refers to where there have been many communications of a non-sexual nature. The relationship between the person sending the e-mails and the young child receiving them lulls that person into a sense of false security. The final e-mail is sexual in nature, and they meet. On the back of all that grooming, which on the face of it was non-sexual in nature, there could not be a conviction because there has to be another e-mail of a sexual nature. The person creating over a period a friendship with the person, followed by one very short e-mail about meeting for a sexual encounter, would not be convicted because there would not have been two e-mails of a sexual nature.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I misunderstood the noble Baroness's point. It appears that the attack was on the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and not on the Government's position. That is fine. I thank the noble Baroness.
Baroness Noakes: I had realised that my noble friend's attack was aimed at me; indeed, that is something that I have become quite used to this evening.
I thank the Minister for his reply and for explaining his position on the concerns raised. I can paraphrase the concerns that he expressed and those mentioned by my noble friend Lady Blatch by saying that it is difficult to convict paedophiles. I approached my amendments from a slightly different direction by pointing out that one element of this offence involves potentially innocent activity. Most communications with children are innocent communications, which could themselves bring this offence into effect.
I am not perhaps concerned that innocent people would be prosecuted and convicted. I have always been concerned about innocent people having false accusations made against them. Through ignorance. we know that quite frightening reactions often occur in communities whenever people suspect that a paedophile is in their midst. That is the nature of my concern.
The clause is not about sexual grooming; it is about going to meet someone with an intent to commit an offence. There is a fig-leaf of grooming at the beginning of the clause, followed by the reference to two communications. That is the part of the provision
1264
about which I am most concerned. However. I shall not press the amendment this evening. I should like to consider the matter further. I remain concerned about the potential effect on innocent people. I put that alongside the difficulties as regards convicting paedophiles, who we really want to convict under this legislation. I thank the Minister for his response. and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 84 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before I call the next amendment, perhaps I may take to heart the point made earlier by the noble Baroness. If Amendment No. 85 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 86 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No.85:
Page 7, line 9, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d) and insert", and (c) subsection (1B) applies"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 88. These amendments would extend the new grooming offence outlined in Clause 17 to include adults with a mental disorder or a learning disability.
Our amendments focus on a different aspect of the new offence and one that I feel has been neglected by those who have been lobbying for the new offence to be introduced. The Bill clearly sets aside two groups who could be classified as "vulnerable"—those who cannot readily consent to sexual activity and for whom sexual abuse may be a very traumatic experience, and one that they have problems reporting or admitting. For these reasons, sexual offences committed against children and those with a mental disorder or learning disability are dealt with separately in the Bill.
Like children, the Bill admits that vulnerable adults with a mental disorder or a learning disability need special protection against sexual abuse. Their trust can be won easily. They may have a confused sense of what is wrong and what is right in sexual terms. I believe that not including them in the Bill, along with the under-16s, would be tantamount to a huge loophole in the legislation. They may have unrestricted access to computers and telephones, just like children. We know that they are often specifically targeted by sexual offenders.
I should be grateful if the Minister could outline the reasons for not including vulnerable adults under those who can be victims of the offence in Clause 17. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Much as I welcome my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever to the Dispatch Box on this occasion in order to give my noble friend Lady Noakes a respite from having worked all day, I am sorry that I have been deprived of the opportunity to say to her how much I welcome these two amendments. I have been a bit of a thorn in her side for most of the day. It would have given me great pleasure to have said that to her.

1265
Most of us can think of individuals who, although over 16 years in age, have a much younger mental age or could have a serious mental condition. It is right that the welcome new protection of Clause 17 should he extended to them. My noble friend Lord Astor made the point extremely well.
The Bill contains offences to protect people with mental disorders from unwelcome sexual advances and from abuse by care workers. These provisions, in some way, mirror the protections for children. It does therefore seem odd that the grooming offence in Clause 17 does not also apply to them in the same way as it applies to minors. Certainly, such people can be very prone to being led by sex abusers. They can be very trusting. We must protect that trust in every way. I believe that trust is very special in young people with this kind of disability. Including them within the protection of this offence can only be extremely welcome. I hope that the Minister will take the amendment seriously.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I, too, support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever. It would be a great pity if we lost the opportunity to include vulnerable adults in Clause 17. They have exactly the same problems as children. I shall not go through the list again because the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, gave all those examples. To leave this issue to later in the Bill would be a pity because, particularly in schools and in special schools, young people, including young people with learning disabilities, are being encouraged to learn how to use computers. Using computers gives them greater confidence and they are often able to use those skills to enhance their quality of life, which otherwise would be even less. That puts them into the same category as others who are vulnerable because they have that access. Therefore, it would be a pity to lose this opportunity.
Lord Skelmersdale: Obviously there is a lacuna in the Bill and I support my noble friend.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: This is difficult. In relation to those young adults who do not have the capacity to consent, one can see fairly easily a comparability with children. We should consider that carefully. For those who have a capacity to consent, it is much harder to decide whether it is the right course to treat them as being similar to children or people who do not have the capacity to consent. In effect, what one is saying is that even though the right of those people who have the capacity to consent is recognised—albeit with some form of mental impairment—nevertheless they are entitled to especial protection and they should not be able to make the kinds of judgments that the rest of us are entitled to make.
My current inclination is to think that those without the capacity to consent might well need this protection. But because of our profound concern not to prevent people who do have the capacity to consent to be able to court and be courted in the way that other adults
1266
are, I am not sure that it would be right to extend this protection to those who do have the capacity to consent.
We shall certainly consider this amendment. We shall particularly focus on those without the capacity to consent because that is where the particular focus should be.
Baroness Walmsley: I have considerable sympathy with this amendment. However, we take the point that the Minister made about capacity to consent. We wonder if, at the next stage, this could be brought back with a slight change in the last line with words to the effect that B is suffering from a mental disorder which means that they do not have the capacity to consent. In that case, I think that we should be willing to support the amendment. But, as it stands, it has the flaw highlighted by the Minister.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Blatch, my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, for their support. I also take on board what the Minister said. We shall obviously reconsider this issue, particularly in the light of the observations made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No.86:
Page 7, line 9, after "16" insert "or is a police officer acting in the course of his duties, who, in communications with A, has consistently represented himself as being under 16"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 86 seeks to investigate the question of whether the police are prevented by the wording of Clause 17 from entrapping paedophiles.
The offence requires that, "B is under 16". Clause 17 covers the situation where there is a specific potential victim who is aged under 16. A mother might discover that her 14 year-old daughter has fixed up a meeting with a stranger over the Internet. She contacts the police. When the paedophile arrives for the meeting with B, he is met by police officers, who then arrest him. A Clause 17 offence has been committed because the paedophile is intending to meet B, and B is under 16. The fact that B will not be there for the meeting is irrelevant.
The problem arises if a police officer acts on his own initiative where there is no threat to a particular victim. If a policeman goes online and pretends to be under 16 in order to entrap a paedophile, the offence will not be made out because the officer is B, and B is not under 16.
Entrapment can be a necessary law enforcement measure, particularly in cases such as these. The police may be aware of an adult trawling teenage websites and engaging in suggestive communications with children, and they may see evidence in a chat room of attempts to arrange meetings, but they may not be able

1267
to track down the offender because he conceals his identity by using computers in public libraries, which cannot be linked to a particular individual.
Clearly the police should be able to conduct a sting operation to catch the offender. They should be able to engage him in correspondence and wait for him to arrange a meeting, where they can then identify and arrest him. They should be able to do this without having to involve a child in the process, otherwise they will have to leave this unidentified individual until he commits a sexual offence and hope that they catch him then.
It would be most unsatisfactory if the wording of Clause 17 prevented entrapment. I shall be most interested to hear what the Minister has to say about this. I hope that history will not repeat itself whereby I make a reasonable point now which in four or five years' time will be incorporated in a future Bill. It is particularly difficult to gain a conviction—or even to gain the identity—of someone who is up to no good with young people. If the result of entrapment is a conviction, it will have been an honourable task and another shot in the armoury for the police to track down these awful people. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The amendment would make explicit that the offence of,
"Meeting a child following sexual grooming etc.",
covers offenders who think they are communicating with a child under 16 when in fact the "child" is an undercover police officer who has assumed the identity of the child—for example, in an Internet chat room. I sympathise with the intention of the noble Baroness that the police should be able to carry out the kind of sting operations that she suggests. However, that situation is already covered in law and the amendment is not necessary.
The situation covered by the amendment would constitute an attempt to meet a child following sexual grooming. Section 1(2) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 makes clear that a person may be guilty of attempting to commit an offence even though the facts are such that the commission of the offence is impossible—for example, because the person with whom the person is communicating is a policeman. Section 1(3) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 makes clear that, in assessing whether the person has the relevant intention, it is assumed that the facts are as he believed them to be—that is, that the person to whom he was talking was a child rather than, as was in fact the case, an undercover policeman.
So in this case the defendant would be deemed to have the intention to meet a child under 16 and to commit a sex offence because that would have been his intention if the facts had been as he believed them to be. The maximum penalty for an attempted offence, which it would be in the sting hypothetically proposed by the noble Baroness, is the same as for the substantive offence. So the law already provides for the kind of situation to which the noble Baroness
1268
rightly drew the Committee's attention. On the basis of the reassurance I have given her, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for that reply. As always, like many other people, I shall need to read it very carefully. I welcome the noble and learned Lord's reply if he is saying—and I have no reason to doubt it—that the activity I have described of the police trying to catch these people is covered in law. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No.89:
Page 7, line 17, leave out sub-paragraphs (ii) to (iv) and insert—
"(ia) an offence within any of paragraphs 53 to 67 of Schedule 2, or"
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments deals with technical amendments to those elements of the Bill which are to extend to Northern Ireland. None will make any difference in policy terms as to how the provisions will apply in that jurisdiction. The intended effect, where offences are to extend, is to ensure similar provision and to make the necessary adjustments to the law of Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No.90:
Page 7, line 25, leave out from "within" to end of line 27 and insert "sub-paragraph (i) or (ia) but would be an offence within sub-paragraph (i) if done in England and Wales."
The noble Lord said: Government Amendments Nos. 90, 92 and 94 to Clause 17 of the Bill are to change the definition of a relevant offence if the offence is committed outside England, Wales or Northern Ireland. The criminal law in England and Wales and Northern Ireland is different. Sometimes particular behaviour is an offence in Northern Ireland but not in England and Wales, and vice versa.
As currently drafted, the effect of Clause 17(2)(b)(v) is that a person could intend to commit an act abroad or in Scotland and if that act is an offence in Northern Ireland, but not in England and Wales, he could still be prosecuted for it in England and Wales. This is not an effect that we had intended.
As a consequence of Amendment No. 90, a person will be able to be prosecuted in England and Wales for an offence committed abroad or in Scotland only if it is an offence in England and Wales. Amendments Nos. 92 and 94 produce the same result for Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 7, line 28, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 91 which seeks to delete subsection (3) of Clause 17. This is a probing amendment about the application of the Bill to Northern Ireland. We have reached the first substantive part of the application of the Bill to Northern Ireland, which is why the amendment is targeted at the subsection.
The Minister will be aware that many differences still exist in the law applying to Northern Ireland and as it applies in England and Wales. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made that point just a moment ago. In due course we shall come to the achievement of gender neutrality specifically for the abolition of homosexual-specific offences.
In a Written Answer, the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House has informed me that consideration is being given to addressing issues concerning offences that target only homosexual activity in Northern Ireland. If the Minister could say anything further about that, it would be most helpful.
The amendment seeks to remove the higher age of consent of 17 in Northern Ireland from the particular offence of sexual grooming, but the main issue underlying the amendment is the broader canvas of differences between the laws in Northern Ireland and those in England and Wales. In his Written Answer, the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House also stated that any changes in Northern Ireland must await a review and consultation. However, we believe that the law should be the same unless good reason can be demonstrated for different treatment. Furthermore, if the Bill is ultimately effective in terms of improving the operation of the law covering rape—although, as the Minister knows, on the basis of our Committee discussions to date, that is an open issue—why should not Northern Ireland benefit from that?
I hope that the Minister will be able to say when we can expect the review in Northern Ireland to take place and thus within what kind of time-scale we can expect the people of Northern Ireland to benefit from the changes that are being proposed in this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: Would it not be better to leave matters of this kind until they have been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I think that the noble Baroness is entitled to an answer to her question as regards the position in relation to Northern Ireland. There is no question of having to wait in that regard.
The law on sexual offences in Northern Ireland differs from that in England and Wales and was not included in the review that underpins the changes we are making in this Bill. The wholesale reform of the law in Northern Ireland does not form part of the Bill. Northern Ireland is conducting its own review of sexual offences. That review has already begun and a consultation paper will be published in the near future.
However, we are taking the opportunity in this Bill to make some changes to the law in Northern Ireland. We are extending a relatively small number of the offences
1270
set out in Part 1. We are also ensuring that the reforms set out in Part 2 of the Bill on the registration of sex offenders continue to extend to Northern Ireland without there being any question of such offenders being able to view Northern Ireland as some kind of safe haven.
We are also keen to remove as soon as possible the inequalities from the law on sexual offences in Northern Ireland between the heterosexual and homosexual population. We are currently examining what remedial amendments we can effect in advance of the substantive reform represented by the review, specifically to deal with certain inequalities which have been identified. We are considering the issues carefully, together with the police and the Department of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.
We have also sought parliamentary approval in the draft of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 to make some changes in the law on sexual offences in Northern Ireland in order to be compliant with certain obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
I have not dealt specifically with the amendment because I have regarded it as a legitimate pivot on which to discuss the Northern Ireland position overall.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before my noble friend decides what to do with the amendment—and I am sure she will withdraw it—let me say that in my limited and out-of-date experience of Northern Ireland, I would be very surprised if the result of the consultation to which the noble and learned Lord has referred were a general wish to reduce the age of consent in Northern Ireland from 17 to 16. After all, it is by far the most Catholic part of the United Kingdom and follows to a great extent, although not totally, the attitudes in the Irish Republic.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The Bill does not purport to change the age of consent in Northern Ireland. I would be extraordinarily unwise to venture a guess as to what public opinion might be in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Noakes: My noble friend has predicted that I shall withdraw the amendment. It is a probing amendment, as I informed the Minister's officials. I thank the Minister for that reply. I might have wished for some more specificity as to when, but I must be grateful for what I have. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 92 to 94:
Page 7, line 28, after "Ireland" insert "(a)"
Page 7, line 28, leave out "(1)(c)(i)" and insert "(1)"
Page 7, line 29, at end insert—
"(b) subsection (2)(b)(v) has effect with the substitution of "sub-paragraph (ia) if done in Northern Ireland" for "sub-paragraph (i) if done in England and Wales"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 7, line 31, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 95, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 96. It may in fact be easier if I start with Amendment No. 96, because I am pleased to see that the Minister's name also appears on the amendment, hence it is non-controversial.
We believed, and are glad that the Government believe as well, that five years was too short a maximum sentence for the offence of meeting a child following sexual grooming. Seven years is a more realistic sentence.
Amendment No. 96 again raises the issue of what circumstances could lead the CPS even to contemplate a summary offence under the sexual grooming provisions. We are talking about a person who has been convicted of grooming a child with a view to a sexual offence. I talked in an earlier group of amendments about the difficulties with Clause 17 but my problem there was with whether innocent people, foolish or otherwise, might become entangled in it. But if the Crown Prosecution Service is convinced that it can prove this crime, it is a very serious matter. I simply cannot see how the summary procedure could ever he relevant. Like being pregnant, I do not think one can be a little bit of a sexual groomer—one is either a dangerous sexual predator or one is not.
My concern about leaving the summary conviction route on the face of the Bill is that it may be used in borderline cases in the hope of getting a guilty plea. People on the borderline may well be the innocent fools I have been concerned about. I am concerned that the option, which should not be a real option for conviction for an offence of serious sexual grooming, is on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We are agreed as regards the change from five to seven years. I do not think there is a problem there. As regards the possibility of a summary charge in relation to grooming, the vast majority of cases will be so serious as to merit the Crown Court. Is there a case that might not be? Possibly that of a 19 year-old talking to a child of 15 years and 11 months. However, it is sensible to include the provision.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that reply. I still maintain that sexual grooming is a very serious offence. If the CPS thinks it is worth bringing a prosecution, we are talking about a serious offence which should receive an appropriate sentence. I do not think that there are borderline cases. Earlier I made a joke about that. However, I am not sure that there is borderline sexual grooming. Either we want to prevent the people we are discussing harming young children or we do not. I believe that the provision is unlikely to be used as regards 19year-olds talking to 15 year-olds. If a prosecution were to be brought in such a case, it should occur because a serious offence has been committed.
1272
I shall not press the amendment tonight, as I am sure the Minister would expect. However, I should like to think about it further as I am not convinced that there is a less serious offence of sexual grooming. The offence of sexual grooming is a very serious offence and should be so treated. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 7, line 34, leave out "5" and insert "7"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Abuse of position of trust: sexual activity with a child]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 7, line 43, after first "he" insert "reasonably"
The noble Lord said: We move to a section of Part 1 headed:
"Abuse of position of trust".
Before we get too involved, I point out that Clauses 18 to 22 set out the offences; Clauses 23 and 24 deal with the interpretation of a position of trust; and Clauses 25 to 27 contain exceptions.
Before I come to the series of amendments which are common to the criminal charges in Clauses 19 to 22, I should point out to the noble and learned Lord that in the section where we were concerned with child sex offences, in Clauses 9, 10, 11, 13 and 17 and in government Amendments Nos. 48 and 50, the words that are used over and over again are,
"reasonably believe that B is 16 or over".
Members of the Committee who were present during yesterday's debate will remember the great controversy that arose between the Government and these Benches about whether we should invent the reasonable person or whether it would be far simpler and more direct simply to include the words "reasonable belief"—words which appear in the part which the Committee has considered most of the day with almost all the lawyers silent. The lawyers have been banished for much of today, much to everyone's relief.
Lord Skelmersdale: Will not the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, admit that they banished themselves?
10 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I certainly did not, but all the others seem to have done. I am now in a rather lonely position in considering with the noble and learned Lord technical amendments which do not really involve any point of principle. I should prefer to see some sensible mechanism to prove the various offences. Clauses 18 to 22 demonstrate the obsession of those who have drafted the Bill with moving the burden of proof around in all directions quite regardless of the problems that we discussed

1273
throughout yesterday of trying to direct a jury or to inform magistrates of how these burdens of proof should be regarded, what they mean and so on.
Let me, for example, take Clause 18(2) to demonstrate a quite simple problem. If the four points in subsection (1) are proved—the burden is on the prosecution to prove them beyond reasonable doubt— the persuasive burden passes to the defendant to prove,
"that he believed that the other person was 18 or over".
If he can prove that,
"he is not guilty of the offence unless it is proved that his belief was unreasonable".
Who has to prove that his belief was unreasonable? Clearly it is the prosecution.
The jury has to be told, "Look at Clause 18(1). The burden of proof is on the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt, so that you are sure. Then look at the defendant. He has to prove in a balance of probabilities that he is not guilty because he believed that the other person was 18. But once you have got to that position, you then have to consider whether the prosecution has proved, so that you are sure, that his belief was unreasonable." It is that leap required in the brain that is so difficult and open to criticism.
Everything gets even worse in subsection (3), which states:
"Where in proceedings for an offence under this section it is proved that a position of trust existed because of circumstances within section 23(2), (3), (4) or (5)".
That places the burden on the prosecution to prove that those circumstances existed. The subsection continues,
"and the defendant proves that he did not know of those circumstances".
That gives him the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that he did not know. The subsection goes on to say that,
"he is not guilty of the offence unless it is proved"—
the burden passes back to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt—
"that he could reasonably have been expected to know of those circumstances, or … that a position of trust existed because of other circumstances".
The purpose of my amendment is not at all to change the essence of what the Government are driving at, but to try to make it understandable by those who have to come to a particular decision. What I propose in subsection (2) is that, before "believed" in line 43, we insert "reasonably", and that we simply leave out,
"unless it is proved that his belief was unreasonable".
In such circumstances, once the essential facts in subsection (1) have been proved, the burden passes to the defendant to establish that he reasonably believed that the other person was 18.
The words "reasonably believe" have appeared all through Clauses 9 to 17, which Members of the Committee have considered in the absence of the lawyers. However, all of a sudden we come back to a
1274
clause that might have been drafted by someone completely different, in which we have all the problems about which we talked yesterday.
Similarly, my amendments to Clause 18(3) would exclude all the words from "unless it is proved" to the end, include "solely" before "because", and add after "know" the words,
"and had no reason to believe".
In the end, that subsection would therefore read, very simply:
"Where in proceedings for an offence under this section a position of trust existed solely because of circumstances within section 23(2), (3), (4), or (5)"—
that puts the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish that—
"and the defendant proves that he did not know and had no reason to believe of those circumstances, he is not guilty of the offence".
That would be the case if the defendant were acting reasonably. The burden of proof certainly shifts, but it does so only once. Although the jury may have difficulty in fully comprehending the difference between the prosecution having to make them sure and the burden shifting to the defendant to say that the decision is made on the balance of probabilities, that is much simpler than shifting the burden back again to the prosecution.
As your Lordships will appreciate, I am simply trying to clear up the situation. If one amended the provisions as I have proposed, that would strengthen the Bill rather than weaken it. My formulation in no sense weakens the principle that the Government are seeking; it in fact strengthens it.
I have studied those two provisions specifically to illustrate the fact that the same or virtually the same principles arise in Clauses 18 to 22. The same points arise and the same amendments can be made so as to put into this part of the Bill the concept of reasonable belief that is in the previous part and for which we contend—we will come back to this—in relation to rape and all the other matters that we discussed yesterday. The amendments are sensible and would not do anything that the Government would not want. It will be interesting to see whether they will be resisted. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: We share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, about the way in which the abuse of trust clauses are constructed. Those clauses are very important and it is a major concern to us that they are workable and effective.
The noble Lord ably demonstrated how under Clause 18(2) and (3) the burdens of proof shift backwards and forwards. If that is not complicated, I do not know what is, especially if both defences are being run in the same trial. We heard yesterday about the complexity of various formulations for trial judges and juries. All parties claimed superiority, whether defending the status quo, the Bill or an amendment, in terms of simplicity for juries. I defy the Minister in this instance to defend the Bill in terms of simplicity when instructing a jury about how to reach a decision under subsections (2) and (3) and later similar provisions.

