Sitting of 2 April 2003

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

  TRANSAS GROUP BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Wednesday 9 April.

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

    Internet Access
    Michael Fabricant: What steps he is taking to enable the socially excluded to gain access to the internet; and if he will make a statement. [106159]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Government are committed to ensuring that all who want access to the internet can have it by 2005, including those in areas of greater disadvantage. As services improve, it is important for everyone to have a chance to access those services in as convenient a way as possible, which includes electronic means.
    Michael Fabricant: As the Minister knows, access to the internet is one thing but access to broadband is something else. He will be aware that, compared with the United Kingdom, in the socialist countries of Scandinavia, 10 times as many people per head of population have access to broadband. Given that the Minister's boss, the Deputy Prime Minister, has decided to forget that he is a socialist, how can we ensure that more people, especially in socially deprived areas, have access to broadband? Without such access they will not have full access to the internet as the Minister and I understand it.
    Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman's new commitment to tackling social exclusion is most welcome, if somewhat unexpected. There are now nearly 6,000 UK Online centres around the country, enabling all people from all corners of society to access the internet. Broadband is extremely important, and we are working not just with the Cabinet Office but with the Department
    900
    of Trade and Industry to ensure that broadband can roll out across the United Kingdom, more than is possible in most other developed countries.
    David Cairns: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the arrival this week of ADSL broadband in Wemyss Bay in Inverkip in my constituency?
    In future, the ability to access interactive services will be provided by digital television. Will my hon. Friend ensure that when the digital action plan is published in the coming months it sets ambitious targets for broadcasters, so that maximum and speedy availability of digital services is possible throughout the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend is right: broadband offers new opportunities for swift and always-on internet access. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is primarily concerned with local government service provision, and one of the national projects that we seek to support is digital television access, which enables local people to apply for benefits or council services online.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is the Minister aware that yesterday I spoke at the Country Land and Business Association conference on rural tourism? One of the most important points emerging from the CLA's excellent paper on the subject concerned the role of broadband in the marketing of rural tourism, and in helping people in the countryside whose lives are not all that easy and who may find it difficult to reach the larger markets that they deserve. Will the Minister assure us that, in line with Members on both sides of the House who are keen for more broadband access to be available in rural areas, he will urge British Telecom to pull its finger out?
    Mr. Leslie: I will give British Telecom a call—and I will look up the hon. Gentleman's speech when I next have a chance to view the CLA's website.
    We must indeed ensure that those in all parts of the country, including rural areas, have the same opportunity to access the internet, and broadband is extremely important in that regard. If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman is the very embodiment of the word "broadband".

    Regeneration (Nottingham, North)
    2. Mr. Graham Allen: If he will visit Nottingham, North to discuss regeneration in the constituency. [106160]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): I had the opportunity last September to visit Nottingham as part of a wider visit to the east midlands, and was encouraged to see the excellent regeneration work carried out by local partners. I understand that my

    901
    noble Friend Lord Rooker has agreed to visit Nottingham later this year, and hopes to visit a number of regeneration projects in the city area.
    Mr. Allen: I thank my hon. Friend for both his answer and his personal commitment on the question of travellers, which has been very well received in my constituency and, I know, in many others.
    Nottingham, North has some nine wards, all of which are in the bottom 150 in the list of the 8,500 most deprived wards in terms of education, training and skills. There are many Government schemes, grants and programmes, but local people sometimes feel that they are not sufficiently co-ordinated. Will my hon. Friend consider that next time he visits Nottingham, North, when he will be most welcome?
    Mr. McNulty: My hon. Friend should know that when I was in Nottingham, I discussed those matters with, among others, representatives of the chamber of commerce, the Greater Nottingham partnership and the One City partnership, which is the local strategic partnership. I conscientiously keep in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) about developments in the Radford and Hyson Green new deal for communities.

    Council Tax
    Mr. Hugo Swire: If he will make a statement on the level of council taxes in England for the 2003–04 financial year.[106161]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The average council tax in England will increase by 12.9 per cent. in 2003–04. This average conceals very marked differences between councils and we are looking further at those councils whose council tax increase is exceptionally high. Increases on that scale are very difficult to justify in a year when every council received an above-inflation grant increase from Government. Councils must understand that continued year-on-year increases on that scale will not be acceptable.
    Mr. Swire: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. He will know that the council tax for an average band D property in the Deputy Prime Minister's own area of Kingston upon Hull has risen by 10.4 per cent. this year, but that compares with a 17.95 per cent. rise for an equivalent property in Devon. It is clear that there has been a transfer of funding from the shire counties to the Labour heartlands. Devon's population has a high proportion of pensioners, and many of them are on low incomes. They have seen their pension rise by the equivalent of 4.1 per cent. this year. Will the Minister explain clearly, succinctly and shorn of spin why they are being penalised by having to pay to shore up the Labour heartlands in the north?
    Mr. Raynsford: There is no truth whatever in the hon. Gentleman's allegation. Devon county council will have to justify the large council tax increase that it is proposing to the pensioners whom he described because they will have great difficulty coping with a large increase. Those people will look at the contrast with
    902
    councils such as East Devon district council and Labour-controlled Exeter city council, in which there are modest council tax increases despite their receiving relatively modest grant increases, and ask why Devon county council, which received a 4.2 per cent. increase in its Government grant, has increased their council tax by so much.
    Martin Linton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the highest council tax increase is being levied by a Conservative-controlled council? Wandsworth borough council is not only increasing its council tax by 57.3 per cent.—33 per cent. of that is on its own account—but it is underspending on education by £3 million and making petty-minded cuts to funding for a children's zoo and a nature studies centre.
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend is right to point out that his local authority, Wandsworth borough council, has imposed the largest council tax increase of any authority in the country this year. He did not point out, although he might well have done, that the council chose last year—an election year—to cut its council tax by 25 per cent. There was a 25 per cent. cut in an election year and a 57.3 per cent. increase the following year. The people of Wandsworth will see through such a crude attempt to bribe the electorate.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Will the Minister confirm that the poorest 20 per cent. of households in England pay more than three times as much council tax, as a proportion of their income, as the richest 20 per cent.? Given that this year's record council tax rises will make that unfair situation even worse, when will this Labour Government act against the most unfair tax in Britain today? Why is the Labour party supporting an unfair Tory tax?
    Mr. Raynsford: People who face large council tax rises will have to ask very searching questions of their councils, whether they are Conservative-controlled councils, which have imposed the largest council tax increases of any councils this year, or councils controlled by others. Although the hon. Gentleman might be critical of some aspects of the council tax, alternative proposals, which often come from his party, would have nightmarish consequences. If he favours a local income tax, he will have to explain how poorer areas will survive on substantially less revenue than rich areas in which wealthy people would pay more income tax.
    Mr. David Watts: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing a system of local government funding that is much fairer than that of the previous Tory Government. Will he assure me that he will end the system of floors and ceilings as soon as possible so that local authorities such as mine can get the resources to which they are entitled and councils such as Westminster and Wandsworth will not receive millions more than their entitlement under the new system?
    Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's thanks for our changes. We are committed to creating a fairer distribution system. His authority, which has received an increase of more than 8 per cent.,

    903
    appreciates that. However, local government welcomes floors and ceilings because they provide an element of certainty. That is especially important when many variables, including changes in population, can unexpectedly result in a significant fall in entitlement to grant. Floors provide protection against that, and we do not intend to withdraw that component in the grant distribution scheme.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: In the past few weeks, the right hon. Gentleman has threatened local authorities with capping. In his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) today, he suggested that he was still considering authorities. Last week, the Department made it clear that it had decided not to cap. Does the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend therefore relate to this year or next year? Will he confirm that councils that are being forced to increase their council tax are doing nothing more than passing on the Labour Government's stealth tax? Is he reluctant to cap because he knows that if he does so, the spotlight will shine on his fiddled and discredited financial settlement?
    Mr. Raynsford: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong on almost every count. That is not uncommon. Like any prudent Government, we are continuing to examine those authorities that have introduced very large council tax increases. I have made it clear that we shall do that next year, too. It is simply not sustainable for local authorities to impose increases of that order on their electorate. However, our policy is to give local government greater freedom and flexibility and not to intervene in the same way as the Conservative party when it was in power by crudely capping authorities and forcing them to make highly disruptive in-year changes.
    The overriding message of this year's council tax increases is that Tory councils cost people more. Tory councils are increasing their council tax by 16 per cent. and have the highest average council tax. The hon. Gentleman should deal with his party.

    Local Authority/Business Partnerships
    Mr. Andrew Miller: What action he is taking to encourage partnership work between local authorities and business.[106162]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): We are legislating to introduce business improvement districts in the Local Government Bill. Those schemes will allow local authorities and businesses to work together to put in place projects to improve their areas. Projects should include landscaping, more frequent street cleaning or faster removal of graffiti.
    We are also legislating in the Bill to introduce local authority growth incentives. The aim is to increase the incentive for local authorities to work in partnership with local business and others to maximise local economic growth and regeneration.
    Mr. Miller: My right hon. Friend will know of the success of Cheshire Oaks in my constituency. Last year, it attracted nearly 7 million day visitors. The project is a partnership between the private sector in the form of McArthur Glen and the public sector in the form of the
    904
    local authority and central Government. All have played important roles. Several Departments have been involved, most recently through West Cheshire college, which provides training for retail staff. Will my right hon. Friend bring that success to the attention of all his ministerial colleagues because all Departments have a role in such schemes?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to describe such schemes as successful partnerships between the private and the public sectors. The Bill to which I referred takes that further to allow improved contracts between local authorities and local businesses by funding a levy system, which would permit an addition to the business rate.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: In his mission to bring together local authorities and businesses, is the Deputy Prime Minister pursuing a strategy of unity in adversity? Does he know that, throughout the west country, councils and local firms are coming together, united in their opposition to a financial settlement that is leading to such massive council tax increases, closely followed by national insurance contribution increases? They constitute a tax on jobs.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not refer to the partnerships that have been established in the west country in the public and private sectors and developed by the west country development companies. They have provided many jobs and the hon. Gentleman should pay attention to that.

    Social Exclusion (Sport)
    Tony Cunningham: What the role of sport is in his campaign against social exclusion.[106163]
    The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Sport is an important part of neighbourhood renewal. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has now met its commitment under the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal of a £750 million lottery-funded programme to enhance school sports facilities, especially in deprived areas.
    Tony Cunningham: May I draw the Minister's attention to the report on sport and social inclusion recently published by the Central Council of Physical Recreation? To place it in context, I should like to quote a young teenager who said:
    "It's good coming to … football because usually we play chicken—where the winner is the last person to jump out of the car we've set on fire."
    That certainly provides some context. Will the Minister assure me that she will promote across the Government the use of sport to deal with social exclusion?
    Mrs. Roche: I agree with my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right that sport can play an important role in areas of social deprivation. It can provide good diversion schemes, particularly for young people. I know that in my hon. Friend's constituency, Keswick

    905
    town council has consulted local young people on the redevelopment of Fitz park, which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister visited in February this year.
    Bob Russell: Will the Minister have a word with her colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills and explain that sport is important in education as well as in the community? With 75 per cent. of our young people not participating in the minimum two hours of physical education currently recommended on the school curriculum, that shows where the problem lies. Social exclusion and sport should go together.
    Mrs. Roche: I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills. I am also aware that many of the new deal for communities partnerships encourage sport, particularly among young people, and much good work is being carried out in that direction.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: When the audit of sport facilities gets under way, will the Minister ensure that it starts in poorer communities first, so we can assess what facilities are available for the socially excluded?
    Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I shall ensure is drawn to the attention of the appropriate Ministers.

    Post Office
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. [106164]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): On 10 March 2003 I chaired a meeting with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters on behalf of the Prime Minister, who was unable to attend due to urgent parliamentary business. I was accompanied by my hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness at the Department of Trade and Industry. We discussed a range of issues affecting the post office network, including the universal banking system.
    Dr. Cable: I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on his successful intervention in the Department for Work and Pensions, which has reduced from eight to seven the number of bureaucratic obstacles facing pensioners opening a Post Office card account. Is he aware that that Department subsequently got its own back by requiring the Post Office to issue a banning order on leaflets from Age Concern, which offers advice to pensioners? Will the Deputy Prime Minister kindly intervene again?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He makes a fair point that the postmasters felt that there was too much bureaucracy in the development of the new card system, so we were pleased to be able to make changes to meet those
    906
    criticisms. I note what the hon. Gentleman says and I will pass on his comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend make a statement on Crown post offices, which are closing all over the country, including in Northumberland. In Blyth, in my constituency, the last one will close at the end of this month. Will my right hon. Friend clear this up matter and tell us why Crown post offices are closing all over the country?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that many thousands of post offices have closed. The Government have made available nearly £2 billion in subsidy to help make the sort of changes that he has described, both nationally and in rural areas. In the urban areas to which my hon. Friend referred, a fund of £210 million was announced, I think in December, to help areas deprived of post offices. We have laid out our criteria, and that should assist in preventing further closures.
    David Davis: The National Consumer Council, the Association of Subpostmasters, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, and Help the Aged have all criticised the new Post Office system. They say that the scheme has not been thought through, that obstacles have been put in the way of benefit recipients who want a Post Office card account, and that the new scheme will not meet the needs of the poor, the elderly or the disabled, who depend on it. Does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that all those organisations are wrong?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: No, I think that the sub-postmasters made genuine criticisms of the Government. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) noted, we addressed one of the criticisms. It was a step in the right direction. Other criticisms were made, and we are in active discussion with the sub-postmasters. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the universal banking system was launched only yesterday. We hope that services will continue to improve, and that will benefit the post offices.
    David Davis: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that constructive response. However, as he knows, only one person in 20 wanted the changes, and fewer than one in 10 have taken up the Post Office card. Post offices face massive cuts in their income and are now being told that they will be paid less per transaction than in the past. That will cause even more serious income problems. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or refute that members of Post Office management are being given incentives based on the number of post offices being closed?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am not aware of the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. I shall bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who deals with these matters. However, I was powerfully impressed by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. Its members want change and are grateful for the £2 billion that we have given to assist in that

    907
    change. That compares with what happened under the previous Administration: they gave nothing, and just sat there and watched the decline of post offices.
    Geraint Davies: When my right hon. Friend was discussing the closure of urban post offices—four have closed in my constituency—did he discuss opportunities for councils to provide information points at post offices and sub-post offices? Should not the Government encourage a broader range of products, not just the lottery but connections for internet services and so on, so as to encourage more commercial opportunities for post offices and thereby ensure that they are viable in the future?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: It was very clear to me from the meeting with the sub-postmasers that they very much welcome the general practitioners for Government role, and that offices could be accessed for a lot more information than at present. There is an awful lot of discussion going on about that. We tried two experiments under the "Your Guide" principle in Leicestershire and Rutland, for which we provided £25 million. So far, we have not been convinced that that is the proper way to go, but we are in continuing discussions with the Post Office.
    Bob Spink: Does the Deputy Prime Minister take any responsibility at all for the universal bank account? If so, will he take action to try to make the account more user friendly, so that users can at least set up standing orders and direct debits in order to take advantage of discounts on the utilities?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. The sub-postmasters made the point strongly that they wanted that. They feel that there are too many obstructions when it comes to transferring direct payments from the Department for Work and Pensions into people's accounts. We are doing all that we can to improve that.

    Local Government Finance
    Paddy Tipping: What plans he has to increase the proportion of local government funding raised locally. [106165]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): A major review of local government funding, including the balance of funding raised locally as against that provided by central Government, will begin, under my chairmanship, later this month.
    Paddy Tipping: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the fact that just 20 per cent. of local government finance is raised locally can isolate and disconnect local councillors from the consequences of their decisions? When will he change the balance between local financing and national financing?
    Mr. Raynsford: Actually, the proportion raised locally is slightly higher than my hon. Friend suggests, but his key point is correct—it is important that there should be a strong link between local democratic
    908
    accountability and raising finance for local services. That is precisely why we are initiating the review of the balance of funding that will look into those very issues.
    Mr. David Curry: But the Government already have a programme to increase the amount of tax raised locally—it is called the council tax. In a year in which they have increased national insurance contributions; settled the public sector pay and pensions increases; insisted on passporting education expenditure through even when there has been no grant to cover it; failed to recognise the crisis in social services; about which every Member in the House has been telling the Minister; and granted tax-raising powers to the Mayor of London, it is not surprising that council taxes have increased by a long way ahead of inflation. It is entirely the Government's responsibility.
    Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister with responsibility for local government, so he will know that the grant increases that this Government have given—a 25 per cent. real-terms increase—compare favourably with the 7 per cent. cut in grant when he was a Minister. This Government support local government. It is Conservative-controlled councils that are raising the council tax.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql.[106144] Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 2 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I intend to make a further statement on Iraq before the Easter recess. The Government will continue to keep the House fully informed.
    Also, I am sure that the whole House will want to pass on its sympathies to the families of British servicemen who have tragically been killed in the service of their country in the past week. Again, we pay tribute to their courage and dignity and we pass on our condolences and sympathy to their families and their friends.
    Mr. Robathan: When, God willing, this war is successfully concluded, the Prime Minister will have to deal with the proposed European Union constitution put forward by the Convention on the Future of Europe. In what way has he modified his enthusiasm for a single European common foreign and defence policy in the light of recent events?
    The Prime Minister: I have always believed that the common foreign and security policy should not be communitised, should not be within the Commission,

    909
    but has to remain intergovernmental. That is the position that the Government have set out and it is the position that we will maintain.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: My constituency is suffering today from a devastating blow—the news that Shell is to close its base in Lowestoft completely. The loss of the hundreds of jobs that are directly involved and the effect on local supply-chain businesses will punch a gaping whole in a town that is not unused to economic misfortune. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that all Government agencies do everything they can to mitigate that disaster and to help those who lose their jobs? Will he also look at what can be done to help towns such as Lowestoft where there are many good, hard-working people but, because of the town's peripheral location, it is hard to attract new businesses when we lose industries that have been there for so long?
    The Prime Minister: First, I offer my sympathy to my hon. Friend's constituents who are likely to be made redundant as a result of that announcement. I am sure that Jobcentre Plus and the other agencies will work to ensure that the rapid response service that we now put in place where large-scale redundancies are announced will work with his constituents and their families to ensure that they are redeployed within the company or found jobs elsewhere. As I know from my constituency, the rapid response service has been immensely successful where it has been put in place. I can assure my hon. Friend that it will be in place in his constituency and I have certainly taken on board his final comments.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the courage of our armed forces and sending condolences to the families of those who have fallen, and in making it absolutely clear that we have the resolution to finish this job? The United States has now decided to send significant additional troops. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that contingency plans are in place for both replacement and additional British troops to be sent out to the Gulf?
    The Prime Minister: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that contingency plans are indeed in place to meet any eventuality, in particular the replacement of troops. At present, we do not believe that we need additional troops—we believe that we have the troops to do the job—but of course, we keep that under constant review. I am pleased to say that the way in which the British forces have performed in the southern part of Iraq, but also throughout Iraq, has been magnificent. We can take immense pride in them.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister is absolutely right to say that we can have immense pride in our own forces, who are performing brilliantly. However, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government must plan for every outcome. To ensure that extra troops are available if needed, two things surely need to happen. First, the Prime Minister must bring an end to the threat of strikes by firefighters. Will the legislation that he has published guarantee that there will be no further strikes, so that troops can be released without endangering the
    910
    public? Secondly, the Prime Minister may need to reduce our other overseas military commitments. What discussions has he had with NATO allies to get them to share some of those burdens?
    The Prime Minister: Some of those burdens are indeed shared by our allies. It is important that we continue to discuss that with them. We receive regular advice from our own military as to the troop deployments that we have and that we can afford to have without stretching our troops too far.
    I hope that the fire dispute will have a satisfactory outcome when the Fire Brigades Union conference is recalled, but our legislation will of course be effective and will ensure that we are in the best possible position to bring the strike to an end should people take the view—and they would take it quite wrongly—that they should carry on strike action which to be frank I do not believe has any real support anywhere.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: It is essential that the wider Arab world knows that this is a war to liberate and not to occupy Iraq, and a war to remove a dictator who has killed Muslims in their millions. Everyone will want to ensure that the war does not escalate. The United States has warned Syria and Iran about becoming involved. Why does the Prime Minister believe that that was necessary?
    The Prime Minister: What the Americans said—and we back them up in saying it—was that we would not find it acceptable if equipment was transferred from Syria to Iraqi forces in the field, or if there was any suggestion of any support being given by any elements in Iran to troops who are attacking coalition forces. However, we maintain relations with both those countries to ensure that those things do not happen. It is important—particularly in relation to Iran—to recognise that we are in constant contact with them to ensure that the situation is not exacerbated in any way.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to Saddam Hussein and it is worth emphasising one particular point. We have a concern, based on intelligence that we have received, that the Iraqi regime intends to damage the holy sites—religious sites—with a view to blaming the coalition falsely for that damage. That is precisely what Saddam did in 1991, when the regime attacked and desecrated first the Imam Hussein shrine in Karbala and then the shrine of Imam Abbas. I would like to emphasise to the House and to the wider Arab and Muslim world that we are doing everything that we can to protect those holy sites and shrines. I hope that people understand that the fact that Saddam is prepared to use such tactics, as he did before, underlines once again the true nature of his regime.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I agree fully with the Prime Minister. His answer leads to questions about post-Saddam Iraq. There appears to be some confusion about what the Prime Minister believes will be the role of the United Nations in post-conflict Iraq. Last week, the right hon. Gentleman told me that
    "any post-conflict Iraqi Administration will have the UN's full endorsement."—[Official Report, 26 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 283.]

    911
    Will the Prime Minister clarify whether it should be for the United Nations to run a post-conflict Iraq or to endorse a different Administration running a post-conflict Iraq?
    The Prime Minister: That is a good question because it enables me to make this point clear. As soon as possible, Iraq should not be run either by the coalition or by the UN but should be run by Iraqis. It should be run by Iraqi people on the basis of a broadly representative Government who will protect human rights and be committed to peace and stability in the region. I am quite sure that that is what the vast majority of Iraqi people want.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I hear the Prime Minister's answer, but he knows that there is a debate in the UN in which two different views are being expressed. It appears that the United States Government are indicating that they want the UN to endorse a US administration of post-Saddam Iraq, while some European Governments are letting it be known that they want the UN itself to run a post-Saddam Iraq. What view does the Prime Minister hold with regard to either of those two views?
    The Prime Minister: I do not doubt that there are differences within the UN; my experience of the past few months has taught me that it would be unusual if there were not. However, I think that those differences are reconcilable. Once the conflict ends, the coalition forces will be there and it will be important that we, the coalition countries, work in close consultation and partnership with the UN to try to develop the right type of Iraqi interim authority, which will be Iraqi in nature. As I said, I think that if we understand that it is in everyone's interests to get as quickly as possible to the point where the Iraqi Government is indeed Iraqi, not either UN-based or coalition force-based, we will approach this along the right lines. I do not doubt that there will be some differences of opinion as to exactly how we handle the transition, but, if I may say so, it is probably best that those differences are resolved as amicably as they possibly can be, because that is in the long-term interests of the people of Iraq.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister's answer shows, however, that there will be some interim period even if we do resolve this matter. During that period, British troops will still be involved in the post-conflict security and reconstruction of Iraq, although it is possible that we may not at that point have secured a UN mandate for reconstruction before the conflict is over. Will the Prime Minister clarify what would be the legal position of our troops in such circumstances?
    The Prime Minister: Of course we must act within the law the entire time, but until the conflict is over the fact and the law are the same: the coalition forces are there and they have certain legal obligations that they have to administer. The moment the conflict ends, it is important to have in place a UN resolution that governs the situation, so that we provide both for humanitarian aid and, as we said in our Azores statement, for the endorsement of any post-conflict Iraq. There will be difficulties when we make the transition to the Iraqi interim authority as to precisely what the negotiations in
    912
    the UN bring us, but the one point in common, whatever the differences, is that everybody understands that the situation has to be UN-endorsed. I believe that with the right will, we will get that UN resolution. This situation differs from all the discussions that we had over the so-called second resolution that we did not get, because in this case everybody in Europe—even those who oppose our position—and ourselves and the United States know that for all sorts of reasons we must have that UN endorsement.
    Mrs. Irene Adams: My right hon. Friend will be aware that one of the small comforts that our troops have in Iraq is receiving a parcel from home. Is he aware, however, that the Scottish Daily Record has highlighted the prohibitive cost to hard-pressed families of sending such packages to the troops? Will he use his good offices to encourage the Secretary of State for Defence to consider reducing the price of sending packages from service families to their loved ones in Iraq?
    The Prime Minister: I think that I said to the House last week that I would look into that issue, and I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary advises me that as soon as the operational situation llows—at the moment, there are problems getting packages to servicemen and women at all because of the operational situation—families will be able to send packets to their loved ones entirely free of charge. There is one qualification, which is that given the constraints on transport capacity the packets will have to be sensibly sized, but subject to that they will be free of charge.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Going back to the earlier exchanges, given the Foreign Secretary's proposal that there should be a post-military conflict United Nations-led conference on Iraq, can the Prime Minister clarify whether that idea has the active endorsement of the President of the United States?
    The Prime Minister: Of course it is the case that we will need the UN to be involved, because it is a matter of agreement on both sides of the Atlantic that any Iraqi interim authority has to be UN-endorsed. The exact way in which we do that is what we are debating at the moment. We managed to do it highly successfully in Afghanistan, and I believe that there is no difficulty at all in getting the proper partnership between the coalition forces and countries and the United Nations.
    Mr. Kennedy: Given that within just the past few days the Prime Minister has been to see President Bush on precisely this matter, can he be more specific about what the thinking is? Do he and the President of the United States envisage that the post-conflict Administration will be UN led or American led? Which will it be?
    The Prime Minister: As I was trying to say before, we want to ensure that it is led by Iraqis—by the Iraqi people themselves. The process of transition from the conflict to that should be done by both the UN and the coalition forces. That is the necessary thing to do. The coalition forces will be there in the country; there is no