1275
If we cannot be confident about getting it right with regard to instructing juries, we are concerned that we cannot be confident that we have offences that are workable and effective. It is difficult to judge whether the amendment's formulations are right. They are certainly much simpler and I congratulate the noble Lord on that. As he pointed out, they make the approach more difficult and there is a higher burden on the defence. I am concerned that the amendments to subsection (3) would require the defence to prove two negatives: first, that the defendant did not know and, secondly, that he had no reason to believe. That is a detailed concern and lawyers who are cleverer than me can sort that out. I am pretty simple minded in this regard. I was struck, as was the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, by the difference in formulation between the child sex offences and the abuse of trust offences in terms of relying on the prosecution proving an appropriate reasonable belief. Why was that formulation not adopted? It would not involve the formulation proposed by the noble Lord.
I hope that the Minister will also explain why the Government found it necessary to change the approach from the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000. The current law has another formulation again in that legislation. I hope that he will explain why the Bill's formulation is effective. I rather suspect that he will find that difficult. I hope that he will be prepared to consider alternative formulations.
Lord Skelmersdale: In supporting the amendment I am clearly not privy to what is in the noble and learned Lord's brief. However, before he responds to the amendment, perhaps he would cast his eye up the page to the formulation in Clause 17(1)(d) which states:
"A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over".
Why is there a difference between that formulation and this formulation in Clause 18?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As the noble Lords, Lord Skelmersdale and Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, are aware, in child sex offences and in Clause 17 the burden is on the prosecution at all stages in relation to those identified. In this formulation the burden is on the defendant to prove that he believed that the child was of a different age from that which he was. That is perfectly ECHR compliant because that is within the knowledge of the defendant. We are advised that it would not be ECHR compliant to place the burden on the defendant to say that it is reasonable because that is not specifically within his knowledge. It should be for the prosecution to prove that it is unreasonable under the circumstances. That is why it has been done in that way.
Does that lead to impossible comprehensibility for the jury? Can one put to the jury the question, "Has the defendant proved on the balance of probabilities that he believed that the other person was 18 or over?" If he has proved that, it is for the prosecution to prove that that belief was unreasonable. That is perfectly
1276
manageable as far as concerns the jury. It has been done in that way because of the ECHR. If noble Lords think that it would be better to shift the burden back to the prosecution on the defendant's belief, perhaps they should think again between now and Report. That seems to me to be putting on to the prosecution a burden which is unrealistic. It is for the defendant to come forward with why he thought the belief was unreasonable. Perhaps I may say with the greatest diffidence that I believe that both the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Thomas, underestimate the ability of the jury to understand that.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I do not underestimate the ability of the jury to understand anything. I have had the experience of directing juries on many occasions. I know from a recent case that if juries are provided with a series of complicated questions to solve, they get it wrong. The simpler the issues which can be put before them the better.
I am interested in the noble and learned Lord's comments on the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights. I shall consider that and discuss it with some of my noble friends who are deeply involved in that sort of litigation. It strikes me as curious that the reason for the formulation in Clause 17, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, where the prosecution have to prove that,
"A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over".
is because it is compatible with the ECHR.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The reason why it is ECHR compatible is that it could not possibly be unfair to the defendant to place the burden of both on the prosecution.
Baroness Noakes: Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord why in the 2000 Act it was phrased that he did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that B was under 18, or that B was a person to whom he was in a position of trust. The Government have chosen to change the formulation from the abuse of trust offence as enacted only just over two years ago.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: You have not indicated from the passage to which you referred where the burden lies—
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Baroness!
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I thank the noble Earl whose contribution to the debate so far, rightly, has been to ensure that we remember our manners. I apologise to the noble Baroness, who in referring to the 2000 Act did not indicate where the burden of proof lies. I am not sufficiently acquainted with that Act to know where the burden of proof lies.
Baroness Noakes: I believe the burden is on the defence. I shall consider the matter further.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: We will take away the wise words of the Minister, and consider them further. I am

1277
not satisfied with his explanation. There are things that we need to look at—the compatibility with the 2000 Act and with other parts of the Bill. I have a sneaking suspicion that this part was drafted by somebody other than whoever drafted earlier parts of the Bill. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 7, line 43, leave out "the other person" and insert ''B"
The noble Lord said: These are the "B" resolutions. There is a raft of them, which your Lordships will see over the page in the Marshalled List. Again, it is purely a question of drafting. If we are going to use "A" and "B"—an innovation in statutes that is not many years old—they should be used consistently. That would make matters clearer when there was more than one person mentioned in a clause. That happens in some of the instances that are listed in my series of amendments. It is to alter the words "the other person" to "B". I would he interested to hear what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has to say about it. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The amendments, Amendment No. 98 and others seek to remove references to "the other person" in the abuse of trust offences and the familial child sex offences, and replace them with references to "B". I understand that the amendments are intended to achieve consistency of drafting. The reason for the different terminology is best explained by way of an example. In Clause 29(1), the references are to "A", the person committing the offence, and "B", the victim of the offence. They are hypothetical people, used to explain what is and what is not acceptable behaviour. In Clause 29(2) and (3), however, the references are to the defendant and the other person. That is because Clause 29(2) and (3) apply when criminal proceedings are under way. The people in question are no longer hypothetical. There is a real defendant, and it makes sense to refer to him as a defendant. We could refer to that other person as "B", but there is no need to complicate matters. Having referred to the defendant, it is perfectly obvious who the other person must be. For those reasons, to achieve consistency, the amendments are not necessary.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Clause 31(1) states,
"Conduct by a person (A) which would otherwise be an offence under section 28 or 29 against another person (B) is not an offence under that section if they are lawfully married at the time … In proceedings for such an offence"—
proceedings having commenced, it should be appreciated—
"it is for A to prove that he and B were lawfully married at the time.".
There is an inconsistency that runs through this, and for clarification, the letters should be used consistently. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 100 and 101:
Page 7, line 44, after "proved" insert "(a)"
Page 7, line 44, at end insert ", or
(b) that the other person was under 13."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 102 to 105 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 8, line 8, leave out subsection (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 8, line 10, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 107 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 120, 129, 138 and 148.These all concern abuse of trust offences and are probing amendments related to the option of using summary procedure.
For all of those offences, the Government have included the option of a summary conviction carrying a six-month sentence or a fine instead of the five-year sentence available on indictment. We will be returning to that five-year sentence in the next group of amendments, but at the moment I shall focus on the circumstances appropriate for using summary conviction.
I have previously mentioned consistency within the Bill. I was looking to compare the abuse of trust provisions with the care worker provisions of Clauses 43 to 47. It seems to me that we are talking about the same kind of abuse of a relationship which is created in the abuse of trust provisions in relation to children, in relation to care worker offences and in relation to those who are mentally disordered.
For the care worker offences, there is no option of summary conviction. My question to the Minister is: why are these two groups of offences treated differently? Is it in some senses always regarded as a more heinous offence if it involves a care worker with a mentally disordered person compared with the abuse of trust in relation to a child? If the Minister believes that it is appropriate to have the summary route, will he indicate in which circumstances that would arise?
When we talked earlier about the options available for the "basic" sexual offences, we talked about a potentially wide range of activities within the clauses. When we are talking about the abuse of trust, we are talking about a particularly nasty aspect of sexual abuse. I find difficulty in seeing why that should have the option of the extremely lenient sentences available by way of summary conviction. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: These are probing amendments tabled by the noble Baroness in relation to why we should have summary offences. I shall deal with them in turn. The abuse of trust sexual activity

1279
could plainly involve sexual intercourse between a 30 year-old nurse and a 17 year-old patient in his or her care in hospital and is plainly suitable for the Crown Court. It also covers the case of a nurse intentionally touching a patient's genital area in a sexual manner through his clothes entirely consensually. Is that suitable for the Crown Court? Sometimes it will be; in other cases it will not be.
The noble Baroness moves her head not in agreement but indicating that that is tricky and she is right in relation to that. Surely, the CPS should be able to have the option in relation to it.
Baroness Noakes: I am prompted to rise to indicate that I was not thinking that it was tricky but that it was not the kind of case that should be appearing in the courts at all.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: A skilful answer. On that basis, I assume that she would not envisage the case appearing in the Crown Court.
Baroness Noakes: I agree.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The offence of abuse of position of trust causing a child to engage in sexual activity could cover the case where, for example, a Connexions adviser on one occasion caused a child to touch her own breasts in a sexual way, the child being at the high end of the age range. The abuse of trust inciting a child to engage in sexual activity could be, for example, a teacher asking two 17 year-old pupils to strip and they both refused or a teacher who shows 17 year-old pupils a sex video during a geography lesson. How serious are those? They could be charged in the Crown Court. Sometimes the case will not be serious enough to merit that and it is right that the CPS should have the option to bring it summarily.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, says that the care worker offences are treated differently, but they are triable each way as well. That is my answer about a distinction being drawn; there was no distinction drawn, in effect. I hope that that helps and that the noble Baroness will be satisfied about the range of offending behaviour that justifies all these offences being triable each way.
Lord Hylton: Before the noble Baroness makes up her mind about the amendment, I wonder whether I can probe further on the abuse of positions of trust. It seems clear to me that all staff employed in residential institutions are well covered in this clause and the clauses immediately following. That would include part-time staff, caretakers, ancillary workers and such people. Is the Minister satisfied that workers of all kinds in non-residential establishments are covered and that social workers who come into contact with children as part of their professional duties are covered? Even people like social services inspectors who in the course of their duties have some contact with some children are covered. One could include
1280
teachers and other workers in non-residential educational establishments. Can the Minister throw some light on those situations?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Those are legitimate questions. We shall come to them in detail. Positions of trust are dealt with in Clauses 23 and 24. They are not restricted to residential situations. A position of trust can arise, for example, in educational settings and also in some kinds of care settings that we shall expand by way of amendment, where the person providing the care does not provide it in a domiciliary or residential setting. The question is well judged. Perhaps I may answer it when we come to Clauses 23 and 24, where the relevant provisions are to be found.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for his evermore inventive examples of how the clauses will operate in practice, which I shall read carefully. I apologise for confusing him about the care worker offences. That actually relates to the next group of amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 8, line 13, leave out "5" and insert "7
The noble Baroness said: I now turn to the abuse of trust offences, the care worker offences and the sentences to be imposed. On conviction on indictment the sentence is five years for abuse of trust and seven years for the care worker offences. I want to tease out that comparison. I can see no real difference between the gravity of those two offences. Both involve the sexual exploitation of vulnerable people. I cannot see that the abuse of children under 18 by those in a position of trust is less heinous than abuse by a care worker of a mentally disordered person. In terms of long-term psychological trauma, I could make a case for the abuse of trust of a child being worthy of a stiffer penalty. The purpose of Amendment No. 108, together with Amendments Nos. 121, 130, 139 and 149, is to tease out the differences in approach between the two sections that mystified me. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As the noble Baroness said, these amendments have the effect of increasing the maximum penalty to seven years. In drafting the Bill we have been assisted by the noble Baroness in a number of respects and we have been at pains to ensure that the maximum penalties for similar degrees of offending behaviour are proportionate and consistent.
The primary purpose of the abuse of trust offences is to provide protection in criminal law for young people aged 16 and 17—that is, above the legal age of consent—who are considered to be particularly vulnerable to exploitation by those who hold a position of trust or authority in their lives. The offence is not designed to deal with other sexual offending behaviour—such as sexual intercourse with a child under the age of consent or a non-consensual activity that falls within the scope of other sex offences.

1281
Although we consider such relationships to be wrong because of the abuse of trust involved, the offence relates to sexual activity that is ostensibly consensual. We feel that a maximum five-year penalty is sufficiently severe for sexual activity that was mutually agreed between an adult age 18 or over and a young person who was over the age of consent. Although the offences extend protection to children under the age of 16, where a child in that age group is involved we would expect the Crown Prosecution Service to charge one of the child sex offences instead, which carry a higher maximum penalty.
While we want to send a clear message that sexual activity within relationships of trust is wrong, we do not think that the offence as I have described it merits a seven-year maximum penalty. The noble Baroness rightly drew attention to the more severe maximum penalties for breach-of-care offences, which are designed to protect persons with a mental disorder or learning disability. That particularly vulnerable group of people merit the extra protection offered by the deterrent of a higher maximum penalty.
The young people protected by the offence to which the noble Baroness draws attention are essentially aged 16 or 17. We do not feel that they fall within the same category of vulnerability as those in the care offences with a mental disorder or learning disability. A seven-year maximum penalty on that basis for the offence of abuse of trust is disproportionate.
Baroness Noakes: It comes as news to me that the offences are intended only for 16 year-olds and 17 year-olds. From reading the clause, it is clearly intended to apply to children below the age of 13. The construction of the offences appears to apply to all children. I understand that the offence was originally introduced in response to unpleasant cases involving children's homes and so were clearly not intended only for 16 and 17 year-olds. I will reflect on the Minister's remarks. They seem perfectly reasonable but nevertheless, it is clear from the Bill that the abuse of trust provisions are designed for more than 16 and 17 year-olds. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 8, line 13, at end insert—
"(6) No prosecution for an offence under this section may be instituted except by, or with the consent of, the Attorney General if the prospective defendant was under the age of 21 at the time of the alleged offence."
The noble Lord said: With the previous amendment in mind, I suspect that I may be swimming against the tide. So far in Committee, the pressure seems to have been for stiffer sentences—perhaps with the exception of the child sex offences debated earlier and notwithstanding that our prisons are full to bursting. Perhaps it is time to rein back a little.
Throughout history, hormones have ensured that young men and women of roughly the same age will fall for one another whatever the cultural and legal
1282
restrictions in force at the time. We are now asked to believe that if an 18 year-old and a 17 year-old are smitten—to use a slightly old-fashioned word—and act accordingly, a quite shocking act has occurred that merits the 18 year-old being sent to prison for up to five years if he or she is nominally in a position of authority over the 17 year-old, even if the younger party is more intelligent and mature than the older one, as is often the case. The younger one is not necessarily vulnerable or exploited, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggested.
On Second Reading, I instanced the case of a strapping 17 year-old intelligent young man, possibly even a woman, in hospital with a broken wrist—in other words, fully in possession of all his mental faculties but physically injured—and an 18 year-old nurse in the same hospital and ward falling for one another. Even if no more than a kiss were exchanged, under the clause the nurse could end up in prison for a substantial period—shades of the Taliban, or at least Saudi Arabia.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, was kind enough to write to me after Second Reading to explain in so many words that the Government had no intention to be heavy-handed in the matter and, earlier today during our debate on child sex offences, he hinted that the law will be applied with a light touch. However, rightly, the Director of Public Prosecutions is chosen independently of the Government and the Government have no control of whether prosecutions are brought.
So the amendment, which requires the consent of the Attorney-General when the age gap is tiny—where the older person is under the age of 21—would ensure that prosecutions were brought only in genuinely serious cases. As I interpret what was said earlier, that accords with the Government's broad intentions in the matter.
I have not sought to apply that safeguard to other clauses for good reason. Clauses 19 and 20, which we shall debate in a moment, are somewhat ambivalent and need clarification. Clauses 21 and 22 are by no means ambivalent but deal with perverted rather than normal sexual behaviour, which has nothing to do with mutual affection, so the safeguard that I urge for Clause 18 is neither necessary nor desirable for them. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: This is another example of a case where the noble Lord identifies circumstances in which it would plainly be inappropriate to bring a prosecution. He suggests the unique protection of the Attorney-General stepping in compared to all the other sexual offences in the Bill, in relation to which prosecution is at the discretion of the Crown Prosecution Service.
Although the new offences of abuse of trust are drawn slightly more widely than the offence enacted by the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, this offence does not raise any new issues about prosecution. Decisions about whether prosecution is in the public interest are made by the Crown

1283
Prosecution Service. I am unaware that that has given rise to any difficulty. We expect the CPS to continue to exercise its discretion wisely. We in Parliament cannot define how that should be done. The Attorney-General's time would be unnecessarily spent considering such prosecutions. The code for Crown prosecutors contains detailed guidance about the circumstances in which prosecution is in the public interest. They will he updated as a matter of standard practice following the Bill's enactment.
Although I fully understand why the noble Lord moved the amendment, the protection that he proposes goes too far to deal with the problem that he identifies.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply; it is rather as I expected. However, I am slightly heartened by it. The Government's heart is obviously in the right place on this one. I hope that their expectations are fulfilled and that no "rogue prosecution" takes place. I of course reserve the right to consider the matter before Report, but with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Abuse of position of trust: causing a child to engage in sexual activity]:
[Amendments Nos. 110 to 112 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 8, line 22, after "proved" insert "(a)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 8, line 22, at end insert ", or
(b) that the other person was under 13."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 115 to 118 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 8, line 30, leave out subsection (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 120 and 121 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 19, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Monson: Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord to clarify Clause 19 and, to save time, Clause 20, although technically we have not yet reached it. Clause 19 deals with causing a child to engage in sexual activity. At first glance the provision seems to indicate that it covers causing a child to engage in sexual activity with a third party, but it does not actually say so. I suppose that it could be extended to cover causing a child to engage in sexual activity with the instigator, so to speak. Similarly, as regards
1284
Clause 20, inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, the same slight doubt arises. Can the noble and learned Lord confirm or otherwise that both clauses are confined to causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity with a third party and not with the older person, so to speak, or the person in a deemed position of trust?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Clause 19 not only covers cases where the adult makes the child engage in sexual activity, for example sexual intercourse with the adult himself, but also where he makes the child engage in such activity with a third party, so it covers both. Similarly, in relation to Clause 20 the offence will cover situations where the offender incites the child to engage in sexual activity with him as well as with a third party.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Abuse of position of trust: inciting a child to engage in sexual activity]:
[Amendments Nos. 122 to 130 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Abuse of position of trust: sexual activity in the presence of a child]:
[Amendments Nos. 131 to 139 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Abuse of position of trust: causing a child to watch a sexual act]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 10, line 3, leave out second "a" and insert "any"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 141 to 149 not moved.]
10.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 150:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
"ABUSE OF POSITION OF TRUST: ACTS DONE IN SCOTLAND
Anything which, if done in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, would constitute an offence under any of sections 18 to 22 also constitutes that offence if done in Scotland."
The noble Lord said: The primary purpose of the "abuse of trust" offences is to provide protection in the criminal law for young people aged 16 and 17 (that is, above the legal age of consent) in circumstances where they are particularly vulnerable to being manipulated into an ostensibly consensual relationship by an adult (over 18) who holds a position of trust or authority in their lives.
The existing offence in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 has not yet been implemented in Scotland. It is the intention of the Scottish authorities to implement that offence rather than the wider offence that we are now introducing in this Bill. This gives us some cause for concern. We are anxious that there should not be a loophole in our legislation

1285
that would enable someone to evade prosecution by committing the act in another part of the United Kingdom.
We are concerned to protect, for example, the 16 year-old who goes on a school trip to Scotland and agrees to have sexual intercourse there with one of his tutors. We are closing this gap by introducing Amendment No. 150, which provides that any act that would constitute an abuse of trust offence if committed in England and Wales will also be an offence under the law of England and Wales if the act takes place in Scotland.
In the interests of enhancing the protection offered for young people under the criminal law, I respectfully ask the Committee to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Can the noble Lord say how that provision dovetails in with the Scottish jurisdiction? I have in mind an offence actually committed in Scotland—perhaps even by a Scot, who is resident in Scotland—against a child who happens to be on summer camp or taking part in a Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme, or whatever, but who is in fact resident in England. Can the noble Lord say how that squares with Scottish jurisdiction? My understanding is that it is a reserved matter for Scotland.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Baroness asks a good question. The best course for me would be to write to the noble Baroness on the subject.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble Baroness has made a very good point. If the position of trust arises in Scotland as regards a person who lives in Scotland and he is in that position only because he is running a summer camp, I do not see how England and Wales would have jurisdiction.
Baroness Blatch: I am most grateful to the Minister for his response. He quite honestly said that he did not have the answer, but that he would write to me on the matter. With no malign intent whatever, I ask that this clause should not stand part of the Bill until the next stage of the proceedings. At that point we shall all be satisfied with the technical answer as to why this would work under such jurisdiction. There is a sufficient question mark over how it would work. Therefore, I believe that the clause should not stand part of the Bill at this stage.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not sure that there is that big a question mark over the status of this part of the legislation. I ask the noble Baroness, and the noble Lord who echoed her concerns, to accept that we shall write to clarify the point. When I moved amendments earlier this evening similar provisions were made. Therefore, I believe we probably are on good ground: it is simply a technical matter.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry. It may be a technical matter, but it is also possible that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is right in saying that this
1286
will not work. Nothing will be lost by not passing the clause at this point and leaving it to the next stage of the proceedings. It will be a simple, technical matter of accepting it as part of the Bill on Report. Given the fact that the noble Lord does not have an answer to my question, it would be quite inappropriate to consider whether it should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Noakes: I support my noble friend in her argument. As the Minister is unable to provide an answer to a clear question, it would not be proper to pursue the amendment until that aspect is clarified. If it is a simple, technical matter, the amendment can be dealt with straightforwardly on Report.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have had a very good natured and tolerant discussion this evening. It is probably a very simple matter. No harm will arise from leaving the situation as it is. I am sure that we can satisfy all Members of the Committee in the course of correspondence. Indeed, that is probably the best way to leave the matter at this stage.
Baroness Blatch: Does that mean that the noble Lord wishes the amendment to stand part of the Bill? If that is so, I shall object. The noble Lord is goading us into voting on the matter. It should not stand part of the Bill. The noble Lord has nothing to fear. It is the convention of this House that, once a clause is deemed part of the Bill by the whole House, we do not put it back in or take it out again as it is deemed to have been determined.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps it may help that I now have an answer to the question, or at least part of the answer. My understanding is that the new clause gives extra territorial jurisdiction to England and Wales courts. If the acts undertaken also constitute offences in Scotland, Scottish courts would also have jurisdiction. I think that that clarifies the point. In those terms, I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry, but the noble Lord argued that the rationale for including this clause in the Bill was to prevent a gap, with the Scottish Parliament introducing the law into their own land. Therefore, it will not have jurisdiction because there is a gap, which the noble Lord admitted. This is merely a stop-gap. If the noble Lord insists on his amendment, I shall oppose it.
It seems perfectly reasonable and civil—and the Minister has nothing to lose by doing this—to leave this matter to the next stage of the Bill so that we can all be assured that the technical explanation that he is not giving at this moment is acceptable. If the noble Lord is as confident as he appears, it will be almost on-the-nod acceptance at the next stage.
Lord Hylton: It is not a question of losing the whole clause; it is simply a matter of the Government withdrawing their amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We are confident of our position. If the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, wants to

1287
press it, it is entirely a matter for her. But that is not a sensible way to proceed. It would be unfortunate and would make poor use of time that we should be spending on more important parts of the Bill that are still to be considered today.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord has no answer to our question. The answer that he read out made no sense whatever. He said that the matter could be dealt with by Scottish jurisdiction. In the mean time, we have been told that the whole point of this amendment is to cover a lacuna between the period of this Bill going on to the statute book and Scottish law coming into effect when they could deal with this in Scotland. I do not think that this amendment should be accepted.
10.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 150) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 10

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Andrews, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Bach, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jones, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Crawley, B.

[Teller]

Davies of Oldham, L.

Monson, L.

Desai, L.

Pendry, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Puttnam, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Thornton, B.

Gale, B.

Whitaker, B.

Golding, B.

Whitty, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Astor of Hever, L. [Teller]

Patel, L.

Blatch, B. [Teller]

Roper, L.

Craigavon, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hylton, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Noakes, B.