    913
    way that they will suddenly disappear from the ground. In the immediate aftermath of the conflict, of course the coalition forces will be there. The UN has made it clear that it does not want to lead an Iraqi Government; what it wants is the ability to work with us, in partnership, to make sure that we assemble the broadest possible representation from within Iraq itself. I understand why people want to put those differences between ourselves and the United States, but the most intelligent way of proceeding is to recognise the basic principle that any transitional arrangements and the Iraqi interim authority must be UN endorsed. The rest is a matter of working in partnership with the UN, which, if we behave sensibly, we should be able to do easily.
    Joan Ruddock: Does my right hon. Friend believe, however, that we can win hearts and minds when there is an announcement from the United States that immediate post-war Iraq will be run by a former general who is president of an arms company and a declared supporter of Israel, and that a group of American Ministers will administer the Departments?
    The Prime Minister: First of all, I again ask that my hon. Friend discount some of the stories about Americans running every part of this. As I said, there is bound to be a situation of transition where the coalition forces are de facto in control. That is necessarily the case, but our aim is to move, as soon as possible, to an Iraqi interim authority that will be run by Iraqis. As for the hearts and minds battle within Iraq, I ask my hon. Friend, as I ask others in the House and outside, to recognise that there are scenes that we do not see and that there are also events whose significance we cannot always determine until afterwards. If I may give one graphic example: in the first Baghdad street market bombing, it is increasingly probable that that was not a coalition bomb. It is taking us time to investigate this, but there was no target near it. We do not believe that that was one of our bombs, yet it obviously caused huge distress and also huge concern about the coalition forces' action. Increasingly, in the south of Iraq, where Iraqis really believe that we are here to stay, they are coming out and saying clearly that their total commitment is to liberate their country from Saddam. Of course, they do not want us to run their country any more than they want Saddam to run their country, but they recognise that if we hand the country over to the Iraqis—as we will—the Iraqi people will have their first chance for decent government in more than 25 years.
    Mr. John Randall: Can the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that, once the people of Iraq have ultimately been liberated, no member of the Ba'ath party will be given political asylum in the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that I can dictate the rules of asylum as they apply, but I can certainly tell the hon. Gentleman that that certainly does not seem to be a very suitable case for asylum—let me put it like that.
    Ms Oona King: May I return to the question about religious holy sites in Iraq?
    914
    The Prime Minister is probably aware that after Mecca, where the Prophet was born, and Medina, where the Prophet lived, one of the next earliest holy sites founded was at the city of Basra, where British troops currently are. Will the Prime Minister assure me that those British troops are made aware of the significance of the area that they are in, and will he assure me that every effort will be made by the Government to protect those holy sites that are of such significance to Muslims around the world?
    The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance completely, and tell her that that is a matter of constant discussion, not just between the Government and the military in the field, but also between ourselves and the United States. We shall make every attempt that we can not just to refrain from attacking those sites but to ensure that we protect them as well. That is what we are trying to do.
    Angela Watkinson:What role did the future of Gibraltar play in the Prime Minister's negotiations with Jose Maria Aznar in securing the support of Spain for the war against Saddam Hussein?
    The Prime Minister: None whatever.
    Jeremy Corbyn: Many who just heard the Prime Minister's remarks concerning Iran and Syria will be very disturbed by them. Can he give an assurance to the House and the public that there is no question of either the coalition forces invading Iran or Syria, or of any further Turkish incursions into the north of Iraq, which would extend and prolong this dreadful war?
    The Prime Minister: First, as the Foreign Secretary and I have made clear on many occasions, we have absolutely no plans to do the things of which my hon. Friend is, I suppose, accusing us. Secondly, in relation to Turkey, we have made it very clear that it is important that Turkey abides by the agreements that we have made with it, and I have to say that, so far, it has.
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The Prime Minister will be aware of the deep concern about the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome, originating in Asia, but now with sufferers in Australia, North America, Germany and the United Kingdom. With relevant Departments in the US and Canada, international businesses and now, from this morning, the World Health Organisation issuing directives advising against non-essential travel to countries in Asia badly affected by this pneumonia-like virus, but without any advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—so far, none appears on its website—what advice does the Prime Minister give to the residents of the United Kingdom to protect their safety against that virus?
    The Prime Minister: The Foreign Secretary has just informed me that, later today, we will issue travel advice to people in respect of that issue.
    Mr. Ben Chapman: While the focus of the press has understandably been

    915
    elsewhere, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has noticed speculation about the prospect of some NHS services being charged for—new forms of co-payments, as they are called. Does he accept that, although my constituents understand that if we are to improve NHS services across the board, massive investment is needed and that has to be paid for—they are pleased to see that going in—they would be less happy if any NHS service were to be provided solely on the basis of ability to pay? Can my right hon. Friend give me a categorical assurance that that is not part of the Government's plans and will not be part of them?
    The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, yes. The NHS will remain as it is—free at the point of use—and the massive investment that we are putting into the NHS will, as it is doing already, deliver the changes that we need to see in the health service, but we hold to the important principle that the NHS should be there on the basis of need, not on the basis of ability to pay.
    Mr. Adrian Sanders: Given the friendship between this country and Egypt, will the comments of President Mubarak yesterday that this war could create 100 bin Ladens affect its prosecution by coalition forces?
    The Prime Minister:I take anything that President Mubarak says extremely seriously because he is a wise man and good friend to this country. I believe that the question of how this turns out in the Arab and Muslim world will be dependent on what happens once this conflict is won. If people can see that the Iraqi people are given freedom, the ability to have a proper representative Government and protection on human rights and are able to enjoy their prosperity, I believe that across the Arab and Muslim world the message will be positive. I understand entirely that it is not now. That is hardly surprising given some of the claims that are made about coalition forces, but I believe that there will be a point when we can turn round and prove to people—this is the obligation on us—that this was indeed a war of liberation and that the people of Iraq are indeed the principal beneficiaries of it.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when this conflict is over, there may be a need to review the constitution of the United Nations, especially on the enlargement of the Security Council, so that it can become a more effective and stronger body for the resolution of conflict in the 21st century?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that there are issues to do with that. The difficulty always has been that, whenever people attempt to enlarge the Security Council, the issue is to get unanimity on exactly who should come on to it as permanent members. For that reason, it has always been difficult to reach agreement. I agree that there are issues concerning the UN as an institution that we need to take account of, but the main thing is to try to make
    916
    sure that we reach some deeper consensus at a global level about what the proper agenda for the world in terms of both security and justice is for this century.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: What would the Prime Minister say to my constituents in Eastbourne who are facing a 38 per cent. increase in their council tax this year, especially in the light of Government figures slipped out last week that show that up to 30 per cent. of elderly and vulnerable people who are entitled to help with their council tax never claim benefit?
    The Prime Minister: First, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister before Prime Minister's Question Time began, we have made a massive increase in the funding to local councils, an increase far greater than the Conservatives. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are still people who do not claim the benefit rebates and other help to which they are entitled. However, those entitlements have risen enormously as a result of the measures that the Government have taken, which in almost every instance the Opposition opposed.
    Claire Curtis-Thomas: I have today received a letter from Archbishop Patrick Kelly expressing his grave concern about the Israeli wall. As my right hon. Friend will know, as we speak, the Israelis are constructing a wall 200 miles long and 8 m high that will divide communities, decimate fertile Palestinian land and completely surround the city of Qalqilia with its 30,000 inhabitants. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this latest manifestation is odious in the extreme? Will he do all that he can to ensure that it is removed as part and parcel of the road map to peace that is currently being negotiated?
    The Prime Minister: It is important in the context of greater security and progress that we ensure that everything possible is done to allow the two-state solution to develop.
    I am of course sympathetic to any measures that are necessary in terms of security because I understand the problems that the Israeli Government have faced with terrorist acts against their civilians. On the other hand, I think that it is now the settled view throughout the world that the best way of resolving the issue is the two-state solution. One part of that is a viable Palestinian state, and that state does indeed have to be viable. Therefore, it is important that whatever measures are taken in respect of security, people realise that when we approach the ultimate goal of the two-state solution, it will have to be on a basis that allows that Palestinian state indeed to be viable.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: Does the Prime Minister agree that the passing last Thursday by the United Nations Security Council of the so-called third resolution—the oil-for-food resolution—demonstrates that the gap between the coalition on the one side and France and Russia on the other is perhaps not as large as some might think? Would he care to comment on the

    917
    future chances of sensible resolutions in relation to Iraq given that the United Nations has recently elected Libya to chair the UN Commission on Human Rights?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary helpfully tells me that the UN Commission on Human Rights is separate from the UN Security Council.
    Mr. Garnier: I know that.
    The Prime Minister: And I was about to say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I knew that too. [Interruption.]
    But look—[Interruption.] There are issues to do with the UN, and some of those issues are obviously to do with the UN's credibility, though I think that for all its faults most people still recognise the UN as the right forum for legitimacy in the international community.
    The first point that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes is correct, which is that the oil-for-food resolution that is being passed is an indication that there is a preparedness to try to work together. That will be particularly important when we come to the next stage, which is the post-conflict situation in Iraq. It will be important to use that as a means of bringing the international community back together again.
    Jim Sheridan:It is right and proper that the Government's attention should be focused on the middle east, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that it would be wrong to lose sight of domestic issues, particularly the question of antisocial behaviour and youth crime throughout the UK. Could he therefore assure the House that there will be sufficient funds for those agencies and devolved Governments who are committed to deal effectively with that very important issue, which affects many people in our communities?
    The Prime Minister: What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right—we should not forget the importance of the issue of antisocial behaviour. I know that the Scottish Executive are putting something in the region of £l0 million into initiatives across Scotland to tackle it, and here there will be the new Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, which will put a whole range of new powers and
    918
    penalties into the hands of our police service, allowing them to deal quickly and effectively with the issue, which is a real problem for many communities in our country.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Has the Prime Minister read the eye-witness account by William Branigin of the Washington Post of the shootings near Karbala, which resulted in the deaths of seven women and children, many of whom were under five? Such deaths may be the inevitable and tragic consequence of war, but given the emotions that they stir up throughout the Islamic world, do they not make a powerful case about why it is a very bad idea for a combatant country to run a post-war Administration in Iraq?
    The Prime Minister: First, in relation to the particular incident, of course it was a tragedy—a terrible tragedy. A full inquiry is being conducted, and we offer our condolences, I am sure, to the families of those who died. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that it is a very difficult situation for those soldiers at the checkpoints as well. I think that people will understand that, while accepting what a terrible tragedy it is. I hope that the hon. Gentleman also realises—this is the point that I was trying to make earliery—that tragedies that we do not see and that we do not hear of are also happening, carried out by Saddam's people in Iraq at present. To give an example that has come in the last 24 hours, reports from Basra and elsewhere say that young people who are refusing to fight have literally been shot in front of their parents—shot deliberately. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but—
    Mr. Salmond: Answer the question.
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry, but these things are relevant because they give a balanced picture of what is happening. No one is in any doubt about the appalling nature of war, but it is also right to point out those things that are not receiving the same publicity. As for post-conflict Iraq, surely it is important that we all agree that the best guarantee that it will have the support of the Iraqi people is that Iraqis are in charge of it. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, whatever the process of transition, as soon as possible that will be the case. Iraq in the end should not be run by the Americans, the British or any outside force or power. It should be run, for the first time in decades, by the Iraqi people.

Local Government (Independent Funding Commission)
12.33 pm
Tony Baldry: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an Independent Funding Commission to have responsibility for allocating grants and funds to local authorities in England and Wales and replacing the standard spending assessment powers of Ministers; and for connected purposes.
A booklet dropping through north Oxfordshire residents' letterboxes this month explains:
"Around 9 per cent. of Council Tax goes to Cherwell District Council—the rest goes to Oxfordshire County Council and Thames Valley Police Authority as well as Parish and Town Councils".
It goes on to outline local government grants and the way in which
"changes in some of these are imposing serious financial pressures on the Council".
It finishes by observing that the council is committed to ensuring that
"public money is safeguarded, properly accounted for, and spent efficiently and effectively".
People have started to notice that since 1997 their council tax bills have increased by more than 80 per cent., which is a huge increase. The need for an independent commission on local government finance is now clear. Local government finance has an impact on far-reaching local issues. I do not believe that the allocation of money to local authorities can be decided fairly by Ministers of any Government—it can be done only by an independent commission. An independent commission was established by the Government to examine the voting system. The terms of reference of that commission allowed it to recommend "any appropriate system" assessed as "fair" and offering "stability". My Bill would allow for an impartial assessment of which system of local government funding would offer fairness and stability.
Thumping council tax increases in Oxfordshire and Cherwell are not the responsibility of local councillors, but are the result of a sleight of hand by Ministers. A few months ago, Ministers at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister restructured local government finance, creating what they call a fair funding formula. The result is neither a fair formula for Oxfordshire nor for much of the south of England; nor does it provide adequate funding for Oxfordshire.
Put simply, the Government are transferring investment from local authorities in the south of England to councils in the midlands and the north. That is not my judgment; it was the assessment of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, which found that council tax in southern councils outside London will increase by, for example, 17 per cent. in Cheltenham and 19 per cent. in Guildford. By contrast, council tax is scheduled to rise on average by just 4 per cent. in Scotland, and many local authorities in the north get off lightly, with increases below 10 per cent.
In Manchester, for example, bills will rise by only 5 per cent. Manchester is, of course, a Labour-held council. Indeed, I have discovered that of the 10 lowest
920
council tax rises taking place, seven are in Labour councils. That is a reflection not of their skills at financial management, but of Ministers giving more money to their friends in the north. My Bill would establish an independent commission that is required to find fairness, balance and impartiality in local government financing, in line with the purpose of other independent commissions.
The Bill would bring another benefit. It would offer an opportunity for genuine transparency in local government funding. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's recent local government settlement followed an opaque consultation, obfuscated by Ministers, who refused to meet local authorities to listen to their concerns. Such financial gerrymandering would not happen under an independent commission.
The ODPM's consultation was meant to replace the standard spending assessment of grants to local authorities with a fair funding formula, but no one could say whether the settlement was fair when it was announced, because not all the announcements on local authority funding were made at the same time. It is impossible to compare last year with this year. That would not happen under an independent commission.
The changes announced in that ODPM settlement affect every service provided by every local authority, yet the Government have deliberately left councillors compromised by lack of information and explanation. Consider Oxfordshire. Only two things are certain: the first is that council tax will have to rise by at least 12.8 per cent., so band D homeowners in Cherwell will pay £25 more. The second is that local councillors who provide the services on which so many local people depend have no idea what will be the exact amount that they receive from the Government. The imposition of the grants, ceilings, floors and resource equalisations that are now part of local government finance settlements are still being absorbed by local authorities, including Oxfordshire.
Lack of information creates uncertainty, and uncertainty leads to instability. Such uncertainty would not occur under an independent commission. The extent of existing instability can be gauged from a letter to ODPM officials in December 2002, in which Oxfordshire county council explained that the proposed settlement
"is extremely complicated and it has been difficult for us to understand the implications of the proposals. Some changes interrelate, making it very difficult to understand what is causing the change in our grant. Late release of information … has particularly caused problems in terms of providing speedy responses both internally and to media interest".
I would go further. The deliberate late release of information by Ministers has made it practically impossible for Oxfordshire county council and Cherwell district council to stabilise existing services. What do they decide to put out to tender if they do not know what stage their budget is at? How can they properly decide what represents best value under the Government's own criteria, if they do not know which bit of their budget is doing what? Such Government action undermines accountability, and accountability is central to democracy.
Under an independent commission, local government and local people could clearly see what funds were being allocated to which councils on a clear and transparent

921
basis. An independent commission would also allow us to move away from a situation where, in the Government's own words, the local government funding formula
"cannot reflect all possible circumstances, so there will inevitably be an element of rough justice".
Council tax payers and business tax payers in Oxfordshire and elsewhere are experiencing the Government's rough justice. That is particularly rough justice when the Audit Commission reports that the 21 councils judged to be excellent, most of which are in the south, will on average receive fewer financial resources from central Government than the 13 councils, most of which are in the north, that were judged to be poor performers.
I have referred to the council tax, but there will be no less an impact on business rates in Oxfordshire. The business rate rise there is bad news for smaller businesses in Oxfordshire and elsewhere in the country. The council tax rise is bad news for everyone living in Oxfordshire. We are told that the Government grant floors will delay the impact of the changes to grant in Oxfordshire, but that is not a solution. Floors do not produce fairness, and delay does not enhance stability. It is therefore imperative that an impartial public body be given the opportunity to say whether—after all the ministerial talk of floors, ceilings, resource equalisation, and area cost adjustment—it is fair that 21 competent councils have to redistribute their resources to the 13 worst-performing local authorities. My Bill would also allow an independent commission to look at local government finance in the round.
I do not want to bombard the House with statistics, but to help me to explain what is happening in Oxfordshire county council's budget, it is well worth looking at the following facts. The council's spending is set to increase this year by £42 million. Of that, only £14 million is due to the normal effect of inflation. Most of the rest is made up of demands placed on the council by the Government. Some £2.5 million will be consumed by paying the increased national insurance contributions of the council's staff and contractors when the Chancellor's 2002 Budget comes into effect this month. Another £300,000 is needed to pay the Government's landfill tax. A nationally agreed above-inflation pay
922
increase for white collar workers will account for £1.7 million. A further £1.9 million is required to satisfy the Government's diktat on fair pay for low pay workers.
It will also cost Oxfordshire county council £600,000 to store redundant fridges, which at present can be neither dumped nor recycled because the Government have been unable to satisfy EC directives. In addition, Oxfordshire council tax payers will have to stump up a £500,000 fine to the NHS if legislation goes through on local authorities blocking beds by failing to provide enough care home places for elderly people. Yet the reason why the council cannot find enough places is that it does not have the funding from central Government to invest in increasingly stretched local social services, which brings us full circle to the reason for the increase in council tax bills.
No one in a vulnerable group that depends on the support of social services provided by counties such as Oxfordshire can feel reassured that their life will be made more stable or secure by the seemingly far from impartial local government funding formulae. Let us consider their impact on pensioners in Oxfordshire. The council tax increases prompted one elderly couple to put it to me in a recent letter that
"Our own situation deserves better from the Government."
Indeed, everyone in Oxfordshire and the south of England deserves better from the Government. We have seen some disgraceful gerrymandering of local government finance this year. If the Government and their Ministers cannot do this job properly, it must be done by an independent commission, and that is what my Bill proposes.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Tony Baldry, Mr. John Bercow, Mr. David Cameron, Mr. Boris Johnson, Mr. Robert Jackson, Richard Ottaway and Mr. Ian Taylor.

Local Government (Independent Funding Commission)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (INDEPENDENT FUNDING COMMISSION)
  Tony Baldry accordingly presented a Bill to establish an Independent Funding Commission to have responsibility for allocating grants and funds to local authorities in England and Wales and replacing the standard spending assessment powers of Ministers; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed. [Bill 86].

Points of Order
12.43 pm
Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are the upholder of Back Benchers' rights and you will know that there was a promise last Thursday of an early statement about the Prime Minister's visit to the United States and the United Nations. At Question Time today, the Prime Minister said that he would make one statement before the Easter recess begins on 14 April. That is clearly inappropriate. Prime Minister's Question Time is not a proper venue for the majority of Back Benchers to be able to question the Prime Minister about the war. For example, today, it took until 12.18 to get past Question 2, and then, of course, the Prime Minister had to run through the other eight questions. Most of the questions from the Leader of the Opposition were not oppositional at all, and there was no chance to ask the difficult questions that many Back Benchers want to ask. I, for example, want to ask the Prime Minister a question about British troops being executed, because there has been no opportunity to get clarification about that.
Mr. Speaker, do you not think it reasonable that Back Benchers should have the opportunity to get clarification on issues such as that? Do you not think it reasonable at a time of war that the Prime Minister should make more than just one statement in a fortnight? Do you not think it reasonable that he should fulfil the promise given by his acting Leader of the House? As the defender of Back Benchers' rights, what are you going to do about that?
Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is advancing an argument rather than raising a point of order, but I agree with him about one thing. He is correct: I am the defender of Back Benchers' rights, and I can say, modest as I am, that I do a very good job in defending them. I will continue to bear it in mind that whenever a statement is made on these matters I should look to the hon. Gentleman and see what I can do for him.
Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you look into the possibility of allocating one of our parliamentary television channels to one of the Arab channels, such as al-Jazeera? We have 24 television channels, three of which are devoted to sport. I think it important during a war to see what the Arabs are viewing—what images they are receiving from the Arab channels. It would be much appreciated if, in the interests of informing Members more fully, one of our channels was given to al-Jazeera.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady may realise that other people besides me are involved when it comes to the parliamentary channels. I understand that the House of
924
Lords is entitled to a view on this, and the Information Committee might also have to look into it. I think that the best thing the hon. Lady can do is write to me giving all the reasons why she thinks this should happen.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In my view you are indeed a superb upholder of Back Benchers' rights, especially in the difficulties of wartime. If I may say so without slurring the dead, you are far better than George Thomas.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you have had an opportunity to read the minutes of the Procedure Committee on Prime Minister's questions. One of the problems that arises is the difficulty of challenging prime ministerial assertions. Today was a case in point. The Prime Minister asserted that Kerbala had been destroyed by Saddam's forces. I can only say that when was in Kerbala in 1994, the imam of the great mosque of the Shia explained in detail that in fact a stray bomb had caused the damage that we saw being repaired, lovingly and with great skill, by local people on wooden scaffolding.
It is very difficult to establish the sources of prime ministerial assertions. I hope that when the Procedure Committee's report is published some attention will be given to the subject.
Ann Clwyd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Further to the same point of order?
Ann Clwyd: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday Dr. Hamid al-Bayati, who represents the Shia population in London, came to the House to speak to us. In his speech he said that various sites in areas mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) had been destroyed previously by the Iraqi regime. I certainly did not understand from what the Prime Minister said that those sites had been destroyed recently by the coalition forces. I think that I am more prepared to listen to the authentic voice of a Shia representative in this country.
Mr. Speaker: I think that I am beginning to hear arguments rather than points of order.
Let me say this to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I understand that the Procedure Committee is looking into the matters that he raised. It is looking into several matters concerning the House, including Question Time. I look forward to the publication of its report, which I shall read with interest.
Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to put it on record that I endorse the view that you are an excellent defender of Back Benchers' rights. I do not want my earlier comments to imply the opposite.
Mr. Speaker: It is too late. [Laughter.]

Criminal Justice Bill Programme (No. 4)
12.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Home Department(Hilary Benn): I beg to move,
That, in accordance with the resolution of the Programming Committee of 1st April and pursuant to the Programme Order of 4th December 2002 relating to the Criminal Justice Bill, as amended by the Orders of 4th February and 5th March:

(1) Proceedings on consideration shall be taken on each of the three days allowed by the Order as shown in the second column of the following Table, and shall be taken in the order so shown.

(2) Proceedings on the first day shall be brought to a conclusion six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on that day or at the conclusion of the proceedings set down for that day, whichever is the earlier.

(3) The proceedings shown in the second column of the table shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column.

(4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the third day.