Walmsley, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
11 p.m.
Clause 23 [Positions of trust]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 10, line 28, leave out "(8)" and insert "(9)"
The noble Baroness said: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 151, which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 157, 158, 159, 160 and 162, as well as Amendment No. 161 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester.
In considering why the abuse of trust provisions should cover youth groups, I believe that it would be helpful to recount how it was that the Government first came to introduce them. The amendments seek to bring consistency to the clauses covering abuse of trust.
I turn first to the Utting report which looked into the safeguards relating to children living away from home. In 1997 Sir William Utting concluded that child abusers were,
"frequently in a position of responsibility, authority and trust".
Paedophiles often seek out positions of trust over young people. We have seen many examples of that, in particular in the North Wales case. In the February 2000 report of that case by Sir Ronald Waterhouse, abuse of trust was uncovered on a massive scale. The Waterhouse inquiry found that the notorious paedophile, Reginald "Gary" Cooke, abused children while he worked in a children's home. Cooke had also worked as a nurse and as an assistant warden in a probation hostel.
The 2000 Act which followed the Waterhouse inquiry introduced abuse of trust legislation to cover all these positions; that is, social workers in children's homes, nurses who look after children, and probation officers. But as far as Cooke was concerned, what was significant was that the Waterhouse inquiry found that most of his proved abuse took place under circumstances where children were not in care. It took place through friendships developed in youth groups. Cooke abused children first by using his position as a youth group leader and then as an instructor in the Army cadets. Those are two positions not covered by the existing law or by the Bill.
Some of the worst abuse uncovered by the inquiry was perpetrated on boy B, whose life was wrecked by abuse which took place through meeting Cooke in two youth groups. A paragraph in the report draws the case to the attention of Parliament. In his evidence to the inquiry, B argued that Cooke,
"took advantage of him when he was in need of friendship".
The abuse started within two weeks of meeting Cooke at a youth club, when B was aged 16. Later on when Cooke was an instructor in the Army cadets, he also abused B. The abuse continued until B was 18 years old. Cooke also "farmed out" boy B to be abused by other men.
It was because of cases like this that I and my late noble friend Lady Young sought to move amendments to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill which would have brought youth group leaders into the category of holding a position of trust.
As I said at Second Reading, I am disappointed that provision has not been made in the Bill to protect young people in youth groups such as the scouts and guides. Three years ago, the Lord Privy Seal, when Attorney-General, was sympathetic to extending abuse of trust provisions to youth group leaders, but the Home Secretary has failed to act. I wonder why. What is the argument for not using his order-making powers?
Amendment No. 157 defines the new position of trust as youth worker A in a specialist organisation who looks after B who attends the group. I accept that community groups which include a mix of adults and young people would not be covered by the amendment as they do not offer a specialist service for young people. The leader of a local ramblers' group would not be covered, but a scout group leader would be.
No doubt the resources of the Home Office could come up with a better amendment. In order to encourage this, my Amendment No. 162 adopts an alternative approach, leaving it to the Home Secretary to define positions of trust held by youth and community workers and to use his order-making powers under Clause 23(1)(b). It would give the Home Secretary six months in which to act after the Bill's commencement.
Amendment No. 161, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, brings registered sports coaches within the abuse of trust provisions. The Government are very keen on encouraging young people to become involved in sport, and various coaching schemes are available. If more and more children are to be involved in such schemes, it is right that an attempt is made to extend the protection of the clause to them. I welcome the amendment for that reason. The noble Lord will know that there is some very impressive work going on with football clubs linking up with schools and working with not just vulnerable children but all children.
Three years ago, I moved two amendments to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, which I am delighted to find now form part of subsections (6) and (7) of Clause 23. My amendments, now accepted by the Government, extended the abuse of trust provisions to learning mentors, otherwise known as Connexions personal advisers and personal advisers for children leaving council care. I welcome the Government's change of heart. The reason they have acted is because they now accept that Connexions personal advisers and advisers for children leaving care are situations in which the relationship of trust is particularly strong. Because of this, there is a potential vulnerability to exploitation.
I argue that this same strong relationship of trust is also true of supervisors appointed under the Children Act 1989 who have a legal duty placed on them to befriend children. When parents are in dereliction of particular duties, the court can make a supervision order under Section 35 of the Children Act. Supervisors appointed under the order may help ensure that medical care is obtained or help to provide access to friends or a non-resident parent.
A supervisor has a specific duty under Section 35(1)(a) of the 1989 Act,
"to advise, assist and befriend"
the child. That is the legal obligation on supervisors. Surely that is a strong relationship of trust.
Supervisors can be social workers or probation officers. My amendment also covers supervisors appointed as a result of an education supervision order—or ESO—also made under the Children Act,
1290
usually because a child is not being properly educated. Such an order may seek to secure the child's attendance at school. In paragraph 12(1)(a) of Schedule 3 to the Children Act, the duty of the supervisor appointed under an education supervision order is also to advise, assist and befriend the child.
The Waterhouse report noted that no less a figure than Derek Brushett, a highly esteemed social worker who later became the deputy head of the social services inspectorate in Wales, turned out to be a paedophile. He is serving a 14-year sentence for abusing children. If such a case is possible, surely it is reasonable to bring supervisors under the abuse of trust provisions.
At times of great emergency in the life of a child, a court can appoint a person to safeguard the child's interests under Section 41 of the Children Act 1989. Until 2000, these officers were known as guardians ad litem. Now they arc known as officers of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. The role of the officer is to represent the child and his interests in legal proceedings. In practice this involves consulting the child as to his wishes and attempting to gain the child's confidence. In extremis a child can become very trusting of those whose advice he or she depends upon. How could it ever be acceptable for an officer of the court to become sexually involved with a child he is appointed to protect? Surely there is a case for bringing them under the abuse of trust provisions.
My Amendment No. 160 brings registered childminders within the scope of the Bill's abuse of trust provisions. Childminders are in a position of very real trust as they are clearly in loco parentis. They may look after a child in the child's own home. They may do so several days a week. They will usually be unmonitored for most of the time that they are with the child. That gives huge scope for abuse. Childminders have to be registered under Part XA of the Children Act 1989. Failure to register is an offence. This, therefore, represents a clearly defined category of persons to whom the abuse of trust offence can be applied.
The NSPCC surveyed almost 3,000 young people about sexual abuse. Of those who reported sexual abuse by a non-relative, 2 per cent said they had been subjected to penetrative acts or oral sex by a babysitter. By comparison less than 1 per cent reported the same type of abuse by a teacher. Some 2 per cent reported voyeurism with a babysitter. Less than 1 per cent report voyeurism with a teacher.
In May 2001, a childminder was gaoled for a year for sex with a boy of 13. Ann Timmins, a 40 year-old, carried out more than 40 sexual acts on the boy, often while her own children were present. She admitted indecent assault and gross indecency. In September 2002, Brian Park, a registered childminder, was remanded into custody after pleading guilty to making an indecent image of a child and possessing child pornography with intent to distribute. His wife, also a childminder, had taken a photograph of a child in her care which Mr Park then doctored to include a sexual photograph of himself. It is true that not all babysitters will be covered by this amendment, only registered childminders.
In February this year, Robert Ireland, a 56 year-old, was sentenced to 15 months for indecently assaulting two girls. He had babysat for the girls while their mothers were out socialising. The two girls were aged nine and 11. Peter Hatchett, 23, conducted a campaign of sexual abuse against young girls while acting as a babysitter. He admitted 12 offences of indecent assault and seven of taking indecent photographs of a child. He assaulted six girls between three and 11 years of age over a three-year period. He also took more than 250 indecent pictures of his victims. Clearly, abuse by babysitters is a problem which must be addressed.
Clause 23(5) addresses abuse by teachers—a recognised problem. The NSPCC survey at the very least demonstrates that the abuse of trust provisions must also tackle abuse by those who look after children at home. It may be that the Home Office could improve the drafting but the amendment describes a precise category of persons—those registered under Part XA of the Children Act 1989, which lays down a detailed scheme for the registration of childminders.
Nannies and au pairs, for example, would be caught only if they happened to be registered. Not all babysitters would be covered but the measure begins to address the problem and does so in reliance on an existing statutory definition.
It is difficult to catch every person in a category. For example, not all teachers are covered by Clause 23(5). Only if the victim is a full-time pupil and the teacher teaches regularly at that child's school will the abuse be caught. I have tabled later amendments that will widen those provisions. But a real attempt is being made to address an identified problem of teacher abuse.
The issue of babysitters may be an even bigger problem. Clearly, some attempt must be made in this clause to address it. Some will say that childminders tend to deal with children under 16 where other sexual offences will catch them even without applying abuse of trust. That may be true but the point of the abuse of trust offence is that it works in tandem with other sexual offences in order to ensure that the abuse of a position of trust to facilitate sexual crime is reflected both in the definition of the offence and in the sentence.
The Government rightly do not limit abuse of trust to victims over 16. There is an overlap between abuse of trust and the age of consent offences and, indeed, with non-consensual offences. That ensures that the seriousness of breach of trust is recognised.
In any event, over-16s also need protection. A childminder may be employed to look after all the children in the home. A family with five children aged two to 16 might decide that the 16 year-old is not quite responsible enough to look after his younger siblings, and so employ a childminder to look after all of them. The 16 year-old is therefore in regular contact with the registered childminder, even though he is not the primary reason why the childminder is there.
I hope that the Minister will not set his face against the amendments. I think that I have given enough evidence to prove that they are essential. Such people are in very intimate positions of trust in many cases, and they should be brought within the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I added my name to Amendment No. 151, and I speak particularly to my own amendment, Amendment No. 161, which provides an opportunity to specify that sports coaches should be included in the categories of positions of trust.
The coach holds an influential position with a young athlete. In many situations, he will have the power to determine the events or competitions in which an athlete will participate, and indeed the athlete's long-term career opportunities. Many young athletes, particularly those participating at county and national level, will spend long periods with their coach away from home and from parental or other forms of external supervision. The high level of dependency that the young athlete has on the coach creates a high level of vulnerability. Regrettably, there is significant evidence that some coaches have exploited their position of power and influence over the young athletes in their charge.
The establishment of the NSPCC's Child Protection in Sport Unit has provided sport with a simple referral point for concerns about abuse of trust. The unit works in close partnership with Sport England, the Sports Council for Northern Ireland and the Sports Council for Wales. In the past 12 months, a number of sports have reported cases where an inappropriate and abusive relationship between an adult coach and a young athlete has developed and led to serious concerns.
Many young athletes participate in sports at a county or national level. Some 1,400 young people are on the UK world-class star performance programme, funded directly by the lottery. Young athletes need the protection afforded to other 16 year-olds and 17 year-olds where there is a situation of trust, to ensure that national sport can develop and provide top athletes without the fear of sexual exploitation.
The NSPCC has brought several cases to my attention that underline the importance of strengthening the law in the area. As the hour is so late, I shall refer to only two of them. The first is that of a 17 year-old national champion who reported a number of sexual assaults committed by her coach at the residential training centre, and at a number of international competitions. The coach admitted having sexual intercourse with her but claimed that that was consensual, and no criminal action was taken. Following her complaint to the national governing body, it was disclosed to the NSPCC that a number of allegations had been made previously by other female athletes, but again no action had been taken. The coach continues to work and the athlete has now left the national squad.

1293
The second case concerns a national governing body that received a number of complaints against a national coach by members of an under-21 national squad. The allegations were that the coach was exploiting his position and having sexual relationships with team members. Internal disciplinary action was taken, although again the coach retained his position.
The issue deserves a good deal of consideration in the Bill. I hope that my noble and learned friend will give some indication that the Government are prepared to widen the position of trust provision to include athletes and sports coaches.
Baroness Noakes: The amendments in this group were tabled by my noble friend Lady Blatch but they also appear in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Astor. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Blatch for making such a powerful case when the abuse of trust provisions were first introduced. On that occasion, her pleas did not result in the amendments that she sought but she is again seeking to secure them.
We support the amendments. The abuse of trust provisions are extremely important but they are very narrowly conceived. They are basically conceived only for institutions. While the most notorious cases of sexual offence against children—in the Waterhouse report, for example—largely concerned activities in institutions, it is important that the Act goes as far as possible to deal with those situations in which positions of trust, positions of authority or other opportunities arise in relation to children. That is why we support the amendments tabled by my noble friend. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, made a powerful case for extending the provisions. We also support that.
The abuse of trust provisions need to have the maximum possible impact on as many potentially harmful relationships as possible. That is why we believe that they should be extended widely. Amendment No. 162, which requires the Secretary of State to specify conditions for youth and community workers, is particularly important because it will allow an even wider group of people to be brought in.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, have proposed powerful reasons for extending the positions of trust in Clause 23. I expect that when the noble and learned Lord replies, he will tell us precisely what is meant by subsection (1)(b). What mechanism will be in place to widen positions of trust? We are in principle in favour of the amendments and in particular of Amendment No. 162. Whether it is right to attempt to specify every single position is a matter about which we should like to think more. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can help us in that regard.
Lord Hylton: I support the general direction of the amendments. I believe that the law concerning abuse of trust should be as comprehensive as possible. The Minister may reflect on whether mentoring, for example, is covered. That is a rather fashionable
1294
remedy for many problems affecting people under 18. No one wants to make recruitment more difficult than it need be in relation to responsible and much-needed posts and volunteers who engage in socially important work. However, employers have a duty to make clear to candidates for such posts and to volunteers what is and what is not a position of responsibility involving trust.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: These are very important provisions. It is worth emphasising that the primary purpose of the abuse of trust offence is to provide protection in the criminal law for young people who are over the age of consent—16 or 17—and who are considered to be particularly vulnerable to exploitation and abuse within an ostensibly consensual sexual relationship.
The drafting of the offence covers young people below the age of 16 but it is hard to imagine that an offence would ever be prosecuted in relation to someone who was under 16 because that would involve sexual activity with someone who was under the age of consent, and one would never need to deploy the abuse of trust clause because that would lead to a lower maximum sentence.
The reality of these offences, rightly, is that they focus on 16 and 17 year-olds. The offence is not designed to catch other sexual offending behaviour, such as sexual intercourse with a child under the age of consent or non-consensual activity which fall within the scope of a range or other sex offences. It is important to focus on that. One has to keep it within some bounds because the law has decided that with persons over 16, while trust should not be abused, they are capable of forming sexual relationships.
In determining the positions of trust that merit intervention by the criminal law, some principles need to be set out. We have been guided by three criteria: first, the individual who is particularly vulnerable, for example on probation or in residential care; secondly, the location and/or lack of access to other adults and absence of countervailing influence makes the individual particularly vulnerable; and thirdly, the special influence of the adult: the relationship is in loco parentis.
We believe that the categories we are now adding to the offence—Connexions and personal advisers and those supervising young people in the community in pursuance of an order made in the criminal justice system—meet the criteria in full. They additionally merit inclusion because the state appointed them and compelled the young person into the relationship not through the young person's or their family's own choice.
I shall deal with the particular classes suggested. The first, as proposed by the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is that of childminders. The question is whether a registered childminder of a 16 or 17 year-old should be regarded as in a relationship of trust which requires this particular special protection. Applying the tests, is the individual particularly vulnerable; does the location and/or lack

1295
of access to other adults and absence of countervailing influence make the individual particularly vulnerable, and is there a special influence of the adult? We believe that it is difficult to see that the tests are made out in relation to childminders.
Secondly, I refer to sports coaches. My initial reaction to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, was that they would not fall within the category. However, presumably without knowing what my notes state, the noble Lord seemed to hit the spot in respect of a large number of the criteria, particularly as he described a picture in certain circumstances of the vulnerable adult being isolated because of the control that a sports coach has. I am not in a position to give any guarantees or assurances to the noble Lord. We need to consider the matter. I see the force in what he said. I also see difficulties in how one defines a sports coach to try to capture what he describes.
Thirdly, I refer to voluntary youth workers. This is very wide. It seems that the three criteria do not apply as clearly as in relation to sports coaches. As regards the appointment of guardians ad litem or supervisors under the provisions of the Children Act 1999, such persons are outside the control of the child or his family. They cover children up to the age of 18. I fully accept the points made by the noble Baroness that in such cases one would try to establish a relationship of trust, particularly in circumstances where the child might be vulnerable. Those seem worthy of further consideration. I shall further consider those between now and Report.
Therefore, we shall consider sports coaches, guardians ad litem and supervisors but can give no assurances. On the basis of the criteria we are applying, voluntary youth workers and childminders do not seem to me to be appropriate, remembering that we are focusing on 16 or 17 year-olds. Perhaps I may return to the issues I identified on Report as they certainly merit further consideration.
Amendment No. 162, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would require the Secretary of State to make an order under the provisions of Section 23(1)(b) to specify conditions relating to youth and community workers. They will not be needed for the reasons that I am rejecting that particular part of the amendment.
On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on when the Secretary of State will apply his powers under Clause 23(1)(b), I hope that by indicating what the criteria are, I am indicating the approach that he would take in relation to it. In the light of the assurances that I have given, I hope that all the amendments will either be withdrawn or not moved.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: I find the Minister's arguments convincing—in particular, his references to childminders. It is almost inconceivable that a 16 or 17 year-old would have a childminder. If a childminder was employed in the household, it would surely be to
1296
look after the younger brother or sister of the 16 or 17 year-old. If a relationship were to develop between the older child in the household and a childminder, that would not be the state's business.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for the thoughtful reply of the noble and learned Lord. I will start with childminders, as they have just been mentioned. I count myself among those mothers who would not regard their 16 year-old as the right person to look after smaller children. I have three smaller children, twins and a single child. I would not have asked my 16 year-old to look after them. So it was not uncommon for me, and I suspect many other mothers, to have a babysitter to look after the children if we were not at home.
I must also say that, because of the lowering of the age of consent, if a sexual relationship had been established between the person babysitting and my daughter, or the babysitter and my son, and he or she was 16 or over, then that would have been entirely legal. There would be no protection whatever. I and my husband would have gone out, leaving this person in loco parentis over my children. That corrupting relationship would have been legal. I would have seen it as a corrupting relationship, because I would not have left the babysitter behind to have a sexual relationship with one of my children, whatever the age. That is an argument that needs to be returned to.
Regarding sports coaches, I am grateful for the Minister's response, because it is not just the instances cited by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester; there is a great deal of one-to-one coaching in the sports field. There are personal trainers and all sorts of special relationships. There is some impressive work, almost social work, taking place between some football clubs and schools, where there is a close relationship with some children who are perhaps not supported well at home, and the club knows about that. So I am grateful to the Minister. I am also grateful for him referring to the guardian ad litem relationship, because that can be a particularly sensitive relationship, at a particularly sensitive time in the life of the family and the child.
I am very surprised at the Minister's reaction to the voluntary provisions for community workers. I do not know how much knowledge the noble and learned Lord has of the field of youth and community workers. I know from my own county, and having been involved with young people for many years, that some interesting relationships are struck between youth workers and the young people who come before them. There are weekend camps, trips into the country, boating arrangements, sailing, climbing and walking. They are gatherings when, again, young 16 and 17 year-olds are in relationships that can be taken advantage of. If it was one's daughter or son, and a sexual relationship was struck between that person who was in a position of trust, then the parent would look to have some protection for their children—when they have paid money and allowed them to go away for

1297
the weekend in the charge of such a person. I hope that the Minister will not close his mind entirely on that example.
There are so many people outside the provisions that I have asked for. The three tests that the Minister gave—vulnerability, location and lack of access for young people in a particular situation, and the special influence of the adult—are three that I had in mind when I was thinking of youth and community workers. Certainly the voluntary sector, including people who take young people away on Duke of Edinburgh Award expeditions, are in a position of trust. Families, in good faith, allow their children to go away in the charge of these people, knowing that they will be protected. If they happen to have passed that magic age of 16, then there is no protection. Whatever happens, whatever sexual activity is involved, at that point it is a legal activity and I believe the parents deserve more of a guarantee of the safety of their children. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage, but shall return to some aspects of it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 10, line 45, at end insert—
"( ) an independent clinic,"
The noble and learned Lord said: The primary purpose of abuse of trust offences is to provide protection for young people aged 16 and 17 in circumstances where they are particularly vulnerable to be manipulated into an ostensible consensual relationship by an adult over 18 who holds a position of trust or authority in their lives. One of the positions of trust covered by the offence is where a person under 18 is accommodated and cared for in a hospital or private hospital. Amendment No. 152 is needed to ensure that the offence continues to cover all medical institutions within which healthcare services are provided to persons under 18. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 10, line 46, after "home" insert ", residential care home"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 154:
Page 11, line 5, leave out "full-time"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 154 is grouped with Amendment No. 156. Under Clause 23(5), teachers are defined to be in a position of trust only in relation to full-time pupils. It should not matter whether the pupil is full-time or part-time. If there has been abuse of that situation, both should qualify.
Most pupils study full-time. However, increasing numbers of young people study on a part-time basis. Having read the 14 to 19 paper, I know that it is the Government's policy to encourage that and to develop a more flexible approach to the curriculum between the ages of 14 to 19.
The Government wish to give more choice to young people in the 14 to 19 phase. Paragraph 3.23 of the Green Paper on 14–19: Extending Opportunities, Raising Standards, which was published last year, states:
"The current curriculum typically absorbs about 80 per cent of pupils' school day but its minimum requirements could be delivered in 60 per cent. We think that the compulsory elements within the revised curriculum we propose could be delivered in about 50 per cent of pupils' time, so creating significant space for greatly increased choice by pupils and schools".
So the core curriculum at Key Stage 4 is to be slimmed down so as to allow a wider choice of options to young people outside the core curriculum to be educated in other education institutions or to have experience with employers.
The Green Paper states in paragraph 3.28 that:
"Many young people will continue as now with predominantly general programmes. But increasingly we would expect others to extend the work-related element of their programme—beyond the minimum core we are suggesting for all—to pursue genuinely mixed programmes of study. The involvement of employers, including small and medium-sized enterprises, will be crucial".
There can be absolutely no doubt at all that the numbers of young people aged 14 or over who study part-time will greatly increase. Many more of them will study in school for three or four days a week and take extra courses in other institutions or gain vocational training with employers.
If this happens, under the Bill these young people will no longer be in a position of trust in relation to their teachers. They may spend most of their time at school, but not all of it. Because of this, they will cease to be full-time pupils and therefore be outside the abuse of trust provisions of the Bill.
The situation post-16 already includes substantial provision for young people to study part-time in sixth-form colleges or in school sixth forms None of these young people will be protected by the Bill.
To omit part-time pupils leads to ridiculous irregularities. For example, one 16 year-old studies full-time at a sixth-form college and is in a position of trust in respect to his A-level maths teacher at the college. Another pupil—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I intervene helpfully to indicate that I shall accept the amendment in principle for all the reasons that the noble Baroness is about to explain; namely, that between the ages of 16 and 17 the anomaly between full time and part time is difficult to maintain. Sitting next door to each other in the same class there will be some pupils who are full time and others who are part time. The definition of full time is for funding purposes and not for relationships with teachers.
In principle I accept the amendment. It is not worth wearying the Committee at the moment with my reasons why the wording is not acceptable. I shall return on Report with an amendment to deal with the

1299
matter. Perhaps I can show the amendment to the noble Baroness before Report stage so that she is satisfied with its wording.
Baroness Blatch: I was on my last paragraph, so I am very grateful. That was a divine intervention which I accept fulsomely. I look forward to seeing the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 11, line 6, after "receiving" insert ", and A is not receiving,"
The noble and learned Lord said: The abuse of trust offences are primarily designed to protect young people aged 16 and 17 who, even though they are over the age of consent for sexual activity, are vulnerable to being manipulated into a sexual relationship by an adult who holds a position of trust or authority in relation to them, and thereby has a considerable amount of power and influence over their lives.
Clause 23 provides a full list of circumstances in which a position of trust exists, including a number of institutions where children are looked after by adults. Thus, for example, the offence would criminalise a consensual sexual relationship between someone who teaches in an educational institution and a pupil receiving education at that institution. In an educational institution it is possible for some students to be over the age of 18 and for them to adopt a certain level of trust in relation to other students who are still under 18; for example, a head boy, or head girl or a prefect who supervises homework or detention periods.
It was suggested at Second Reading that as drafted the abuse of trust offences would criminalise a consensual sexual relationship between, for example, the 18 year-old head boy of a school and his 17 year-old girl friend who attends the same school. That was never our intention. We have tabled Amendment No. 155 so that the offence will not apply where A and B are both pupils receiving full-time education at the same institution. I am aware that an amendment has been tabled in relation to part-time students, but perhaps I can deal with that point separately. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for introducing the amendment. I believe that the origin of the amendment came in discussions that my honourable friend Humfrey Malins MP and I had with his officials before Second Reading. So I shall regard this as the Malins exemption. I thank him for introducing it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 156 to 161 not moved.]
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 162 not moved.]
11.45 p.m.
Clause 24 [Positions of trust: interpretation]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 11, line 25, leave out "regularly"
The noble Baroness said: It is common for staff or temporary staff to be employed for a whole host of reasons in the public services. They may he employed to cover for illness or staff who are away on training. Clause 24(2) states that a person in a position of trust,
"looks after persons under 18 if he is regularly involved in caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of such persons".
Clause 24(3) stipulates that the offender must be,
"regularly involved in caring for, training or supervising",
the victim.
Does that requirement rule out a supply teacher? Does it protect children from temporary social work staff who work in children's homes? I suspect that the Minister cannot give a definitive answer because the word "regularly" is open to interpretation. I asked that question at Second Reading and among all the letters sent to noble Lords who spoke in the debate, there was no answer to my particular question on the definition of "regularly".
Child protection should not turn on the definition of one word or be left to chance. My amendment would delete "regularly" because wherever abuse occurs in Clause 24, it affects all those in positions of trust under the Bill. The abuse of trust offences all hinge on the definition of what it means regularly to look after a young person.
A supply teacher or other temporary worker who abused a child in their care could claim that the section does not apply simply by arguing that their involvement with the child was not regular but occasional, infrequent or irregular. Some supply teachers work just one day at a school in a period of several months—but could commit an offence.
I am particularly concerned about schools because they routinely use supply teachers—never more so than now. They are not covered by the provisions in Clause 23(5) because the supply teacher does not regularly look after a pupil. Social work departments use agencies to provide social workers to cover for absences or staff shortages. Children's homes and detention centres likewise employ temporary staff.
The three amendments seek to bring temporary or non-regular staff within the definition of a position of trust in Clause 23: temporary staff who look after young people in Clause 23(2); temporary staff in children's homes in Clause 23(3): temporary staff in care homes or hospitals in Clause 23(4); supply teachers in Clause 23(5); temporary mentors in Clause 23(6); temporary personal advisers in Clause 23(7); and temporary staff in youth offending teams in Clause 23(8).
Some of your Lordships will remember the supply teacher Amy Gehring, who was in the headlines a year ago. She was cleared of indecently assaulting two brothers age 14 and 15 but after the trial owned up to having sex with other pupils. In an interview on

1301
"Today", Ms Gehring—a 26 year-old supply teacher—admitted to a sexual encounter with a 16 year-old pupil. She claimed that she had been too drunk to remember whether she had also had sex with a boy of 15 at another school at which she had taught. Gehring was quoted as saying:
"The chances are that I could have but I can't remember doing it".
Amy Gehring admitted her involvement with boys at several schools. Her case proves that young people need protection from supply teachers—just as they do from any teacher.
If Amy Gehring had been a full-time teacher, the boys would have been protected by the abuse of trust legislation. Only by deleting "regularly" can we be sure that supply teachers are covered. Other temporary staff in positions of trust ought also to be covered. When a young person in school is abused by a teacher, it should not matter whether the teacher is full time or part time. If the person is in a position of trust, they ought to be caught by the Bill's provisions. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: My name and that of my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever also appear against this amendment which we strongly support. It cannot be sensible to make the offence dependent on regular contact. The nature of the position creates the relationship that can be abused—and that relationship can begin from the outset of the child's exposure to the individual.
Lord Skelmersdale: I want rapidly to add my support to my noble friend Lady Blatch. On Second Reading, I said that she ought to consider bringing part-time teachers within the clause. I am delighted that she has done so and hope that the Minister is too.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I hope that I can reassure the Committee. What constitutes "regular" will depend on the particular factor or individual situation, but is obviously expected to cover not only the full-time class teacher or matron in a children's home hut, for example, the peripatetic teacher who takes a child for music lessons once a week; the supply teacher who provides cover during the maternity leave of the regular teacher; or the physiotherapist who treats a child daily during a short period of convalescence in hospital. The distinction chosen in the Bill is not between part or full-time, it is "regular".
If the requirement that the adult looks after the child on a regular basis were to be removed, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, propose, the offence would prohibit sexual relationships between, for example, a 17 year-old and the supply teacher who covers for only one day while the regular teacher is off sick. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, argues that it is the position of authority that is important. It is for her to consider whether she wants 16 and 17 year-olds
1302
to have that degree of restriction. In the Amy Gehring case, the supply teacher was, I believe, teaching for more than a full term.
As for the nurse who looks after a 17 year-old during a one-day stay in hospital, is there to be no allowance for a relationship to occur after the stay in hospital comes to an end? The intervention of the criminal law in such cases should be proportionate to the protection required. Would that be an undue interference in a relationship between two consenting adults? The effect of removing the word "regularly" would be to achieve that conclusion. As I said, the Bill is not intended to exclude supply teachers; the question is whether they have a regular relationship with the individual victim on the basis of their job?
Codes of conduct and disciplinary guidelines are the appropriate means of controlling consensual relations where existing requirements of the breach of trust offence are not met. To broaden the offence's scope would seriously undermine its true purpose and considerably weaken its credibility. It is a matter for the noble Baronesses and the noble Lord, but I earnestly ask them carefully to consider the credibility of the provision before they come back.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister can he sure that I shall come back, because his answer was hugely unsatisfactory. The Minister asks whether the young person wants that degree of restriction. I should argue it the other way round: does that young person deserve that degree of protection? I expect nurses not to sexually abuse children in their care. I am one of those old-fashioned mothers who regards her 16 year-olds as children. We do not send our children to hospital or school to risk their being abused by the very person who is acting in loco parentis.
The way in which the Minister dealt with the definition of "regularly" is highly unsatisfactory. There was no definition. There was not. I am a governor of a school in London. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who is in his place, will know of the problems in some of the more difficult parts of our inner cities—but especially in London—where people pass in the night. Teachers come and teachers go. In fact, teachers arrive in the morning and have disappeared before the end of the day because they simply cannot manage the tasks that they have been given—perhaps with a very dysfunctional class of 14 year-olds.
All that I am saying is that abusers are often fly-by-nights, people who flit from one thing to another. The idea that if abuse had taken place, people would be caught by the Bill only if they were "regular", in some definition to be determined in future, is not reliable enough. I shall certainly return to the matter because the answer was unsatisfactory. I am grateful for the support that I have received and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 164 and 165 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 12, line 4, leave out from "by" to end of line 7 and insert "Article 9 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Quality, Improvement and Regulation) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/431 (N.I. 9)) ("the 2003 Order") if in paragraph (4) of that Article sub-paragraphs (d), (f) and (g) were omitted;"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 12, line 8, leave out "53(1)" and insert "53"
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 167 is a purely technical amendment that has been tabled to make the Bill accurate. Clause 24 is an interpretation clause relating to positions of trust. The meaning of "community home" is currently recorded as having the same meaning as in Section 53(1) of the Children Act 1989. The reference should, in fact, be to the whole of Section 53. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 168 to 171:
Page 12, line 16, leave out "has" and insert "means a hospital within"
Page 12, line 18, at end insert ", or any other establishment which is a hospital within the meaning given by Article 2(2) of the 2003 Order"
1304
Page 12, line 18, at end insert—
""independent clinic" has—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, the meaning given by section 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c. 14);

(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, the meaning given by Article 2(2) of the 2003 Order:"

Page 12, line 20, at end insert—
""residential care home" means an establishment which is a residential care home for the purposes of the 2003 Order;"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Lord Grocott: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the Lords amendments in lieu of a Commons amendment, and the further Lords amendment to an amendment, agreed to.
House adjourned at four minutes before midnight.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Water Bill [H.L.]
  (Second Day)
  The Committee met at a quarter before four of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff) in the Chair.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): The usual statement was read out at the beginning of the proceedings on this Committee stage, but perhaps I should remind those who were not here that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting in the Committee, we shall adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and then return after 10 minutes.
  Clause 7 [Rights to abstract for drainage purposes, etc]:
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 22:
  Page 9, line 12, after "board" insert "or from an adjacent main river under the provisions of a current Water level Management Plan"
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment would create an exemption from the need for an abstraction licence where there is a water level management plan already in place. The Bill will require all sites to have an abstraction licence for more than 20 cubic metres a day. Where there are internal drainage boards, abstraction from rivers is currently managed under the Land Drainage Act 1991, which requires consents to cover abstraction.
  This is a probing amendment to discover the relationship between the water level management plans and the proposals in the Bill. Also, we believe that in some areas, such as those covered by water level management plans, a large number of new licences will be required. Far from streamlining the regulation process, those new licences would be in competition with the water level management plan. The imposition of the licences would not add anything to an already complex process. The management plans are negotiated at length and discussed with all the interested parties. That seems to be an adequate way of managing the abstraction of water because of high levels of flow in the river. That is what water level management plans are designed to address.
  The abstraction licences are appropriate where they try to impose a volumetric limit, but if the river is already full, we do not believe that the extra imposition of a licence would add anything to the way in which water is managed. I beg to move.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I offer general support for the amendment. If we have water management systems
  GC 94
  that are working satisfactorily under the existing remit without new legislation, should we change things unless it is essential? I accept that we have to change things from time to time, but in the interests of simplicity, if we do not have to change them it would be much better to leave things as they are, unless that leaves some insuperable obstacle.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): I recognise the noble Baroness's desire for a co-ordinated approach to water management, but the reality is that at a higher level the amendment would inhibit the ability of the Environment Agency to manage water resources sustainably in the future. The clause ends all exemptions. All significant users of water will be covered to allow for control of the total use of water when resources may not be as plentiful as they are now, given our expectations of climate change. The Environment Agency will need to be able to rebalance the needs of all abstractors and the needs of the environment. To exclude a significant amount of water from that would not be appropriate.
  We recognise the view of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that we should not change unless we need to. We have retained the exempt ion for transfers within internal drainage districts. New subsection (1A) achieves that continued exemption. That reflects our confidence in the ability of internal drainage boards to manage the districts for which they have responsibility. The amendment would leave some transfers of large quantities of water outside control now and in the future, when our resources may be more scarce. That is contrary to the purpose of the Bill. The intention of the Bill is to ensure that transferring water into internal drainage districts, for whatever purpose, is not done at the expense of the supplying river, of its users or of the environment that is dependent on it.
  We recognise the intention behind the amendment to ensure that water resources and flood management are more joined up. However, those two issues are covered by separate areas of legislation and are there for different purposes. From a legislative point of view, they are best not confused. The water level management plans referred to in this respect do not have a statutory basis. It would not be appropriate to use plans that do not have an explicit legal base.
  I understand what the noble Baroness is trying to do, but it thwarts the overall purpose of this part of the Bill.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I am sure that the Minister remembers my suggestion that he should give a pound to WaterAid for every bad pun in the Bill. What will be the relationship between water level management plans and all the other mechanisms that the Bill will bring in, and the Water Framework Directive? If, as he says, the water level management plans have no statutory basis, how will the people who

  GC 95
  are taking part in the negotiations about them know where they then fit in? Why should they devote their time to those negotiations?
  Lord Whitty: The water management plans for these purposes deal with flood management rather than water supply. The people who participate in drawing up those plans and managing the water levels understand their role. Transfers into the internal drainage board areas do not take place only during flood periods when there are high flows on the donor river. They could take place at any time. The exemption relating to the existence of a plan to deal with floods is not a relevant consideration. At all times the Environment Agency needs to be able to control all movement of water to balance the system, whether it is to deal with excess or drought or for ongoing water management purposes. The flood dimension deals with one aspect. It is an important aspect, but it is only one.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his reply, which I shall dwell on and see how best to achieve my purposes. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth Lord Livsey of Talgarth moved Amendment No. 23:
  Page 9, line 17, at end insert "; and
  (d) the sole purpose of the transfer is for trickle irrigation""
  The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to a specific situation—
  Noble Lords: This amendment has been withdrawn.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Perhaps it might help the Committee if I say that, although on the groupings the amendment is shown as having been withdrawn from the Marshalled List, it has not been withdrawn.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I apologise to the Committee. That was my mistake.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I assure the Committee that there is no evidence of domestic strife. I am sorry to disappoint the Committee.
  The amendment would add a paragraph (d) to new subsection (1A), which lists specific circumstances in which abstraction is allowed without a licence. I want to probe the Government on whether this is an appropriate place for special pleading on behalf of trickle irrigation. I realise that there will be a longer debate on trickle irrigation later, but I am bringing it up at this point to see whether this is an appropriate place to put in a special mention. We need to pay particular attention to trickle irrigation and prioritise it over other means of irrigation and other uses of water. In particular, it is used for food production. This part of the Bill refers to transfers of water. In some circumstances there may be an inadequate water supply. It refers specifically to districts. Trickle irrigation is a specific function to enable food
  GC 96
  production, which is a vital renewable resource and should be higher on the list of priorities than many other aspects. I wonder whether this is an appropriate place for a reference to specific circumstances for allowances for trickle irrigation. I beg to move.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Once again, I am slightly hesitant about speaking on this amendment. There is no doubt but that trickle irrigation is the most efficient way of using water for irrigation. It should be encouraged and it would be very nice if it could be exempted. However, large horticultural units can abstract large quantities of water. To exempt a whole class of irrigation might lead to an inconsistency in the Bill. Somebody using spray irrigation, who would have to have a licence, might be using far less water than someone using trickle irrigation, who would have an exemption. That seems a little hard. Of course, it gives the person using spray irrigation every incentive to change his system if that is possible, but it is not always possible. Spray irrigation may be the only way in which some people can work.
  I am hesitant about the amendment and I look forward with interest to the Minister's response.
  Lord Carter: I was going to make the same point in a different way. Paragraphs (a) to (c) all preserve the stock of water, whereas paragraph (d) proposed in the amendment would use it up. The noble Lord is probably correct that this is not the right place in the Bill, because it does not run with the rest of the clause.
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: I should like clarification of the intention behind the amendment. My understanding is that transfers of water within IDBs are exempt from the provisions of the Bill. The clause would be appropriate only if there was abstraction for trickle irrigation. I should like to press the noble Lord to clarify his intention.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I make a special plea for trickle irrigation because Section 29(1A) says that,
  "restriction on abstraction shall not apply to any abstraction of water from inland waters within the district of an internal drainage board".
  Specific exemptions are then set out. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, about whether this is the right place for this provision. Trickle irrigation is a very efficient method, but is this right place in the Bill to put it when one compares it with the other aspects mentioned there?
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I support my noble friend. We should like to see what judgment the Government think can be made. The Environment Agency may not make value judgments about whether food production is a more important use of water than, for example, car washing. We may wish to return to that theme. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has decided to add his weight to those who have pressed British institutions to supply, where possible, British

  GC 97
  food. We want to explore as fully as possible what weight is given to the importance of agriculture as a user of water.
  Lord Whitty: This provision is probably in the wrong place. The section deals with transfers made by internal drainage boards, whereas the noble Lord is thinking more of abstractions. Transfers within IDB areas will continue to be exempt. But abstractions above a certain level are licensable. Therefore, some trickle irrigation above the threshold—for example, the large horticultural premises to which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred—will be licensable for abstraction purposes, but this deals with transfers.
  If those transfers are to be exempt, they will be subject to the conditions set out by the clause. Therefore, adding this aspect to them would have the opposite effect to that which the noble Lord seeks. It could narrow the exemption to trickle irrigation by the drainage boards. It would be a narrower exemption than that provided by Section 29(1A). No doubt we shall return to the supply of trickle irrigation in general terms, but the amendment will not help the noble Lord's cause. He may therefore wish to reconsider it.
  The noble Baroness raised the question of whether the Environment Agency can make a judgment on these matters. It depends on what one means by a judgment. One role of the agency is to decide whether quantities required for a particular use are reasonable. That is not an issue of whether one use is more important than another, but whether it is reasonable to use that quantity of water for that purpose. Therefore, a number of judgments must be made by the Environment Agency in that respect, but they are not subjective value judgments in the sense that the noble Baroness refers to.
  I hope that the noble Lord will think better of the amendment and return to this matter in a general discussion on trickle irrigation.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: The purpose of the amendment was to probe. That has been exercised in the arguments which have been deployed. I refer in particular to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, about the differences between trickle and spray irrigation and whether both should be treated the same. I suspect that as trickle irrigation is more efficient it probably has pride of place. None the less, I accept the Minister's argument that the fight for this issue may not be in the correct place. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, wishes to say something before I sit down.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: It is not really a probing amendment. A better way to deal with efficiency of irrigation, rather than through an exemption in the need to have an abstraction licence, would be through a charging system. I am sure that will be picked up. One could charge a higher rate per cubic metre of
  GC 98
  water used for spray irrigation than for trickle irrigation. That would provide a great incentive to people to change if it is practical for them to do so.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. Without detaining the Committee further, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 24:
  Page 9, line 17, at end insert—
  "or for the purpose of alleviating imminent flooding or domestic or commercial property."
  The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 25. Amendment No. 24 is under the clause headed "Rights to abstract for drainage purposes, etc". I again question the need for any discouragement of people who, for good reasons, are trying to take water out of a river at times of high flows. I do not believe that spilling water over river banks or spillways is defined as abstraction. I am not sure whether it is the Bill's intention to redefine it as abstraction. If it is not abstraction, it should, not need licensing.
  In times of heavy precipitation, river managers will wish to open sluices. Usually they are used for warping or irrigation, but in this case they are to be used to remove water from the river and to alleviate flooding in towns and villages downstream. Amendment No. 24 is designed to make sure that that activity is exempt from licensing and that the owners or operators of those sluices are not discouraged from using them, bearing in mind that the Environment Agency does not have any powers to make them apply for a licence or use them.
  Amendment No. 25 would add a provision to the list of emergency abstractions that I am amazed is not there already. It would add the danger,
  "of flooding to domestic or commercial property".
  The Bill lists dangers to human life and health, quite rightly, as well as,
  "serious damage to works resulting from any such operations",
  and,
  "serious damage to the environment".
  One important aspect, which receives a great deal of coverage from those whose properties have unfortunately been flooded, is the necessity to have regard to damage to property. Therefore, Amendment No. 25 is designed to make sure that damage to property is also included in the Government's list. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: It might be helpful if I intervene at this stage. I think that these amendments are based on a misunderstanding. The noble Baroness assumes that the current exemptions are altered by the Bill, whereas it does not do anything to remove those exemptions relating to abstraction for the purposes of protecting land against encroachment by water, by floods or whatever kind of river overflow. The existing exemption under the Water Resources Act 1991 is

  GC 99
  retained. It applies to property on land as well as to land itself. All activities associated with the prevention of flooding are therefore exempted from the need for an abstraction licence. That is provided for already under the Water Resources Act, and does not need to be spelt out in this new legislation. Therefore, I think there is no necessity for these amendments.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for that reply. It is probably reassuring on the first point. On the second point, why do the Government need to list the emergency situation under new subsection (2A)?
  Lord Whitty: Other emergency situations could be lack of supply of water or diversion of water as well as flooding.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I shall return to the amended Bill the Minister kindly gave us and check exactly what he is saying.
  Lord Whitty: For the benefit of the noble Baroness, it is Section 29(5) of the Water Resources Act—to which I believe she has a Keeling schedule—which is retained and the revised definition is substituted in Clause 7(6).
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his clarification. I repeat my wish for a consolidated Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 26:
  Page 9, line 42, after "not" insert ", or is no longer,"
  The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to the associated amendments. These are minor technical changes. I shall go through what each one does. Amendment No. 26 provides that the Environment Agency can serve a notice on an operator that what started off as an emergency abstraction is no longer considered to be one because the circumstances have changed. That will allow the agency to establish control as part of its control over the use of water resources over abstractions that otherwise could go on for ever, having started as an emergency.
  As written, the clause would amend the Water Resources Act with a provision that could never arise in practice. Amendment No. 27 restores the current wording in the Act.
  Amendment No. 32 changes the number of subsections to bring them into line. Amendment No. 33 brings the definition of flood defences for the purposes of defining minimum river flows in Section 21 of the Water Resources Act into line with that used for flood defence purposes in Section 113 of that Act.
  Amendment No. 35 provides that the Secretary of State may delegate to a third party—the planning inspectorate—appeals against a water conservation notice, which brings it into line with other provisions in the Water Resources Act.
  Amendment No. 47 provides that where a variation to a licence is being considered at renewal, the variation element is considered as if the expiring licence were to continue. Amendment No. 63 ensures that a protected right is not given to the new abstractor where a transfer licence falls away by virtue of being apportioned. That is consistent with the policy that abstractions for transfer do not benefit from protected right status. I beg to move.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for explaining his amendments, which we followed happily. On Amendment No. 26 regarding the changed circumstance, are there rules already laid down—forgive me, I did not check this—in current Acts that cut in when an emergency is no longer an emergency or when circumstances change? If not, who will judge the changed circumstances and how?
  Lord Whitty: All previous legislation defines when an emergency arises but not when it finishes. There will necessarily need to be some guidance to the Environment Agency on whether it can declare the emergency over and therefore subject to the normal abstraction licensing systems. That guidance does not currently exist, but the situation clearly would arise as a result of the new Act.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for that, but I register a slight concern that again we are allowing the matter to be dealt with in secondary legislation. It will be in guidance, regulations or call-it-what-you-will. It is unfortunate that it is not on the face of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister might consider the issue and return to us at a later stage. It would help the Committee because the provision gives the Environment Agency—not the Secretary of State, if I understand correctly—the power to decide the changed circumstances either way. I am not pressing the Minister now, but I should be grateful if perhaps between now and the next stage we can give the matter some thought.
  4.15 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: In his reply to my most recent amendments about the sort of emergency situation that we might face, the Minister said that it might be not just flooding but all sorts of other things, including drought. That led me to focus on the title of Clause 7, "Rights to extract for drainage purposes, etc". What is included in the "et cetera"? What sort of emergency situations fall into the "et cetera" bit of the title?
  Lord Whitty: What a good question. Parliamentary counsel should be advised not to put "et cetera" into the title of a clause; "and related matters" would be more appropriate.
  The nature of emergencies is clear. They could arise from a lack of water, from an excess of water or because water is seeping through areas through which it is not supposed to go. In this context, we are dealing with emergencies that are, by definition, over. The Environment Agency will need to judge when an