TABLE

Day

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

First day

Clauses 1 to 6, Clause 8, Schedule 1, New Clauses relating to Part 3, Clauses 18 to 22, New Clauses relating to Part 4, Clause 23, Schedule 2, Clauses 24 to 26, New Clauses relating to Part 8, Clauses 44 to 49

Two and a half hours after the commencement of the proceedings on a motion relating to this resolution

Clauses 99 to 120, Schedule 6, Clauses 121 to 126

Three and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings

New Clauses relating to Part 11, Clauses 82 to 98, Schedule 5

Six and a half hours after the commencement of such proceedings

Second day

New Clauses relating to Part 1, Clause 7, Clauses 9 and 10, New Clauses relating to Part 2, Clauses 11 to 17, New Clauses relating to Part 5, Clauses 27 to 34, New Clauses relating to Part 6, Clause 35, Schedule 3, New Clauses relating to Part 7, Clauses 36 to 43, New Clauses relating to Part 9, Clauses 50 to 62, New Clauses relating to Part 10, Clause 63, Schedule 4, Clauses 64 to 81

Six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill

Third day

New Clauses relating to Part 12, Clauses 127 to 163, Schedule 7, Clause 164, Schedule 8, Clauses 165 to 171, Schedule 9, Clauses 172 to 176, Schedule 10, Clauses 177 to 201, Schedule 11, Clauses 202 to 206, Schedule 12, Clauses 207 to 211, Schedules 13 and 14, Clause 212, Schedule 15, Clauses 213 to 221, Schedule 16, Clauses 222 to 246, Schedule 17, Clause 247, Schedule 18, Clause 248, Schedules 19 and 20, Clauses 249 to 251, Schedule 21, Clause 252, Schedule 22, Clauses 253 and 254, Schedule 23, Clauses 255 to 258, Schedule 24, Clauses 259 to 265, Schedule 25, Clauses 266 to 268, Schedule 26, Clauses 269 to 273, Schedule 27, Clause 274, Schedule 28, Clause 275, Schedule 29, Clauses 276 to 280, remaining New Clauses, New Schedules, any remaining proceedings on the Bill

Five and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill

I do not want to detain the House because I am sure that all hon. Members want to get on to the substance of the debate. Much consultation has taken place through the usual channels and I am grateful for the support and co-operation of the Opposition parties. I pay tribute to the contribution in Committee of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), the Government Whip, and to his enabling the House to consider the Bill on Report for an unprecedented three days. I hope that the structure of the programme motion will allow hon. Members to debate the subjects that they want to discuss. I therefore suggest that we get on with it as quickly as possible.
12.51 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve: The official Opposition are not fond of programme motions on Report. We are worried about whether we shall have sufficient time for proper scrutiny of the Bill. However, it would be utterly churlish not to thank the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell). As Government Whip in charge of the Bill in Committee, he showed enormous flexibility. Although we experienced difficulties, and it was unfortunate that we did not succeed in scrutinising every aspect of the measure, it was not his fault but that of the person above him, who had set such a tight time schedule. The hon. Member for Nottingham, East did everything in his power to ensure that the Bill went through Committee properly scrutinised and in a spirit of co-operation that I had not previously experienced. I am immensely

927
grateful to him for that and because I believe that he played some part in ensuring that we have three days in which to consider the measure on Report.
I make one plea to the Under-Secretary. We do not know how many Government amendments will be tabled. I am comfortable with the prospect of full scrutiny in three days of the amendments that have already been tabled, but if the Government intend to table many more, perhaps the Under-Secretary would be so good as to consider whether three days will do justice to the Bill. We are close to reaching the end of consideration with the Opposition being broadly satisfied—perhaps I should not say that—that adequate time has been given for scrutiny. It would be a great pity if too many fresh amendments spoiled that. I repeat my thanks to the hon. Member for Nottingham, East, who has done the House a signal service.
12.53 pm
Mr. David Heath: I have no idea what damage we are doing to the career of the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), but I associate myself with the words of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). I cannot recall such sensible co-operation in Committee and in organising the business on Report. It is helpful for the Opposition parties to know that we will have the opportunity to raise the issues that we believe to be most important. Thank goodness I made the request—never believing that it would be granted—for a third day on Report. Even with it, the schedule is tight for considering important matters of justice, about which we must take great care. I put on record my appreciation of the efforts of the hon. Member for Nottingham, East and of the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). Let us now get on with the debate.
12.54 pm
Lady Hermon: I am convinced that the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) will have remembered the Ulster Unionist party. My colleagues are with me in spirit if not in body. We are a little troubled, to put it mildly. In Committee on 16 January—the hon. Gentleman appears perplexed, but I shall refresh his memory—the Under-Secretary said at column 390:
"I confirm … that Northern Ireland Ministers intend that the Bill should apply to Northern Ireland, but incorrectly informed the Committee that it would be done by order. In fact, we intend to do so in the Bill, and will table amendments on Report to that effect."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 16 January 2003; c. 390.]
Will the Under-Secretary assure us that time has been set aside to discuss such amendments in the three days on Report?
12.55 pm
Mr. David Cameron: The last thing I want to do is to rain on the parade of the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell). I want to make one point and one plea. My point is that we did not discuss large chunks of the Bill in Committee, especially the material about charging and the important transfer of responsibility for charging from the police to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Perhaps my plea should have been made as a point of order. It is on behalf of the hard-pressed little people—Back Benchers. We get your marshalled selection of amendments, Mr. Speaker, relatively late. That has always been the case, but the new sitting hours make it even more difficult for Back Benchers to plan when to try to contribute to the debate. We have so many wretched programme motions, and getting the Speaker's selection of amendments a little earlier in the day, and perhaps a couple of days before Report, would help us to plan our Lives, now that we have to be in five places at once.
12.56 pm
Hilary Benn: The response to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is yes. I hope that that satisfies her. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) about programming, because I believe that it helps hon. Members to debate the subjects that they want to discuss. If it is operated with flexibility and sensitivity, as shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), it rightly gives the Opposition the power and opportunity to discuss matters about which they are concerned. However, I acknowledge that, as our understanding of the operation of programming develops, we must ensure that it assists hon. Members. It is a matter for others to reflect upon, but I am committed to that. I hope that all hon. Members will come to love programming in due course.
Mr. Graham Allen: I too pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) for the good-humoured way in which he got Government Back-Bench Members involved. Having held his job in a previous incarnation, I appreciate that that must have been stressful. However, many Government Back-Bench Members made a positive contribution in Committee. I had never experienced that, and it is a tribute to my hon. Friend.
Hilary Benn: I concur with that. I do not know whether the experience was stressful for my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East, but it was sometimes stressful for the Under-Secretary. However, I am grateful for the contributions in Committee from Members of all parties.
Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Criminal Justice Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  12.58 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 4, line 30, leave out Clause 5.
  Clause 5 amends the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in an important way by increasing from 24 to 36 hours the period for which a person may be detained without charge at a police station while a case against him is investigated in the case of any arrestable offence. That is a very substantial change to current practice proposed by the Government.
  In proposing an Opposition amendment to delete the provision, I hope that the House will bear with me while I examine the history of this matter and current practice, before assessing the impact of the change. As matters stand now, the 24-hour rule exists for the protection of the individual who has been arrested. It is undesirable per se for any person to be detained without charge at a police station for any excessive length of time, except for the time reasonably required to investigate the offence for which the person has been brought in. Twenty-four hours has long been considered an appropriate period for such detention.
  That said, there have already been, and remain, exceptions to that existing rule. In the case of a serious arrestable offence, the period may be increased by the police superintendent to 36 hours. That covers a substantial number of offences that most people would accept warranted a long period of investigation: including treason, murder, manslaughter, rape, kidnapping, incest with a girl under the age of 13, indecent assault, offences under the Customs and Excise Management Acts, causing explosions, intercourse with a girl under the age of 13, possession of firearms with intent to injure, use of firearms and imitation firearms to resist arrest, carrying firearms with criminal intent, hostage taking, hijacking, torture, causing death by dangerous or careless driving, endangering the safety of aerodromes, hijacking of ships, seizing or exercising control of fixed platforms, hijacking of channel tunnel trains, seizing or exercising control of the tunnel system, taking indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children and the publication of obscene material.
  That is a long list, tailored to make specific exceptions to the 24-hour rule in circumstances that Parliament has considered in the past justify making such exceptions. The question arises as to the basis for changing to a far more general rule, which would allow detention of up to 36 hours for all arrestable offences. In the run-up to the Bill's introduction, the background intention for the change was discussed. The Home Affairs Committee considered the matter in its pre-scrutiny report, albeit a report that it acknowledged was rather hurried in respect of the time allowed for consideration. The Association of Chief Police Officers told the Committee that the initial detention period of 24 hours could provide insufficient time in which to conclude the investigative process and charge a detained person because of delays elsewhere in the custody process—for
  930
  example, in obtaining the services of an appropriate adult, police surgeon or interpreter, or when a suspect is initially unfit for interview because of alcohol or drugs. It felt that delays linked to the provision of legal advice could also put pressure on the custody clock.
  Another argument was that some offences did not fall into the category of serious arrestable offences, but many people nevertheless regarded them as being serious—burglary and robbery, for example. However, there is already a saving clause in that such offences may become serious if their intrinsic nature—the amounts of money obtained or the specific circumstances—justifies it, in which case a police superintendent can deem that they fall into that category, though it can be challenged in court. However, I am not aware of any successful challenges to such procedures.
  That provides the background, and I assume from what was said in Committee that it was the reasoning behind the Government's view that the Bill should amend certain provisions in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The problem is that a moment's scrutiny of the consequences conclusively reveals that some of the offences to be included in the highly serious category will surprise many people. Trespassing on an aerodrome, for example, would fall within the category that allows detention for 36 hours. The House therefore needs to ask whether the blanket change is justified in preference to inserting further exceptions in PACE.
  The Minister will recollect that we abstained on this matter in Committee in order better to reflect on what he had to say. Our approach is pragmatic. However, the more we reflect on it, the more unconvinced we become of the merit of the proposal. The case was powerfully made in Committee that the extended powers to detain up to 36 hours are rarely used. Indeed, a Home Office report surveying how many times individual police forces detained up to 36 hours in a 12-month period revealed that the Avon and Somerset constabulary, Cumbria, Dorset, Durham, Humberside, Norfolk, Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire, Dyfed Powys—I remind the Minister that that force has the highest clear-up rate of any force in England and Wales—and the North Wales police had never used it. The Metropolitan police, who one might think likely to use the power frequently because of the level of serious crime in the capital, had used it only seven times.
  As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) pointed out in Committee, one police force, Gwent, seemed to have a particular predilection for using this method of detention up to 36 hours, having used it 192 times in a 12-month period.
  Simon Hughes: I did point that out in Committee, as the hon. Gentleman has generously acknowledged. Subsequently, however, I received a letter of correction, showing that the Gwent figures had been inaccurately reported. The one example demonstrating that one particular force had often used the excessive power has proved to be aberrant, so no force appears to have used it frequently.
  Mr. Grieve: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clearing that up. While studying

  931
  Hansard, I noticed that the Minister had certainly not corrected that matter. I did find it extraordinary that one police force should use the power so often. The hon. Gentleman's clarification reinforces the point that the vast majority of police forces have no need to use the extended power, and those that have used it have done so only rarely.
  As the Minister knows, 36 hours is not always the cut-off point for serious offences under current arrangements. It is already possible to continue well beyond 36 hours—in fact, for up to 92 hours—if application is made to the court. Generally speaking, that is considered quite long enough to carry out full investigations.
  Another issue raised in Committee was the question of how things were done elsewhere. Clearly, comparisons with other countries may be helpful in ascertaining whether the police need the 36-hour power. The Minister wrote to the Committee helpfully setting out the initial detention periods in different countries—and the correspondence makes illuminating reading. In respect of Australian states, the figures show that in New South Wales, the period of detention is four hours. In Queensland, it is eight hours, which can be extended for a further eight hours with a magistrate's approval. In South Australia, the period is four hours, with a four-hour extension granted by a magistrate. In Canada, the period is 24 hours, with a possible extension from a justice of the peace. In Denmark, it is 24 hours, with a 48-hour maximum, to be extended by the court. In Finland, the period is 24 hours. In France, it is 24 hours, with an extra 24 hours possible on the stamp of the public prosecutor. In the Netherlands, the period is six hours, excluding the hours between midnight and 9 am, and there can be an extension of another six hours thereafter. In South Africa, the period is 48 hours, and in Spain it is 72 hours. In Sweden, it is six hours, with a six-hour extension.
  I do not find the Spanish model an especially happy one, as I suspect that it may be a carryover from a period in Spain's history when it enjoyed a rather authoritarian form of Government.
  Mr. Chris Bryant: It was not Franco, in fact.
  Mr. Grieve: I wait to hear from the hon. Gentleman, who intervenes from a sedentary position. I do not know the answer to his contention, but the period strikes me as being very long. I note that, apart from Austria and South Africa, the proposed period of 36 hours, with the extension provided for by the superintendent, will put us in an usual category. Britain will allow detention for longer than most other countries.
  I therefore return to the original question, which I wanted to ponder after the Committee debate: is the proposed period really necessary? The Minister's international comparisons, and the precise nature of the proposed change, leave me with an increasing feeling that the change is unjustified.
  I hope that the House will forgive me for reading from the Minister's letter of 8 February, as I think that, in a funny way, he destroys his case as he makes it. He wrote:
  "As you know, the police can currently only extend detention without charge beyond 24 hours (and up to 36 hours) in relation to serious arrestable offences. Some offences are always serious
  932
  arrestable offences and these are specified in section 116 of Schedule 5 to PACE. However, section 116 also makes it clear that any arrestable offence can qualify as a serious arrestable offence if it has led to or is intended or likely to lead to certain specific consequences. For example, serious injury to any person or serious financial loss to any person.
  It follows from this that there is a sense in which the proposals in clause 5 of the Bill do not add any new offences to the group where detention up to 36 hours is available. This already applies in respect of any arrestable offence if the 'consequences' test is met. What the clause does is to allow scope for extended detention in relation to any arrestable offence, whether the consequences test is satisfied or not."
  That letter seems to demolish completely the Government's argument that this amendment is really necessary. The only possible use that I can see being made of the provisions allowing detention to continue beyond 24 hours is in those cases where it strikes me as likely to be totally unjustified. I am sure that the Minister does not consider that to be a desirable outcome.
  The House should consider the matter carefully. Later in our proceedings, although not today, we will consider Government amendments concerning taking DNA and fingerprints from people who have been arrested and taken into police stations. As I understand it, the purpose is to take advantage of the golden opportunity presented when someone is arrested. The police can check whether that person is wanted for, or connected with, some offence other than the one for which he has been brought in.
  When I read those amendments, and then look at the proposed increase in police detention powers, I feel slightly worried that we are signing a blank cheque to the police, encouraging them to use the occasion of arrest as an opportunity to carry out trawl searches in connection with a person arrested for an offence which, although trivial—such as the theft of a packet worth 6p from the supermarket—is still arrestable. The police could then take the opportunity to find out more about that person, and detain him while those investigations are carried out.
  1.15 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend is mounting a forensic dissection of the Government's rather draconian and clumsy case. He has just hit the nail on the head. Should not the essence of the power to detain be that it is based on reasonable grounds for suspicion, and not on an incentive to the law—and its officers, in the form of the police—to mount unwarranted fishing expeditions on other grounds?
  Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend is right. Of course, the reasonable grounds of suspicion should relate to the offence for which the person is arrested.
  I want to be realistic: I am the first to accept that there will be occasions when the police pick up a person for some minor matter and then suddenly realise that they have hit the bull's eye and that they have laid hands on someone who has committed serious offences. However, there needs to be a balance in all this, and no one has persuaded me that the Government have got it right. The Minister did not persuade me of that in Committee, although he did enough to make me willing to think further. However, he has not persuaded me that the existing powers do not adequately allow for the possibility that I have described.

  933
  The anxiety must be that, once the House gives an extra power to the police in this blanket form, the inevitable consequence will be to encourage those who are given the power to use it routinely. That is what always happens, although not as the result of some sinister intention. In contrast, at present the police must be constantly mindful of the fact that in the ordinary course of events a person has to be released within the 24-hour period.
  I repeat: if the Minister can come up with compelling arguments in this afternoon's debate to justify his position and explain why the proposed power is so vital, then I am, on a pragmatic basis, open to persuasion. However, he did not succeed in doing that in Standing Committee, and his subsequent honest and forthright letter seems to damage the case yet further. The letter highlights the fact that the power is not needed.
  Mr. Bercow: In addition to the dangers that my hon. Friend has just highlighted, is there not a real prospect that a change to 36 hours rather than 24 will become the norm rather than the exception? Moreover, in respect of offences for which a 36-hour period is allowed, will not the clamour come from the voices of authority for a limit of 48 hours, or some other period that would be excessive?
  Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One anxiety expressed in some circles, and particularly in legal circles, is that as soon as the extension of the period by administrative action by the superintendent is raised routinely to 36 hours, one of the first possible consequences is that the Government start encouraging the idea that they might approve an extension of the court's discretionary powers.
  Obviously, criminal cases need to be investigated fully. However, two things need to be borne in mind. The first is an issue of straight civil liberties: it is undesirable that people should be detained for excessive periods of time without charge. A look at the provisions in comparable countries in the civilised world leaves us with the impression that Britain is moving very substantially towards putting itself on the upper level of countries that allow for long periods of detention. That bothers me.
  Mr. David Cameron: Before my hon. Friend finishes, will he deal with the Government's response to the Home Affairs Committee? They said, as an excuse for bringing in this proposal, that in many cases those detained needed medical treatment or a translator, or that there needed to be a pause while waiting for a solicitor to arrive. Does my hon. Friend agree that it should be incumbent on the police to get their ducks in a row, as it were? Would that not be preferable to changing fundamentally the civil rights of the person who has been arrested and detained?
  Mr. Grieve: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that that is the case. Moreover, in fairness to the police, from the evidence available it seems that that is what is happening. Some figures were given in Committee. We were told, and I think I have seen these figures
  934
  subsequently, that 1.3 million people were arrested in a 12-month period and that there were 697 occasions on which people were detained for longer than 24 hours and not charged. We also know from Home Office research that the average period of detention is six hours and 40 minutes. Even in murder or rape cases, it is 22 hours. That does not suggest that there is some compelling problem.
  Moreover, the Bill makes new provisions for bail conditions, which will make it easier for the police to interview and release someone and then get them back to the police station successfully if they have insufficient time in which to carry out investigations for relatively minor offences.
  Simon Hughes: Again, I must update the hon. Gentleman to ensure that the record is correct. As a result of the correction by Gwent police, the total figure that he just cited—693, I think—is reduced by about a half. The total is much less significant and normal practice is well under the 24 hours, as he rightly suggests.
  Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and can see how the one follows logically upon the other. I thank him for pointing that out.
  I ask the Minister, therefore, where the problem is. Where is the justification for doing this? I know that the hon. Gentleman is a liberal-minded man and would consider it desirable that all police investigations should be carried out expeditiously and that people should be detained for a minimum period. My professional experience suggests that the longer a person is detained in custody, the more likely it is that something will go wrong unwittingly. Being detained in a police cell is not a pleasant experience for those who have to go through it. Even though PACE sets out to protect people who are being interviewed and investigated by the police, there can be no doubt that the longer such a period of detention is, the more likely or possible it is that a person—without coercion by the police, as I am not suggesting any impropriety—may be disturbed and distressed by the experience. The quality of the investigation and its truthfulness are likely to suffer as a result. It is enormously desirable that people should not be under stress while an investigation is taking place.
  For all those reasons and having reflected carefully on what was said by all parties in Committee—although at that stage we abstained in the vote—it is the official Opposition's view that the clause is unjustified. We will seek the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House to delete it, although I would be even happier to have some words of comfort from the Minister and to hear him say that the matter will be properly reconsidered, which might enable me not to press the amendment to the vote.
  Mr. David Heath: I shall be brief and will not repeat all the arguments of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) on the amendment to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and I have added our names. As has been said, this matter received our attention in Committee and we have not changed our view that the Government have failed to provide a justification for their proposed change.

  935
  We must consider the purpose of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which is protection for the citizen. We must also consider that holding someone in custody prior to charge places a limitation on their liberty for the specific purpose of questioning and investigation of an offence. First, it is incumbent on the police and the judicial authorities—the state—to ensure that that period of detention without charge is as limited as is consistent with the interests of justice.
  Secondly, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, the 36-hour period can already be used in serious cases as specified in legislation. The fact is that that power is rarely used. It is not considered necessary in the overwhelming majority of cases. Indeed, we have heard that the average detention time before charge is around the six-hour mark, which is not an unreasonable average. Home Office figures show that there were 1.272 million arrests with only 697 persons held for the 36-hour period. We now know that half of the latter figure came from Gwent and that Gwent police provided incorrect figures, which means that the figure was only 300 to 400, so the power is used sparingly by the police.
  I would be more concerned if the police did not already have the ability to seek an extension from a magistrate. That power exists and under extreme circumstances, where new evidence is emerging or the suspect cannot be questioned owing to intoxication or whatever, the police can seek leave of a magistrates court to extend the detention period.
  I am in any case wholly unconvinced by the Government's approach. If there is a concern about specific offences, it seems odd to include in clause 5 the catch-all provision of the arrestable offence under section 24 of PACE. For a start, the offences are not identical to those that most normal people would consider serious. As the hon. Gentleman said, offences that fall into that category include some that most people would not consider should require such a provision, while offences that fall outside the category would require it. For example, the charge of affray falls outside it, but that could be an offence for which the additional provision would be of value. Burglary is also a serious point of contention.
  Our preferred route is that if the Minister has evidence that the police face problems with the investigation—if he has such evidence, he was careful not to provide it in Committee, or in correspondence since then—of certain offences because of the present restrictions, he should say so and we should change the list of offences for which the 36-hour period is appropriate. He has not done so. He has simply introduced this catch-all clause for "an arrestable offence".
  Mr. Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that "an arrestable offence" includes the sale of tickets by unauthorised persons for a designated football match, touting for car hire services and the placing of advertisements relating to prostitution in the immediate vicinity of a public telephone?
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right. Putting a postcard in a telephone box does not seem to me to justify 36 hours' detention without charge. The Minister will have some difficulty persuading me of the rightness of that view.
  For all those reasons, we were not persuaded in Committee and voted against the provision. I was
  936
  saddened that our Conservative colleagues were not able to join us in that vote but I understand that they had a reasoned approach—they wanted to wait to hear what the Minister might propose and take a view later.
  Lady Hermon: In Northern Ireland, we are very conscious of the fact that, whenever there is an extension of a period of detention without charge, the police officers who carried out the arrest receive an awful lot of criticism. However, clause 5 refers to "conditions"—and hon. Members should note the plural—
  "to be satisfied before detention without charge may be extended from 24 to 36 hours".
  The clause then changes section 42(1)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Can the hon. Gentleman help hon. Members such as myself to make up their minds on whether we should seek to delete clause 5? Will he outline the other conditions that have to be satisfied before the extension from 24 to 36 hours can be made?
  1.30 pm
  Mr. Heath: Oh dear. The hon. Lady has asked me a question and I do not have the information to answer her. She is an expert in this area and added a great deal to our consideration in Committee. I cannot answer her question but the Minister may be able to help when he replies.
  Mr. Bryant: Notwithstanding the points that were made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) about arrestable offences that would be covered by the extension, does the hon. Gentleman accept that most people would think that any offence that could be subject to a five-year term in prison could count as a serious offence that should be covered? That is what the proposed extension would mean.
  Mr. Heath: First, that is not what the Government are saying. Secondly, I am not convinced that every person in this country would agree with the hon. Gentleman's contention. He is talking about holding someone for 36 hours without charge for the sort of offences that have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. Does the hon. Gentleman honestly believe that people in the Rhondda are calling for a 36-hour period of detention without charge for people who may have left a postcard in a telephone box or touted for private car hire? I do not believe that that is what the general public believe. In fact, I think that they would be very concerned were Gwent police to be given that power, irrespective of whether they get their figures right in reporting to the Home Office.
  Mr. Bryant: South Wales.
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman's constituency is, of course, in the area covered by South Wales police, but he may have some knowledge of Gwent police, who are not very far away. I do not accept his or the Minister's contention that clause 5 is necessary.
  Apart from my views and the views that we heard from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, the Home Affairs Committee has considered this matter and

  937
  rejected the Government's view. The Committee prayed in aid the Runciman royal commission on criminal justice, which considered this issue a decade ago and said that no change was necessary. Largely because the present provision of 24 hours was rarely used, people came to the view that an extension was not necessary.
  Mr. Bercow: I do not disagree with anything that the hon. Gentleman has said, but let us be clear that the offences cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield were, in every case, trivial. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, however one divides the cake of police time, one does not change its size and that it would be almost criminally irresponsible for this House to vote to enable or oblige the police so to spend their time as to prevent them spending it much more effectively in more deserving cases?
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right in principle but in practice I do not think that that would be the consequence of this clause being enacted. I trust the good sense of the police not to use their time in that way.
  Mr. Bercow: To ignore the clause.
  Mr. Heath: From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman suggests that I trust the police to ignore it. That is precisely what I am doing. It is an otiose provision and one that we should resist. I hope that the whole House will support the amendment when it is pressed to a Division, as I hope it will be.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) fully and helpfully set out the circumstances and the nature of the argument. To the best of my ability, I will try to persuade him—while acknowledging that the Conservatives did not vote against this clause in Committee, although the Liberal Democrats did—of the argument for the change suggested by the clause. Listening to both the speeches that we have heard, I detected that a case for the principle of some extension might be accepted but that there was concern about the scope. That happened in Committee and it has been reflected today.
  Mr. Grieve: If Parliament hears evidence of a particular problem with the investigation within the 24-hour period of individual offences which cannot be put in the category of serious offences, I am prepared to be pragmatic and make an exception for them. However, the clause contains a blanket extension that will have powerful symbolic and practical consequences. I am not prepared to accept those consequences unless I can be persuaded that the blanket approach is correct.
  Hilary Benn: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bear with me while I try to assuage his concerns. As he rightly told the House, PACE allows detention without charge for longer than 24 hours only if a serious arrestable offence is involved. As he helpfully told us, serious arrestable offences are either inherently very serious—murder, rape or kidnapping—or specific offences that produce serious consequences such as serious injury or serious financial loss.
  938
  I want to address the hon. Gentleman's argument in response to the letter that I sent him after the Committee stage. It was suggested that the way round this problem was to rely on the interpretation of the word "serious" to bring into the purview of a 36-hour detention period offences that might not otherwise be included. The difficulty with that suggestion is that it raises questions such as, "How serious is serious?" and in whose perception the offence is serious. Is it to a hardened police officer who has unfortunately had to deal with many cases, or to someone who has worked hard to save what may appear to be a small amount of money but which to them is a very large amount? To that person, theft of that money would be very serious. Rather than trying to twist the definition of "serious" in a way that would not be terribly helpful, it would be better simply to lay the thing open and—for reasons that I shall come to—say that, where the investigation requires a longer period of detention, we should permit it.
  Mr. Heath: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that to pervert the sense of "serious" would not be the right way of dealing with this. That is why I hope that he will accept our argument that, if there is evidence that specific offences lead to a problem, they should be specified in a schedule to the Bill rather than being covered by the amorphous provision that he advocates.
  Hilary Benn: I accept the argument that the hon. Gentleman makes; I was simply trying to protect myself against the charge that I had undermined my case in what I thought was the extremely helpful letter that I sent to him. I do not believe that I have undermined it.
  It may be of assistance to the House if I read the list of offences that are not automatically serious arrestable offences but for which a person may be imprisoned for five years. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) made a helpful point about such offences. The list consists of theft, robbery, burglary, handling stolen goods, threats to kill, actual bodily harm, indecent assault, blackmail, conspiracy to defraud, counterfeiting, criminal damage and riot.
  Schedule 1A to PACE contains a specific list of arrestable offences—some of which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield read out in support of his argument that the police would not, in relation to such offences, want to spend an enormous amount of time detaining people for up to 36 hours. On that list are other offences, including the carrying of offensive weapons without lawful authority or reasonable excuse; the publishing or distributing of written material that is threatening or abusive, or that could stir up racial or religious hatred; and racially or religiously aggravated harassment. I simply want to put that on record because it puts in perspective the argument that has been advanced in some quarters during this short debate that this measure is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The offences that I described, which will now be brought within the purview of the extension that the Government propose, are quite serious nuts.
  Lady Hermon: With the greatest respect, I would find the Minister's argument much more convincing, and I might be persuaded to support clause 5, if, instead of

  939
  reading out a long list of serious offences, he told us that a certain police force needed 36 hours. That would be helpful.
  Hilary Benn: The hon. Lady anticipates the point that I am about to make.
  Mr. Bercow: Ah.
  Hilary Benn: I am glad that that meets with approval. We are asked why the provision is in the Bill and whether it is just because the Government fancy extending the detention period. I am surprised that no hon. Members have drawn attention to the PACE review that was undertaken. The answer to the question, "Where does this come from?" is that it comes from the PACE review. I shall read what that had to say, because it makes the case very strongly. It states:
  "The initial detention period of twenty four hours can provide insufficient time in which to conclude the investigative process and charge a detained person because of delays elsewhere in the custody process, for example: obtaining the services of an appropriate adult; police surgeon; or interpreter; or when a suspect might initially be unfit for interview for reasons of alcohol or drugs intoxication. The Review has looked at several options regarding amending the detention clock, weighing up the practicalities and attendant bureaucracies of each proposal. In addition to the measures to enhance the provision of Appropriate Adults, healthcare professionals and interpreters, the Review recommends that the initial period of detention for which someone may potentially be detained for an arrestable offence be extended from twenty four to thirty six hours, under the authority of a superintendent."
  Mr. Grieve: I accept that that is what the PACE review said, but there seems to be a lack of evidence to back up the existence of the problem in practical terms. Indeed, the only statistics that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) was able to lay his hands on, which he quoted to the Committee, and which I have seen, rather suggest otherwise—that the police have no great difficulty in handling the 24-hour rule. That is why I asked the Minister to explain in detail something beyond simply the wishes of the Association of Chief Police Officers.
  Hilary Benn: I was about to come to that having completed the quote from the PACE review.
  I hope that I have dealt with the suggestion that the extension of the detention period has come from nowhere and that it is a whim of the Government.
  Mr. Grieve: It is the wish of ACPO.
  Mr. Benn: No. it is not—it comes from the PACE review, which considered a whole range of issues to do with the operation of PACE. In the judgment of those who conducted the review, there was a case for the extension.
  I want to draw hon. Members' attention to the view expressed by the Select Committee on Home Affairs in its report. Although in the end the Committee was not persuaded, the report said:
  "We accept that the current time limit may cause difficulties in some non-serious cases."
  So the Home Affairs Committee also acknowledged that there could be a problem with the current arrangements. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for
  940
  Rhondda made a moment ago is a forceful one. The hon. Members for Beaconsfield and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) are right in the statistics that they gave us. In practice, even with the current arrangements, the number of people who are detained beyond 24 hours is very small indeed. The average detention period for all cases is between five and six hours, and even for serious cases the average is less than 24 hours. That suggests that in the vast majority of cases the current arrangements work. In essence, the argument is that in some circumstances the current time limits may cause difficulties. That is why the PACE review asked us to make the change, and why the Home Affairs Committee, even though in the end it was not persuaded, accepted that in some non-serious cases such difficulties may arise.
  Mr. Bercow: May.
  Hilary Benn: Indeed: may. Equally, they may not, but in circumstances where they do, we have to ask whether it is right and proper to permit, with safeguards—that is my final—point the extension of the detention period.
  1.45 pm
  Simon Hughes: Before the Minister deals with his final point, does he accept that if the police were at a significant disadvantage, they could give us lots of examples of how they have been, as it were, knocked up against the ceiling and unable to act in the interests of the community? It is not as if the existing limit is a final limit—there is always the power to go to a magistrate to get an extension. The ability of the police to keep people in detention for longer exists; it just requires an extra authority for them to be able to do so.
  Hilary Benn: I am not entirely sure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should go further, but in any case we are not suggesting that for one second. All that we are arguing is that in certain circumstances involving the difficulties identified by the PACE review—that is a good base of opinion, evidence and expertise on which to make the case—we should permit an extension.
  On safeguards, it is important that we retain the requirement for the police to seek authorisation for continued detention from a senior officer of the rank of superintendent or above. The senior officer—this answers the question put by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)—will now have to satisfy himself or herself that the investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously before granting an extension. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) conjured up the image of the police being obliged to spend a lot of time on cases that they were not interested in, to which the answer is that of course they will not do that.
  The fact is that this is a change that the police, through the PACE review, have suggested to us it would be sensible to make. In the end, we are all happy to rely on the good sense and judgment of the police to use the power within the framework of the law where there are good grounds for doing so. I conclude by saying that I simply do not believe that it will be used in a vast number of cases, but in cases where it is necessary, it is the Government's view that it is sensible to make the change.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 163, Noes 285.