  GC 101
  emergency is over. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, made that point. I am not sure that detailed guidance is appropriate; emergencies will differ in nature. The way in which the agency decides that an emergency is over may be subject to general guidance. The need to have a means of doing that, as provided by Amendment No. 26, is clear.
  Baroness Byford: I am happy with the Minister's explanation, although I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, that the use of "et cetera" is not good. Can I just establish the fact that, before the Bill becomes law, the decision on the emergency would be made by the Secretary of State? When the Bill becomes law, that responsibility will pass from the Secretary of State to the Environment Agency, so that is a new circumstance. If the responsibility still lay with the Secretary of State, we could bring the matter before Parliament. Once the responsibility passes to the Environment Agency, we will be at arm's length. Normally, we can question the Secretary of State on the Floor of the House, but we cannot call in the Environment Agency in the same way.
  Lord Whitty: The Environment Agency is already responsible for managing this. It is a new exemption and does not relate to anybody in those terms at the moment. In future, it will relate to the Environment Agency, not the Secretary of State. That is not changing the situation. In practice, that is the situation already, but the amendment will make it the responsibility of the Environment Agency in legislation.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No.27:
  Page 10, line 2, leave out subsection (5).
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 28:
  Page 10, line 7, leave out "warping,"
  The noble Baroness said: I rise with some trepidation about whether I have understood what it is intended that the Bill should do about warping. On the basis that I have got it right, I will continue.
  The Bill includes warping in the definition of land drainage. Other Bills did not include it. Warping falls into two categories. I discovered that the word first appeared ill the dictionary in 1799. There is "fortuitous warping", which happens when, after extensive floods, silt and nutrient-laden flood waters spill over the riverbank on to farmland. I know that the Chairman will be particularly familiar with that in Somerset, but there has been a tradition of fortuitous warping in many lowland parts of the country. The second sort is "managed warping" which means that, historically, sluices have been in place to allow the flood water to overflow the bank. It has two benefits: first, there is the advantage that silt and nutrients pass on to the farmland and, over time, raise the level of the land slightly, which is important in lowland areas; and,
  GC 102
  secondly, such warping prevents the floodwater from making such fast progress downriver and affecting villages and towns downstream in times of great flood.
  The Bill should not include warping. It is a useful and sustainable way of fertilising land. Amendment No. 30, tabled by the Conservatives, is sensible and, to some extent, addresses the issue. I believe that DEFRA and the Environment Agency have already had correspondence from the Association of Drainage Authorities, which does not agree that warping should be in the Bill. My amendment covers that point. I beg to move.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I support the amendment, although I have not seen warping done in our part of the world for a long time. It used to be a regular practice, and one can still see river meadows laid out with the channels all present and waiting for somebody with the energy to divert the river into them. Unfortunately, we do not have water-mills anymore, and, because of that, rivers are generally maintained at a lower level than was the case when we did. The water-mills kept water back for reasons other than flooding land. Because the rivers were maintained at a higher level to power the mills, they could also be diverted more easily into the channels.
  Now that water-mills have passed into the history books, the gates are generally left open, with the result that the system is not used. Environmentally, warping is a beneficial process, but I would be interested to know whether it is practised anywhere in the country nowadays. I suspect that we may be discussing something that has been consigned to history.
  Earl Peel: If, as the noble Baroness suggested, warping is a natural phenomenon that brings advantages, should we not keep it in the Bill? I can see no point in taking something out if there is scope for any environmental advantage.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I shall address the issue of whether warping is now a matter of history. It may have fallen into disuse throughout the country, but, as the Water Framework Directive comes into effect and there is more river basin management planning, more issues will arise about the sort of fertiliser that ends up in river water. There may be a wish to return to more natural forms of fertilising the land.
  The structure to allow warping to happen is still in place in many areas where it did not just happen due to overflowing of the riverbank. Although it may have fallen into disuse in the past 30 years, it might well come into wider use over the next century. We should try, with the Water Framework Directive particularly in mind, to consider the use of water as a whole. That is why I tabled the amendment.
  Lord Carter: The physical structure for the system that the noble Baroness describes might be there, but where will she find the drowners to work the sluices? The job requires great skill.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I bow to the noble Lord's knowledge, but I imagine that, if warping were to revive as a form of land management, people would have to develop the skills again, as has happened with hedge laying and so on.
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: I might be able to help the noble Lord, Lord Carter, by pointing him in the direction of a drowner. I am not sure that they are still called that, but there are some people in places such as south Wessex and Yorkshire who still have that ancient skill.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, water meadows are a good thing environmentally, so it is strange for me to be counselling caution in the use of warping. However, although warping can be an environmental benefit to a particular meadow, abstracting water to run through several meadows can deprive the donor river of a significant volume of water, while the meadow or subsequent chains of meadows are being filled. That would make the blanket exemption for warping suggested by the amendment rather risky.
  We must also look to the future. As has been said, water meadows will, one hopes, become more prevalent under some of the provisions in the Water Framework Directive that will be of benefit to conservation, so we could be talking about substantial volumes of water. I urge the Minister to exercise considerable caution with the amendment. Specific "meadow-explicit" agreements, if I can coin the term, might be a more effective approach than simply removing the reference from the Bill.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, was specific about some circumstances. Does she agree that the situation in chalkland areas, where there is a lot of natural spring water that sustains most of the rivers and where there are quite a number of water meadows, might differ from the situation in, for example, East Anglia?
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: The noble Lord is right to say that there are big differences throughout the country. However, there are also big differences across the seasons and from year to year, depending on the state of the ground waters. Although there are high levels of ground water and large spring-fed wetlands in some counties, they have a distressing habit of drying up in drought periods. It is only because we have a regulatory framework that covers everything that balanced decisions can be made.
  Lord Whitty: There is hugely greater knowledge about warping among Members of the Committee than I can bring to bear. There are two sorts of warping, and I suspect that, even when the mills were in operation and more water was held back, most warping was done in flood conditions. Effectively, it is controlled inundation of the land, when there is excess water, and, in that sense, it is natural. However, in those circumstances, there are no controls, and no controls are proposed in the Bill because that would be for flood control. It is in that situation, in the past, present and future, that warping takes place.
  GC 104
  If we are talking about the artificial provision of warping, there is no reason why the use of water in that way should be treated any differently from the use of water in other ways. It would have to involve a significant amount of water before it came under the licensing regime. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, we must consider the total environmental impact, not simply the environmental and nutritional benefit to the meadows immediately affected. Most warping is already exempt, and I am not convinced that we should exempt specific abstraction above the normal threshold outside a flood situation for that purpose rather than any other.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I understand what the Minister is saying. I think that he said that warping that happened because a river overflowed its banks—fortuitous warping—would be exempt anyway, as no one could prevent that. Fortuitous warping will not be included in the Bill. Historically, however, if it has been clear upstream that a river will overflow its banks and create problems downstream, structures have been built to encourage warping. Those practices will fall within the ambit of the Bill, but that does not seem to make sense.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness refers to fortuitous warping. Warping can happen as a result of a river spilling over. When it is used for flood-control purposes, whether in the immediate vicinity or downstream, it is already exempt. But where water is deliberately held back and abstracted primarily for irrigation purposes, there is no reason why warping should not be subject to licensing above the threshold when all other uses are subject to such licensing. It is not a question of whether the warping is fortuitous but of whether the water is used for flood control or for the explicit purpose of irrigation.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for that explanation. It indicates why a total river basin management approach is most needed. It will sometimes be difficult to define the benefit of the operation. Much of the time the benefit will be both flood management and field irrigation.
  I thank everyone who contributed to the debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for supporting a perhaps limited exemption. I was not sure whether the Environment Agency had the power to create limited licensing exemptions if the circumstances were not defined in the Bill. I shall look at the issue again. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 29:
  Page 10, line 8, leave out from "irrigation)" to end of line 10.
  The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment to find out the exact meaning of the phrase that we suggest should be deleted. I have read it many times. On the face of it, land drainage does not include transferring water from one source of supply to another. But transferring water from one source of supply to another mainly to augment the latter will certainly affect land drainage, possibly adversely. With that in mind, we tabled the amendment to clarify the Government's intention in this phrase. I beg to move.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I would welcome further clarification of what is in the Government's mind as regards this subsection.
  Lord Whitty: The overall intention of this part of the Bill is to bring all major transfers into the scope of the licensing regime so that there is a means to control them in future. That means restricting some current exemptions. Amendment No. 29 would allow the current exemption of transfer for the augmentation of water levels to remain. That would mean that a significant transfer could be exempt from licensing. I refer not to emergency transfers but to a general one within the internal drainage board. By changing the definition of internal drainage, as this amendment would do, we could exempt significant transfers.
  If we are to establish the Environment Agency's control over the whole water supply, the needs of all abstractors need to be balanced, particularly in times of reduced water availability, rather than simply allowing transfers by abstractors for this purpose. That is why we are restricting the number of exemptions and taking a more comprehensive approach to licensing than at present. Any uncontrolled transfer can affect overall water availability. We see no reason to retain that exemption. It would be possible under a licence, but that is not the point. It should not be treated differently from other forms of' abstraction.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful for the explanation. Transferring water from one source of supply to another does nothing to alter the total quantity of available water. I accept that it might remove it from one river where there is a pumping station for supply and transfer it to another where there is not. But I cannot imagine that the internal drainage board would risk moving water unnecessarily from one stream to another. If it moved water to a river of restricted flow that required help, that would probably he beneficial, because it would balance the needs of the two streams. I accept that there is a potential water supply issue. In the light of the explanation, I see that circumstances might arise where the Environment Agency would need to know exactly what is happening. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 30:
  After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
  "CONSULTATION ON EXTENSION OF SCOPE OF ABSTRACTION LICENSING
  Before the introduction of any scheme for extending abstraction licensing to warping or irrigation by virtue of section 7(5) above, the Agency shall consult such bodies appearing to it to be representative of persons whose business interests are likely to be affected by the proposed scheme."
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment deals directly with trickle irrigation. I expect that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, will wish to contribute following her earlier comments. It is a straightforward amendment, which would require the agency to,
  "consult such bodies appearing to it to be representative of persons whose business interests are likely to be affected by the proposed scheme".
  Clause 7 brings trickle irrigation within the abstraction-licensing regime for the first time. Although farmers and growers who trickle irrigate are not opposed to that in principle, they have genuine concerns about the implications for their businesses and how the new controls will be implemented. Trickle irrigation is a sustainable and efficient method of water use, but many trickle irrigators fear that their abstraction licences will be revoked or seriously modified, especially in catchment areas that the Environment Agency deems already to be fully licensed or over-abstracted.
  I have received letters from people concerned about the changes. I shall outline some of the potential undesirable effects. The importance of trickle irrigation to unsupported producers of high-value crops such as fruit and vegetables cannot be overstated when the upstream or downstream dependant businesses are taken into account. One soft-fruit producer in East Anglia who is heavily dependent on trickle irrigation estimates that his business contributes some £3.4 million to the local economy. A further example is a soft-fruit grower in Kent who has a wage bill of approximately £2 million. We are therefore not talking about people picking the odd bit of fruit or some vegetables. Without access to adequate water, much of that type of production could be lost.
  I received a letter from an organisation in We Norfolk area expressing concern about the particular plan for trickle irrigators as it stands in Grand Committee. It states:
  "Elliot Morley has stated that Defra are still considering whether trickle irrigators could be provided with time limited licences automatically when the current exemption ends. However unless the present rules are amended trickle irrigators have two years to apply for a licence in our case and many cases like ours, the Agency is likely to refuse on the grounds that there is insufficient water".
  Given our discussions today and in previous Committees, I accept that the restrictions will not necessarily affect all areas of' the UK equally. But it

  GC 107
  would be a disaster for this producer and his 64 employees. It is not just one producer and one employee, but a big rural enterprise. The producer's letter continues:
  "The Bill offers the possibility of the Agency granting a licence in these circumstances, but they need to be willing to use these powers, and what they really need is some clear guidance from the Government on how trickle irrigators should be treated".
  There is nothing worse for businesses than to be uncertain about those changes—as noble Lords who have employed people will know—and to be unable to make definite plans.
  The producer also gave evidence to the Environment Select Committee, which stated in its Ninth Report into the draft Water Bill,
  "where resources are scarce the needs of trickle irrigators whose use has been notified to the Agency must be considered equal to those of existing licensed abstractors".
  The producer states that he hopes that at Committee stage he will be able to ask the Minister to agree to provide trickle irrigators with an automatic time-limited licence so that trickle irrigation licences could subsequently be reviewed on a par with other abstractions as part of the catchment abstraction management strategy (CAMS).
  The industry has expressed genuine concerns. I know that areas of the country are affected differently. For example, I was speaking to someone whose son has a horticultural farm in Lincolnshire in an area that does not need trickle irrigation because the land is retentive enough. But dryness in other areas has a great effect on the crops.
  My noble friend mentioned that trickle irrigators use a good deal of water. We seek clarity and some steer so that those whose businesses may be affected can plan accordingly. I am sure that the Minister will not be surprised to hear me express yet again my hope that we enable UK producers to compete in a global market rather than restrict them and make things more difficult for them. I beg to move.
  Earl Peel: I support the amendment. Trickle irrigation will be brought into the abstraction licensing system for the first time. That is causing much concern among those who have invested in that horticulture system. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith pointed out that trickle irrigation was perhaps the most efficient form of water management in agriculture and horticulture. I am sure that the Environment Agency will bear that in mind when negotiating with trickle irrigators for the first time.
  We will return to the issue many times when debating the clauses relating to abstraction. But we must take into account businesses' levels of investment, borrowing and business plans. As my noble friend Lady Byford suggested, some of the businesses affected have made substantial investments. Those investments hang on horticultural producers' ability to extract water and use it for trickle irrigation. It is not surprising, therefore, that many involved in the industry are extremely concerned about their future.
  GC 108
  I wish to reiterate a point that I made at Second Reading about encouraging local food production. I can see that the Environment Agency could have difficulties if the Countryside Agency were actively encouraging local production while it found itself in the difficult situation of having to make a decision. But we must not forget that, if a horticultural business employing many people and producing a good deal of fruit or vegetables is put out of business because it no longer has access to water, production will be exported abroad, which will contribute to the balance of payment deficiencies on the product in question. A hugely important point is that that situation would involve the transportation of goods and would therefore create increased pollution. All those issues must be taken into account.
  In many cases, that will not be an easy decision for the Environment Agency to take. However, it is essential that the various issues that noble Lords have mentioned are taken into account. Given the circumstances and very real concerns, we should take Amendment No. 30 very seriously. I hope that the Government will accept it.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I, too, support my noble friend, but I do so in a slightly different way. Amendment No. 30 calls for consultation with representatives.
  "of persons whose business interests are likely to be affected".
  I should not put words into my noble friend's mouth, but the reality is that we are asking for rather more than that. I think that we are really asking for an assurance that existing users who will come within the scheme in future will be treated similarly to those who already hold an abstraction licence. We have already discussed, although not specifically, whether licences should be automatically renewed unless there are very compelling reasons not to do so. However, if a large or a small business is already a very efficient water user and the resource is already catered for, if not actually licensed, there should be a presumption under the licensing scheme in favour of that business.
  It would be another matter if there were subsequently an application for an additional abstraction, for trickle irrigation. That would be a new abstraction and could be treated absolutely fairly and squarely on the basis of whether there was sufficient water for that abstraction to be practical. I think that that is very different from the situation of someone who is already established in business and has the equipment and who has made the investment and got the system working.
  I think that there is a very strong point there. I welcome the fact that, as we are in Grand Committee, we shall have to return to this issue. I think that we need to think carefully about the wording of the provision and about what we really want. As I said, I definitely want something more.
  There is another side to the issue. Someone who wanted to start up trickle irrigation might have a neighbour who uses spray irrigation. If he could persuade that neighbour to switch to trickle irrigation,

  GC 109
  perhaps enough water could be saved to allow his trickle irrigation too. That would be an amendment of licence. The Environment Agency could perform a very useful function in such situations. I think that we need to think this issue through a little. I support absolutely the principle of what is being said, but I think that we need to determine precisely what we want to do.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I support the suggestion that we explore further the issue of trickle irrigation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that we may need to consider options that are more proactive than simply consulting. That point was reinforced for me by a leaflet produced by the National Water Demand Management Centre which includes a very useful map. That map outlines in red the areas where abstraction is unsustainable or unacceptable; in yellow, where no additional water is available; and, in blue, the areas where some additional water is available. As the Committee will not be surprised to hear, the map indicates very few areas in England and Wales where additional water is available. Indeed, vast swathes of the South East are marked in red.
  Bearing in mind that no additional water is available in an awful lot of England, it seems that trickle irrigators will be in a difficult position if the Environment Agency is not able to make a value judgment on the needs of agriculture as opposed to those of other forms of industry. I say that advisedly. Noble Lords may say that everyone has a right to their business, and of course I agree. However, I have been impressed by the actual amounts of water required by various businesses. Being a printer's daughter, I was particularly struck by the water usage of the Beacon Press. It now requires absolutely no water in its printing process. That is never likely to be the case for agricultural growers. Horticulturists in particular cannot manage without water. With new technologies, however, some industries that have historically relied on water have been able to change their systems to end their need for water.
  I believe that we will have to revisit this issue in one form or another. If the Environment Agency had a duty to consider the efficient use of water, perhaps it could start to make a judgment about the position of businesses that cannot operate at all without water as against those that could operate with much less water or no water at all but have chosen not to invest in the necessary technology.
  Finally, I associate myself with the remarks about the importance of the local production of food. I believe that that is extremely important. There is a great demand for, particularly organic, vegetables and fruit that is not being met by British producers. If we make life any more difficult for that sector, that demand will increasingly be filled from abroad.
  Lord Whitty: We have had a wide-ranging debate. However, this amendment is about consultation, which I shall try to deal with first. The amendment requires consultation before the introduction of Clause 7. I think that there is a problem with the
  GC 110
  drafting of the amendment in that it should relate to Clause 7(6). Nevertheless, the principle and proposals to bring irrigation and warping into the licensing regime were part of the 1998 consultation and review of the abstraction licensing system. The subsequent decisions, set out in Taking Water Responsibly, were published in 1999. Therefore, on the principle of the issue, we have already had substantial consultation with all parties concerned.
  However, if the question is whether we are having consultations with bodies representing users and others on how they will be affected by the changes and on the detail of how licensing will be introduced in practice, that is a somewhat different matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked whether they will be consulted. They will be consulted about how the Environment Agency will approach licensing. If we are focusing on that, that is where a commitment to consultation is probably appropriate. However, it would not be appropriate on the face of the Bill itself.
  We will no doubt return to the broader issues raised in this short debate. However, we recognise the value of trickle irrigation. We recognise also that it can be an efficient way of using water in horticultural and certain other applications.
  The arrangements will operate as follows. All trickle irrigators above a threshold will have two years from enactment of this part of the Bill to apply for a licence. At that point, the agency will either grant an abstraction licence valid until the next review, or refuse a licence because the abstraction is causing environmental damage and try to work with the abstractor to try to find a more suitable alternative. In carrying out the assessment of any licence application, the Environment Agency must have a duty to take into account the costs and benefits of taking that decision, not only on the immediate business but on the rural community as a whole. It will therefore take into account some of the issues raised in this debate.
  It is not true that trickle irrigation is always more efficient than spray irrigation—it depends on how the trickle irrigator operates his system. It is possible for trickle irrigators to use water inefficiently. One may think that trickle irrigation is always more efficient, but that is not so. Moreover, because of the amount of water involved, it can also have an adverse effect on other licensed use of the water which the Environment Agency would have to take into account. Therefore, the needs of trickle irrigators and the impact of their abstractions need to be considered against those of other abstractors.
  This is a new area for licensing, but there is no presumption that trickle irrigators will be treated any less favourably than existing abstractors or other applicants for licences. We expect the Environment Agency to ensure that decisions are fair to all, and it is under a duty to act reasonably in that respect. I have no doubt that we will return to some of these wider issues, as we will to the issue of consultation. As the

  GC 111
  noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has already threatened us with alternative wording, I have no doubt that this will not be the end of the matter.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: As it would not be proper for me to ask the Environment Agency this question, can the Minister tell us how the system currently works? In managing a catchment area, or whatever one calls it, does the agency take into account in its calculations of water usage and capacity whether there is already a large amount of trickle irrigation? It would seem a gross dereliction—and I am sure that there is no such thing—if a large water user, even one outside the existing licence regime, were outside the calculations of water use for a catchment area. I just do not believe that that is what is happening. If that were taken into account, it would reinforce the case for treating the existing user as the licence holder on his first application for a licence. It would be a roll-over situation rather than a totally new application for a totally new abstraction. We are talking about an existing set-up.
  Lord Whitty: I think that the noble Lord has partly made my case. Where there is an existing trickle irrigator, that irrigation has clearly made a contribution to the current balance, excess or shortage of water within that area. It will already have been taken into account in performing the calculations. It is therefore not a new situation. What is new is that, should the situation require, that abstraction will be brought with other abstractions into licensing for future management purposes. That includes a situation in which the overall supply of water and the overall demand on the water system may deteriorate. That means that large trickle irrigators need to be brought into that system.
  Part of the consultation has to do with how we apply the arrangements. In practice, most large trickle irrigators would immediately be given a licence. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to various remarks by my colleague Elliot Morley in that respect. However, the whole system, as well as the individual case, will still require the Environment Agency to take into account the effect on the environment and on other abstractors.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I do not think that there is anything between us in principle. I accept entirely that the issue has to be included in the overall calculation of water availability and water use. There is no difficulty with that. We are talking about trickle irrigators being in a rather specific situation because they are being brought into the scheme. For them, the situation is new and they must apply for a licence.
  I am happy that when all the licences are reviewed together in 2012, or whatever the date may be, the trickle irrigators will be part of that review. I have no difficulty with that. What concerns me is the possibility that their circumstances will be reviewed with their licence applications. We shall be enacting this Bill and that will not alter their physical circumstances vis-à-vis their water supply, their
  GC 112
  employment or anything else, but it will alter their legal situation quite dramatically. That is why I believe that trickle irrigators deserve specific information at that stage in their licence applications.
  5 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Before the Minister replies, I want to press him on the point about the map from the National Water Demand Management Centre, which states that there is no additional scope for licences in the areas coloured red or yellow and, in particular, in the areas coloured red. If there is no scope for additional demand, how will the trickle irrigators' licences be granted in the face of that advice?
  Lord Whitty: Where there is an existing trickle irrigator, the calculations that help to define whether the colour is red, blue or yellow on the map already take account of licensed and unlicensed de facto use. Therefore, the calculations have already been made. However, I believe we all agree that a new threshold abstractor should be judged against any other applicant for a licence. But, in terms of the map, the calculation has already been made.
  I also make the commitment that trickle irrigators will be treated no less favourably than any other applicants, whether they have been brought into the system anew or whether they have always required a licence. That will apply from the start of the new system. Therefore, although I understand the Concern—obviously there is always concern when one is brought into a system for the first time—I believe that no detriment will be suffered by those who use trickle irrigation efficiently. I hope that that gives some assurance and that more assurance is given by the commitment that the way the provision is applied will be subject to further consultation.
  Baroness Byford: I thank all those who contributed to this debate, which, by its very nature, was always going to spread wider than the original amendment. I do not believe that one could consider the amendment without going wider than the written words. Therefore, I hope that, when I have finished speaking, the Minister will say to the noble Baroness opposite him, "I am very grateful and glad to accept your amendment", which, at present, he has not been too inclined to do. "Not today", I am being told. Perhaps I shall try again tomorrow.
  I turn to one or two of the points raised. I know that they went wider than the amendment but I believe it is important to reflect upon them. My noble friend Lord Peel spoke, in particular, about the level of investment. I tried to raise that matter in my opening remarks. Several noble Lords spoke about local food production. I consider that to be a hugely important subject. Those of us who are concerned about pollution, which is part of our wider brief, are anxious to see whether we can achieve a greater reduction in what I call "food miles". Our food travels miles and miles and pollution is produced in the process.