  Division No. 154]

  [1:47 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Harvey, Nick

  Allan, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Amess, David

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Heald, Oliver

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Heath, David

  Bacon, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Baker, Norman

  Hendry, Charles

  Baldry, Tony

  Hermon, Lady

  Barker, Gregory

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Bercow, John

  Jack, rh Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Blunt, Crispin

  Keetch, Paul

  Boswell, Tim

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Brady, Graham

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Brazier, Julian

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Breed, Colin

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Lamb, Norman

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lansley, Andrew

  Burnett, John

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Burns, Simon

  Leigh, Edward

  Burnside, David

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Burstow, Paul

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Burt, Alistair

  Lidington. David

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Cash, William

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Chidgey, David

  Maclean, rh David

  Chope, Christopher

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Clappison, James

  Maples, John

  Collins, Tim

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Cotter, Brian

  Curry, rh David

  Mates, Michael

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Maude, rh Francis

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Moore, Michael

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Doughty, Sue

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Öpik, Lembit

  Evans, Nigel

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Flook, Adrian

  Paice, James

  Forth, rh Eric

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Pickles, Eric

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Garnier, Edward

  Randall, John

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Rendel, David

  Goodman, Paul

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Grayling, Chris

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Gummer, rh John

  Ruffley, David

  Hague, rh William

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hammond, Philip

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  942

  Selous, Andrew

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Trend, Michael

  Shepherd, Richard

  Trimble, rh David

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

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

  Viggers, Peter

  Waterson, Nigel

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Spring, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Williams, Hyvvel (Caernarfon)

  Streeter, Gary

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Willis, Phil

  Swayne, Desmond

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Syms, Robert

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Mr. Mark Francois

  NOES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Colman, Tony

  Allen, Graham

  Connarty, Michael

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cooper, Yvette

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Corston, Jean

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cousins, Jim

  Baird, Vera

  Cranston, Ross

  Barnes, Harry

  Crausby, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Beard, Nigel

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Benn, Hilary

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Bennett, Andrew

  David, Wayne

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Davidson, Ian

  Berry, Roger

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Best, Harold

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Betts, Clive

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blackman, Liz

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Blair, rh Tony

  Denham, rh John

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Borrow, David

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Doran, Frank

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bryant, Chris

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Edwards, Huw

  Burden, Richard

  Efford, Clive

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Cairns, David

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Casale, Roger

  Fisher, Mark

  Caton, Martin

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Challen, Colin

  Flint, Caroline

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Clapham, Michael

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Goggins, Paul

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clelland, David

  Grogan, John

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hanson, David

  Coleman, Iain

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  943

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  MacShane, Denis

  McWalter, Tony

  Healey, John

  McWilliam, John

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Heppell, John

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Heyes, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hinchliffe, David

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Miliband, David

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Moran, Margaret

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Morgan, Julie

  Morley, Elliot

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mountford, Kali

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mullin, Chris

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hutton, rh John

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Olner, Bill

  Jamieson, David

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Owen, Albert

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Perham, Linda

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Plaskitt, James

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kemp, Fraser

  Purchase, Ken

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Purnell, James

  Kidney, David

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Quinn, Lawrie

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Rooney, Terry

  Lammy, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Ruane, Chris

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lepper, David

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Salter, Martin

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Linton, Martin

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Love, Andrew

  Sawford, Phil

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Singh, Marsha

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  MacDonald, Calum

  MacDougall, John

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McFall, John

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Soley, Clive

  McKechin, Ann

  Southworth, Helen

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Squire, Rachel

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McNulty, Tony

  Stevenson, George

  944

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Ward, Claire

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Watts, David

  Stringer, Graham

  White, Brian

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wilson, Brian

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Winnick, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Trickett, Jon

  Woolas, Phil

  Truswell, Paul

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Mr. Nick Ainger and

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Mr. Jim Murphy

  Question accordingly negatived.
  2 pm
  Mr. Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 166, in page 4, line 36, leave out clause 6.
  The clause is somewhat surprising in that it removes the duty on the custody officer under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to make a record of the property of detained persons when taking them into custody. We had an interesting debate in the Standing Committee, and I am especially grateful for the contribution made by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), whom we miss today. He clearly stated the arguments for not removing that duty on custody officers.
  The Minister's argument for doing so was highly pragmatic, focusing simply on reducing the bureaucratic requirements on police officers and thereby simplifying their task—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?
  Hilary Benn: I was agreeing.
  Mr. Heath: The Minister agrees, as one would expect, that his approach in Committee was pragmatic. There was no more substance to his argument than that having to record every item taken from a detained person could be a relatively time-consuming practice and that the police officer's lot would be much easier if that duty were removed. He spoiled his argument somewhat by adding that he expected guidance to suggest to custody officers that making a record of property was a very good idea and good practice, although not essential in every case. I found that rather difficult to understand—the Minister looks puzzled, but I assure him that that is what he said.
  There is a strong counter-argument to that contention. First, if something is considered good practice but not desirable in all cases, I simply do not understand how one identifies cases in which it is not necessary to record property taken from a detained person, and cases in which it is right to do so. That is not a test that can be left to the good sense of the custody sergeant, because it would depend on the subsequent actions of the person taken into custody—whether they

  945
  wished to make a formal complaint—which is something that he or she could not normally foresee at that point.
  Two arguments must be adduced, the first of which centres on the interests of the detained person. There is a question about that, although that is not to impugn the honesty, integrity or thoroughness of members of the police force who are responsible for custody suites. My experience is that they are normally the most experienced and capable officers and they take their responsibilities extremely seriously. Nevertheless, when a person's property is confiscated, it is right that there should be some form of receipt for the articles taken. I find it difficult to conceive of a circumstance in which that would not be appropriate.
  In conjunction with that general point is the finer point made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which expressed serious concern. The Joint Committee took cognisance of, but questioned, the Minister's assertion that the Bill does not engage protocol 1, article 1, of the European convention on human rights. The Joint Committee believes that under that protocol the authority for the confiscation of property is questionable, and that to confiscate and make no record makes the practice still more questionable. I agree. There is a potential violation of human rights in this instance and the Government should reflect carefully on whether the certification that they have provided is accurate in the light of the Joint Committee's advice.
  My second argument against removing the practice of recording a detained person's property is, I believe, more salient: making a record is for the protection of the police. I know perfectly well that among those who are regularly arrested for one offence or another there is a culture of finding reasons to enter a complaint against the police about the treatment that they have received. That is standard practice—when I was involved with a police authority, it was almost endemic. To provide an entirely new context in which complaints can be made—to enable people to claim, "That sergeant took away £50 that I had in my pocket and he ain't given it back," or that some other item of property that the person had or pretends to have had on his person was not returned—will open up a new industry of complaints against the police.
  In this country, complaints against the police are investigated properly. Any potential saving in bureaucracy made by not recording items taken from individuals will be more than compensated for—indeed, excessively compensated for—by the bureaucracy involved in investigating spurious or other complaints against custody officers about unrecorded materials claimed to have been taken from the arrested person and not returned at the due point. It seems to me that police officers need the protection and the certainty of having provided an itemised list and agreed it with the arrested person at the point of being taken into custody.
  Vera Baird: Would not all the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman foresees be solved if there were guidance to the effect that, at the custody desk, property should be put into a bag, which is then sealed? The
  946
  sergeant and the defendant sign the seal, which thereby presents its own record. That would save the time that is currently spent compiling a list.
  Mr. Heath: The hon. and learned Lady remakes a point that was made in Committee. There are alternative approaches that the Government could have used. I agree that having a bag sealed in the presence of the arrested person with his or her agreement, or keeping a record that the individual withheld assent to that process, gives the police officer essential protection. That is a proposal that the Government could have made, but have not.
  John Mann: Has the hon. Gentleman discussed protection of police officers' interests with the Police Federation, and does the federation concur with him?
  Mr. Heath: I shall be perfectly open and say that I have not discussed that specific point. However, I have some experience of policing from my involvement in a police authority and I am aware of the distortions that can arise. Individual officers will have two thoughts in their head. They will rightly be concerned about how to reduce their workload and about how they are protected, which is the other side of the coin. The proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) would have the benefit of achieving both aims, as it would reduce the workload to a manageable level and prevent spurious complaints against police officers doing their duty.
  The only difficulty relates not to articles, but to money. That is a serious issue, and it was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Woking, who was concerned that, at the very least, a record should be made of any amount of cash taken from a person at the point of their being taken into custody. It is self-evidently right and proper that that should be done. I am sure that the Minister will tell us that the guidance will say that it should be done. If so, why does not the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—the basis for the codes of conduct and conduct in the custody suite—say the same thing? Why does the clause amend that Act by removing any requirement to record such information? Why have the Government not tabled an appropriate amendment that takes into account the concerns that have properly been expressed? The Minister appears to share those concerns, at least in part, as he seemed to indicate assent to the view that guidance would be given about recording amounts of cash.
  Even at this stage, there is nothing to prevent the Government from saying that they will amend the Bill to provide protection. If they will not do so, the House should reject the clause and ask them to look again at the subject, and formulate a proposal that achieves the objective of reducing bureaucracy while also reducing the possibility of abuse of the process, whether on the part of the police officer or, as is far more likely, on the part of the arrested person in the form of a spurious complaint. In the event of such a complaint, much less of a defence will be available to the police officer if no record is kept.

  947
  I ask hon. Members seriously to consider the matter. Although it is small in the context of the whole Bill, it is nevertheless serious in terms of police procedure. I hope that hon. Members will take seriously the points raised not only by me but by a wide cross-section of the House.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made a powerful case in favour of the amendment. Unlike the earlier amendment that touched on the civil liberties of the citizen, it does not deal with some great constitutional principle, but relates to an area—I am slightly mystified about this—in which there seems to be a divergence between the views of hon. Members, including myself as a legal practitioner, about what is in the best interests of all parties, including police and defendants, and the view that the police have clearly advanced, which the Minister has accepted in the clause.
  It is incumbent on me to explain why I take that view. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) made a powerful case about the matter in Committee. He started by saying that it was extremely useful for a full list to be made of a detained person's property. I concur with that view, because such a list assists both the police and, subsequently, the prosecution—a point to which I shall return in a moment. Of course, it is also a protection for the defendant, as a proper list of property ensures that he will get all his property back, and for the police, as it ensures that they cannot be subject to any allegation that they have held on to somebody's property improperly. While I accept the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who said that it might be possible to put all the items into a sealed bag, I believe that a written record provides better reassurance.
  2.15 pm
  The other issue that has particularly troubled me is that in a number of Customs and Excise cases in which I have acted as prosecutor, a subsequent reference to the property listed as having been on a defendant at the time of arrest has proved extremely useful in bringing the prosecution, when the officers themselves did not have the slightest idea when they made the list that the items on it would turn out to be relevant subsequently. Examples include bits of paper with numbers written on them, one of which turned out to be a key telephone number relating to a person with whom the defendant was alleged by the Crown subsequently to have made contact and who was part of a conspiracy to import substantial quantities of cocaine into this country.
  I remember calling cards and visiting cards cropping up in another case. The cards had all been usefully listed; Customs and Excise has always tended to be extremely diligent in listing items taken away from defendants in airports and ports of entry, and in including any details. Frequently, the defendant will not be released from custody prior to trial, so that material will remain in a locker. In this particular case, the material was noticed because, as prosecutor, I had looked at the custody record sheet with the investigating officer in preparing for the trial and said "What is that? I think we ought to have a look at it."
  I suppose that the police can be assumed to know their own business, but I cannot help thinking that the issue will give rise to problems and that, in some cases,
  948
  things may slip through the net that could otherwise be very usefully recorded. This is a practical issue. It is practical for the defendant, who may say to his counsel when it comes to his trial, "Well, you know that I had on me the card that proved that I saw Bloggs that afternoon and it is part of my alibi defence; he gave me his card." If the card details were recorded at the police station at the time of his arrest, they would be powerful evidence ensuring that the prosecution and the police could act in tandem with the defence in providing evidence that could help establish the truth in the case.
  I think that we are missing something in allowing the police to get out of the routine—I am sure that it is burdensome—of noting down fully what is in people's possession when they are arrested. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking pointed out that the police have a short-circuiting method, as they will record only what they think is strictly necessary. Otherwise, they will simply include information under generic terms such as "other cards", if they think it is irrelevant, so the burden does not seem especially onerous.
  Another thing puzzles me very much. I have been a lay visitor at police stations, so I have experience of sitting and watching the room into which arrested persons are brought when they are processed before being put into the police cells. I have seen that happen on numerous occasions. Indeed, I had six years of visiting police stations in Hammersmith and Fulham in that role, which was very educational for me, because that is not an environment into which a barrister normally has cause to go. I did not notice that the duty was a particularly onerous chore. It is true that the custody sergeants get rather bored carrying it out, but they seem to be capable of doing so fairly quickly. Unless somebody is arrested while in possession of hand baggage containing massive amounts of property, it is not my experience that that responsibility is among those that are so burdensome that it would be of great use to the police to be freed of it.
  One point that needs to be considered is that the police must establish a custody record when somebody comes into custody. It is not as if they cannot do so or can avoid doing it completely; so one way or another, the custody record sheet must be opened and property listing must take place. At least, a decision must be taken about what should or should not be listed.
  I really am puzzled that, in those circumstances, the police feel that the difference between a list of three items and a list of 15 will make such a massive difference to their time. Of course I accept that there may be circumstances in which 16 football hooligans have to be processed after a match and it might be convenient to be able to short cut, but the House needs to balance the short cutting against the possible down side. I repeat that what strikes me most forcefully is that, from my experience in criminal practice, the list of a person's property proves useful, one way or another, even though it is not expected to be, when the trial takes place and people say, "Let's see what's on the custody record sheet."
  The Minister will recollect that the official Opposition did not press the matter to a vote in Committee—we withdrew a probing amendment—but the more I reflect on this issue, the more I think the police are doing themselves a disservice in trying to get such a short cut. Unless the Minister can persuade me that the police

  949
  have got it right and that those of us who have other experience of the process, as legal practitioners, lay visitors or anything else, have got it wrong, I shall support the amendment in the Division Lobby this afternoon.
  I am sure that there are all sorts of other areas where bureaucracy ought to be cut, and I welcome the fact that cutting that type of bureaucracy has been considered, but on careful reflection—I hope that the Minister will take these comments in the spirit in which they are made—I think that the police may regret such a mistake if Parliament enacts it on their behalf.
  Vera Baird: I felt that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made a very powerful point. I fear that I have not really thought this through before, but I, too, have in course of practice come across many cases in which something being or not being on the list was highly relevant to the Crown or to the defence and sometimes to both.
  The difficulty with the solution that I proposed, which I thought met all the problems mentioned by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), is that the record of what was in the defendant's possession when he came into the police station only survives by my mechanism so long as the bag of property survives. Once the bag of property is broken open—either because it is returned to him, or because some of the items are to be exhibited—there is no continuing record and no opportunity for a record to be made when the bag is broken open. So my suggestion would not provide a solution to safeguard evidence or materials for both sides.
  I should very much like to invite the Minister to apply his mind to that difficulty. I have no doubt that lists of the property on people's bodies at the time of arrest can be highly relevant. The other point that perhaps my hon. Friend needs to consider very carefully is that the custody record is made out by a custody sergeant who is not an officer involved in the case in any event and that it would be a very rare case indeed where he had the slightest understanding of relevance of the material on the defendant's body.
  Mr. Heath: It just occurs to me that one advantage of the sealed bag scheme that the hon. and learned Lady proposes might be that it would eliminate the queues, which are the problem that the Minister is trying to address, by allowing the recording to take place at a later stage. That would release the operational officer back to his beat, or whatever else he is required to do, and leave the custody suite officers to record the articles and retain their evidential value at their leisure.
  Vera Baird: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention; it is perhaps an example of how the process of debate and allowing interventions while a thought is fresh in the mind can refine the issues. It is an extremely good idea. If the real problem is a queue in the police station at the time, the job of listing the property could simply be put off by the mechanism of bagging up the items, signing across the seal and, when more time is available—probably to a civilian—getting the defendant out of his cell and making the list at that time,
  950
  when there is no pressure at all. I commend that to the Minister as an idea that should be considered very seriously.
  Hilary Benn: This short debate links very neatly with the previous one because it, too, is about time—in particular, police time—and hon. Members will be aware that the purpose of clause 6 is to allow the police more discretion in recording and handling property, whereas the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 currently requires them to "ascertain and record everything". The intention is not to do away with the records, but to give the police greater flexibility in deciding how detailed a record they keep and, in effect, to reach a judgment in each case.
  As with the previous issue that we debated, this proposal arises from the PACE review, and it comes from the police. It is interesting that we have heard the argument advanced that the police who proposed it may not have fully appreciated what they were suggesting. Indeed, that is a debatable point. The PACE review said that the police identify the requirement to list a detained person's property in full as time consuming and not always necessary. For that reason, they have suggested that PACE should be changed.
  Perhaps I can reassure the House on this issue, which is relevant to time. We were talking about the clock in the previous debate and, in fact, the clock starts the moment that the person arrives in the police station, so the length of time taken to record everything in a bag, for the sake of argument, is taken away from the overall detention period and, indeed, adds to the time that the person is detained.
  Keeping records will still be the normal practice in any case, but there is no reason why, as the law is currently framed, the way in which the information is kept should be precisely prescribed. For example, the police may prefer to maintain a freestanding property register. In those circumstances, why should not the custody record refer to the existence of any separate property record?
  The strongest argument for the proposal is profoundly pragmatic—the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome rightly attributes that motivation to the Government in introducing it—as it would make possible the proposal to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) drew attention in her intervention: all the property could be put in a sealable bag and the person detained and the custody sergeant could sign the seal, and that sequence of events could occur if the seal were broken subsequently. That would avoid having to write down a great list. I do not know about other hon. Members' bags, but there would be quite a long list of things if I were arrested with my bag in my possession.
  Mr. Bercow: A most untypical case.
  Hilary Benn: Oh, I do not know about that, although needle and blue cotton thread may not be in all hon. Members' bags.
  If all the property were put into a big, strong plastic container, which was sealed and signed by the defendant and the custody sergeant, that would be a much more

  951
  sensible way to hold the property, rather than listing it at great length. The current law would not permit that to happen, which is why we have included clause 6, because that is exactly what it will allow. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said what a jolly good idea and asked why the Government did not go down that road, but clause 6 does go down that road by making possible the use of a plastic bag, which is not currently the case.
  The hon. Gentleman also made an important point about certain items, such as money and other valuables, and it is certainly our intention that those should continue to be recorded. Indeed, we will refer to that issue in the guidance on dealing with detained persons' property that we will provide to the police, assuming that the clause forms part of the final Act, as I hope that it will.
  Denzil Davies: As I understand it, the Government are replacing a legislative provision with what is called guidance. What is the status, if any, of this guidance? Is it to be a piece of delegated legislation? If it is breached, what is the sanction? If there is no sanction, what is the point of the guidance?
  2.30 pm
  Hilary Benn: The purpose of the guidance is to assist the police in giving effect to the change that they have asked for for the reasons that I have advanced. As I have said, in their view it is not necessary in all cases to list every item that people have in their possession when they are arrested. The guidance would go to the police. It would be expected that the police would follow that guidance—it would not have the same force as PACE—in operating the policy and in exercising the discretion available to them when deciding in precisely what form the property should be recorded.
  Denzil Davies: My hon. Friend has been helpful. He says that the guidance would indicate what procedures should be followed, but what if the police do not follow the procedures? What then is the sanction?
  Hilary Benn: In the circumstances to which my right hon. Friend alludes, it would depend on precisely which way the police had not followed the procedures. I was about to say that I undertake to reflect upon that. The issue relates to the point that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) raised, where there are circumstances in which an individual is anxious that it should be recorded that he or she had in their possession certain items at the time when they were arrested.
  Two arguments have been advanced about why difficulties might be created from an evidential point of view, which is the point on which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield focused when indicating that he was unhappy about the proposed provision. I undertake to reflect on the situation where an individual is especially anxious that it should be recorded that he or she had something on them. It seems that that could appropriately be covered in the guidance.
  I shall complete the point about evidential value. PACE already allows for the investigating officers—obviously not the custody sergeant, who is undertaking a clerical recording task—to examine the person's belongings if they think that they are pertinent to the investigation, and it will continue to do so.
  952
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar suggested that perhaps the bag could be left on one side, for the full list of property to be written out at a later date, but I envisage a practical difficulty with that. Under the current arrangements, the average length of time that people are detained is about five hours. What will happen if the person is to be released and his or her property has not been recorded in detail because the police have had to devote time and effort to other priorities? That would be a difficulty in operating such a policy.
  Mr. Grieve: I take the Minister's point that it would always be possible for the investigating officer to go back, as it were, to have a look later. However, there are two points. First, if the person has been released following charge and the property was not retained, it would be impossible to make the record. The property would have disappeared. If it had been fully recorded, it might still be possible to establish what was on the defendant even though the property itself had gone.
  Secondly, in reality in many cases, reading the custody record sheet has alerted me to the existence of property that had not been searched for by the investigating officers. If we are to say, whenever there is a prosecution, "Please look in the property bag as a matter of routine," that will add to the bureaucracy.
  Hilary Benn: It is not the intention that the proposed change should add to the current bureaucracy. In the end, we are trying to strike a balance. The view has been put to the Government by the police and the PACE review that to ascertain and record every item in every case, as the law currently provides, is over-prescriptive for the reasons that the police have advanced. They would like to have greater flexibility, and we have discussed a number of ways to achieve that that would seem to be satisfactory. We are balancing that with the arguments that I hear frequently and forcefully put by Opposition Members about bureaucracy bearing upon police officers. Before us is a sensible and pragmatic anti-bureaucracy measure for which the police have asked.
  Mr. Bercow: I am not a lawyer, and I say that as a matter of pride. However, I am interested in the rights of the suspect. As the Minister says, the arguments are finely balanced. I ask the hon. Gentleman further to explain what he appeared to be suggesting a few moments ago whereby the detained person might be required to specify something that he or she particularly wanted to be recorded. Given that the Minister said in an earlier debate that someone might be incapable either because of alcohol consumption or drug absorption from conducting himself properly, is that not a potential conflict? If the problem can be easily resolved or if I have misunderstood the Minister, no doubt he will explain.
  Hilary Benn: In circumstances where someone is intoxicated, it will be difficult to get much sense out of them, whether that is in relation to the custody record or their possessions at the time of arrest. That would also apply to anything else that the police might wish to ask them about the circumstances that led to their arrest. In responding to the debate, I was trying to make the point that it should be possible—as I have said, I undertake to

  953
  consider the matter—within the guidance to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, where an individual is anxious that it should be recorded that they had a particular item of property in their possession at that moment. He gave the example of a business card. The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point and I undertake to respond to it so as to make the new system operational.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was gracious enough to acknowledge that we are balancing different arguments in trying to reach a sensible way forward. I hope that the House will accept that the reason for the clause is the proposed change, which will reduce bureaucracy, as the police request. That reduction in bureaucracy can be combined with other ways of securing property. A plastic bag with a seal and two signatures is an effective system to ensure that arguments such as "Did you have this in your possession?" or "Did the police add something to what were alleged to be your possessions?" would be overcome. At the same time, through the guidance, we would provide for continued recording of items such as money and other valuable items in the circumstances that I have outlined.
  Lady Hermon: I was hoping that the Minister would address the serious matter raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) about the compatibility of clause 6 with human rights obligations under the first protocol of article 1. Is the hon. Gentleman convinced that the clause is compatible with our obligations regarding the peaceful enjoyment of people's possessions?
  Hilary Benn: We think that the clause is compatible with those rights, and that is the view that we have expressed.
  Mr. Heath: I find it a little difficult to understand how confiscation without record is compatible with the peaceful enjoyment of property. Even setting that aside, the Minister has failed to persuade elements of the House that a sensible way forward is to take away all the protections that are available under PACE, which, as the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said, is law, and replace it with something that the Minister has not yet worked out, which will be put forward as guidance and expected to do the same job. I am not persuaded of that. I do not think that many Members will be persuaded of that. Therefore, I intend to press the matter to a Division.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 291.