  GC 113
  My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith—I shall come back to his comment in a moment—referred to the fact that the amendment calls for consultation. In reply, the noble Lord said rightly that the Government had already consulted over the years. He said that the results of the consultation were drafted in 1998 and published in 1999. Therefore, the Government feel that consultation has already taken place. However, when I read Hansard—I hope I am right—he went on to say that we shall have to consult now about the effects that the provision will have on businesses. That seems to me a little strange. I should have thought that, as part of the consultation exercise, the effect on businesses would have been considered in the first place and that that would be part of the original exercise. I simply put that down as a marker because I find it most strange.
  I accept that people will have two years in which to make an application. From what the Minister said—again, we cannot question the noble Baroness, Lady Young—I understood that licences would be granted unless environmental damage had occurred or unless there was a very good reason why they should not be granted.
  We then had a short debate on the subject of costs and benefits. The Minister recognised the importance of local rural businesses to the whole community rather than to the country as a whole. As I pointed out in the example that I gave of the gentleman, Mr Place, who manages a very good business, 64 people might well be put at risk. That number of people in a conurbation is a drop in the ocean, but when there are not many other options for employment, 64 people do not constitute a drop in the ocean. Therefore, I am glad that the Environment Agency will have to take that into consideration. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said that the agency will have to make a value judgment. Indeed, a value judgment is important and we establish that at some stages of the Bill.
  I am sure that all Members of the Committee agree that food is an important commodity, but it could be placed at risk. The difficulty is that if, as my noble friend Lord Peel suggested, we export our business—a matter that I have talked about often—then we become dependent on food supplied from overseas. Sadly, we all know what is happening at present in the battles overseas. There is no genuine and long-term guarantee that food will be supplied forever. If food costs were to go up, that would have long-term implications for the country as a whole.
  I turn to a final comment of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. He said that when the applications were considered by the Environment Agency, they would be considered no less favourably. I do not believe that that is what we were trying to establish. We were asking that they should be considered favourably. My noble friend muttered to me the word "meaningless"; I uttered the word "useless". But we have digressed, and the noble Baroness is rightly shaking her head. However, that may help us to establish one or two points before we return to these matters later.
  GC 114
  I return to where we should be, which is my reply to the Minister's response. I do not believe that the Minister replied directly to my request that the bodies should be consulted. Perhaps the Minister will reply to that point because that is the part of the amendment that we are debating and it is the only part to which he did not respond.
  Lord Whitty: I thought that I had responded to that point. I said that, in our view, the existence of that clause and the bringing into play of the clause have been dealt with by the previous consultation. However, as regards the way that the clause is applied in practice, we would expect the Environment Agency to consult bodies representing those affected by the changes and to inform them and involve them in the detail of the way that licensing would be introduced in practice. If I did not get that right when the noble Baroness checked it on the previous occasion in Hansard, I hope that I have done so on this occasion. To that extent, I recognise the importance of consultation.
  Baroness Byford: The Minister has always been very generous with regard to consultation. I am simply disappointed that, as he supports the thrust of the amendment, the Government cannot accept it. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 31:
  After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
  "COMPENSATION
  After section 61 of the WRA there is inserted—
  "61A COMPENSATION
  Where—

  (a) an application for a licence to abstract water to prevent interference with any mining, quarrying or engineering operations (whether underground or surface) or to prevent damage to works resulting front any such operations is first applied for as a result of the coining into force of this section (which has had the effect of making the above abstraction an abstraction to which the restriction in section 24 applies); and

  (b) that application is—

  (i) refused; or

  (ii) granted subject to conditions which result in the applicant being unable to implement or continue to operate any planning permission in respect of the said mining, quarrying or engineering activities;

  the Environment Agency shall pay to the applicant compensation in respect of any loss or damage which is directly attributable to the refusal of the application or imposition of the adverse condition or conditions, and the provisions of section 61(5), (6) and (7) shall apply."."

  The noble Lord said: I realise that this amendment was debated last week during a series of discussions led by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland. I shall give a brief explanation as to why I am here as opposed to the noble Lord. It is because he was looking at the Bill through the eyes of the Quarry Products Association, with which I have a friendly but not a financial relationship. I have come off the bench in his absence to look at the Bill from the same standpoint. In doing

  GC 115
  so, I declare a kind of interest. I am not directly associated with the Quarry Products Association but, as someone with a lifetime connection with the construction industry, I have used a great deal of the quarry industry's products while trying my best to cover the country in concrete. I am still at it.
  Having said that, I understand that, in order to make one very small comment on the amendment, I have to move it so that I can withdraw it. We were very pleased to have the assurances which my noble friend Lady Farrington gave last week. But, on second thoughts, we believe that Clause 25 may not fit entirely into the scheme of things. I do not, under any circumstances, want to debate Clause 25 now. I merely wish to say that at some stage in the process we may well come to Clause 25 and we may have to think again. I beg to move.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: We have one query about the amendment. We have debated this matter already. In her reply, the Minister mentioned that the Government proposed to make transitional measures to ensure that compensation would be available in the circumstances described in the amendment. Can the Minister tell me a little more about that? It is not clear to me whether the compensation payable will come from other licence payers. Has any assessment been made of how much the compensation would amount to if a substantial number of quarry owners were affected?
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The compensation would come from the total abstraction budget. Therefore, in that sense, it would come from other abstractors. The circumstances under which compensation would be payable would be where a mine, quarry or engineering works operator was refused a licence or granted a conditional licence and, as a result, could not take full advantage of any planning permission granted for that operation. That was the policy to which I referred. It is already publicly stated at paragraph 3.17 of the document, Taking Water Responsibly. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness's question.
  I note the interest declared by my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon and his warning that it will be an enduring interest. I note that he intends to return to this subject later, but perhaps I could offer to reply to any complex technical questions that he wishes to put in writing between now and Report. That might be more satisfactory and it would ensure that other noble Lords could read them.
  I warn my noble friend that irony in politics is not always understood to be humour, and in a debate on a Bill from DEFRA it may be ill-advised to refer to covering the country in concrete. Someone may believe that he meant it and not realise that it was a joke.
  Lord Howie of Troon: I did mean it. I am not up to irony. I thank my noble friend for her comments and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 8 [Amendments relating to section 7]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 32 and 33:
  Page 10, line 12, leave out "(5)" and insert "(6)"
  Page 10, line 13, at end insert—
  "( ) In section 21 (minimum acceptable flows)—

  (a) in subsection (9), the words from "and in that subsection" to the end are omitted,

  (b) after subsection (9) there is added—

  "(10) In subsection (5) above, the reference to land drainage includes—

  (a) defence against water (including sea water). irrigation (other than spray irrigation), warping and the carrying on, for any purpose. of any other practice which involves management of the level of water in a watercourse; and

  (b) the provision of flood warning systems.""

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 35:
  Page 11, line 29, at end insert—
  "(8) This section is subject to section 114 of the 1995 Act (delegation or reference of appeals)."
  ( ) In section 114 of the Environment Act 1995 (c. 25) (power of Secretary of State to delegate or refer in connection with appeals), in subsection (2)(a)(v), for "or 191B(5)" there is substituted "191B(5) or 199A"."
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
  5.15 p.m.
  Clause 9 [Power to provide for further exemptions]:
  The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 36:
  Page 12, line 29, leave out "cumulatively with" and insert "separately from"
  The noble Duke said: The amendment is in some ways a probing amendment. It would remove "be counted cumulatively with" and insert "separately from". What is meant by "cumulatively with"? Does it mean cumulatively in time or in amount? What are the possible combinations and permutations? I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: In the context of the clause, "cumulatively with" means in relation to amount. Under the clause, the Secretary of State would have the ability to make regulations to introduce further exemptions from licensing, which would lighten the regulatory burden. Those propositions could either be counted cumulatively with or separately from, so an amendment that changes one set of words for the other does not make a huge amount of difference. A particular proposition may be counted cumulatively with, in terms of calculating an amount, or it may have to he dealt with separately. The amendment, which appears to state the opposite from the Bill, does not

  GC 117
  alter the ability to approach each proposed new exemption on either basis. Therefore, I hope that the noble Duke will not pursue the matter.
  The Duke of Montrose: It begins to sound to me as if the amendment should read both "cumulatively with" and "separately from" to cover all possibilities. However, in view of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10 [Orders under section 33 of the WRA, etc]:
  The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 37:
  Page 12, line 38, after "made" insert "prior to the commencement of this section"
  The noble Duke said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 38 to 40.
  The problem to which Amendment No. 37 relates is that "any order made" may refer to any tense—past, present or future. Even the Explanatory Notes do not clarify the situation. The amendment would at least identify one possible tense, as it limits the time to,
  "prior to the commencement of this section".
  Will the Minister explain to us whether there are other areas in which the Government wish the clauses to have effect? My comments also cover Amendment No. 38.
  Amendment No. 39 is a probing amendment. The difference in wording between subsection (4)(a) and (4)(b) needs to be explained. Does the latter mean that local and private Acts will be ignored from now on in relation to "underground strata"? Some businesses depend heavily on extraction from underground strata, and it would be detrimental to those businesses if the clause were to create uncertainty as to source of supply.
  Amendment No. 40 is a probing amendment. Subsection (5) allows the Secretary of State to use the clause as authority to act as he would were he taking action under Section 27A(1) of the WRA. The subsection allows the Secretary of State to close the circle by using it to revoke something already done under Section 27A(1).
  My problem may be that my brain has become waterlogged, because I live in a part of the country in which our winter rainfall has risen by 40 per cent and our overall rainfall has risen by 25 per cent, so that we are suffering from over 70 inches of rainfall per year or, in round terms, two metres plus. However, the combination of sections would almost qualify for the elimination heats for the plain English campaign. Will the noble Baroness explain the meaning?
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Clause 10 gives the Secretary of State the power to remove exemption orders made under Section 33 of the Water Resources Act 1991 and to impose a threshold for abstraction licensing. It also repeals Section 33. Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 would not have any practical effect because Section 33 is to be revoked, so no new orders will be
  GC 118
  made anyway. Neither is it proposed to make any other orders before then. I hope that assurance satisfies the noble Duke.
  The noble Duke spoke to Amendment No. 39 as a probing amendment. We welcome the way in which the amendment deals with issues that we would like to consider. It appears that the amendment would remove a limit to the application of the new clause that would make it difficult to operate the clause effectively. We shall take the amendment away and look at it.
  Amendment No. 40 would set a threshold that could not be varied in future, which would seriously inhibit our ability to set an appropriate threshold for licensing in future should the availability of water reduce or, as the noble Duke said, increase as it has at times in various parts of the country.
  We hope that, with those assurances, Amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 40 will not be pressed to a. Division. The Government will take Amendment No. 39 away for careful consideration.
  The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for that reply. We are grateful for her clarification when speaking to Amendments Nos. 37 and 38. It is also useful that the Government are prepared to reconsider the subject of Amendment No. 39. I should like to read the Minister's comments on Amendment No. 40 in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 38 to 40 not moved.]
  Clause 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11 [Who may apply far a licence]:
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 41:
  Page 14, line 9, at end insert—
  "( ) he has a water efficiency programme which is regarded by the Agency as encouraging best use of the water resource;"
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment would restrict those who can apply for licences to those who have an efficiency programme in place. That programme should be,
  "regarded by the Agency as encouraging best use of the water resource".
  That would leave room for the programme to be proportionate, depending on the size and scale of the user. The agency has some discretion in that matter. It should be a basic requirement of licence applicants that they have some form of programme in place.
  I was encouraged in my thinking on this matter when I read the "Water Efficiency Awards", published by the Environment Agency and Water UK. Those awards show what can be done when sufficient thought has been given to the matter. We have discussed horticulture and agriculture in our debate. In that context, an award was given to Osberton Grange Farms, where efficient ways were developed for watering pot-grown shrubs. That reduced water

  GC 119
  consumption by 60 per cent and increased profits by 20 per cent. Of course, that scheme also introduced associated environmental benefits.
  On the same page of the publication, there is reference to a nursery that achieved an,
  "84 per cent reduction in mains water use through rainwater recycling".
  The nursery cut its water consumption by 58 per cent an acre. The scheme improved the whole regime and the quality of the nursery's business.
  The case for such programmes has been well made by those who have been motivated and brave enough and who have received awards. It should be a basic requirement of licence applicants that they produce some form of plan about how they intend to use the water efficiently. If they have nothing much in place in that regard, there might be a requirement for a year-on-year improvement. That may seem a little onerous to them in the beginning. However, the examples of businesses that have had efficiency programmes, of which I have quoted only two of many, show that considerable cost savings may result. That is what is known in the jargon as a classic win-win situation.
  I remind Members of the Committee, although they may not need reminding, that under the Bill small users will be excluded completely from the abstraction requirement. The Bill applies only to larger users, which are the ones that we hope will start to consider efficiency savings. Therefore, the amendment is important. I beg to move.
  Baroness Byford: I shall add a couple of comments. I hope that the Minister will not say that the amendment is not necessary, although I imagine that he will. I should not prejudge what he says, but the Government may he reluctant to add to a Bill of more than 200 pages.
  The noble Baroness gave good examples of how efficiency programmes could aid in saving water and help businesses. My comment is in the form of a question. I had presumed that such a programme would he required by the agency as part of the proposed system. That is why I wondered whether the Minister might be saying no. We support the better use of water resources. That is key for all of us. The more water we can save, conserve and re-use in other areas, the more it will help not just local communities, but the wider community. Does the agency already require that? I think I am looking at the Minister, although I am also looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I am not sure who will respond. I think it will be the Minister.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I support my noble friend Lady Miller. The use of scarce resources is becoming an extremely important issue. There are computer programmes that will help. We have seen them used for energy saving. Water is a very scarce resource in
  GC 120
  some parts of the United Kingdom. The amendment encapsulates that making best use of the resource is a desirable objective.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I do not want to inhibit the discussion in any way, because the knowledge that everybody brings is valuable, but I remind Members of the Committee that a member of an agency cannot in any way be asked questions. All questions must be directed at the Minister.
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, for that interjection. It is important for all of us. I recognise that I am not here to respond on behalf of the agency or to usurp the position of the Minister. However, I should like to contribute briefly on the amendment.
  First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for her kind words about the agency's water efficiency awards. However, I shall incur yet again the wrath of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in similar terms to the wrath that I incurred in the previous Committee sitting on the Bill. We are going to talk about water efficiency at a number of points throughout the Bill. As I said on the previous water efficiency amendment, this one expresses an admirable sentiment. We all want water to be used more efficiently for a variety of reasons—for the environment, but also so that there is water available for all the many and varied needs of water users.
  The amendment addresses the technical point of whether an application is made by an entitled person—I do not mean Members of the House of Lords; I am talking about whether the application is properly made. That is not the right point on which to be considering water efficiency. It would be more appropriately considered when we are discussing general issues of whether the licence should be granted, rather than simply whether the person making the application is the right one to do so. The amendment would add bureaucracy without necessarily delivering the water efficiency benefits that we are all looking for. The issue will come up on a number of occasions. There are other points in the Bill when water efficiency will be far more pertinent and could be more successfully delivered.
  Lord Whitty: We all recognise that when the Environment Agency is determining a licence application it will need to assess whether the applicant has a reasonable requirement for water. That requires an assessment of the efficiency of the use of that water. The amendment would make an undefined water efficiency programme a precondition. More clarity about what that means would be needed were we to amend the Bill in that way. Because the efficient use of water is a key element, we need to make sure that what we put on the statute book is the appropriate way of dealing with the issue.
  I suspect that we shall return later to how water efficiency is judged and the duties of the Environment Agency in considering licences. The amendment is not appropriate in its present formulation. It could lead to arguments about what is and is not a water efficiency

  GC 121
  programme rather than allowing the Environment Agency to make a judgment on how the abstractor was likely to use the water. I would not like to pursue the amendment in this form at this point in the Bill.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank noble Lords who have spoken and the Minister for his reply. By having several different amendments, we are at least narrowing it down to a point in the Bill where the issue will be acceptable. Maybe I have been misled by the titles of the clauses. I wanted to define who may apply for a licence with this amendment. I hear the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that it is better to consider whether the person has a programme of water efficiency later when their licence is being considered. I remind the Committee that we are talking about larger users, not all the small ones, who have been removed from the Bill. It is more appropriate for that to be considered as the first thing before the licence is applied for. That is why I tabled the amendment at this point in the Bill.
  By Report I am sure we will have honed down the perfect place for the perfect amendment to achieve what many of us want. I hope that we shall also define a water efficiency programme. I am sure that the Government might feel inclined to help us with that task. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13 [Applications: types of abstraction licence]:
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 42:
  Page 15, line 16, at end insert—
  "( ) the willingness of the applicant to have regard to efficiency and sustainability in their use of water;
  ( ) the likely effect of any abstraction on soil management."
  The noble Baroness said: We are on the same subject again, although in a different context. The amendment would insert in Clause 13 a similar requirement that an applicant should be willing to have regard to efficiency and sustainability in their use of water.
  The amendment is slightly different from the previous one in that it refers to the sustainable use of water. I am testing whether this is a more appropriate place in the Bill for such an amendment.
  The second part of the amendment is slightly more specialised, referring to,
  "the likely effect of any abstraction on soil management".
  That is a reference to some of the thoughts in the Water Framework Directive. For example, an applicant's management of their soil may have compacted it to such an extent that it does not retain water well and needs more irrigation as a result. Whatever is sprayed on to the soil runs off fast. The direction of the ploughing and any subsequent way in which soil can be managed after that all leads to a need for ever more water to be abstracted and spayed on to the soil to achieve ends that, were the soil managed properly, would require much less water. We have not debated
  GC 122
  those soil management issues so far, but I believe that we should do so. Were the Water Framework Directive part of the Bill, we would most certainly be debating them at length. I beg to move.
  Baroness Byford: I shall speak to Amendments. Nos. 43 and 44, which are in this group. Through the Minister, I shall also respond to the quiet rebuke of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for my reaction to her comments at the previous sitting. The amendment then was not about efficiency, but about conservation. There is a great difference between conserving water and using it efficiently. They often run side by side, but there is a distinct difference that we shall return to.
  Clause 13 provides for three forms of licence—transfer licences, temporary licences and full licences. Following an application for an abstraction, the Bill allows the agency to decide which licence type is most suitable for the applicant. The implication of Amendment No. 43 is that, in deciding the most suitable licence type, the agency should have regard to the needs of the business requesting the licence. The NFU considers it vital that the Bill ensures that the agency has regard to the operational needs of the businesses and the likely effect of any variation in licence when deciding which type of abstraction licence will be the most suitable.
  On Amendment No. 44, I understand that the Water Resources Act gave national parks special rights relating to appeals against decisions on applications, which would be of special concern, according to page 41 of Butterworth. The clause seems to suggest that these special rights will not extend to appeals on the agency's decision on the types of abstraction licence. If so, why the change?
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Clause 13 allows the Environment Agency to decide the type, number and groupings of licences that should be granted, based on the likely effect of the abstraction. That is the only issue relevant to that decision. Amendment No. 42 would add additional factors relating sustainability to those that the agency may consider in those circumstances. However, the type or groupings of licences are not relevant to matters of sustainability. When finally determining an application, whichever type is eventually issued, the agency must already have regard to sustainable development, which would include soil management where relevant. It must also take costs and benefits into account. Water efficiency is an essential element of considering the reasonable requirements of an applicant.
  I hope that the intention of the amendment is therefore fully met and that, with those assurances, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.
  The factor mentioned in Amendment No. 43 is already considered by the agency. In any case, the applicant will have a right of appeal against a decision on the type of licence if he believes that it will adversely affect his business interests.
  The national park authorities are currently involved in the appeals process for licensing decisions in their area. That is right, because the licensing decisions can

  GC 123
  have implications for water resources in that area and, in turn, for the nature of the local environment. However, their involvement in decisions on the type of licence, as proposed by Amendment No. 44, would have no direct bearing on that and would involve the national parks in additional effort to little effect. I hope that clarification satisfies the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford.
  Amendment No. 42 would add subjective matters to the determination of licence type, such as the willingness of applicants to use water efficiently. If the agency considers that water efficiency conditions should be imposed, it will impose those conditions and the abstractor will have to comply with them. I hope that reassurance satisfies the noble Baroness, Lady Miller.
  The Environment Agency must have regard at all times to relevant considerations. The potential relationship between the water and soil to which the noble Baroness referred, such as absorbency and potential run-off, will be relevant considerations.
  5.45 p.m
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for her reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 43:
  Page 15, line 16, at end insert—
  "( ) the likely effect on the applicant's interests of any decision to grant an abstraction licence, or licences, of a type other than the type for which the applicant has applied;"
  The noble Baroness said: The Minister said in her reply, for which I am grateful, that my request is already considered and that there is a right of appeal for someone affected. Who deals with that appeal, and on what timescale? Will the response be quick? I beg to move.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Baroness refers to the process of appeal to the Secretary of State, which the Committee considered on the first day in Grand Committee. If the noble Baroness wants any further details, I should be happy to write to her.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for that response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
  Clause 13 agreed to.
  Clause 14 [Publication of application for licence]:
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 45:
  Page 16. line 32, after "publish" insert "on its website"
  The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 have been tabled to find out whether the Government have updated their means of publishing information to take account of developments such as
  GC 124
  websites. Amendment No. 45 inserts the idea of using websites into the Bill in order to test the proposition. Amendment No. 46 suggests that the prescribed means of publishing should,
  "be reviewed regularly by the Secretary of State".
  I believe that there is still a requirement for advertisements to appear in places such as the London Gazette. Many noble Lords may regularly see that organ, but I am not one of them. The Minister tut-tutted when I said that—I am sure that the London Gazette is very informative. However, we should consider the use of websites and more modern ways of notifying interested parties of what is happening. Will the Minister say something about the appropriate places in which to publish information? I beg to move.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I support the amendment. This kind of amendment is almost in the nature of a hardy annual, as it appears at every season in every Bill. I remember it arising during the passage of the Greater London Authority Bill. We suggested that that authority should publish some details of its consultations and decisions on a website as a way of supplying sufficient information. I wonder about that.
  Nowadays, anyone running the sort of business in which they might be involved in water abstraction is almost bound to be computer literate. I shall immediately hear howls of protest and shall probably receive letters from people throughout the country saying that they have never seen a computer—such is life. Even I, albeit after a few years of drumming in this House, have had to become somewhat computer literate. I would not describe myself as completely computer literate, but I get by. I would have thought that, if the Environment Agency published on its website what was going on, that should be sufficient publication. For information of this kind, the London Gazette is a trifle antiquated. The information needs to be spread throughout the country, and my strong suspicion is that, in the provinces, the London Gazette is not widely distributed of a Friday afternoon. I am glad that the amendment was tabled. If the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, had not put it down, I would have done so myself. I am happy to support it.
  It is perhaps a little unnecessary to suggest that the process should be reviewed regularly by the Secretary of State. If Amendment No. 45 were agreed to, it might be wise for the Secretary of State to make sure that the system was working adequately. However, once he had determined that it was, as I suspect he would, he probably would not need to review it again.
  All the indications are that society is becoming more, not less, computer literate. If the publication of information were satisfactory at one point in time, it is unlikely that it would become unsatisfactory at some point in the future, unless someone devises a novel way of communication that we have not yet dreamt of. That may happen, given the changes taking place in communications. The information might come up on the television screen or something similar.
  Lord Whitty: The legislation will require the Environment Agency to advertise applications for full

  GC 125
  and transfer abstraction licences and for impounding licences. The way in which that information is advertised is important.
  We intend to make regulations that will provide the Environment Agency with the flexibility to use its website to provide the information, but we would not necessarily wish to confine it to using the website, as the amendment, by implication at least, would do. Other technologies—older and newer—might provide better or, at least, complementary ways of communicating the website. If we put the matter into regulations rather than into the Bill, we shall have the kind of flexibility that Amendment No. 46 was intended to provide without referring the matter to the Secretary of State. That is probably a better way of going forward on that front.
  Not wishing to be outshone by the technological frontiersmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I think that we must prepare for the future. We must also recognise, however, that some colleagues and some people involved even in this business may still be slightly behind the noble Lord.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for his contribution and the Minister for his reply. I do not believe that the amendment confines publication to the website. It simply adds that in and leaves open the definition of "prescribed way". As the Minister said, that is likely to appear in regulations. I do not believe that it is a confining amendment. But I hope that this debate will encourage in the review of the regulations the use of websites and appropriate newspapers, not simply those that have always been used, which few people now read. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15 [General consideration of licence applications]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 47:
  Page 18. line 42, at end insert "(but as if the existing licence were to continue without expiring)"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  6 p.m.
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 48:
  Page 19, line 2, at end insert—
  "( ) After subsection (2) there is inserted—
  "(2A) In respect of any application for the renewal of any licence under this Chapter there shall be a presumption in favour of the grant of a new licence, except where in the opinion of the Agency the resource is already fully utilised, or there are other exceptional circumstances.""
  The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 53, which is tabled in my name. It is unusual to object to one's own amendment, but I shall do that in regard to Amendment No. 48. On reflection, if the Minister is not persuaded to come back with a provision on Report, I shall propose the introduction of a presumption in favour of granting a new licence.
  New subsection (2A) states that the presumption should be given,
  "except where in the opinion of the Agency the resource is already fully utilised, or there are other exceptional circumstances".
  We are actually talking about the renewal of licences—where water is already being used—therefore I realize that I am arguing against myself, which is not what I intended. I hope that the Committee will bear with me as I speak to the amendments and interpret them as I hope to later. The amendment would provide that,
  "there shall be a presumption in favour of the grant of a new licence".
  It relates to the renewal of a licence; therefore, it is hugely important.
  It is important that businesses have continuity for planning purposes. The NFU is one of the organisations that believes that the Environment Agency should offer a presumption in favour of renewal, especially in circumstances where the lifespan of plant and equipment might be greater than that of the licence available. Such factors must be considered when making decisions on borrowing capital. The NFU believes that a licence should be refused only if the Environment Agency can show that the water resource is fully used. As I explained, that is the aspect on which I have a problem with my amendment, so I shall move on to other points.
  The CBI in its briefing expressed concern about how licences are granted. The British Soft Drinks Association, which I referred to during the previous Committee session, is equally concerned about the time lag on licences. It wishes us to consider introducing a 20-year licence. Soft drinks companies work on a long-term licence. They seek a presumption in favour of renewing those licences. When we debated quarrying, a presumption in favour of renewal was sought. So the amendment does not deal with any particular area; it relates to the general consideration of licence applications. We should bear in mind the issues raised.
  Amendment No. 53 deals specifically with the term of licence that one might expect or hope for.
  In our considerations last week, the Minister indicated that a 12-year lifespan might be selected. However, as we mentioned then, it is impossible for many businesses to work in such a short timescale. The amendment would provide for a 25-year licence. I shall be interested to hear what other noble Lords have to say about such a term. I might have proposed a period of 30 years or left it open-ended, but I think that the Government understandably wish to reconsider giving open-ended licences. Therefore, I understand their decision to tighten up the present procedures.
  Clause 19 imposes an expiry date for all new abstraction licences. Although no likely time is set in the Bill, initially the Government and the agency have suggested that they are contemplating a 12-year lifespan. As I have already said, if a time limit is to be imposed on abstraction licences, it is important that the limit is sufficient to allow horticulture, agriculture and other businesses—I include them all—to recoup investment in their necessary capital equipment,

  GC 127
  which, by its very nature will be medium to long term and not short term. We also had a debate about water companies.
  It is a clear example of the importance of giving adequate time limits. They can be seen in the process of many different kinds of businesses. If one takes a big business such as watercress farming, which is entirely dependent on the right to abstract water, most of its assets would have little value without this right. A supply of high-quality ground water is essential to commercial cultivation of items such as watercress. Safe, hygienic production standards are required for the cultivation of the crop, which is carried out on constructed beds, and associated works. It has a life expectancy of more than 50 years—one would not have thought so.
  The practice of one of the largest companies in this field is to write off its capital assets at 2 per cent per annum, which is equivalent to a 50-year write-off period. There are many other examples that I could give. Certainly, many have raised queries and concerns as to the possibility of moving to a 12-year turnover.
  The CBI is concerned about that. The Bill introduces a right to revoke a licence without compensation if it has not been used for four years. Mineral operators need to be able to plan their operations over long periods. They have given periods of 25 years and above in order to justify the high capital investment involved. That needs to be included in securing abstraction licences well in advance of any that may be required. A short time limit is unacceptable.
  We have touched on the issue earlier. It is sometimes difficult when one is working through a Bill on which, by its very nature, one keeps returning to the same argument. As I have tried to reflect, the amendment does not apply to one particular little group. It applies to the sectors that I mentioned and many others—CBI, the soft drinks industry, quarrying, water companies and farming. Their needs are very different. One would not have thought that watercress worked on a 50-year cycle, but one would naturally have assumed that water companies do, by the nature of their infrastructure.
  We hope that the Government will deal with the amendments sympathetically. I am prepared for the Minister to come back to me on Amendment No. 48. I shall return with a shorter version of that amendment, because I shot myself in the foot in arguing the toss on that matter. That certainly was not my intention. I beg to move.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I shall speak to Amendment No. 54, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Miller and myself. We have set out to strike a balance between environmental needs and the obvious needs of the operators, whether water companies or others involved in the use of water, who have to invest in equipment.
  GC 128
  There are several reasons behind our proposal that an,
  "abstraction licence shall be granted for 15 years".
  The principle behind the amendment is that the period is probably equivalent to half a working lifetime although for those who like me who have had the good fortune or misfortune to work for 45 years before coming to this place, one could multiply that period by three.
  The amendment is closely related to Amendment No. 55, which tackles the investment question, the write-off of equipment and the depreciation in value of equipment that may be installed. It also relates to Amendment No. 60, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Members of the Committee. It is an important amendment, because it presumes that licences can be renewed.
  I realise that we are not debating Amendment No. 60, but there is a close relationship between the two amendments. If a licence were granted for 15 years, there is a good chance that the licence would stand for 30 years, if Amendment No. 60 became law. I understand why the CBI and others have lobbied for a longer licence, and I note that Amendment No. 53—which was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford—asks for not less than 25 years. However, given that we have intractable environmental problems such as global warming, even if there is an almost automatic renewal, we should be able to review a licence after a period of time. Good reasons should be given if a licence is revoked at any point. I press the Minister, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, did, whether it is intended within the purview of the Bill that a licence should last for 12 years? We are really debating whether renewal should take place at 12, 15 or 25 years.
  Lord Borrie: I intervene from the Back Benches to support the amendment. On Second Reading I declared my interest as chairman of Vivendi Water UK, which is a water supply company. I apologise to the Committee for not having been present when some of these matters were debated last week. I support the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, particularly on the presumption of renewal. Twenty-five years would be an appropriate period.
  There are other amendments on the subject and I do not want to speak for more than a few moments. Having a water company interest, I am particularly impressed by the argument about capital expenditure and the impossibility of imagining that people will be willing to put the sort of money that is needed into the infrastructure without an adequate period within which the money can be recovered. That is a strong argument for a lengthy period of licence.
  I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has said and I hope that the Government will offer some help.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It would help me in responding if Members of the Committee could stick to the amendments in the group. I am getting slightly confused, because people are now speaking to

  GC 129
  a wider group. As the Government Whip, I am happy if Members of the Committee wish to group 12 amendments together.
  Lord Howie of Troon: One of the worrying aspects of the Bill from my standpoint, which I mentioned earlier, is that a large part of it deals with the abstraction of water to be used as water, although there are other elements in the Bill as well, such as abstracting water as drainage from deep excavation. Westminster Tube Station might be an example of that.
  Many years ago I was engaged at the entrance loch to Grangemouth harbour on the River Forth. It was a big project consisting of two parallel lines of caissons with a coffer dam at each end. This left inside a quadrangle a very big hole, after excavating the soil, which filled with water. That is no use if you are trying to build something at the bottom of it. We de-watered the hole, and in so doing we reduced the water table on the outside of the hole, which disturbed some of the buildings around the harbour—or at any rate caused them some alarm. We then put the water back into the outside at the same time as we were taking it out from the inside. Engineers do that kind of thing because they think it is useful, but it does not fit this Bill terribly well.
  Something similar applies in draining a quarry. You take the water out of the quarry because you have to do the workings and you put it somewhere else—probably back into the aquifer nearby or into some other nearby water course— without having used it. You have just shifted it over a bit.
  When you deal with a quarry, you have a problem. You have planning permissions for the abstraction of the rock, gravel, sand or whatever it happens to be, and, under the new proposal, you will need a licence for the removal of the water. That is fine as far as it goes, except that the lifetime of a quarry might be very long. I am acquainted with quarries which have been there— and are still working — all my life, which is now a considerable time.
  A problem arises if the licence to de-water does not coincide with the planning permission. Twelve years has been suggested. Twelve years is hopeless for a quarry that might last for 50 years, 60 years or even longer. Fifteen years has been suggested. It is an improvement, but only a trivial one. Twenty-five years is beginning to look right, but only like half the thing. What really is required is for the extent of the licence to be as long as or nearly as long as the extent of the planning permission. Therefore, for the kind of reasons put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, the quarrying companies can invest, plan ahead and run their businesses in a proper capitalistic manner.
  I hope that the Minister will pay some attention to Amendment No. 54A, which stands in my name. We hope that whatever happens there will be a substantial opportunity for appeal against the length of a licence.
  6.15 p.m.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the Committee, but, like other Members of the Committee, I have to cut myself into two and attend the Select Committee on Economic Affairs, which is dealing with minor matters such as Finance Bills. However, I came into the Committee and thought, "Goodness gracious, there is some repetition", because we dealt with quarrying last Thursday, which was highly educational and very interesting.
  I return to the point. I support absolutely the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, who spoke on this point as chairman of Vivendi. I also must declare an interest as a director—not a chairman—of a water-only company. The position must be stated that since the privatisation of the water industry there is a regulatory procedure whereby Ofwat will allow a certain amount against investment. However, if Ofwat allows investment and takes it on board that the infrastructure produced by water companies will last, say, 30 years, not in its wildest days would it allow water companies to write it off against five, 10 or even 15 years. The Government must try and get their head around this. The investment requirement in terms of length of investment and return on investment is huge in this industry, and in particular in the water supply industry.
  As I mentioned in my Second Reading speech on the issue, thankfully we still have Victorian pipes, which are 150 years old. Indeed, some of the wonderful investments made in the 1960s in PVC pipes now have to be replaced because they are not as good as the Victorian ones. Such problems have arisen with the infrastructure, and no one is really aware of them. I hope that DEFRA will keep close to the people who actually know the ins and outs and the problems of the infrastructure. That is not special pleading, it is pleading on behalf of all of us as water consumers. The last thing we want is to have no water running out of our taps.
  Earl Peel: I support my noble friend Lady Byford's amendment, Amendment No. 48. I am glad that my noble friend has confirmed that she appears to have got herself into some muddle over the amendment. I have read it more times than I care to recall and I still cannot make any sense of it. I thoroughly support and understand the principles that my noble friend is getting at; that is, a presumption of renewal.
  We had an extensive debate on Amendment No. 30. We addressed the need for consultation. If there was a presumption in favour of renewal, to a large extent Amendment No. 30 would be negated. One other key issue is that if an amendment to the effect that my noble friend seeks could be accepted, it would require the Environment Agency to explain carefully and in a robust fashion why a licence was not going to be given. That would be quite an advantage. It would add transparency to the way that the operation was going to be conducted. In essence, I am very much behind what my noble friend is trying to extract with Amendment No. 48.

  GC 131
  I briefly speak to Amendment No. 53. We have had clear examples from a number of noble Lords as to how the 12-year lifetime for licences simply will not be enough for businesses to invest with confidence. My noble friend suggested 25 years. I suspect that at the end of the day there will have to be some degree of flexibility. Clearly, 12 years is not enough, and 25 years is probably more than enough in most cases. To hold it firmly at 12 years will quite frankly not be acceptable.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I shall keep my remarks about the length of the licence and associated investments for later amendments. I wish to make some remarks on Amendment No. 54A, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howie. It is a particularly sensible amendment, given the complexity for planning authorities trying to weigh up all the different issues. I have in mind, for example, the issues surrounding Whatley Quarry's extension in Somerset. Those were whether it would be able to quarry extra minerals and the feared effects on waters as far away as under the city of Bath, which, obviously, is dependent on its spa waters, having recently invested considerably in renewing its ancient system.
  If planning permission is not tied in with the length of abstraction licence granted, it could lay the ground for the payment of compensation where a planning permission was granted but could not be fully effected because, for example, the period of water abstraction licence was too short. I think the Minister earlier said that a payment would have to be made by other licence abstractors, which seems particularly unfair on them. It is not their fault that the two permissions were not coterminous. Therefore, I very much support the spirit of the amendment.
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: I comment briefly on Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 in order to highlight how there are considerable investments in assets by water companies and others that do not seem to cause problems in terms of renewal of discharge licences as well as abstraction licences. Previously in Committee and at Second Reading, I drew a parallel with licences granted to sewage undertakers on discharges, which are reviewed at between four and six-year intervals without any difficulty. Indeed, the water resources strategies that are drawn up between the economic and environmental regulators of the water industries with the water industry are, I think, an extremely good 25-year framework for such issues to be worked through.
  The Water Framework Directive will set a rolling six-year review period and therefore 12 years seems a sensible balance between the concerns of people about long-term assets and the needs of the Water Framework Directive.
  GC 132
  I also comment on Amendment No. 54A, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon. I shall probably repeat what I said when the issue arose when last we were in Committee. However, he was not here to hear it in person, so I shall say it again.
  Lord Howie of Troon: I read it.
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: There is no doubt that planning permission for mineral workings and for quarries can take an extremely long time and in some cases are not time-limited, or they are dependent on aged minerals permissions of which it is difficult to see the origins. Quarry and mineral de-watering is also incredibly unpredictable as quarries expand and go deeper. The new point that I want to raise with the noble Lord is that, if quarry de-watering is simply going to return water to the environment in the way he described with the hole in Scotland, I suggest that he need not be concerned about the withdrawal of the licence because it demonstrably would not have an impact on the environment—if indeed what he describes is the situation that was being licensed.
  Lord Howie of Troon: If that was so, then what is my noble friend worried about?
  Lord Dixon-Smith: The problem we face is that we have a country with a growing population, we have a growing economy, and, although unquestionably there are economies and efficiencies which can be made in the use of water, the likelihood and the reality is that water consumption will increase. The issue is how we deal with it.
  One thing that bothers me about the whole licensing regime is that most of major water infrastructure in the country was produced long before licences were even thought about. We see the licensing regime as a means of managing the water supply. It may be; it is a tool. But the real question we must ask ourselves, and which we have not really addressed is this: what we are going to do to enhance the volume of usable water? There is a great deal of usable water and we let an awful lot of it run out to sea.
  If we return from that broad perspective to a specific catchment area, which is finding itself in difficulty, the real question we must ask is: do we start to restrict users, who have a jolly good reason for needing the water, or do we tackle the problem from the other end and see what we can do to enhance supply? That is the big issue that really lies behind the questions raised by so many Members of the Committee who have already spoken. I am very grateful for the words, in particular those of the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Howie, and of my noble friend Lady O'Cathain in making this point.
  What worries me a little is that if the licensing regime is seen as a tool for managing water, we may miss the real point, which is how we enhance the required volume of water. If one asks that question, then one finds oneself in slightly difficult territory because the question is: whose responsibility is that? We can say that perhaps it goes with the major water utilities. But their real interest now is to provide for their own

  GC 133
  security of supply. I am not quite sure whether their remit—and perhaps the Minister in his response will reassure me on this—really runs to this wider issue of enhancing the national available water resource, because there is plenty of water there but we do not do perhaps enough to conserve it.
  When we come back to how we deal with that problem, we come hack to the huge timescale mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. There is a 20-year planning process that must be gone through, before we can begin to find major solutions, such as Rutland Water or Graffham or whatever it is now called. That issue must be faced. If such solutions are to be found, people will need certainty.
  We can review what happens in a catchment area every 12 years, or we can review it every six years, but we do not need to review the licences as part of that process. The licences can continue. They are the measure of the demand that must be met. Fiddling around and withdrawing licences or reducing amounts by 5 per cent because an area is under pressure is not the solution. If an area is coming under pressure, the solution is to enhance the available water. That is the approach that we must adopt.
  One accepts that global warming might make the situation impossible. I went to a fort in Oman that was in pristine—almost unused—condition. It was built for defensive reasons when there was a jolly good water supply, but, within only a few years, the water went and the area became desert, leaving that magnificent building useless. If we had that sort of shift, there would be nothing that the Environment Agency could to about it, and I would not blame it. Going by the projections about global warming that I have heard, I am concerned that it is likely that precipitation will increase. It will become more seasonal and more freaky. If that is the case, it enhances my argument.
  We must think about security of available water. That is the big issue that lies behind the amendments. I support what has been said. It is not sensible to have licences lasting for 12 years. We shall come to the question of the presumption of renewal later.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I must respond to the debate on Amendment No. 54.
  The problem is that we have different types of water user and different types of industry consuming water. We have been discussing depreciation, in one sense, and I can give a few examples. In the Elan Valley complex, which supplies Birmingham, the pipes are 100 years old and are still in use, although, by accounting methods, they were written off some time ago. There may be some mileage in examining accounting conventions for depreciation. For example, the water bottling industry may have equipment that can be written off over a 25-year period. There may be other industries connected with water for which shorter periods would apply.
  We must not neglect advances in technology. After all, in accounting or business, it is not always a good thing to write off equipment over a long time. In some
  GC 134
  industries, there are grants made as tax allowances that depend on the short-term writing-off of equipment, so that industries can keep up with technology. There may be a case for publication—it is only an idea—of an accounting convention for different parts of the water industry that could be related to licences. That is particularly important.
  I make one other point. At the time of water privatisation, the assets of the water industry were reduced from £30 billion to £7 billion—at a stroke.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I begin by thanking noble Lords for eventually dealing with the group before us. To the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I say what, I believe, I said in answer to a point raised on the first day in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain: the Environment Agency has responsibility for water resource management in total. I stress that it is not a case of either/or; it is both that and many other things as well.
  In spite of all that has been said, the Water Bill does not fix the duration of any new abstraction licences. It simply requires that a time limit be placed on licences. It does not prescribe. There is a clear presumption of renewal, as set out in Taking Water Responsibly.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, admitted that there were some difficulties with Amendment No. 48. It would significantly limit the ability of the Environment Agency to refuse to renew a licence to a very narrow set of circumstances and would affect its ability to manage our water resources sustain ably. The agency has set out three tests for a request for renewal: environmental sustainability must not be in question; the need for the licence must be demonstrated; and water extracted under the licence is being and will be used efficiently. The agency will determine whether environmental sustainability is in question. In certain circumstances and if there are concerns about local conditions, the applicant may be required to supply supporting information. Demonstrating that the water is used efficiently and that there is continued justification of need will depend on the provision of information.
  The agency is required to give reasons for decisions, in cases in which a licence is granted or not granted or departs in any material way from the form in which it was sought. That said, a presumption of renewal will apply to all time-limited licences. That commitment was given by the Government and by the agency in its recent guidance. Time limits are there to provide an opportunity for review in the light of climate change. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, made the point that there could be dramatic change over a certain period, but the 25-year option would be too long to allow such changes to be taken properly into account. Having said that, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, that the 12-year period is not fixed either. Other durations are allowed. If, as I have said, an applicant objects to the duration, not only is there a right of appeal but the agency must have considered costs and benefits in the licence that it granted.