  Division No. 155]

  [2:39 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Barker, Gregory

  Allan, Richard

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Amess, David

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bercow, John

  Bacon, Richard

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Baker, Norman

  Blunt, Crispin

  Baldry, Tony

  Boswell, Tim

  954

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Brady, Graham

  Lamb, Norman

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Brazier, Julian

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Breed, Colin

  Leigh, Edward

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Burnett, John

  Lidington, David

  Burns, Simon

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Burnside, David

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Burstow, Paul

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Burt, Alistair

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Maclean, rh David

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cameron, David

  Maples, John

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Cash, William

  Chidgey, David

  Mates, Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Maude, rh Francis

  Clappison, James

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Collins, Tim

  Mercer, Patrick

  Cotter, Brian

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Curry, rh David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Moore, Michael

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Djanogly Jonathan

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Dodds, Nigel

  Page, Richard

  Doughty, Sue

  Paice, James

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Pickles, Eric

  Evans, Nigel

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Randall, John

  Flight, Howard

  Redwood, rh John

  Flook, Adrian

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Rendel, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Francois, Mark

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Garnier, Edward

  Rosindell, Andrew

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Ruffley, David

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Sanders, Adrian

  Goodman, Paul

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Selous, Andrew

  Grayling, Chris

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

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

  Greenway, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hague, rh William

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Hammond, Philip

  Spring, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Heald, Oliver

  Steen, Anthony

  Heath, David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hendry, Charles

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Hermon, Lady

  Syms, Robert

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Thurso, John

  Jack, rh Michael

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Trend, Michael

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Viggers, Peter

  Waterson, Nigel

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Watkinson, Angela

  955

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Whittingdale, John

  Young, rh Sir George

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Wiggin, Bill

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Richard Younger-Ross and

  Willis, Phil

  Mrs. Annette L. Brooke

  NOES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Allen, Graham

  David, Wayne

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Davidson, Ian

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bailey, Adrian

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Barnes, Harry

  Denham, rh John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Beard, Nigel

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Doran, Frank

  Benn, Hilary

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Berry, Roger

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Best, Harold

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Betts, Clive

  Edwards, Huw

  Blackman, Liz

  Efford, Clive

  Blair, rh Tony

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Farrelly, Paul

  Blizzard, Bob

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Fisher, Mark

  Borrow, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Flint, Caroline

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bryant, Chris

  Gilroy, Linda

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Godsiff, Roger

  Burden, Richard

  Goggins, Paul

  Burnham, Andy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Grogan, John

  Cairns, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hanson, David

  Casale, Roger

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Caton, Martin

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Challen, Colin

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Healey, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Heppell, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Heyes, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Coleman, Iain

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Colman, Tony

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Connarty, Michael

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corston, Jean

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cousins, Jim

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Cranston, Ross

  Hutton, rh John

  Crausby, David

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  956

  Jamieson, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Organ, Diana

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Owen, Albert

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Perham, Linda

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Plaskitt, James

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Purchase, Ken

  Kidney, David

  Purnell, James

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Quin, rh Joyce

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Reid rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

  Knight, Jim (S Doreset)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Roberston John (Glasgow Anneiesland)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Lammy, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Lepper, David

  Ruane, Chris

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ruddock, Joan

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Linton, Martin

  Salter, Martin

  Love, Andrew

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Sawford, Phil

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheridan, Jim

  McCabe, Stephen

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Singh, Marsha

  MacDougall, John

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  McFall, John

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  McIsaac, Shona

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McKechin, Ann

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Soley, Clive

  MacShane, Denis

  Southworth, Helen

  McWalter, Tony

  Spellar, rh John

  McWilliam, John

  Squire, Rachel

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Mallaber, Judy

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Stevenson, George

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Martlew, Eric

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Merron, Gillian

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Miliband, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Moran, Margaret

  Trickett, Jon

  Morgan, Julie

  Truswell, Paul

  Morley, Elliot

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Mountford, Kali

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Mullin, Chris

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Ward, Claire

  Olner, Bill

  Wareing, Robert N.

  957

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Woolas, Phil

  Watts, David

  Worthington, Tony

  White, Brian

  Wright Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Wilson, Brian

  Wyatt, Derek

  Winnick, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Mr. Nick Ainger and

  Woodward, Shaun

  Dan Norris

  Question accordingly negatived.

  Criminal Justice Bill
    Schedule 1

      AMENDMENTS RELATED TO PART 1
      Hilary Benn: I beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 160, line 10, leave out paragraph 17.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 105 to 108.
      Hilary Benn: These are technical amendments to correct an oversight in schedule 4 to the Police Reform Act 2002. Schedule 4 allows designated civilian investigating officers to apply for warrants under section 8 or schedule 1 of PACE. In paragraph 16 we built in the usual PACE protections that would apply to a constable obtaining and executing a warrant. Those include, for example, giving full information in the application for the warrant, and those executing the warrant identifying themselves to the occupier of the premises and endorsing the warrant with what was found.
      Unfortunately, some of those protections were not replicated in paragraph 17, which deals with warrants issued in relation to confidential material under schedule 1 of PACE. In summary, the amendments deal with that omission. They also make various changes to schedule 4 of the Police Reform Act 2002 to allow for the fact that someone authorised to accompany a designated civilian investigating officer in executing a warrant will, further to clause 2 of the Bill, be able to exercise certain specific powers. Relevant PACE protections must also apply to the actions of such persons. I hope that the House will accept the amendments.
      Mr. Edward Garnier: I accept that the amendments correct omissions in the Police Reform Act 2002, as the Minister has just told us, but that leads me to ask whether the omission occurred as a result of the failure of the House to consider that aspect of the 2002 Act by reason of a guillotine. Can the hon. Gentleman assure me that the particular provision in the 2002 Act was fully discussed on the Floor of the House or in Committee and fully considered in the other place before that Bill became an Act? We know from this Bill that a great many of its clauses will never be discussed in the House. Much as I enjoy seeing the Minister in the Chamber, I do not want him to have to come back to the House in a year's time with another Bill to correct omissions from the present Bill.
      Hilary Benn: The honest answer is that I do not know the answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's
      958
      question, but I shall consult the record and write to him. In the process of legislating, which is an increasingly complex business, the honest truth is that we do not get everything perfect first time round. With his experience, the hon. and learned Gentleman will know that over time such oversights come to light and it is appropriate that we should use the next available opportunity to put them right. I hope that the House will accept the amendments in that spirit.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 105, in page 160. line 27, at end insert—
      17A In paragraph 17 (access to excluded and special procedure material) after paragraph (b) there is inserted—
      "(bb) section 15 of that Act (safeguards) shall have effect in relation to the issue of any warrant under paragraph 12 of that Schedule to that person as it has effect in relation to the issue of a warrant under that paragraph to a constable;
      (bc) section 16 of that Act (execution of warrants) shall have effect in relation to any warrant to enter and search premises that is issued under paragraph 12 of that Schedule (whether to that person or to any other person) in respect of premises in the relevant police area as if references in that section to a constable included references to that person;".'.
      No. 106, in page 160, line 27, at end insert—
      '17B In paragraph 20 (access and copying in case of things seized by constables) after "by a constable" there is inserted "or by a person authorised to accompany him under section 16(2) of that. Act".'.
      No. 107, in page 160, line 28, leave out paragraph 18.
      No. 108, in page 161, line 2, at end insert—
      '18A After paragraph 24 (extended powers of seizure) there is inserted—
      "Persons accompanying investigating officers

      24A (1) This paragraph applies where a person ("an authorised person") is authorised by virtue of section 16(2) of the 1984 Act to accompany an investigating officer designated for the purposes of paragraph 16 (or 17) in the execution of a warrant.

      (2) The reference in paragraph 16(h) (or 17(e)) to the seizure of anything by a designated person in exercise of a particular power includes a reference to the seizure of anything by the authorised person in exercise of that power by virtue of section 16(2A) of the 1984 Act.

      (3) In relation to any such seizure, paragraph 16(h) (or 17(e)) is to be read as if it provided for the references to a constable and to an officer in section 21(1) and (2) of the 1984 Act to include references to the authorised person.

      (4) The reference in paragraph 16(i) (or 17(f)) to anything seized by a designated person in exercise of a particular power includes a reference to anything seized by the authorised person in exercise of that power by virtue of section 16(2A) of the 1984 Act.

      (5) In relation to anything so seized, paragraph 16(i)(ii) (or 17(f)(ii)) is to be read as if it provided for—

      (a) the references to the supervision of a constable in subsections (3) and (4) of section 21 of the 1984 Act to include references to the supervision of a person designated for the purposes of paragraph 16 (or paragraph 17), and

      (b) the reference to a constable in subsection (5) of that section to include a reference to such a person or an authorised person accompanying him.

      (6) Where an authorised person accompanies an investigating officer who is also designated for the purposes of paragraph 24, the references in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of that paragraph to the designated person include references to the authorised person.".'.—[Hilary Benn.]

    Schedule 2

      CHARGING OR RELEASE OF PERSONS IN POLICE DETENTION
      Mr. Chris Mullin: I beg to move amendment No. 124, in page 164, line 18, leave out from 'section 38(1))' to end of line 19 and insert—

      '(a) before "the normal powers", there is inserted "Subject to subsection (1CA) below,",

      (b) after "section", in the first place where it occurs, there is inserted "37(7)(a)".'.

      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 123, in page 164, line 25, at end insert—
      '(1CA) Where conditions are imposed by a custody officer, no condition shall apply for more than 28 days from the day on which conditions are first imposed on a person's bail without charge.'.
      No. 127, in page 164, line 28, after 'application', insert `by a constable or'.
      Mr. Mullin: The amendments would place a time limit of 28 days on bail conditions imposed by a custody officer before charge. At present the police can impose conditions on bail only after a suspect has been charged with an offence. The amendments would bring about quite a large change, but when the Select Committee on Home Affairs considered the Bill before Second Reading, we accepted that it was a necessary and logical part of the move towards charging by the Crown Prosecution Service. We were reassured by the fact that the Bill contains a number of safeguards to protect the suspect—bail must be imposed by a custody sergeant; it must have the consent of the prospective defendant; and if, after he has initially agreed, he thinks it is too onerous or that it continues for too long, he can apply to magistrates to have it discharged.
      The Select Committee was concerned to note that as the Bill is drafted, there is no limit to the length of time for which pre-charge bail conditions can run. We think that that is too onerous. Also, it does not provide the police or the Crown Prosecution Service with any incentive to get a move on. As we know, the criminal justice system can sometimes move a mite slowly. We therefore proposed a 28-day limit, which we based on the evidence of Mr. John Burbeck, the chief constable of Warwickshire and the spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers on criminal justice matters, who I should have thought was an impeccable source.
      I regret to say, however, that the Government rejected that. It has also since been drawn to my attention that some ACPO members are concerned that a 28-day limit is too tight in some cases. My amendment No. 127 attempts to address that concern by allowing for the police to apply to a magistrates court for a variation of bail conditions. It would then be for the court to determine whether it was appropriate to extend the conditions beyond 28 days.
      It is not unreasonable that there should be some limit, given the delays endemic in our criminal justice system. I should have thought that the Government could quite easily concede the amendment without inflicting any damage on their objectives, and I look forward to hearing that they propose to do so.
      Mr. Grieve: The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) does a good service to the House in raising
      960
      his concerns. Our view has always been that there was great merit in introducing the principle of bail conditions prior to charge. That may be universally welcomed throughout the House. Clearly, it is desirable because, as we discussed on an earlier group of amendments, it would allow the police to come to immediate decisions. If they can impose bail conditions that secure public protection while they are reconsidering the matter, that is a useful tool.
      Against that is the fact that an individual would have restrictions placed on his freedom to behave in a lawful fashion if he wishes, without ever having been charged with any offence. As usual, the House must balance those two factors. We are comfortable, if I may use the word, with the principle of introducing bail prior to charge, but we agree with the hon. Gentleman that the current position in the Bill, which allows that to continue for an indefinite period, is gravely unsatisfactory. We concur with him that 28 days is a perfectly logical cut-off for the matter to be reconsidered. So the hon. Gentleman has our support.
      3 pm
      We did not table an amendment to the clause on Report because, wishing to select what we thought were key areas, we were mindful of the fact that another place will have an opportunity to consider these issues with a great deal of legal expertise and experience. I would say to the Minister, however, that I am absolutely convinced that this is an issue which, unless the Government reconsider it, will not go unchallenged in the other place. I know that from consultations and discussions that I have had with my colleagues there, who have expressed their concern about this matter. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to give some assurance to the House that the Government will look further at this issue, because I cannot logically see why there should not be a 28-day cut-off point. Equally, if the Government wish to come back and say that another period of time would be appropriate, they could give us an alternative to consider.
      The cases in which this provision would be likely to be used are plainly not going to be the most serious in terms of public protection issues. If there really were a key issue about protecting the public in a particular case, it would be a serious matter and the police would doubtless extend the detention period for a long time and try to make it their business to charge whenever possible because they would be concerned about someone being at liberty. On the other hand, the provision might be used in circumstances in which the police had anxieties about protecting the public or witnesses, but simply did not have the necessary evidence. That is a compelling reason for putting a finite limit on the period for which these restrictions can apply. I hope that we shall receive a positive response from the Minister on this issue. My view is that 28 days makes a lot of sense.
      Mr. Heath: I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), not only for tabling the amendments but for the work of his Committee on the Bill. In the Standing Committee, we found many opportunities to quote the work of his Committee to good effect, and we are grateful to him and his colleagues.

      961
      I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman on the specific points that he made. The strong argument for conditional bail before charge is that it would be a substitute for detention. I accept that, although I share some of the concerns expressed by the Select Committee that it might be used in circumstances in which there was insufficient evidence to charge. In such cases, the provision would become an onerous imposition on the freedom of an individual if it were used as a replacement for detention which could not be effected simply because there was no evidence. We have, however, had assurances from the Minister on that matter, and, for the moment, let us accept those assurances.
      The idea that there should be no time limit on the imposition of conditional bail, however, seems entirely outwith the assertion that this is the more generous and liberal alternative to detention in custody. If a person were to be detained, there would be clearly delineated time limits on the period of detention, so whatever the arguments for conditional bail before charge, there ought to be a time limit on it. Whether 28 days is appropriate is a matter for discussion. It is, to some extent, an arbitrary limit. The advice from Mr. Burbeck was interesting and telling, given its source and the seniority of Mr. Burbeck and his responsibilities in ACPO. There should be a time limit. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, it is incumbent on him to explain how any time limit might be imposed, and what limit he would find acceptable. If he does not believe that any time limit is appropriate, that calls into question the whole proposition of conditional bail before charge.
      The one further argument that I would adduce is that conditional bail lets the prosecuting authorities off the hook to a great extent. If our intention is to ensure that prosecutions are brought speedily and effectively, with the right charge at the right time, to allow an alternative of conditional bail over a prolonged period while the prosecuting services get their act together would be a retrograde step towards achieving the objectives, which I thought the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department shared, of making progress towards the speedier justice system that we would all like to see.
      Mr. Garnier: I heartily agree with what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has just said. My views would be different if we were talking about bail imposed by a court, but we are talking about bail imposed by a custody officer, who is not part of the judicial system but a policeman. To allow police officers to restrict the liberty of a citizen for an unlimited amount of time seems a strange thing for the House of Commons—which is, after all, the defender of the liberties of the subject—to want to become engaged in. I am all for administrative efficiency, but there comes a time when Members of Parliament have to work out where they belong.
      Are we interested in administrative efficiency over and above the liberty of the subject? In saying that, I am interested not in giving improper protection to guilty people but in ensuring that legislation, particularly in the field of criminal justice, is properly thought about. The Minister is one of the more honourable and thoughtful members of the Government. I am very
      962
      concerned, however, that, for reasons that are administratively convenient and useful for the progress of legislation as a whole, he is allowing himself to whip through the House of Commons—I use the word "whip" with a small "w"—a piece of legislation that is careless of the rights of the innocent citizen.
      I do not normally lose much sleep over the rights of people who have committed hideous offences, save that they should be incarcerated in humane conditions following a proper trial, but I am concerned that the clause, if unamended, will give powers to police officers—who, as individuals, might be entirely wonderful people—who are outside the judicial process and not susceptible to immediate judicial control. Cases might involve people being arrested at the dead of night, and in all sorts of conditions. We need to be careful before we dance gaily round the legislative maypole and allow clauses of this kind to go through unamended.
      If I understood the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee correctly, he does not intend to press the amendment to a vote.
      Mr. Mullin: I did not say that.
      Mr. Garnier: I am glad of that. I think that the threat of the Chairman's non-promise not to put the matter to a vote—if I may use as many negatives as I possibly can—is something to which the Government ought to pay attention. I am not in control of the Government—or of the official Opposition, still less of the Liberal Democrat party—on these matters, but I believe that we all need to stop from time to time and to think a little more carefully about what is contained in huge great Bills such as this. Here we have a tiny little clause that has huge implications, and the burden of proof is firmly on the Government to demonstrate that what will happen is good and necessary.
      Mr. Cameron: I agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on whose very good Select Committee I sit. I want to add one point to what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said. He said that having conditional bail without a time limit would improve administrative efficiency, and that that was why the Government were introducing the measure. There is a danger that some of the provisions in the Bill—this is one of them—will not improve administrative efficiency because they will almost make life too easy for the police.
      I am a great supporter, indeed a great fan, of the police, and I want to ensure that they can do their job properly. What I heard in Committee and what I have heard today makes me worry about a number of provisions in the Bill, of which this is one. I fear that the police are being sent this message: "Do not worry about charging. You can keep this individual on bail with conditions indefinitely. Even when you are thinking about charging, you can keep him in custody for 36 rather than 24 hours. And when it comes to trial, do not worry about getting all the evidence ready, because previous convictions are now admissible in court." I do not necessarily think that all those changes are wrong,

      963
      but I see no case for conditions on bail without limit. The Select Committee heard compelling evidence in favour of a limit.
      Mr. Garnier: I agree, but whether we use my hon. Friend's argument or mine it seems clear that the measure should be examined carefully. May I suggest a solution? If unlimited police bail arrangements are to be introduced, could not the Government, here or in another place, give defendants the right to apply to the courts for limitation of those arrangements, or for them to be brought under the courts' control?
      Mr. Cameron: That is one possible answer. The Select Committee came up with four safeguards, the simplest of which is my favoured solution. A four-week limit would enable the police to know the time frame within which they must operate—that is, get on with the job we are talking about, which is getting the charge right. According to the Government, many of their proposals are intended to produce that result. I agree that the charge should be right in the first place, but there should be a time limit. That is why I support the amendment.
      Hilary Benn: I echo the tributes paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) for the work that he and his colleagues do in general, and for the work they have done in respect of the Bill. I hope that he will feel—if not now, by the end of my brief speech—that this is a dialogue worth having. It certainly is from the Government's point of view.
      We did of course note the Select Committee's perception of a risk that onerous conditions might be allowed to run indefinitely. It is arguable that that risk is slight, for although there is currently no limit on the duration of police bail it is not the practice of the police to bail suspects indefinitely; typically, they are bailed to return to the station on a specified date a few weeks hence. I should add, for the benefit of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) in particular, that the conditions can be imposed only with the suspect's consent. If the suspect does not want the conditions to be placed on him or her, it will fall to the police to charge the suspect and take him or her to court; it will then be for the magistrates to impose the conditions. That is an important safeguard. The conditions will be onerous only to the extent that the person concerned may be prepared to take them on as part of a conditional bail arrangement.
      Notwithstanding what I have just said, the Government understand the reasons for the Select Committee's recommendation. We said in our response that we were considering it, and we are. We did not reject it, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South.
      The limit most likely to be acceptable is a limit on the initial period of bail rather than on the duration of the conditions, renewable by the police after the suspect's return to the station. The specified period would need to be long enough to enable most cases to be determined without renewal. On the basis of charging pilots and discussions with the Crown Prosecution Service, it appears that, in most circumstances, a five-week period would be enough to enable charges to be brought. We have heard some debate about the appropriate length of
      964
      time. I hope, though, that my hon. Friend will be content to accept my assurance that the Select Committee's recommendations have not been rejected, and are being considered.
      3.15 pm
      Mr. Mullin: I apologise if I have misrepresented the Government's position. We could argue about the number of days involved, but I want to know whether my hon. Friend is minded to impose a set period—a period renewable not at the discretion of the police but, if it must be renewed, at the discretion of the magistrates court.
      Hilary Benn: The honest answer is that, as I have said, we are considering the point that my hon. Friend has put both in the Select Committee and in discussion. He has clearly had an effect, and I hope that on that basis he will not press his amendment.
      Mr. James Clappison: I, too, urge the Minister to consider carefully the case put by the Select Committee Chairman.
      The first safeguard that the Minister mentioned was the consent of the person concerned. Am I right in thinking that the alternative to the person's consent would be for that person to remain in custody? Need we take that into account in considering how much of a safeguard this is?
      Hilary Benn: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the period for which the person could be detained is governed by the limits we discussed in the context of an earlier clause. We are not talking about periods of four or five weeks but about much shorter periods, which currently depend on whether an arrestable or a serious arrestable offence is involved.
      I hope that Members on both sides of the House will take what I have said at face value. I have said that we are considering the point that has been put. Let me add for the sake of completeness that amendment No. 127, which is grouped with amendment No. 124 but has not been referred to directly, would enable a constable as well as the suspect to apply to a magistrates court for the varying of pre-charge bail conditions. That appears to be superfluous, as the custody officer may, with the suspect's consent, vary the conditions in any event.
      Mr. Garnier: I do not know whether the Minister has finished his speech, but I want to ask him a question.
      Hilary Benn: If it will be helpful, I will give way.
      Mr. Garnier: The Minister is living up to the encomium that I bestowed on him a few moments ago.
      The Minister says that his proposal would affect only defendants who consented, but we read in the newspapers about cases that have gone wrong, and cases at which the Appeal Court may have to look for a second time. In such cases the defendant's consent is often in doubt. The defendant may suffer from some mental incapacity, although not to the extent that the police officer granting bail at the time thought him

      965
      mentally defective or deficient. I fear that a police officer might say, "Just sign here. You can come back at some future date when we have got in touch with you again."
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a rather lengthy intervention.
      Mr. Garnier: I do not want to be rude, Madam Deputy Speaker, but this is quite a serious issue. The Minister has probably got the point by now, but I do not intervene just to delay the proceedings or to interfere with your rulings. I intervene because of a genuine concern not to waste everyone's time and money with Court of Appeal cases.
      Hilary Benn: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for raising that point. I will reflect on it in the context of what I have said, namely that the suspect's consent will be needed. I will reflect on his point about what constitutes consent.
      Mr. Mullin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      It being two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day] proceeded to put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

    Clause 25

      FURTHER PROVISION ABOUT NEW METHOD
      Amendment made: No. 71, in page 17, line 16, at end insert—
      '(5A) Subsection (5) does not apply to section 1 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43).'-[Hilary Benn.]

    Clause 47
      WARNING TO JURY
      Amendment made: No. 94, in page 32, line 29, after 'jury', insert '(if there is one)'.—[Hilary Benn.]
    Clause 99

      ADMISSIBILITY OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE
      Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 146, in page 60, line 6, leave out 'admissible' and insert 'not to be admitted'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 147, in page 60, line 6, leave out 'if, but only if and insert 'unless'.
      No. 148, in page 60, line 9, at end insert 'or'.
      No. 149, in page 60, line 10, leave out from 'admissible' to end of line 13 and insert
      ', and the court is satisfied that, despite the difficulties there may be in challenging the statement, it would not be contrary to the interests of justice for it to be admitted.'.
      966
      No. 150, in page 60, line 15, leave out '(d)' and insert '(a) or (b)'.
      No. 151, in page 60, line 31, at end insert
      'and the court shall in no event admit such a statement if it is of the opinion that, if the statement were admitted, any conviction of the defendant would as a result be based wholly or substantially on statements not made in oral evidence in the proceedings'.
      No. 154, in page 64, line 29, leave out clause 104.
      No. 155, in page 65, line 14 [Clause 105], leave out subsections (4) to (8).
      No. 121, in page 65, line 42, leave out clause 106.
      No. 156, in page 65, line 44 [Clause 106], leave out from 'deceased)"' to end of line 44 and insert
      'only a statement by a person to whom the original statement was made is capable of admission in criminal proceedings as evidence of a matter stated in the original statement (so that a statement by B, but not A, may be admitted as evidence of the fact that C shot the deceased).'.
      No. 157, in page 66, line 1 [Clause 106], after 'statement', insert
      'not made in oral evidence in the proceedings'.
      No. 158, in page 66, line 7 [Clause 106], leave out subsection (3).
      No. 159, in page 66, line 15 [Clause 107], leave out '104 or'.
      No. 160, in page 66, line 23 [Clause 108], leave out, '104'.
      No. 161, in page 68, line 23 [Clause 111], at end insert
      '(and, where the statement is tendered by the defence, of the impact of its exclusion on the fairness of the trial)'.
      No. 162, in page 71, line 6 [Clause 116], leave out from 'unavailable)' to end of line 10.
      No. 163, in page 194, line 17 [Schedule 6], leave out from 'unavailable)' to end of line 21.
      No. 164, in page 194, line 29 [Schedule 6], leave out from 'unavailable)' to end of line 33.
      No. 165, in page 194, line 41 [Schedule 6], leave out from 'unavailable)' to end of line 45.
      Simon Hughes: I shall speak not only to our amendments, but to amendment No. 121, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and other Conservative Members. It might be helpful if I tell hon. Members that we believe the matter to be of importance and that, unless the Government are minded to make a significant movement in our direction, we shall press amendment No. 146 to a Division and encourage hon. Members to support us. If the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is minded to press amendment No. 121 to a Division, we shall support him and his colleagues.
      This group of amendments is the first on the subject of fair trials. There is a lot of discussion in the press about fair trials abroad, but the amendments relate to fair trials at home—they relate to hearsay evidence. Later, we shall have an even more important, but equally central, debate about whether evidence of bad character may be brought into play and adduced during a trial. We believe that a common thread runs between this debate and that debate.
      There are differences between the Liberal Democrat view, the Government's current view—it was not their position when they were in opposition—and the

      967
      Conservative party's general view. In the past, justice was seen to be done in criminal trials because the prosecution had to make its case by bringing evidence and, unless that evidence was accepted, allowing that evidence to be tested by defence cross-examination. Trials were supposed to be held on the basis of evidence relating only to the charges before the court, not to the defendant's pre-history. The debates on hearsay evidence and evidence of bad character show that the Government's position has moved and—I am generalising a little—their current position is, "The more that can be put before a court, the better." They believe that it should be presumed that all evidence that might be relevant should be put before the court so that the judge or jury may reach a decision.
      That is a proper and normal rule in the civil courts, in which people's liberty and associated punishments are not an issue and decisions are made about which party is liable for a specific activity. The civil courts weigh up evidence in favour and against each argument and traditionally reach a view on the balance of evidence. The same has never been true of the criminal courts, where the prosecution must prove a case beyond reasonable doubt rather than using a test of the balance of evidence. Society has rightly decided that convicting people wrongly is such a severe interference with their rights and liberties that a high hurdle must be negotiated before they are convicted. That is why the courts have adopted from common law—not from statute—rules on evidence that may be admitted, and Parliament has developed them.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and I said many times in Committee that the rules of evidence are sometimes too complex. They need to be tidied up to make them more straightforward. We put on record the fact that codifying, clarifying and simplifying the rules of evidence is a good thing. We support codifying the rules of evidence, including hearsay evidence, but we do not support changing the rules of evidence to reflect the Government's starting point in clause 99. Under the clause, second or third-hand hearsay evidence will ordinarily be admissible unless exceptions apply. Such evidence is distinct from that heard from somebody who tells what they have seen.
      We believe that second or third-hand evidence should not normally be admissible unless there is a good reason for it to be admitted. Our belief is based on a simple proposition: if a person repeats what has been said or what somebody else said was said, the accuracy of the original statement cannot be checked. We all know how statements change as they pass down lines of communication. Convicting on the basis of the evidence of someone who is not in court and cannot therefore be seen and heard and whose character cannot he judged by the judge or the jury means asking the court to place reliability on the evidence that makes it potentially equal to that of people who are in court and can be seen and heard. There is thus a danger of weighting the case against the defendant in a way that would not happen if the people whose evidence is cited had to be present.
      3.30 pm
      We support the proposal that hearsay evidence should continue to be inadmissible unless specific conditions are fulfilled. We wish that the Government
      968
      had kept to the view that the Law Commission recommended to them—it undertook a considerable piece of work and reported in 1997. It produced a draft Bill and 50 recommendations, and continued to support the traditional view that hearsay evidence would not generally be admissible, with exceptions.
      I know the arguments for the opposite view because we have held discussions with the Under-Secretary and his colleagues, for which we are grateful. It is argued that if people believe in and trust the jury system, they must trust members of the jury to listen to everything and reach a fair judgment. That is superficially appealing, but there is a weakness in the argument. Nobody has ever claimed that the jury system is perfect. We have always argued that it is the best system, and that lay magistrates constitute the best system for the lower courts. The court is representative of the general public, and juries and lay magistrates can thus listen to the facts without bringing to the case the lethargy that can derive from sitting in court day in, day out. Lay magistrates and especially members of juries bring the experiences of their day-to-day lives to the court, listen to the case and judge on the facts. However, like everyone else, they have prejudices.
      It is important not to include hearsay evidence because, although trial by jury is the best system, if jury members are given information that is less valuable, less able to be tested or irrelevant to the offence with which the person is charged, they may be improperly influenced and judge on the basis of bad evidence or evidence that they cannot test. That applies especially to evidence of bad character, which we shall consider later. We therefore trust the jury, but it should only be given evidence that it can properly examine.
      We accept that the hearsay rules constitute some of the most complex and confusing parts of criminal law and that they need to be tidied up. We also accept that the Government want to ensure that, if possible, less time is spent on complex arguments about evidence on the conduct of cases. We support that proposal. If we can reduce the time it takes for cases to get to and through court by removing arcane and often prolonged evidence about minutiae, so much the better. I have said publicly to the Home Secretary that we have signed up to trying to codify that aspect of the law to make it simpler and to avoid the necessity for people to go from one part of criminal law to another. Reform is therefore acceptable to us. We are not being conservative or stick-in-the-mud, nor are we defending practices that do not work.
      We are encouraged in our belief that our view is correct by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which considered the matter and decided that it preferred the Law Commission's proposals to Lord Justice Auld's later proposals and recommendations. The Auld report was the immediate predecessor of the draft White Paper. We note that the Joint Committee on Human Rights is worried about whether, in some cases, a fair trial could be obtained and whether article 6 of the European convention on human rights would be breached. It is worried about trials in which convictions are based only on hearsay evidence. According to its report, no such case has gone all the way to the Strasbourg court. We are therefore slightly in the dark about the convention's effect.

      969
      All the organisations that have been consulted and represent regular practitioners have expressed anxiety about the proposals. They include the Legal Action Group, the Bar Council, Liberty, Justice—I declare that I am a member of its executive council—and the Criminal Bar Association. There is therefore significant concern; we are not simply making a party political point.
      I want briefly to point out why the proposal is defective and to outline our suggestions for better legislation. The group of amendments is large and I do not therefore propose to go through it in detail. I appreciate that others wish to speak and that the debate is time limited.
      Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to that matter, he was talking about convictions that are wrongly obtained as a result of hearsay evidence. Does he understand—as I do—that the provisions relate equally to the defence and to the prosecution, so that both will be able to take advantage of them?
      Simon Hughes: I believe that that is right, and it could be argued that the proposed changes will produce equity of arms. I accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. I understand why the Government are concerned to ensure more convictions of the guilty: we all say amen to that. The issue before us, which motivates the Liberal Democrats' approach, is whether the drive to obtain that result will fail or, if it succeeds, whether it will do so at the expense of more convictions of the innocent. Sadly, there are already more than enough wrongful convictions in the justice system of England and Wales—the Bill does not affect Scotland—and we should be careful not to do anything that would increase the number of wrongful convictions.
      Amendment No. 146 would return clause 99 to what it should be. As drafted, it states:
      "In criminal proceedings a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings is admissible as evidence of any matter stated",
      and the qualifications are then set out—
      "if, but only if … any provision … makes it admissible, … any rule of law preserved by section 103 makes it admissible, … all parties … agree to it being admissible",
      and a fourth test follows. The amendment would turn that round, so the clause would read simply:
      "In criminal proceedings a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings is not to be admitted as evidence of any matter stated"—
      unless the subsequent conditions are met. It starts with the presumption that hearsay evidence will not be included unless it passes certain tests.
      Clause 99 includes a judicial oversight provision, whereby the court has to be satisfied that
      "despite the difficulties there may be in challenging the statement, it would not be contrary to the interests of justice for it to be admissible."
      One problem that applies here and to later provisions on bad character is that when a judge hearing a case is given significant extra powers, it is bound to lead to greater variability—and therefore subjectivity—of decision on
      970
      what counts as admissible evidence. If the rules are codified in statute, clear and predetermined, everyone knows where they stand. However, it is much more difficult to be certain about the consistency of justice if judges are given much greater flexibility to decide whether admitting evidence would be contrary to the interests of justice in a particular case.
      Amendment No. 151 would add a qualification at the end of the long list of considerations—(a) to (i) in clause 99(2)—that the courts should take into account when deciding whether to include hearsay evidence—for example, how probative or important a statement is, or according to
      "the circumstances in which the statement was made"
      or
      "how reliable the maker of the statement appears to be",
      and so forth. That is fine as far as it goes, but those conditions are no substitute for having someone in court to ask them about what they said, which can be seen and heard by the jury. That is why the amendment would include at the end of the list the additional words:
      "and the court shall in no event admit such a statement if it is of the opinion that, if the statement were admitted, any conviction of the defendant would as a result be based wholly or substantially on statements not made in oral evidence in the proceedings".
      We are keen to ensure that we bring evidence to court—other than when it is agreed—and that people are not convicted on hearsay evidence rather than on direct evidence.
      Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman complained a moment ago that one problem was that the provisions would give more discretion to the judges. Amendment No. 151 would require a judge to decide what would be substantially the basis for a conviction if he admitted a further statement. That would be a very subjective judgment. What does the hon. Gentleman suggest the word "substantially" means in the context of the amendment?
      Simon Hughes: The hon. and learned Lady makes two points. First, of course the amendment involves judicial discretion, as is always the case when a judge determines matters of procedure. The amendment would improve the list that the Government give. If we are to have judicial discretion, for example, the amendment would ensure that that discretion does not allow people to be convicted —"wholly or substantially"—on evidence other than what has been agreed, and which is not before the court. The hon. and learned Lady knows better than I that a huge amount of evidence before courts is agreed by both sides beforehand. Vast numbers of statements are accepted without dispute.
      Secondly, we may need to revisit the terms "wholly" and "substantially". "Wholly" is self-explanatory, but the word "substantially" is used regularly in criminal justice legislation to mean "nearly wholly". We could come up with proper definitions, but the point is that we must be careful that we do not start convicting people on the basis of evidence that is not substantially evidence before the court. I am sure that the hon. and learned Lady will agree with that, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights made the same point.
      The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) recollected vividly in Standing Committee a debate on emergency powers for Northern Ireland. There was a

      971
      possibility that the law that was passed—happily, it has never been implemented—could have people convicted on hearsay evidence alone for terrible terrorist activities in the past. For example, that hearsay evidence could include what a police officer or member of the armed services had heard from members of the intelligence services. We can understand why people would not be keen for members of the intelligence services to be brought before the court, but one is getting into very dangerous territory if one allows people to relate second hand the basis for their belief that a person is guilty.
      Mr. Garnier: I largely agree with the broad thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but, in connection with amendment No. 151, would it not be better to allow the judge to make that decision at the end of the prosecution case, rather than before he knows what the whole of the prosecution case is? Not until the end of the prosecution case will the judge know whether a piece of evidence constitutes a substantial part of the case, or the whole of it.
      Simon Hughes: I accept that. Later, we will debate the stage at which applications can be made for a case to be dismissed. The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a valid point, with which our amendment is not inconsistent. Certainly, the matter should wait until the whole case has been seen, when, to put the matter bluntly, it will be possible to know how much evidence is direct, and how much indirect.
      Mr. Garnier: I do not want to push at an open door, but the problem with amendment No. 151 is that it states that
      "the court shall in no event admit such a statement".
      It has to be admitted so that the judge can view it in the overall context of the whole of the prosecution case. That is the short point that I was making.
      Simon Hughes: Amendment No. 151 seeks to deal with the Government's reversal of the proposition that we want to be the starting proposition. If we could go back to making the law say that hearsay evidence cannot be admitted except in certain specified cases, such a statement would be admitted at the time in the prosecution case when it fell to be admitted and the judge could then make an evaluation at half time, I would be happy with that and would withdraw amendment No. 151, because clause 99 would have been recast.
      The final matter of significance, the multiple hearsay provision, is covered by amendment No. 106. I do riot want to steal the thunder of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, but the proposal is that there should be a provision to allow what might be called "double hearsay". Put simply, that amounts to A saying that B said that C shot the deceased. That is far removed from hearing evidence based on direct sight or sound in the court.
      Although we have tabled amendments to the clause, we would support its removal, as I said. Multiple hearsay evidence is very thin evidence indeed. It is bad enough when someone says, "Bill Jones told me that they saw them breaking into the shop". If one never hears Bill Jones tell his story—if someone says Bill Jones
      972
      heard that Amin Patel said last Tuesday that someone was breaking into the shop—it is seriously risky. We must be careful not to go down what is a dangerous slippery slope even with certain protections.
      The law ought to be codified and tidied up. The Law Commission was right: the presumption should be that hearsay evidence is not admissible. The clause does not provide for that, which is why we tabled the amendment.
      3.45 pm
      Mr. Grieve: This group contains a raft of amendments that touch on hearsay, which is one area that I have found extremely difficult.
      Hilary Benn indicated assent.
      Mr. Grieve: The Minister helpfully indicates that he has too. When we dealt with the matter in Committee we found that it was one of those issues on which there was general agreement at the outset on the broad principle and everyone felt that the hearsay rules ought to be tidied up. The more one goes into the details of what is proposed, the more one has anxieties and reservations and tries to dismiss them from one's mind. I say that as a preliminary comment as I can assure the Minister that I am convinced that tidying up the rules on hearsay would be beneficial. Considering the totality of what is being proposed in this chapter, with which the various amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and the amendment that I have tabled deal, I still have serious anxieties.
      First, on the generality, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, there appears to be a measure of agreement that hearsay evidence should be made more readily admissible. He rightly highlighted when speaking to his first amendment, which may be symbolic, that the wording makes hearsay evidence admissible whereas he would like to preserve the basic rule that it is not to be admitted except in certain circumstances. He may put that amendment to the vote and I shall support him if he does, not because I think that it makes a huge difference to the drafting of this part of the Bill, but because it gets the argument and discussion off to the right start. If that is the amendment that he chooses to put to the vote from this group, I will back him on it.
      I shall focus, however, on the hon. Gentleman's amendment No. 154 to clause 104, which deals with "inconsistent statements", and is an amendment that has concerned me particularly. This is an example of an area where I have serious doubts about whether the House is doing the right thing. I shall explain why, although we did discuss this in Committee.
      As the Minister knows, the present position is that if someone goes into the witness box and gives evidence that is inconsistent with a previous statement that he or she has made, that statement can be put to them—indeed, it can be put to them by the counsel who has called them, if necessary. The purpose of doing so is to destroy the witness's credibility and reduce it to zero. Having done so, no weight can be attached to what they have said in the witness box or previously. The witness is taken out of the picture in terms of the credibility of their evidence.

      973
      In clause 104, the Government have chosen to alter that principle completely. They have chosen to embark on a particular route, saying that, where there is a previous inconsistent statement, irrespective of who made it, that statement can be put to the witness to comment on, agree with or denounce. However, if a denunciation takes place, the court and jury can then be presented with the hotchpotch mixture of what the witness says in the witness box and maintains is true, and what the witness said previously in a statement to the police and claimed, at the time, was true. The jury can be invited by one side, the other side, or both, to choose which version they prefer and to treat that version as the truth. If they are satisfied that one version is the truth, they can, if necessary, convict a person on that evidence.
      Taking that route may be tempting. In Committee, we discussed examples of witnesses who make detailed statements to the police that incriminate another person and lead to a charge being brought because the police investigation into the statement suggests that it is credible. The case then goes to court and, for reasons that often never emerge—perhaps to do with fear, intimidation, a change of mind, or the relationship with the defendant in the dock—the witness refuses to say anything or gives a totally different version of events, exculpating the defendant.
      I am the first to accept that, in such circumstances, there is a great temptation to accept what clause 104 provides for and say, "Well, the previous statement should be allowed to stand as evidence, because that way we will get the conviction when the witness fails to come up to proof in the witness box." However, the more I have reflected on clause 104—and I reflected on it after the Committee stage as well as during it—the more troubled I have become by the principles that underpin it. The principle of our system of justice is that we invite juries to convict people if they are satisfied that they are sure that those people are guilty. If a person comes before a court and says—often quite articulately in my experience—that their previous statement was a load of rubbish and that what they are now saying is true, it is a bold person who can claim to be able to establish, when a witness has discredited himself or herself so thoroughly in that way, that any part of the statement should be accepted. The temptation is there, but the previous rule existed precisely because it was felt that that temptation could all too easily lead to a person being wrongly convicted. Perhaps the truth was that the original denunciator had lied to the police in a complex fashion because they had a grudge against the person, but had since changed their mind. We have all seen that happen in the witness box, yet we are about to establish a principle that allows someone to be convicted on such evidence.
      I remain deeply troubled by this change in our legal principles. I wonder what advantage will accrue from it. Apart from anything else, I would have thought that any sensible judge, when faced with this situation and desirous of allowing justice to be done, would have to be overwhelmingly cautious in any summing up that he gave to the jury about the enormous dangers of convicting on such evidence. The issue bothers me, and I see that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for
      974
      Harborough (Mr. Garnier) is nodding; he has experience of sitting as a recorder, as others in this Chamber may have. We should not be taking this route.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Much of what the hon. Gentleman says is right, but does he not accept that there is a contrary position here? Not infrequently, when witnesses first make their statements to the police, they do not inculpate the defendant. On the contrary, they do precisely the reverse. It is only after a period of time that they then make the statement on which a conviction or an indictment is based. If this clause becomes law, the previous exculpatory statement will be evidence of the facts in that exculpatory statement. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that that, far from being a chain on liberty, will be a ball and chain for prosecutions for a great deal of time to come? If the intention was to remove civil liberties by means of this clause, it is, as with much else in this part of this Bill, a spectacular own goal.
      Mr. Grieve: I always listen with care to what the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) says. We had a discussion about this a moment ago with the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). I concede that the matter can cut both ways in that it can be to the advantage of a defendant or of a prosecutor. However, I will say to the hon. and learned Gentleman—I dare say that he will rise to provide examples from his own practice—that if somebody gives a statement that is exculpatory, then subsequently appears in the witness box and gives an incriminating statement, as matters stand the discrediting of that witness will remove any ability of the prosecutor to rely on his evidence thereafter. In view of the fact that the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case, not on the defendant to prove his innocence, the defendant is pretty well protected by the principle that a prosecution witness can be discredited in that way and their evidence reduced to nothing.
      I stand by my principles. Although I accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, I apply my own criterion that the advantage cuts both ways. I would not wish a witness who incriminates somebody in the witness box but has previously given an exculpatory statement to be in any better position in terms of his impact on the trial than if it were the other way round. Whichever situation arises, that witness should be disregarded. In my experience, however, if it is a prosecution witness who is destroyed in that way, the prosecution's case tends to go down the plughole unless there is some overwhelming and compelling other evidence against the defendant.
      Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman will be familiar, as I am, with the position whereby a young witness can now give evidence by having a video made of what they say to police officers outside court. That would be hearsay were it not for a specific statutory provision admitting it as the evidence-in-chief of a young person. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman shares my anxiety that it should be possible for far more witness evidence to be taken by video at the earliest possible stage. That will all

      975
      be hearsay unless the rule mooted by the Government is passed, and what he suggests would stand in the way of that.
      Mr. Grieve: I may have misunderstood what the hon. and learned Lady said If clause 104 on inconsistent statements were to be removed, I do not see how that would in any way prevent what she is arguing for, which is the greater admissibility of evidence that is obtained outside the court setting. I was focusing on the matter only in terms of there being inconsistency between the one and the other. If I misunderstood her, I will gladly give way to her again.
      Vera Baird: I think that I am looking at a slightly fuller picture. If the hon. Gentleman's problem is that he does not want to admit as evidence statements that are made out of court nearer the time, his obstacle would definitely be in the way of an expanded use of video evidence. That would inevitably mean that evidence taken on film soon after the event—highly probative and valuable material—could not be admitted because it was technically hearsay.
      4 pm
      Mr. Grieve: I understand what the hon. and learned Lady says but that was not the point that I was trying to make. I am not against such evidence being admitted. Indeed, although I have expressed reservations about the whole picture as regards hearsay, I tried to focus on the details while admitting that I found the issue complicated—as does the Minister. I do not suggest that such evidence should not be admitted. I was focusing on the narrow issue: where there are two completely inconsistent statements—a previously made statement, whether on video or given to the police, and a subsequent statement, made when a witness appears in the witness box, that is wholly different and, indeed, inconsistent with the first one. It is not a question of saying, "I can't remember what I said on the earlier occasion", but of saying, "What I said on the earlier occasion is not the truth."
      In those circumstances, clause 104 allows the prosecutor or the defence to say to the jury at the end, "I invite you to prefer what was said in the earlier inconsistent statement as being the truth," while the current rule is that the witness would have been so discredited that the judge would have to tell the jury to disregard that evidence completely. That is the point that troubles me.
      Vera Baird: I think that we are talking about the same thing. In fact, there will be only one version, will there not, if rules come into force to allow for wider videoing of evidence outside court from, for example, victims of rape or domestic violence and others. The opportunity for an inconsistent version will come only during cross-examination, will it not? The hon. Gentleman might have a different point if equal evidential value is to be given to a statement taken outside court and evidence given in court. What happens in a situation where a witness makes a statement that something happened on Monday but, in the witness box, says that it happened on Tuesday? Surely, that would be the real problem.
      Mr. Grieve: I was not necessarily thinking of examples such as that. We have all seen cases where, in court,
      976
      witnesses change their recollection of events, which may be for completely innocent reasons. However, that is rather different from what I consider an inconsistent statement, which is when a witness says, "I saw the defendant hit his wife over the head with a pickaxe handle," but when he is in the witness box, he says, "The defendant was nowhere near the house at the time, he was actually down the pub with me". Currently, that would be the end of his evidence; it disappears from the picture. He is discredited and cross-examined and, unless there is other evidence, it may be the end of the case. However, under clause 104, that would not be the end of the case. The prosecutor would invite the jury to convict on the basis of the earlier statement. As an issue of principle, and mindful of the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Medway, that bothers me.
      I am conscious that we do not have much time left to debate this group of amendments, so I want to turn to amendment No. 121, which relates to multiple hearsay. I have read and re-read what was said in Committee on this subject by the Under-Secretary the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), yet I remain concerned about this part of the Bill. It has been said that multiple hearsay can go on for virtually as many times as one likes. It is different in quality and nature from hearsay. For example, it is not: "Somebody has told me that something happened", but "Somebody has told me that somebody told him that something happened".
      Although the provisions are hedged around with a number of restrictions, some of which I do not find easy to follow, it seems that at least part of clause 106 would enable some extremely strange things to happen. For example, it would enable a statement to be read out in court that an individual had been told by another person that the character and reputation of the defendant were that he was a villain in the area where he lived. The basis for reading out such a statement would be the unavailability of the witness who was to be called to give that evidence. The Minister will correct me if I have got that wrong, but that is my reading of the clause. If I may use a colloquialism, it is bonkers. I do not see what possible weight or credibility such evidence could have or what use it would serve. In fact, a great deal of prejudice could accrue because the evidence could never be challenged. Material would be put in front of a jury that was infinitely capable of misleading and had no probative value at all.
      In saying that, I am conscious that clause 106 also covers provisions relating to business documents. The Minister may remember—I do not recall whether he was present—that in Committee I said that I was extremely satisfied with the way in which business documents are admitted as hearsay evidence in criminal cases. I regularly use that principle under current law and I am satisfied that it works, so I assure the Minister that that is not what I am aiming it. However, the clause goes much further. I have not sought to redraft the clause, because redrafting it is beyond me, but I am convinced that the example I have given—if it is correct—is one that I am not prepared to tolerate arising under the Bill. If we go down that road, we will expose ourselves to cases in which material is placed in front of juries that can never be challenged and is highly prejudicial, deeply tendentious and unreliable, because it has passed through a number of persons or statements before it appears in front of the jury. However, I specifically exclude business documents from those comments.