  GC 135
  We worry that it would be dangerous to stipulate the duration of licences in the Bill. Licences could be of longer or shorter duration, or there may need to be investigations over a few years. As the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said, flexibility is necessary. We believe that we have built that flexibility into the Bill. It is up to the Environment Agency, as the licensing authority, to decide on duration case by case. Incorporating a criterion such as a minimum duration, as proposed in Amendment No. 53, or a fixed period, as proposed in Amendment No. 54, could override other criteria, to the disadvantage of all.
  Amendment No. 54 would remove from the Environment Agency the responsibility for determining the time limit to apply to all licences for de-watering activities. I reassure my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon that quarry and mine operators will have the same opportunities as other abstractors to submit to the Environment Agency a business case in support of their application. That business case could address issues relating to the proposed lifespan of the licence. The time restriction on the operator would form part of the submission, which the agency must take into account.
  I was fascinated by my noble friend's account of his experience of the return of water to the same source. However, although it is not a common experience, if de-watering in mining has taken place, it is not always possible to return the water to the source from which it came, although the total water available to the community may be the same at the end of the process. I think that that was the point that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, who spoke of the impact on other abstractors of quarrying in a situation in which there could be a dramatic change in the water table. That is why the Environment Agency should have the opportunity to take into account all those factors.
  The lifetime of the infrastructure inseparably associated with the authorisation will extend over the exact and desired period of validity. That is one of the choices that the Government insisted in Taking Water Responsibly must be included. The agency's original guidance, Managing Water Abstraction, published in 2001, picked that up, along with the various points that it used in support.
  Throughout our debates, noble Lords have expressed concerns—occasionally, they are opposing concerns—that have equal validity. That underlines the need for the Environment Agency to have the flexibility to meet the diverse circumstances that arise. I hope that my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon will join us later on, because I am sure that he will learn that there is a wide range of knowledge here and the diversity that has underlain this debate will also be a feature of later stages.
  Earl Peel: I am not certain where the figure of 12 years came from. It may be a recommendation that emanated from some government advisory document.
  GC 136
  I suggest that, if 12 years is written down somewhere, it should be removed, and some flexibility should be built into the guidelines.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I believe that it is two review periods that are indicated. As I said, there is enormous scope for variation in the licences issued. Each case must be considered on its merits.
  Earl Peel: I accept that, but the point that I am trying to make is that the flexibility on which the noble Baroness puts such stress—I concur with that— is being undermined by the figure of 12 years that seems to have emerged. We seem to be getting stuck on it. Can the noble Baroness assure us that that figure can be eliminated?
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: There must be a deemed review period, in order for people to have a working strategy. There is enormous value in not going through the Bill and trying to dot every "i" and cross every "t", which is what would happen if there were a presumption of a fixed term for all types of licence or for all types of licence in a particular area, such as quarrying.
  6.45 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I wish to press her on my question about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howie. If a quarry is granted planning permission for the extraction of a certain volume of minerals where the work might continue for 20 years but, say, 12 years later it has its application for an abstraction licence denied and cannot extract the material for the remaining eight years, who is liable to pay compensation?
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Obviously, it comes from the pool of money available from the proceeds of abstraction. Such a situation would occur where there has been a radical change in water availability. A refusal of permission to continue abstraction would not be an arbitrary decision. An abstraction licence would be refused because the impact of changes to the water resource in the locality was so great that the quarry could be denying any water at all to others with abstraction rights.
  Lord Howie of Troon: I am grateful to my noble friend for her kind remarks and for her invitation to return to the Committee. I have tabled further amendments, so I shall return. It will be interesting to hear the diversity of views. But the Minister must realise that I have been in the Labour Party for 50 years and am quite used to a diversity of views. I have seldom heard anything else, so there is nothing new in that.
  I take some encouragement from what the Minister says, but I impress upon her that water abstraction in quarrying is different from water supply. I assume, therefore, that the Environment Agency, which has kindly been in attendance throughout, will observe the

  GC 137
  difference. When the agency grants licences with the flexibility that my noble friend mentions, she will realise that the difference is acute.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I would not like my noble friend to interpret my remarks as meaning anything other than that the Environment Agency must have regard to all the individual factors on a case-by-case basis. There may be occasions when the inference drawn by my noble friend is deemed correct; equally, there may be instances when it is not.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Howie, that he should not think that he will sleep well over the next few weeks. He ought to go further into the Bill, where he will find that there are many other problems. I support his points, but I also support those of the Environment Agency. There are ways and means of getting over the problem. We are talking about sustainable development, environmental impact and all such issues, but sometimes we cannot see the wood for the trees. The situation is not as easy as the noble Lord says. I do not think that he has received any sort of satisfaction from the Minister.
  Lord Howie of Troon: Sometimes you cannot see the trees for the wood.
  Baroness Byford: I thank everyone who contributed to this crucial debate. On a lighter note, the Minister said that it was interesting to hear many differing views from all sides of the Committee—that is what democracy is supposed to be about. The Minister did not suggest otherwise, but the comment made me smile wryly, because that is exactly why we are here.
  It is lovely to see the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, in his place. The Committee was aware that he could not attend our deliberations last week. He highlighted a problem mentioned by other noble Lords—a lack of willingness to invest if the time-scale is too short. The noble Baroness said that she felt there was no need for that consideration because there was a presumption of renewal. If there is such a presumption, it should be in the Bill. If the Government are not willing to include it, I, and, I suspect, many other noble Lords, would infer that there must be some reason for its absence. I wish to establish that immediately.
  The question of whether the period is 25 years, 15 years or whatever is important to different industries, as we discussed. I am sure that the Environment Agency will take that into account. I support the suggestion of several noble Lords that a degree of flexibility is needed. However, the Committee faces the challenge of writing into the Bill provision for flexibility on the one hand and long-term investment on the other. We shall definitely return to the issue on Report. It is important to realise that certain industries require longer-term investment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howie. We reflected during our deliberations last week that planning permission and licensing for quarries is perhaps a sensible approach. It may well be the same for water companies, but I do not wish to deal with specific areas at this stage.
  GC 138
  Everyone who spoke agreed that the timescale was a problem. The Minister acknowledged that also, but she said that a presumption of renewal was already taken into account. Most members on all sides of the Committee would like to see that written into the Bill. If the Committee could divide, I would ask that it do so on this amendment. The wording may not be perfect, but the principle has been established today and was reflected last week. I hope that the Government will think about the amendments and return on Report with a way to meet the concerns that were so clearly expressed.
  On the 12-year licence, no Member on this side of the Committee questions the requirement of the need to review. Nobody objects to a six-year renewal period or whatever it is. But, within that, there is no use in creating uncertainty. It may be pointed out to a company in the review that there is a growing concern about water availability or climatic change, for example. But businesses must be able to make long-term plans. I hope that I have reflected that clearly. My noble friend Lord Peel and others rightly said that flexibility was needed.
  The most important aspect to emerge from the discussions on these amendments is timescale. A balance must be struck as regards what is possible or what is not possible. I have not seen anything written down, as far as the Government are concerned, to suggest that they are looking at 12 years. But the difficulty is that "12 years" has been picked up in the general domain and therefore people and businesses are looking for a 12-year cycle. So if the Minister could in some way clarify that there is nothing about 12 years, that would be sensible and would, as I hope that I have indicated, show that there is a degree of flexibility and an acknowledgement that reviews need to be held.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I stress that 12 years is not fixed—other periods are allowed. I hope that that reassures people.
  Baroness Byford: It is immensely helpful to have that recorded again. I hope that the Government will look at the amendments to see whether they can return on Report with suitable words to reflect the concerns expressed by the Committee. We seek a common-sense ability for long-term investment, a degree of flexibility for those who do not require as long a period as others, and a presumption in favour of renewal. Had I not had a more satisfactory answer from the Minister, and if the Committee could divide, I would have called for a Division on this amendment. I will be grateful if those few words spur the Government to meet some of our concerns. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth Lord Livsey of Talgarth moved Amendment No. 49:
  Page 19, line 7, at end insert—
  "(4) In subsection (3) after paragraph (b) there is inserted "; and
  (c) meeting the established needs of abstractors not previously subject to licensing.".""
  The noble Lord said: We wish to know whether businesses and users not subject to licensing at present can expect, when granted a licence, to have their established needs met. Trickle irrigation is an example. The Bill does not appear to specify the whole gamut of abstractors to be brought into the licensing system. Many affected businesses have made investments and use specific amounts of water to sustain their businesses. If the quantity of water that businesses may use is reduced their viability may be adversely affected. Will the Minister publish a list of abstractors who will be brought into the purview of the Bill? I beg to move.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I shall not repeat everything that I said about existing use. I support the principle of these amendments.
  Lord Whitty: We have discussed this point. Existing use by licensed and unlicensed users must be taken into account. The Environment Agency already has a duty to have regard to all relevant considerations, as subsection (3) indicates. If it does not do so, it could be challenged. Likewise, reasonable demands will have to be taken into account. In that sense, the amendment is unnecessary. It would be odd to pick out a consideration applying to one group of abstractors without dealing with others.
  The noble Lord requested a list of the abstractors. An abstractor is anyone who exceeds the threshold. Trickle irrigation has been picked out because previously a special exemption applied to it. But anyone exceeding the threshold will come within the purview of the licensing system. The use of the water, the efficiency of water use, its relevance, the impact on other abstractors and other such aspects must be taken into account. That is but one of the relevant issues that the Environment Agency will have to address, and it will address it. I hope that all Committee members understand that. Pursuing this specific amendment would not be helpful.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I would like to know, and I am sure that current abstractors who are not licensed would like to know, whether they will come within the Bill's ambit. I suspect that they already know. However, I would not like to think that they would wake up one morning and find that they are covered by the controls of this legislation. Perhaps we can return to this issue and consider the whole range of those who will be affected by the Bill. One thing that I have noticed in other legislative processes in which I have been involved is that, however careful we are and however much we nit-pick in regard to certain provisions, people will discover whether they are covered by the legislation only when it is implemented. As we have plenty of time left to consider the provisions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 16 agreed to.
  Clause 17 [Protected rights]:
  The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 50:
  Page 20, leave out lines 10 to 14.
  The noble Duke said: This is another probing amendment. It perhaps also demonstrates again a slight inability on my part to make practical sense of some of the wording—which may be plain to other noble Lords. It seems to me that when the environment authority issues a licence, it will also be issuing a right. The mention of a "protected right" seems to bring into play the possibility of two classes of right. Some who have a licence may find themselves without a right if it becomes necessary to empower only those with a protected right.
  I am puzzled by one other matter. Why does this clause talk of only exactly 20 cubic metres? How many licensees extract exactly 20 cubic metres, as is suggested by the wording in the provision? Why should they be more entitled to a protected right than is someone extracting, say, 21 cubic metres?
  What does new Section 39A mean? Under Section 27A, the Secretary of State has power to vary the small quantity threshold. Is the effect of new Section 39A to ensure that he cannot reduce it? I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: I think that we have already touched on this issue as well. The issue of protected rights relates to those who are protected prior to the previous legislation. We do not want to interfere with that. Nor are we attempting to create new protected rights under this legislation. The approach taken in the Bill is therefore to keep the protected rights as they were under the earlier legislation.
  The implication of Amendment No. 50 is that there would be more protected rights if the threshold were increased and, despite previous legislative protection, fewer rights if the threshold were decreased. That does not deal with what is effectively only a residual problem, albeit a significant one, concerning those who had rights prior to 1991, whose rights will continue to be protected under this legislation. Anything that alters that would unravel the previous protection. It would threaten that protection or suggest that there are additional protected rights which are not an extension.
  I therefore believe that the amendment is misconceived. It would not help those who currently have protected rights or provide clarity on the future licensing system.
  Baroness O'Cathain: What about 19 cubic metres or 19.5 cubic metres? The provision seems to deal with exactly 20 cubic metres—or am I being completely stupid about this?
  Lord Whitty: The abstractors are able to take no more than 20 cubic metres without a licence. Their protected rights in the previous legislation are therefore limited to that.
  Baroness O'Cathain: The provision refers to abstractions,
  "amounting in aggregate to twenty cubic metres.

  GC 141
  I am simply asking whether that could be 19 cubic metres.
  Lord Whitty: To which wording is the noble Baroness referring?
  Baroness O'Cathain: Lines 11 and 12 on page 20 refer to a,
  'series of abstractions amounting in aggregate to 20 cubic metres".
  Do they always have to hit the total of 20 cubic metres?
  Lord Whitty: No. There is a protected right to an abstraction,
  "amounting in aggregate to twenty cubic metres".
  In other words, if you exceed an aggregate of 20 cubic metres, you would lose the right. If you are below that, then you are still within the protected right.
  The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister. I think that it would be much clearer if the Bill stated that the amount was up to 20 cubic metres.
  Lord Borrie: As is so often the case, the Explanatory Notes are clearer than the Bill.
  The Duke of Montrose: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 51:
  Page 20, line 26, leave out "four" and insert "seven"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 51 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 64. Although the two amendments affect different parts of the Bill, both deal with the proposal to reduce the time limit from seven years to four years. There are many concerns about the effect of the time limit, one of which is to do with agriculture. The Minister will know well that the Government are encouraging farming to make a come-back and perhaps to develop in a more sustainable fashion. One of the ways of achieving that is to ensure a longer rotation of crops. As many noble Lords will know, infection can recur from one crop to another. Longer rotation periods and greater crop diversity can decrease re-infection.
  A reduction in the time allowed for non-use would affect unsupported sectors in agriculture that habitually do not use an irrigation licence for a seven-year period, for example, in order to meet crop protection standards. If the Bill implemented the reduction in the time period, many businesses would find it no longer commercially viable to continue to produce an irrigated crop. It would not be possible to reduce a crop rotation to only four years because of the risk of crop diseases such as potato cyst nematode and because of the requirements in assured produce contracts and with customers such as producers or supermarkets. At a time when we are trying to encourage and promote UK food production, it would be unfortunate to introduce legislation that disadvantaged such production.
  Potato growers in various parts of the country, including Humberside and Lincolnshire, have supplied us with examples of the potential implications for their businesses. The schedules to the Plant Health (Great Britain) Order 1993 provide for the conditions under which the land can be declared free of potato cyst pest. For seed potatoes, DEFRA guidance which must be adhered to prior to certification states that there should be a rotation period of a full seven years.
  Furthermore, the European and Mediterranean plant protection organisations provide a standard that should be used for soil testing for such diseases. That standard confirms that there are cases where land should be left free of that particular crop for at least 10 years to ensure that it is disease free. Additionally, requirements in supermarket contracts with growers stipulate that onions require a six-year rotation period. If memory serves me correctly, the pea industry is subject to a cycle of more than four years. We must take into account both crop rotation and climate change.
  I have a few questions for the Minister. Why has four years been chosen rather than seven? Why not five or six? Will this change be made by other EU countries? Have they implemented it? Why are they doing it? If they are not doing it, have the Government considered asking for a derogation for agriculture and horticulture? If not, why not? My comments directly apply also to Amendment No. 66, which will be considered later.
  It is hugely important that the Government explain the reason for the proposed change. I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in this amendment. It is very important that her comments on rotation and disease are taken fully into account. As she said, there is a big difference between four years and seven years in sound rotation practice. Who has DEFRA consulted in deciding the reduction? Has it consulted the organisation LEAF, which has a function in this respect, or others who can offer sound advice'? They might think that four years is too short a period for sound crop rotation and good quality production.
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: Perhaps I can offer some examples which might cast light on why the reduction from seven to four years is sensible. I very much take account of the needs of the agriculture industry, in particular the horticulture industry, pointed out by noble Lords. I am sure that there is no intention to get in the way of legitimate agricultural rotation, which would simply be nonsensical. However, there are other water users who apply for licences but subsequently do not use them. They may, for example, be new entrants to the water market, particularly as water competition increases. They may even be speculative water users who set off in the direction of creating a business enterprise but then discover that they cannot quite pull it off. Although they may not need their water licence at that point,

  GC 143
  they may, under the provision of seven-year licences, hang on to it and thereby deny other water users the ability to get at that water supply.
  The catchment abstraction management process reviews all users or abstractors around a catchment area on a six-year basis. If a seven-year licence were unused for seven years, then the whole period of the catchment abstraction management plan would be working under the assumption that the licence could be used but that, effectively, water would be denied to the process of review when it could be reallocated to a user who was in need of the licence and the abstraction right.
  I hope that noble Lords can be persuaded that this provision is not intended to hit the agriculture industry. Indeed, it is intended to ensure that water is available for other users, some of whom will be farmers, at the time that they need it rather than being frozen in licences which are simply speculative and unused.
  7.15 p.m.
  The Duke of Montrose: It may help the Committee as much as it would help me if we could be told exactly what is meant by the words,
  "does not carry out any such abstraction as would have been authorised".
  Let us suppose that someone had been authorised to use a large volume of water. If for a period of four years he used only 50 per cent of that water, would that be considered as not using what had been authorised? Perhaps he had used only 5 per cent of the water. Would that count as not being authorised? It seems possible to me that if an agricultural enterprise felt that it would lose its licence, it could turn on the pump for a day and pump the 20 cubic metres, or whatever amount had been authorised. Would that then mean that it had used its licence within the four-year period? What will trigger whether the licence has been used?
  Lord Whitty: This part of the Bill deals with protected rights. It does not deal with other issues which may appear to be similar, such as sleeper licences or the reduction of the period over which compensation would be paid. As I tried to explain previously, protected rights have come about as a result of trying to protect people's positions under previous legislation.
  The non-use of those rights could, in certain circumstances, deny other legitimate abstractors access to the water. Therefore, the intention of this part of the Bill is that, if the protected rights are not used over an extended period, the granting of a licence to someone who needs the water should not be obstructed.
  The fact that the protected right has gone does not necessarily mean that the abstraction is not lawful. Therefore, I believe that we are considering the wrong target here. Protected rights, which are grandfather rights, are a legitimate part of the system but they are not the key issue concerning how abstraction licences will work.
  GC 144
  If failure to use protected rights over a period of time prevents the Environment Agency considering the possibility of a neighbouring farm or a neighbouring business having access to that water, then there must be a cut-off period. In our judgment, the previous seven-year period was too long and we can reduce that to four years. But the provision will not affect people who are already using their abstraction licences and doing so on a rotational basis.
  Some of those issues arise later in the Bill, as the noble Baroness said, but here we are talking about protected rights. I hope that that attempt at clarification will mean that we do not pursue this dimension of the argument, although we shall return to some of the points later.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister. Obviously he will not be surprised if I say that I am not satisfied. I understand what he is saying, but I believe that he of all people, because he is the Minister responsible for food and farming, knows very well the tremendous pressure that the farming community is under at present.
  I believe that we shall be seeking changes. At present, some of those changes relate to matters that the farming community does not have control over. As the Minister knows, we are waiting for the CAP reform to come into fruition this summer. We are also waiting for the WTO talks to take place and are awaiting the outcome of the review of the way that DEFRA works by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. We are also awaiting the report of the Curry commission. The fact that all those things are coming together at the same time is bringing huge uncertainty to an industry that has been struggling enormously over the past few years.
  One thing clearly recommended by Curry, and which the Government are encouraging, is that the agriculture industry should consider ways of using land other than for food production. It is being encouraged, for example, to consider the possibility of non-food energy crops. I know that this Government have at last—that seems ungracious; I do not mean it in that way—accepted that such crops can play an important role.
  Therefore, if we are to move away from a system that has been in place for many years to a new system which is still unknown, I believe that it would be even more unfortunate if, at this stage, the Government withdrew the seven-year protected right and put in its place a four-year protected right. I am sure that the noble Lord understands my argument, even though he probably cannot agree to it. I accept that. However, I believe that there are very good reasons why, at present, these proposals are unfortunate at the least and, at the most, unacceptable.
  At this stage, I shall withdraw the amendment. I suspect that it is a matter to which we shall return because of the very uncertain current situation in which the industry finds itself. It is aware of the difficulties that it faces. I would hate to think that some of the new ideas and new possibilities that may come up over the next year or 18 months would be closed to

  GC 145
  the industry because we reduced the time period. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 17 agreed to.
  Clause 18 [Register of certain protected rights]:
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 52:
  Page 21, line 20, at end insert—

  "(f) details of how the existence of a register will be made known to potential registrees."

  The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I simply seek to discover from the Government how potential registrees will know about the existence of the register. In Clause 18(2)(d), the Government talk about,
  "the procedure for applying for a protected right to be included in the register, including any information which is to accompany the application".
  But it is not at all clear how that will work, apart from the fact that the Government say that the register will be available for inspection by members of the public. Can the Minister tell us how people will know that the register exists if they are not already on it? How will new entrants know about its existence?
  I believe that if competition for abstraction rights is likely to increase, it will be very important for people to decide at what volume they should enter the register. Will a person apply for an abstraction licence with a usage of more than 20 cubic metres or will he apply for it with a usage of less than 20 cubic metres? People will not only need to know, and see, who else is on the register; they will also need to know of its very existence. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: First, clearly the Environment Agency will start the system with a record of former licence holders who now no longer need a licence because the threshold has fallen. Secondly, I draw the noble Baroness's attention to Schedule 6, which provides a procedure for the setting up of the register. That will require us to bring in an order, which we propose to do, to establish a register and for the register to be advertised in the local press. That mechanism will be required of the agency and will provide access both to those who should be on the register and to those who are seeking to find out what rights already exist. Therefore, I believe that that point is already covered in the procedures in the schedule.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his reassurance and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 18 agreed to.
  Clause 19 [Form, contents and effect of licences]:
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 53:
  Page 22, line 19, at end insert "which than not be less than 25 years after the date on which it takes effect"
  The noble Baroness said: I want to speak again briefly to Amendment No. 53 because the Minister did not answer the two questions that I asked him when I spoke to it earlier. I asked him what other countries might be using this initiative and whether they had considered seeking any derogation for horticulture. I beg to move.
  Baroness O'Cathain: Over the past 15 minutes or so we have been given some documents from the Environment Agency about the time-limiting of licences. They specifically state that the normal renewal period for time-limited licences is 12 years. For each catchment area in England and Wales there are published dates when the time-limited licence will come into effect. The documents also state that, in exceptional circumstances, a time limit for a period longer than 12 years will be considered.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said that there was no reference to a period of 12 years and that there was no time limit. I simply want to place on the record that this information comes from the Environment Agency for circulation and is headed:
  "Time limiting of licences: Guidance for stakeholders—draft for Water Bill".
  Lord Borrie: I do not know where the disturbing comment made by the noble Baroness comes from. She is privileged in a way that I am not. The information may have been sent to some Members of the Committee but it was not sent to me. Therefore, I am puzzled by those remarks.
  Earl Peel: Perhaps I may help the noble Lord. It is a document published by the Environment Agency entitled, Time limiting of licences: Guidance for stakeholders. It is in the public domain.
  Lord Whitty: That concerns a matter to which we referred earlier. I am not sure what the point is, but we said that the Environment Agency had indicated that the period of 12 years relating to two review periods would seem to be the most appropriate, as my noble friend Lady Farrington said. That piece of paper, which I have not seen—I am sure that I have seen it at some point but I do not have it before me today—reflects the Environment Agency's view that, in reference to the Water Framework Directive, the double six-year period would lead one to conclude that the normal period would be 12 years.
  However, first, that is not on the face of the Bill, and we are not proposing to put it on the face of the Bill because we require flexibility. Secondly, even the extract which the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, read out indicates that there is flexibility in that 12-year period, as my noble friend said. I believe that we are two clauses away from considering the subject of time limits again, but at present I am not clear whether we shall reach it tonight. However, I am not sure that that alters what my noble friend said to the Committee at an earlier stage.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I was left with the distinct impression that there was no 12-year time limit. Perhaps I am the only one in this Committee who has been left with that impression.
  Lord Howie of Troon: I wonder whether I could add just a threepenny bit to the question. I have not seen the interesting document referred to, but I was interested in my noble friend's comments on flexibility, which may mean an extended period. That throws a certain doubt into my mind, and I suspect that my amendment, Amendment No. 54A, is beginning to look a little otiose.
  Lord Whitty: My noble friend is rarely, if ever, otiose.
  The record should show that my noble friend Lady Farrington referred to the double six-year period as being the norm proposed by the Environment Agency, but that there was flexibility. In any case, nowhere in the Bill does it refer to a specific time limit, and we are not intending so to amend the Bill or to agree to amendments that agree to that directly or indirectly. We spoke on that matter several times.
  Amendment No. 53 deals with the duration of the licence on a case-by-case basis. The minimum criteria required by that amendment and by Amendment No. 54 would achieve what we are not intending to do, which is to place a fixed period in the Bill.
  GC 148
  The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about derogations in other countries. I cannot tell her about them in detail, but I am not aware of any derogation as sweeping as the exclusion of the whole of agriculture or horticulture. I would be surprised if any member state was intending to transpose any part of European legislation in that respect. However, that deals with matters beyond the issue of the Water Framework Directive, while not dealing with all the issues covered by it. A direct analogue with what other countries are doing is not necessarily the best guide, but I am not aware of any such derogation. If I am wrong, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister. In his last few words, he has shown again how difficult it is to deal with a Bill that deals with another Act, which in turn dealt with several other Acts. However, time is up, as they say.
  I thank the Minister for his courteous response to our queries. We are simply trying to ensure continuity, success and sustainable development. That is what it is all about. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 54, 54A and 55 not moved.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld): The Committee stands adjourned until Thursday 3rd April at 3.45 p.m.
  The Committee adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before eight o'clock.

  Small Arms Conference
  Small Arms Conference
  Europe and the Regions
  Europe and the Regions
  Iraq: Breaches of International Humanitarian Law
  Iraq: Breaches of International Humanitarian Law
  Iraq: Supply of Weapons
  Iraq: Supply of Weapons
  Broadband
  Broadband
  GM Public Debate
  GM Public Debate
  Foot and Mouth Disease Contingency Plan
  Foot and Mouth Disease Contingency Plan
  Pregnant Women: Risk from Contact with Ewes
  Pregnant Women: Risk from Contact with Ewes
  Vaccines Interactions Research
  Vaccines Interactions Research
  Former Yugoslavia: Call-out of Reservists
  Former Yugoslavia: Call-out of Reservists
  Defence Estates
  Defence Estates
  Financial Services Authority Chairman
  Financial Services Authority Chairman
  Exceptional Leave to Remain
  Exceptional Leave to Remain
  Licensed Fertility Treatment: Selective Terminations
  Licensed Fertility Treatment: Selective Terminations
  Tizard Centre, University of Kent
  Tizard Centre, University of Kent
  Blood Plasma
  Blood Plasma
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Proton Pump Inhibitors
  Proton Pump Inhibitors
  Learning Disability Services
  Learning Disability Services
  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency
  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency
  Cabinet Office Vehicles
  Cabinet Office Vehicles
  BR Headquarters Staff
  BR Headquarters Staff