      977
      Time has passed. I hope that the Minister is able to respond, but I am minded to ask the House to divide on the amendment.
      Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman has given an example of a case in which I should have thought it intensely unlikely that anyone would try to rely on multiple hearsay about someone's reputation, so perhaps it is not a proper way to test the efficacy of the provision. I have thought of an example in which multiple hearsay might be advantageous. It closely resembles a case that I put to him in Committee, but takes it one step further.
      The hon. Gentleman will remember my describing a case in which someone is killed by having his throat cut and with his dying breath says to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), "Dominic Grieve did it." I arrive on the scene a second later, ask the hon. Gentleman, "Who did he say did it?" and he replies, "Dominic Grieve." Then something happens—may it not—to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. The likelihood of the deceased or the hon. Gentleman lying in the heat of the moment is remote. The evidence is second-hand hearsay but it would be admitted under the provision, and rightly so.
      Mr. Grieve: The hon. and learned Lady makes an interesting and persuasive case on an example. Equally, she accepted that the example that I gave was one that, if it arose, would cause her some concern. I believe, however, that the Bill as drafted will have that effect.
      I shall invite the House to delete clause 106. In doing so, I am saying not that the clause is valueless, but that as drafted it is unsatisfactory. If the Minister assured me that the Government will re-examine the provision, I might change my mind. However, my current intention is to vote against it, because it is likely to cause harm that will outweigh the benefits it generates.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I rise briefly to congratulate the Government. In the field of criminal justice, that is such a rare and beautiful thing that I cannot resist the opportunity to do so. Unhappily, in that field one often has the sadness of saying that the Government attack civil liberties and the liberties of individuals either through the substantive law or through the law of evidence, which we are discussing. However, on this occasion, the Government are making a serious attempt not to disadvantage the defence but seriously to disadvantage the prosecution.
      Let me expand that point in general terms. Many safeguards are built into this part of the Bill. The truth is that the judge—any judge—simply will not admit hearsay, let alone double hearsay, in circumstances in which it is unfair or likely to lead to an injustice. Because of the European convention, the provisions apply on both sides, but whereas the Crown, by reason of the forces it has at its disposal, rarely has difficulty obtaining first-hand primary evidence and will therefore be locked out by the judge if it attempts to bring in secondary or hearsay evidence, the same does not apply to the defence. A defence application to call hearsay evidence
      978
      on the basis that the defence has been unable, given its best endeavours, to obtain the primary evidence is therefore much more likely to find favour with a trial judge. I say that after having prosecuted in my quite long professional life at least as many serious criminals as I have defended—I am pleased to say with almost the same rate of success.
      As prosecution counsel, it causes me very considerable concern that, at the end of a case, a defendant—and, let us postulate, a serious and professional defendant—with very little by way of defence will be able to adduce evidence before the court and say that Joan will be called to say that, in a conversation that she had with Mrs. Kray, Mr. Kray said that he had done it. Of course, neither Mr. Kray nor Mrs. Kray will be available, for the very good reason that they are on the run.
      At the moment, quite rightly, such evidence would be wholly and completely inadmissible. If the provisions are passed, it is extremely likely that it will be admitted and that a cast-iron case against very serious criminals will fall because of this piece of civil libertarian legislation. I suspect that that was what the Home Office and Home Secretary had in mind when they engineered the measure, and as I say, a wonderful thing it indeed is, if somewhat aberrent, given the general track record. If the provisions are passed, what we are likely to see is, I regret, injustice being done, but not to the defence.
      Having congratulated the Government in that fulsome way, I shall say straight away that I shall not vote for the provisions. I shall not do so because I would not dream of voting for provisions that, if they are put into effect, will give effect to matters and measures that the Government do not intend. To that extent, I will abstain. I suspect that the provisions will be brought into effect and eventually be put into effect by the courts, and that the prosecution and the Government will find in the fullness of time, I am sorry to say, that they have scored—if I may repeat the metaphor—a spectacular own goal.
      Mr. Garnier: I shall be very brief, because I think that the knives come down at 4.20, which will leave four whole groups of amendments undiscussed. I think that it is an outrage that this House is permitting this Bill to go through largely undiscussed. I hope that the other place bears in mind what I have said and the procedures that we foolishly adopt in this House in considering such legislation.
      There is a spurious attraction to what the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) said; he is an accomplished after—dinner speaker, and we are a long way before dinner, but I think that that was one of his better contributions to the art of after-dinner speaking.
      I wholly accept the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), and I ask the House to reject the provision as it is currently drafted by the Government. It comes out of the school of saloon bar legislation that says "It stands to reason, guy; somebody said that he's guilty, so he must be guilty." We should be extremely careful, because hearsay and rumour are very

      979
      close relations, and if we are to start convicting people on the basis of rumour, we might as well pack up and go home.
      Hilary Benn: There is a great deal to respond to and I have a very short time in which to do so, but I shall do my best.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) prefaced his remarks by speaking about the importance of the fundamental principle in our criminal justice system that, in the end, a case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt before somebody can be convicted and potentially deprived of their liberty. It should not need saying, but, as he raises the issue, it would be remiss of me if I did not make it absolutely clear that none of the provisions on hearsay, which we are debating, nor any on bad character, which we will come to shortly, changes that one iota. That remains the bedrock on which our system is based.
      4.15 pm
      I concur wholeheartedly with the comment made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who admitted to the highly complex nature of the law on hearsay, and other hon. Members in the Chamber at the moment are better qualified and have much more expertise than I do. Notwithstanding that fact, I wish to say that, like the Law Commission, the Government accept that hearsay evidence is generally less satisfactory than first-hand evidence, but there may be cases where that is not so and there are other cases in which it is all that is available and should therefore be considered by the court. That is the issue with which the House has to grapple, and all hon. Members recognise that, after careful consideration, the Law Commission said that the present law was not only exceptionally complex but difficult to interpret. That is what the Bill seeks to change.
      The second issue that I want to address is the difference between the inclusionary as opposed to the exclusionary approach because it will have salience in a later debate, when we shall argue, in essence, about the same principle. In effect, the relevant phrases are "admitted, but only if" as opposed to "not admitted unless". I think that I am right in saying that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said in passing that in one sense that does not make a lot of difference, and I agree with him. So we should focus our attention on whether we have the right safeguards to cover the circumstances in which there is general agreement that hearsay material should not be admitted.
      Thirdly, I agree with the argument that we should seek to trust juries in weighing all the evidence that they have before them, in reaching a judgment and deciding whether they can reach a verdict that is beyond reasonable doubt. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey advanced that argument and then attempted to knock it down. I shall give a practical example because it is very hard, given the complexity of the issue, for non-lawyers to understand precisely what we are talking about.
      I shall refer to the celebrated Kearley case. During a police raid on a suspected drug dealer, a number of people either called at the door or telephoned the house asking for drugs. Not surprisingly in those
      980
      circumstances, the dealer's clients were not willing to give statements to the police officers who opened the door. The Court of Appeal held that the prosecution was wrong to rely on that evidence because it was inadmissible hearsay. In summing up the issues in that case, however, Lord Justice Griffiths stated:
      "I believe that most laymen if told that the criminal law of evidence forbade them even to consider such evidence as we are debating in this appeal would reply 'then the law is an ass'"—
      and I agree with him. That is the issue with which we are wrestling and which the Government are seeking to address in these clauses.
      The Government's belief in the need for inclusionary reform, which is the central thrust of the proposals, is supported by the Runciman royal commission, which concluded that hearsay evidence should be admitted to a greater extent than at present, and by Sir Robin Auld, who proposed that hearsay should be generally admissible in criminal proceedings. The terms of rule are almost but not completely consistent with the Law Commission's widely supported proposal that there should be automatic admission for certain categories of evidence, with judicial discretion to admit other cogent and reliable evidence.
      The final point that I want to make is that clause 99 makes it absolutely clear that such evidence will be admitted only if the relevant criteria apply. We believe that this is a sufficient safeguard and that the many proposed amendments would send out the wrong signals to the courts on how they should approach this issue.
      Amendment No. 149, which was not directly addressed, would have serious implications for a swathe of evidence in our criminal courts, including the common law categories which have—
      It being three and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of business at that hour pursuant to Order [this day]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 297.

      Division No. 156]

      [4:20pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Breed, Colin

      Allan, Richard

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Amess, David

      Burnett, John

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Burns, Simon

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Burnside, David

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Burnside, Paul

      Bacon, Richard

      Burt, Alistair

      Baker, Norman

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Baldry, Tony

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Barker, Gregory

      Cameron, David

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Cash, William

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Chidgey, David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Chope, Christopher

      Bercow, John

      Clappison, James

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Collins, Tim

      Boswell, Tim

      Cotter, Brian

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Curry, rh David

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Brady, Graham

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Brazier, Julian

      981

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Mercer, Patrick

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Dodds, Nigel

      Doughty, Sue

      Moore, Michael

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Evans, Nigel

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Fabricant, Michael

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Fallon, Michael

      Öpik, Lembit

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Flight, Howard

      Page, Richard

      Flook, Adrian

      Paice, James

      Forth, rh Eric

      Pickles, Eric

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Francois, Mark

      Randall, John

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Redwood, rh John

      Garnier, Edward

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Rendel, David

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Goodman, Paul

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Grayling, Chris

      Ruffley, David

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Greenway, John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Grieve, Dominic

      Selous, Andrew

      Gummer, rh John

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hague, rh William

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

      Hammond, Philip

      Hawkins, Nick

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Heald, Oliver

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Heath, David

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Hendry, Charles

      Spring, Richard

      Hermon, Lady

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Steen, Anthony

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Stunell, Andrew

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Syms, Robert

      Jack, rh Michael

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Keetch, Paul

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Thurso, John

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Trend, Michael

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Trimble, rh David

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Lamb, Norman

      Viggers, Peter

      Lansley, Andrew

      Waterson, Nigel

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Leigh, Edward

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Whittingdale, John

      Lidington, David

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Wiggin, Bill

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Willetts, David

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Maclean, rh David

      Willis, Phil

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Maples, John

      Young, rh Sir George

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Mrs. Annette L. Brooke and

      Mates, Michael

      Richard Younger-Ross

      982

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Allen, Graham

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Edwards, Huw

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Efford, Clive

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bailey, Adrian

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Baird, Vera

      Farrelly, Paul

      Barnes, Harry

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Fisher, Mark

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Benn, Hilary

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Flint, Caroline

      Berry, Roger

      Foster, rh Derek

      Betts, Clive

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Blizzard, Bob

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Borrow, David

      Gerrard, Neil

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Godsiff, Roger

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Goggins, Paul

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Bryant, Chris

      Grogan, John

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Burnham, Andy

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Cairns, David

      Hanson, David

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Casale, Roger

      Healey, John

      Caton, Martin

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Challen, Colin

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Heppell, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Heyes, David

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Clelland, David

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Cohen, Harry

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Coleman, Iain

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Colman, Tony

      Connarty, Michael

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hutton, rh John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Corston, Jean

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Cousins, Jim

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Cranston, Ross

      Crausby, David

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jamieson, David

      Cummings, John

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      David, Wayne

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Denham, rh John

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Doran, Frank

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      983

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Prescott, rh John

      Kidney, David

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Prosser, Gwyn

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Purchase, Ken

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

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

      Lammy, David

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Lepper, David

      Leslie, Christopher

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Rooney, Terry

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Ruane, Chris

      Linton, Martin

      Ruddock, Joan

      Love, Andrew

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Salter, Martin

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McCabe, Stephen

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Sawford, Phil

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sedgemore, Brian

      MacDonald, Calum

      Sheridan, Jim

      MacDougall, John

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McFall, John

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      McGrady, Eddie

      Singh, Marsha

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      McKechin, Ann

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      MacShane, Denis

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McWalter, Tony

      Soley, Clive

      McWilliam, John

      Southworth, Helen

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Spellar, rh John

      Mallaber, Judy

      Squire, Rachel

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Stevenson. George

      Martlew, Eric

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Merron, Gillian

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Michael, rh Alun

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Stringer, Graham

      Miliband, David

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Miller, Andrew

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Moran, Margaret

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Morgan, Julie

      Tipping, Paddy

      Morley, Elliot

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Trickett, Jon

      Mountford, Kali

      Truswell, Paul

      Mullin, Chris

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Olner, Bill

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Organ, Diana

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Owen, Albert

      Ward, Claire

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Perham, Linda

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Watts, David

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      White, Brian

      Plaskitt, James

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Pollard, Kerry

      Wicks, Malcolm

      984

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Wills, Michael

      Wright David (Telford)

      Wilson, Brian

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Winnick, David

      Wyatt, Derek

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Woolas, Phil

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Worthington, Tony

      Charlotte Atkins

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 121, in page 65, line 42, leave out clause 106.—[Mr. Grieve.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 296.

      Division No. 157]

      [4:36pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Allan, Richard

      Amess, David

      Flight, Howard

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Flook, Adrian

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Forth, rh Eric

      Atkinson. Peter (Hexham)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Bacon, Richard

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Baker, Norman

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Baldry, Tony

      Garnier, Edward

      Barker, Gregory

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Bellingham, Henry

      Goodman, Paul

      Bercow, John

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Grayling, Chris

      Blunt, Crispin

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Boswell, Tim

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Greenway, John

      Brady, Graham

      Grieve, Dominic

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Gummer, rh John

      Brazier, Julian

      Hague, rh William

      Breed, Colin

      Hammond, Philip

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Hawkins, Nick

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Burnett, John

      Heald, Oliver

      Burns, Simon

      Heath, David

      Burnside, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Burstow, Paul

      Hendry, Charles

      Burt, Alistair

      Hermon, Lady

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Cameron, David

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Cash, William

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Chidgey, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Chope, Christopher

      Jack, rh Michael

      Clappison, James

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Collins, Tim

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Cotter, Brian

      Keetch, Paul

      Curry, rh David

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Lamb, Norman

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Lansley, Andrew

      Dodds, Nigel

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Doughty, Sue

      Leigh, Edward

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Lidington, David

      Evans, Nigel

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Fabricant, Michael

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Fallon, Michael

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      985

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Maclean, rh David

      Soames, Nicholas

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Maples, John

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Spring, Richard

      Mates, Michael

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Steen, Anthony

      Mercer, Patrick

      Stunell, Andrew

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Moore, Michael

      Syms, Robert

      Moss, Malcolm

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Thurso, John

      Page, Richard

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Paice, James

      Trend, Michael

      Pickles, Eric

      Trimble, rh David

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Randall, John

      Viggers, Peter

      Redwood, rh John

      Watkinson, Angela

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Rendel, David

      Whittingdale, John

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Wiggin, Bill

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Willetts, David

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Ruffley, David

      Willis, Phil

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Young, rh Sir George

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Selous, Andrew

      Shepherd, Richard

      Tellers for the Ayes:

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

      Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

      Mr. Mark Francois

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Ainger, Nick

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Casale, Roger

      Allen, Graham

      Caton, Martin

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Challen, Colin

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Clapham, Michael

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Baird, Vera

      Barnes, Harry

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Benn, Hilary

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Clelland, David

      Berry, Roger

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Betts, Clive

      Coaker, Vernon

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cohen, Harry

      Borrow, David

      Coleman, Iain

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Colman, Tony

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Connarty, Michael

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bryant, Chris

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Corston, Jean

      Burnham, Andy

      Cousins, Jim

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Cranston, Ross

      Cairns, David

      Crausby, David

      986

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Cummings, John

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cunningharn, Tony (Workington)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      David, Wayne

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Denham, rh John

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Kemp, Fraser

      Doran, Frank

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Kidney, David

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Drown, Ms Julia

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Edwards, Huw

      Knight Jim (S Dorset)

      Efford, Clive

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Farrelly, Paul

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Fisher, Mark

      Lepper, David

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Leslie, Christopher

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Flint, Caroline

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Linton, Martin

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Love, Andrew

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Godsiff, Roger

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Goggins, Paul

      McCabe, Stephen

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Grogan, John

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      MacDougall, John

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McFall, John

      Hanson, David

      McGrady, Eddie

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      McIsaac, Shona

      McKechin, Ann

      Healey, John

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hendrick, Mark

      MacShane, Denis

      Heppell, John

      McWalter, Tony

      Hesford, Stephen

      McWilliam, John

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Heyes, David

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Miliband, David

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Miller, Andrew

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Moran, Margaret

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Morgan, Julie

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Morley, Elliot

      Hutton, rh John

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Mountford, Kali

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Mullin, Chris

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Jamieson, David

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      987

      Olner, Bill

      Southworth, Helen

      Organ, Diana

      Spellar, rh John

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Squire, Rachel

      Owen, Albert

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Perham, Linda

      Stevenson, George

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Plaskitt, James

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Pollard, Kerry

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Stringer, Graham

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Prescott, rh John

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Purchase, Ken

      Tipping, Paddy

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Trickett, Jon

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Truswell, Paul

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

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

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Rooney, Terry

      Ward, Claire

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Ruane, Chris

      Watts, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      White, Brian

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Salter, Martin

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Wills, Michael

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wilson, Brian

      Sawford, Phil

      Winnick, David

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Woodward, Shaun

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Woolas, Phil

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Worthington, Tony

      Singh, Marsha

      Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Gillian Merron and

      Soley, Clive

      Derek Twigg

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being three and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day] proceeded to put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

    Clause 119

      INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER 2
      Amendments made: No. 97, in page 72, line 33, leave out
      'a defect of speech or hearing'
      and insert
      'any disability, disorder or other impairment'.
      No. 98, in page 72, line 34, after 'signs', insert
      'or by way of any device'.—[Hilary Benn.]

    Schedule 6

      HEARSAY EVIDENCE: ARMED FORCES
      Amendment made: No. 139, in page 193, line 2, at end insert—
      '(3A) In section 108(4) for paragraph (a) substitute—
      "(a) in the case of proceedings before a court martial, proceedings held for the determination of the issue must take place before the judge advocate in the absence of the other members of the court;".'.—[Hilary Been]

    Clause 125

      INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER 3
      Amendments made: No. 99, in page 75, line 28, leave out
      'a defect of speech or hearing'
      and insert
      'any disability, disorder or other impairment'.
      No. 100, in page 75, line 29, after 'signs', insert
      'or by way of any device'.—[Hilary Benn.]

    Clause 85

      DEFENDANT'S BAD CHARACTER
      Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 54, line 11, leave out Clause 85.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      Amendment No. 30, in page 54, line 13 leave out
      'admissible, if, but only if'
      and insert 'not admissible, unless'.
      Amendment No. 33, in page 54, leave out lines 15 to 27 and insert
      or
      (b) it has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a codefendant.
      (1A) In criminal proceedings evidence of the defendant's bad character is admissible with leave of the court if it is relevant to a matter in issue in the proceedings and—

      (a) the evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in answer to a question asked by him in cross-examination and intended to elicit it,

      (b) it is important explanatory evidence,

      (c) it is evidence of the defendant's conviction for an offence of the same description or of the same category, as the one with which he is charged,

      (d) it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution,

      (e) it is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant, or

      (f) the defendant has made an attack on another person's character.

      Amendment No. 168, in page 54, line 19, leave out paragraphs (d), (e) and (f).
      Amendment No. 133, in page 54, line 19, leave out paragraph (d).
      Amendment No. 34, in page 54, line 28, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 'subsections (1) and (1A)'.

      989
      Amendment No. 35, in page 54, line 29, leave out '(1)(d), (e) or (h)' and insert '(1A)(c), (d) or (f)'.
      Amendment No. 126, in page 54, line 29, leave out '(d), (e) or (h)' and insert'
      (c), (d), (e), (f) or (h)'.
      Amendment No. 23, in page 54, line 30, leave out from third 'the' to 'that' in line 32 and insert
      'potential probative value of such evidence is so outweighed by its prejudicial effect'.
      Amendment No. 24, in page 54, line 33, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
      '(4) In considering the probative value of such evidence the court is to have regard, in particular, to

      (a) the extent (if any) to which the evidence tends to suggest that the defendant has a propensity to act in the specific manner alleged;

      (b) any similarities between the facts revealed by the evidence and those now alleged;

      (c) the extent to which any similarities may be attributed to coincidence;

      (d) any dissimilarities between the facts revealed by the evidence and those now alleged, and

      (e) the passage of time between the matters to which the evidence relates and the matters now alleged.

      (4A) In considering the prejudicial effect of such evidence the court is to have regard, in particular, to

      (a) the risk of the tribunal of fact attaching undue significance to the evidence in question in determining the defendant's guilt;

      (b) the risk of the tribunal of fact convicting the defendant on the basis of his previous conduct rather than because they are satisfied of his guilt in relation to the matters now alleged;

      (c) any disproportion between the gravity of the conduct revealed by the evidence and the gravity of the matters now alleged; and

      (d) the risk that such evidence will confuse or distract the tribunal of fact.'.

      Government amendment No. 134A.
      Amendment No. 125, in page 54, line 38, at end insert—
      '(6) A person shall not be convicted of an offence solely on the basis of evidence of his bad character.'.
      Amendment No. 51, transfer clause 89 to end of line 38 on page 54.
      Amendment No. 36, in clause 86, page 54, line 40, leave out '(1)(c)' and insert '(1A)(b)'.
      Amendment No. 134, in page 55, line 1, leave out clause 87.
      Amendment No. 37, in clause 87, page 55, line 2, leave out '(1)(d)' and insert '(1A)(c)'.
      Government amendment No. 95.
      Amendment No. 38, in clause 87, page 55, line 11, leave out '(1)(d)' and insert '(1A)(c)'.
      Amendment No. 39, in clause 88, page 55, line 13, leave out '(1)(e)' and insert '(1A)(d)'.
      Amendment No. 40, in clause 88, page 55, line 22, leave out '(1)(e)' and insert '(1A)(d)'.
      Amendment No. 41, in clause 89, page 55, line 25, leave out '(f)' and insert '(b)'.
      990
      Amendment No. 42, in clause 89, page 55, line 32, leave out '(f)' and insert '(b)'.
      Amendment No. 43, in clause 90, page 55, line 34, leave out '(1)(g)' and insert '(1A)(e)'
      Amendment No. 44, in clause 90, page 56, line 21, leave out '(1)(g)' and insert '(1A)(e)'.
      Amendment No. 45, in clause 90, page 56, line 23, leave out '(1)(g)' and insert '(1A)(e)'.
      Amendment No. 46, in clause 91, page 56, line 25, leave out '(1)(h)' and insert '(1A)(f)'.
      Government amendment No. 135.
      Amendment No. 47, in clause 91, page 56, line 43, leave out '(1)(h)' and insert '(1A)(f)'.
      Amendment No. 48, in clause 92 , page 57, line 3, leave and insert out from 'under' to 'and' in line 4 and insert
      'paragraph (b) of section 85(1) or any of paragraphs (b) to (f) of section 85 (1A),'.
      Amendment No. 49, in clause 91, page 57, line 25, leave out from 'under' to 'and' in line 26 and insert
      'paragraph (b) of section 85(1) or any of paragraphs (b) to (f) of section 85 (1A),'.
      Amendment No. 50, in clause 96, page 58, line 30, leave out '(f)' and insert '(b)
      Government amendments Nos. 96 and 138.
      Simon Hughes: Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 168 are Liberal Democrat amendments. I am conscious that amendments that colleagues from other parties have tabled are in the same group.
      We believe that we are embarking on today's most important debate on the Bill. We are considering whether evidence of a defendant's bad character in the criminal courts should be admitted and if so, under what circumstances. The amendment would remove clause 85, which changes the current rules for the worse and alters the historical position of the courts in England and Wales that a defendant's bad character is not generally used as evidence. Under the Bill, such evidence would be used much more frequently.
      We could have tabled many amendments. In Committee, we sought to amend clause 82, which defines had character, and clause 85 and others. In common with Conservative Members, we argued strongly that the right to a fair trial depends on the evidence relating to the case before the court, not the evidence pertaining to aspects of a person's previous life. So me evidence pertaining to considerations that go much wider than criminal convictions will be admissible under the Bill, and we believe that that aspect of the Government's proposals poses the most serious threat to a fair trial.
      Mr. Cameron: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that he was in favour of codifying existing law, and much of clause 85 is about codifying the legal admissibility of evidence relating to bad character. If he opposes only some aspects of bad character being admissible, would it not be better to amend the provision rather than scrap it completely as the Liberal amendment suggests?
      Simon Hughes: That is a perfectly reasonable proposition. I have said on the Floor of the House and elsewhere that our party would be happy to seek

      991
      agreement with the Government and Conservative party on the codification of the criminal law. We have two amendments to clause 85. One sets out our preferred option, which is to remove the provision entirely arid start with the presumption that evidence relating to previous bad character should not be admissible. The clause gets off on the wrong foot by presuming that such evidence should be admissible, which is why merely amending it would not suffice. If we lose that argument—we are aware that we will lose the vote today, but we might not lose so readily in the other place, where the Government do not have a majority—we have a second proposition before the House, which would remove paragraphs (d),(e) and (f), which are the most iniquitous in the list of exceptions.
      The amendment tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) would remove paragraph (d), which we view as the worst of all, so we would support her amendment if pressed to a vote. We would prefer to go further, but I see in their places the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee and other Labour Members who recognise the iniquity of that part of the proposal, and we would join forces with them, too. The Conservative amendments do not go as far as we would wish and we were nervous of supporting them for fear that it might prejudice our stronger and better amendment, but, depending on the Government response, we might be able to support some of them.
      There is widespread opposition throughout the House—from members of the Home Affairs Committee, Labour Back Benchers and both main Opposition parties, and, indeed, from the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) on behalf of her party and from the two nationalist parties—to the Government's proposals. We should emphasise that those proposals are strongly objected to both inside and outside Parliament. I hope that the Government will hear the opposing voices and realise that they cannot deliver their proposal through Parliament. The sooner they recognise that and accept that their proposals represent a dangerous threat to the rights and liberties of defendants, the sooner we can engage in an honest and constructive debate about the best way of codifying this part of the law, as the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) suggested.
      It would be dangerous to allow evidence of bad character to be put before a court as often as the Government suggest because it would mean that people would be judged on their previous history rather than on evidence pertaining to the case before the court. Before I define the wider aspects of bad character, I want to explain why that is so dangerous. Wittingly or unwittingly, when the police are trying to find someone who has committed a crime, they will think about people found guilty of similar crimes in the same area. They are bound to do so: that is a perfectly proper aspect of policing. Sometimes, however, after an initial investigation of the evidence, it is difficult to find the person who is obviously guilty of the crime. Investigations can go on for a long time, with the police getting more desperate to bring someone to book. I understand that too.
      If it is possible for the police to bring previous bad character before the jury, it will be much easier for them to go down the route of the usual suspect. There will be an incentive for the police to say, "We know character
      992
      X has done this sort of job in this area 17 times before. Let's pull him in and question him, because he is the best idea we've got."
      When the Crown Prosecution Service comes to look at the evidence, it has to decide only whether the chance of conviction is better than 50 per cent., and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. If the CPS knows that previous bad character will be brought into play, it may decide that the chance of conviction is better than 50 per cent. as the jury will hear about the defendant's previous bad character. The CPS may believe—I hazard the suggestion that it always will believe—that it is more likely that a person will be convicted if the jury knows that he or she has previous convictions.
      Few people would consider a jury less likely to convict if its members knew that a defendant had previous criminal form. Regular offenders—the usual suspects—are therefore much more likely to be at risk. That means that the people who have form—who have committed offences and been tried and convicted, but who have gone straight and tried to rebuild their lives—will be at much more risk of being brought back to court, tried and wrongfully convicted. There have been far too many such examples throughout out legal history.
      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the research undertaken at Birmingham university for the Lord Chancellor's Department? Sally Lloyd-Bostock, professor of law and psychology, showed conclusively that juries are biased by learning about previous convictions for similar offences.
      Simon Hughes: I am aware of that research. It is not the only research on the matter. To my certain knowledge, the Home Office has done similar research, I think in 1995. Ministers accepted that research as relevant, and it comes to exactly the same conclusion.
      My second point relates to a matter that arose in the previous debate. Juries could be given people's previous life histories. We could believe that juries, on hearing the judge's direction, would focus only on the matter in front of them—that is, in the charge before the court. However, juries are not perfect either. Like the rest of us, they are open to recollection of things that they have heard or seen. All the evidence and all one's instincts suggest that allowing a defendant's bad character and previous convictions to be referred to much more frequently is bound to have the prejudicial effect that the research suggests.
      That will be especially true in the more sensitive and controversial cases. For example, a person who was guilty in the past of a serious sexual offence such as rape or indecent assault might be brought before the court again. Understandable and proper public disapprobation and disgust about the previous offence mean that jury members cannot help but have that offence in mind as they hear the evidence in the new case. I cannot see how, even with all the encouragement in the world from the judge, they would be able to eliminate that previous conviction as they thought about whether the evidence meant that the person was guilty of the new offence. Knowledge of previous cases must colour the jury's perception of the person and of the charge.
      The other argument is that reference to previous convictions should be allowed because a person who has robbed a petrol station six times shows a propensity to

      993
      rob petrol stations. If the case before the court is a petrol station robbery, that propensity might be taken into account. However, the conclusion may not be valid, depending on how long ago the previous offences took place, and on whether the defendant was on drugs at the time, for example. Other questions involve whether that person had given up drugs since those previous offences, or whether any treatment that he received was effective or otherwise. Equally, though, other people with the same propensity will not have been pulled up before the court, so the arguments for the provision are weak indeed.
      5 pm
      If present law stated that one could never introduce bad character, there would be a strong argument for the provision, but the law does not state that; it allows bad character to be introduced in all sorts of circumstances, as we all agree. For example, it is introduced when a defendant brings it into play—when a defendant attacks a witness for the prosecution, whether it be a police officer or anyone else, they automatically lift the veil on their own character, which gets into the frame. Similarly, it is introduced when there is similar fact evidence—most commonly, in sad and awful rape cases involving a serial rapist who is always associated with, for example, gloves, clothes, or a certain time of day, or who always attacks a certain type of person. If there is such a set of characteristics, it can be used in court. That argument is proper and acceptable but the evidence has to be directly, not indirectly, relevant. Sadly, the clause goes beyond that.
      We want the clause to be amended. The proposals go far too wide. The list in clause 85(1) contains three proposals that would allow almost anything in, subject to the qualification of judicial oversight. The first is that
      "In criminal proceedings evidence of the defendant's bad character is admissible if, … (d) it is evidence of the defendant's conviction for an offence of the same description, or of the same category, as the one with which he is charged."
      That means that if anyone once takes a car without consent, steals, robs or assaults, that can be used in court, as it would be evidence of
      "conviction for an offence of the same description".
      Secondly, a previous conviction can be used if
      "it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution."
      Many issues are important matters that are disputed between the prosecution and the defence. That provision would allow a great swathe of previous evidence of bad character to be used. The defendant would have to show why it should not be admitted. The presumption would be that it should be.
      Thirdly, such evidence would be allowed if
      "it has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the co-defendant."
      Another tranche of previous bad character could be admitted on that basis.
      That is why the second of our amendments to clause 85 would delete those three provisions. The provisions in clause 85(1)(a),(b) and (c) are reasonable. They involve evidence that both parties agree is admissible or
      994
      that is used because the defendant's bad character comes into play—one cannot expect other people not to put one's character into play in that case. Thirdly, it is important to explain things. Those provisions are reasonable, whereas those in clause 85(1)(d), (e) and (f) are not.
      I hope to persuade colleagues how dangerous this provision is. If it was only a matter of previous convictions, that would be difficult and dangerous enough. However, clause 82, states:
      "For the purposes of this Chapter, evidence of a person's bad character is evidence which shows or tends to show either that … he has committed an offence, or"—
      this is the wider and even more dangerous proposition—
      "he has behaved, or is disposed to behave, in a way that, in the opinion of the court, might be viewed with disapproval by a reasonable person."
      Someone might have got drunk, which might be relevant and could be used in court in an action if the charge was acting under the influence of drink. Someone might have been unfaithful to their spouse, which is quite properly not a criminal offence but might be used as evidence against them if they are charged with a sexual offence involving someone who is not a member of their family. Someone might have lost their job because of a row about whether they had behaved honestly. That could be used as evidence if the charge was dishonesty.
      One of the great abiding characteristics of the justice system in this country is that one is judged on the merits of the case that is brought to the court on the day that one appears as a defendant. The right to a fair trial is one that all of us may need at some stage. Nobody ever knows when they will be charged or arrested, or when they may find themselves as a defendant in a case. It is not a right for minorities only and it is not a right for the regular suspects only; it is a basic right that is upheld in domestic law and respected by the international legal conventions in Europe and beyond. In our view, if the right to have one's previous history generally excluded is taken away, and if the guarantee that one will be judged on the evidence that is brought by the prosecution in the court is taken away, there are huge dangers of regular, unfair convictions and of people being retried for things for which they have served their time in some way or another in the past. That is a very dangerous road to go down. We hope that the House will accept amendment No. 29, and we hope that the House will ask the Government to think again.
      Mr. David Kidney: I have amendments in this group, starting with amendment No. 33, which are not quite so drastic as the Liberal Democrats' proposal to delete the whole of clause 85 and not quite so mild as the Government's position. I am steering a middle way, which should attract the Minister to my proposal.
      The Government are sometimes unfairly portrayed outside the House as introducing measures that will allow juries access to people's bad character in circumstances where that is not at present admissible. That portrayal is not quite correct. Evidence of bad character has been admissible for more than 100 years. It is important that we understand that the law has developed in that way. At the moment, there are three circumstances in which such evidence may be heard: first, if the facts of a previous incident are so strikingly

      995
      similar to the facts of the case before the court that there must be something more to it than coincidence; secondly, if the defendant asserts good character whereas, in fact, the defendant does not have good character; and, thirdly, if the defendant attacks the character of another witness—usually a prosecution witness—and therefore becomes open to having his or her own character attacked through bad character evidence as well.
      Those are the circumstances in which evidence can be heard; I now want to talk about what evidence can be heard. Bad character evidence covers more than previous convictions—that is an important point, because some people do not appreciate it. Acquittals were held to be admissible in a case called Z; and evidence which the judiciary now calls "background information" was held to be admissible—whether that involves a previous conviction, an acquittal, or neither of those, but something else that suggests that it is relevant—in cases called Stevens and Dolan.
      What is wrong with the Liberal Democrat amendment to delete the clause and leave the law as it is? To answer that, I turn to report 273 of the Law Commission, which did a good job on our behalf of analysing the present state of the law. It found, first, that the law is in lots of different places and is difficult to find; secondly, that the law is in rather obscure language and is difficult to interpret; thirdly, that judges have inconsistently applied the provisions in the past; fourthly, that, as a result of a combination of factors, evidence is not being admitted in lots of cases where it really should be, to help the court to make its final decision; and, finally, that, because the situation is not satisfactory, judges are developing their own law. I have just referred to some case law that shows areas where judges have started to allow evidence to be admitted in ways that are not covered in any previous Acts of Parliament.
      The Law Commission did a pretty good job of convincing us of the need for reform. Codification was mentioned earlier. The Law Commission drafted a Bill that brought all the provisions into one place, and I commend the draft Bill to those who have not seen it. I think that it is excellent. If I could adopt it wholesale, in place of the Government's provision, I would. My amendments are inadequate to replace the Law Commission's excellent draft Bill.
      The structure of the Law Commission's draft Bill is based on the premise that there are some circumstances where evidence of bad character should always be admissible. It describes one as being where it concerns the central facts of the case before the court and goes on to describe the two about asserting good character and challenging other people's characters effectively. The Law Commission felt that it should be stated that those are admissible in every case, but that in every other situation the leave of the judge should be the gateway to allowing such evidence to be admitted in any trial as evidence against the defendant. That is the point of my amendments and the opinion that I hold.
      The Law Commission's view was that leave of the court should be sought in every case except for those few that I mentioned. I had thought that that was the position taken by the Government following their comments in the White Paper, "Justice for All", paragraph 4.56 of which states:
      996
      "We favour an approach that entrusts relevant information to those determining the case as far as possible. It should be for the judge to decide whether previous convictions are sufficiently relevant to the case, bearing in mind the prejudicial effect."
      There was I thinking that the Government agreed with the Law Commission that leave of the court should always be sought.
      What are the dangers of more routinely admitting evidence without leave of the court? The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) drew them out clearly. For a jury, there is the danger of false logic—that because the person has previous convictions, he or she must have committed the offence that is before the court. There is also the danger of prejudice—that because the person has been convicted of something dreadful in the past, he or she must have committed the offence that is before the court. I am talking about juries, but magistrates try many cases and would thus hear evidence of previous convictions.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey mentioned the research that has been carried out. It is referred to as the Oxford research, because it was carried out at Oxford university, not at Birmingham university. The research tested whether mock juries who were presented with situations involving disclosure of previous convictions were prejudiced: the answer was overwhelmingly yes. The annexe to the Law Commission's report contains an update of the Oxford study, whereby 222 magistrates were put in the same position as those jury members to find out whether they were prejudiced by previous convictions: the answer was yes, to about the same extent as the jury members.
      The only difference between the two studies was that, in the question about prejudice resulting from previous convictions, jury members were very prejudiced if they learned that someone had a previous conviction for indecent assault on a child, so whatever the offence before them, the person was considered guilty if they had such a conviction. Magistrates took a different view—a section 18 assault made them very prejudiced against the accused whatever the charge before them. With that one difference, it is a danger for all defendants.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey dealt with the other two dangers of more routinely admitting such evidence, the first of which concerns sloppy preparation of cases for trial that relies on prejudice being enough to get the case through. The danger there is that if, for whatever reason, prejudice does not operate, a person is acquitted who should not have been because the case was not properly prepared. The fourth danger is that of the police rounding up the usual suspects—a lazy by option that should not happen.
      My amendments are an attempt to restore the Law Commission's draft Bill in the sense that, of the list of types of admissible evidence in clause 85(1)(a) to (h), two roughly equate to some of the Law Commission's recommendations on where leave should not be needed—(a) and (f)—and I would put those separately as being admissible evidence in every case. For all the others, I would say that for the evidence to be admissible, leave of the court is required and evidence must be relevant to the trial before the court.
      The Minister and I have behaved in a gentlemanly way by exchanging correspondence about my amendments. Sadly, he could not bring himself to accept

      997
      them. That is a shame, but it is his decision. His view, to summarise his letter, is that the Government want to send out a message that bad character evidence will be admitted in most cases, but there are safeguards in the Bill for those cases where it should not be admitted.
      The safeguards are not very thorough, however. For example, only under paragraphs (d), (e) and (h) is there any protection at all. It is that the defendant is supposed to spot that the evidence is to be used against him or her in the trial and to object before it is revealed. The judge then has to consider whether the evidence would have
      "such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it".
      That is a narrow test and a high hurdle for the defendant to overcome. I do not want defendants to be acquitted when they are guilty, but such provisions tilt the balance a little too much in favour of the prosecution.
      5.15 pm
      My proposals seem to have attracted quite a lot of support ahead of today. Perhaps the Minister does not receive all the briefings that are sent to the rest of us, but in several of them, including those from the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Legal Action Group, Liberty and the Justices' Clerks Society, there is either specific reference to my amendment and support for it, or the position taken seems to equate to my amendment in that those bodies want there to be leave of the court before such evidence is admitted.
      The submission of the Justices' Clerks Society was prepared in February before I tabled my amendments, so the society was not saying that it agreed with me. However, I appreciate and agree with its summary, which states:
      "It is a question of finding the right balance, and, on balance, the Society has profound reservations about routinely admitting evidence of bad character which, albeit that some relatively complex qualifications and criteria are contained within them, the provisions are designed to accommodate. If the law is to be amended, the Society would prefer any changes to be more closely aligned to the Law Commission's recommendations."
      I take that as a strong endorsement of my position.
      I pray in aid the Law Commission. In terms of independence and authority, there is no better body. It has considered the matter in great detail and appeared to have everybody's approval when it published its report and its draft Bill. It is a pity that we have moved away from that draft Bill and I should like it to be restored.
      Mr. John Gummer: I rise to tell the House of my recent experience of defending a constituent who was prosecuted and, in the end, executed in the United States. During that experience, I saw the operation of a law that allows precisely what is currently being proposed. It is easier to accept such provisions when people cannot suffer such unacceptable punishment, but I still feel that it would be an extremely dangerous road down which to go.
      The first reason for that is the question of bias. Sometimes, one feels that one does not need a great deal of evidence for something that is self-evident. It is extremely hard to believe that juries or magistrates
      998
      should be put into a position in which, having heard evidence of previous bad character, or something that would currently not be admitted, they would have to put it entirely behind them and consider only the evidence before them. There is something fundamentally odd about that.
      Of course, as others have said, evidence of previous convictions or of bad character is admitted in certain circumstances, but they are clearly circumstances that any rational person would see as reasonable: that is, where the specifics of the case so parallel the one before the court that it would be an amazing coincidence for someone different to have behaved in that series of ways on, for example, the fifth occasion. The circumstances must be such that most rational people would say that it was odd to keep the knowledge from the court as it would obviously be of value. The current proposals would go significantly beyond that, however, and with only extremely limited protection.
      Let me draw the House's attention to an issue that arose when I was Secretary of State for the Environment and responsible for granting final planning permission for supermarkets at a time when we were seeking to restrain out-of-town development. I instructed my officials to remove from the documents the name of the supermarket involved in the application because I knew that there were some supermarkets that I thought did a good job and some with which I was less satisfied, and I knew instinctively that I would be more willing to grant planning permission in certain cases and less willing in respect of some other companies. I am being very delicate and not referring to Walmart. The fact remains that I knew that I had an instinctive concern. That caused me two difficulties: on the one hand, I might be biased in favour of someone, and on the other, I might make myself biased in favour of someone lest I admit of a bias. I sensed much greater difficulty in making an honourable and decent decision, so it was far better not to know certain things. The first problem facing us now is that we are making it difficult for decent jurors and magistrates to strike the balance that they want to strike.
      Secondly, I am concerned about the police and the general forces of law and order. To return to the case of my constituent, he had been guilty when he was very young of being in some sense part of a group of young people in which a fatal shooting occurred. He was being prosecuted for an entirely different murder—one that, having read all the documents, I am entirely convinced he did not commit. However, when the police came to decide who among the group of young people they should prosecute, it was far easier to prosecute the man who had form, even though it was acquired through a wholly different and unconnected circumstance. It is arguable that that form proved that he was less likely to have done what he was now accused of having done, but it was easier for the police to say, "Well, this chap has form and we've got another chap who's prepared to bear witness against him, so we'll go for it." I am not suggesting that the British police in any circumstances would do anything of that sort, but I would prefer it to be beyond peradventure. It strikes me that the provision is too dangerous an element to have in the Bill. The problem was summed up for me by the senior law officer who said to me, "Well, you know, Mr. Gummer, he may not have done this thing, but he isn't a very nice man and we know that, and it would be better to have him off the streets." There is an element that takes that view.

      999
      Now I will say something unkind, albeit extremely carefully, about the Government. I think that the Government have taken this issue far too lightly. There is much in the Bill that is shameful and contrary to the best traditions of British justice. Again and again, the Bill lowers British justice compared with our neighbours'. There is much in it that makes unsafe prosecutions more likely than in countries in the rest of Europe about which we are doubtful when we compare their system with our rule of law. The Home Secretary should reconsider not only the current provision but several others that we have discussed.
      The rule of law is more important than any other element of our constitution. After many years, I have concluded that democracy is less important to the poor and the vulnerable than the rule of law. The rule of law cannot be kept long without democracy, so the distinction is not entirely real. None the less, it is true that the rule of law is crucial if the vulnerable are to feel safe in society. The reason why I support the excision of the clause and the various ways suggested to make it less dangerous is that it undermines the safety of vulnerable people because it can be averred of them that, in the past, they have behaved badly.
      That is why I want to talk about bad behaviour, about which I am particularly unhappy. I think that such language is so loose that it would never have been accepted in previous debates. I find it incredible that the Government have produced a Bill that is so loosely written in precisely that way. The idea that one might have a propensity to behave in a particular way is a very worrying aspect. First, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, other people might have a propensity as well, as propensities are very widespread. The fact that a person has a propensity to do something may not mean that they are the only person who has such a propensity; there may be many others.
      Secondly, the phraseology that explains that issue is plain peculiar:
      "he has behaved, or is disposed to behave, in a way that, in the opinion of the court, might be viewed with disapproval by a reasonable person."
      My mother disapproved of many things. She was a reasonable person and much of what she disapproved of was a matter of taste. I share many of her tastes in such matters, but the idea that somebody should start off their case in a certain way because my mother disapproved of something that he did seems very peculiar. However, that is exactly what the provision means. I have to tell the Minister that "disapproval" is a very pathetic word. It is the kind of narrow mindedness that one would not expect a Labour Minister to support and a kind of attitude that I think he should not be associated with.
      I believe that "disapproval" is not only a pathetic word, but a misleading one. It can be used to cover a multitude not of crimes, but of sins. That important distinction is not made when we talk about disapproval. An atmosphere can be built up in a court around a particular person suggesting that he is the sort of person—I go back to my American example—whom we do not really like very much and not the class or type of person whom we really want to take too seriously, and that we should create circumstances in which it is hard
      1000
      for him to argue that he should be given the benefit of the doubt. Yet the English law is about the benefit of the doubt being given to the person who is charged.
      That brings me back to the nature of what is being proposed. I find it very hard to accept that there are any circumstances beyond those that are already allowed in the court in which we should allow such evidence to be received. I see no example in which there is sufficient public interest to overcome the manifest public damage that will be done.
      I shall end my speech by returning to the police. It would be wrong for the House to fail to understand that there is much more widespread unhappiness with the police than has hitherto existed. That is the case for a range of reasons, not least including difficulties with traffic offences and the like. Such an attitude exists in rural areas such as mine because the police are so thinly spread and people find it disconcerting that they cannot call upon the forces of law and order when they need them. I have a constituent who was hit over the head in his house by somebody from outside—the clause will not make him any happier about it—and waited for an hour and a half for somebody to come after making a 999 call. He rang again and they promised to come, but an hour and a half later, the police rang him and said that they did not have anybody to send. He did not find a policeman until 12 o'clock the next afternoon.
      Such people are unhappy about the police for reasons that are not the fault of the police, but which certainly exist. We must therefore be very careful that we do not open up other areas in which the police can find themselves vulnerable. If such a possibility is damaging to the jury and defendant, it is also damaging to the police. It would be easy to say that the only reason I was picked on was that it was easier to pick on me than on someone else. At the moment, it is difficult to make that argument because we have very careful protections, but the moment it becomes easy to say that we can prejudice—that is what it is—the court against this person in a way that we could not against that person, the temptation to do so will be too great and, even if it were never succumbed to, it would be thought to be too great by those outside. That is why I believe that the proposal is terribly damaging to the police. Even if they behave with saint-like care, people will not believe them.
      5.30 pm
      We spend a lot of time trying to ensure that people are not put into a position in which they might be misunderstood. Our own rules of conduct in the House are based on the principle that we should make public anything that, in the eyes of a reasonable person, might be thought to prejudice us. In the eyes of reasonable people, the proposal will be thought to prejudice the police about certain people in certain circumstances.
      Very often, the sort of people with whom the police deal are not very nice. Very often, it would not do any harm to lock those people up because they have probably done a number of things that they should not have done, but the police have not caught them for doing it, so it is not a terribly far step to say, "Well, in this case, we may not be quite right, but we didn't get him for so and so, and we're pretty sure that he could've been involved in the other, so why don't we?" That becomes even more damaging in a police force

      1001
      consistently afflicted by the Government's addiction to targets. We are now a society in which what matters is not what is right, good or effective, but what fits the Government's targets, and I am worried that this is another mechanism by which those targets can be met far too easily and with great damage to juries, magistrates, defendants and the police.
      Although I have tried to speak moderately, this is not a moderate issue. In this clause, as in so much of the Bill, the Government are behaving in a dishonourable way—they are undermining some of the very basic principles of English law. Enthusiastic European though I am, I must say that our system ought to be learned from by others, not undermined by ourselves.
      Vera Baird: I profoundly disagree with the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who has just spoken in what I regard as highly immoderate terms about a Bill that, in fact, many of my constituents, to whom I have gone to a great deal of trouble to explain its provisions, regard as likely to give them a better shout in the courts, to restore their confidence in the way that the criminal justice system works and to redress an imbalance that, sadly, has been allowed to creep into the criminal justice system. In general, this is a good Bill.
      I suspect that that the right hon. Gentleman is perhaps suffering from a combination of his desire to be amusing and the fact that he is still gripped by the emotional impact of having unsuccessfully advocated for a person on death row—an emotional impact that I well understand, having done exactly the same job. I fear that he has led himself astray. The attack on the Bill was far too wide, as was the attack on clause 85. In truth, there is a relatively narrow problem with that clause, not a very wide one at all.
      I accept the analysis of the current state of the law, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). I agree with his analysis of the need for change, and I also accept the research evidence that he set out about the fact that juries are prejudiced by the admission of previous convictions. I shall not say any of that again.
      In a sense, none of us has to persuade others that the introduction of previous convictions is capable of being prejudicial. The Government accept that it is. Paragraph 4. 55 of "Justice For All"—the paragraph before the one to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford referred—states:—
      "Previous convictions, or some of them, may be irrelevant to issues in the case. Research undertaken for the Law Commission shows"—
      I shall say this in capital letters, as it were—
      "that knowledge of previous convictions may prejudice a jury or magistrates unfairly against the defendant."
      The Government accept it. They put it in their White Paper, which sets out the basis upon which they intend to legislate. Have the Government gone back on that? I think not. They have carried the intention through, or 90 per cent. of it, but they do in the end slip up. I shall say in more detail what I mean.
      Clause 85 allows in bad character of a defendant on eight bases. Subsection (1)(a) provides that it is admissible if all parties agree that it should go in—that
      1002
      cannot be a problem. Paragraph (b) refers to the evidence being brought in by the defendant—that cannot be a problem. Paragraph (h) refers to the evidence coming in because the defendant has made an attack on another person's character and it is just about equality of arms—again, that cannot reasonably be a problem.
      Paragraph (f) provides that the evidence is admissible if
      "it has substantial probative value"
      in an issue
      "between the defendant and a co-defendant".
      That is governed by another clause, which provides that the evidence goes in only if there is a fight between the defendant and another person, which is fair enough and should not be further governed. Of course, every defendant has to have the right to put in everything that helps his defence.
      That leaves us with paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (g). I hope that it is clear that I am speaking in favour of amendment No. 133, which stands in the names of myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and others, which is directed to expunging paragraph (d) from the clause.
      I shall deal with the paragraphs that I do not seek to expunge, to ask in the end what paragraph (d) adds, except the real danger of the prejudice that the Government have envisaged in the White Paper. Paragraph (g) allows evidence of previous convictions to go in to "correct a false impression". It is entirely right that false impressions should not be allowed to prevail in a trial, the purpose of which is to search for justice. However, allowing in previous convictions so to correct has an extra condition upon it, and a very fair one. Clause 90 provides that if a false impression has somehow been conveyed and the defendant manages, however he chooses, to dissociate or distance himself from it, previous convictions will not be put in to correct the false impression. That is not problematic in any way.
      Paragraph (c) provides that it is admissible to put in previous convictions if they are "important explanatory evidence". Again, that is governed by a further clause which sets out what that "important explanatory evidence" must additionally be. According to clause 86, it must be "important explanatory evidence" without which
      "the court … would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case".
      If it is impossible for a jury to understand other evidence in the case unless previous convictions go in, they must go in. The entire point of the trial is to get the jury to understand all the evidence in the case. Equally, if it is difficult for the jury to understand other evidence in the case without previous convictions, there is an argument again for allowing them to go in. We are not in the business of putting difficulties in the way of jurors coming to a proper conclusion; we are there to help them.
      Whether it is difficult without previous convictions going in properly to understand the evidence is a matter of opinion. It would be far better if the clause were governed by the general discretion in subsection (3) to allow the judge to decide whether it would be adverse to the fairness of the trial to allow previous convictions to

      1003
      go in, merely to solve a difficulty. Because of the perceived difficulties, previous convictions may have to go in automatically, whereas if the judge had discretion to look at the matter in the round, he might persuade the parties to consider another way of solving the difficulty. Consequently, subsection (3), which deals with the judge's discretion, ought to cover the issue of including previous convictions to solve a difficulty. There should be another hurdle to be crossed before those convictions go tumbling in, causing the prejudice that the Government accept they are capable of causing.
      Mr. Heath: The hon. and learned Lady has prefaced each of her remarks with a qualification about previous convictions. Does she believe that all her arguments hold true for the so-called propensity to behave in a way that is disapproved of?
      Vera Baird: I am conscious that I am using the term "previous convictions"—that is the argot used in court. However, I accept the definition of bad character as set out in clause 82—my arguments apply to that concept just as well as they do to previous convictions, and I would not want to mislead anyone into thinking otherwise.
      Clause 85(1)(e) states that previous convictions and bad character will be admissible if they are
      "relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution".
      That is a question of judgment, and the judge will have the ability to exercise judgment under subsection (3). As fairness and balance will characterise that judgment, and if the previous convictions are relevant to an important matter in issue between the prosecution and the defence, it is hard to see what mischief can follow. Clause 88 defines what is meant by the
      "matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution"
      which, it says, may include
      "the question whether the defendant has a propensity to commit offences"
      of a certain kind. It therefore countenances the inclusion of previous convictions to show propensity, but then makes a reservation, stating that the exception is
      "where his having such a propensity makes it no more likely that he is guilty of the offence."
      The provision certainly countenances the possibility that propensity is sometimes relevant but, at other times, the existence of a propensity, provable by previous convictions, is not relevant to whether the defendant committed the offence or not.
      That is relevant to the question of what on earth clause 85(1)(d) is about. I have gone through all the other circumstances in which previous convictions and bad character can generally be admitted, but paragraph (d) states that bad character can be admitted if
      "it is evidence of the defendant's conviction for an offence of the same description, or of the same category, as the one with which he is charged'".
      That appears to be about propensity, but paragraph (e) deals specifically with the showing of propensity, with the caveat that that can be done only where relevant. Evidence of bad character will not just tumble in if it is not relevant.
      1004
      What is paragraph (d) for? In Committee, the Minister gave an example of his own experience of jury service. He had sat on the jury in a trial for burglary and handling the proceeds of the burglary. The issue was whether the defendant had come honestly into the possession of the proceeds of the burglary or not. At the end of the trial, the jury found out that that man had previous convictions for three burglaries, and the Minister said that all the members of the jury would have liked to know that in their deliberations during the trial.
      In other words, the defendant had a propensity to be dishonest, and the Minister would regard that as important evidence that would help him to be persuaded one way or another. He said that that is why we need paragraph (d). But we do not need (d) for that, because (e) states that an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution can be the issue of propensity, but only where propensity shows that it is more likely that the defendant has committed the offence.
      5.45 pm
      That may be a tortuous argument, but I hope it is now clear that in so far as propensity is relied on as a justification for paragraph (d), it is totally and utterly unnecessary. What it allows, frighteningly, is for previous convictions to be admissible which will show propensity when they do not make it more likely that the defendant has committed the offence with which he is currently charged. If they did that, they would go in under paragraph (e). Consequently, paragraph (d) has no justification whatever, and it would prejudice the jury. That is where the matter starts and finishes, once one analyses with some care and in some detail the basis on which in other paragraphs previous convictions are admissible.
      Simon Hughes: I have followed the hon. and learned Lady's argument, and she knows that I am with her on the problems of paragraph (d). Can she explain how she can justify the argument that if there is a propensity to carry out a certain offence, that makes it more likely that the individual has committed the offence with which he is charged on the present occasion? That was the question put by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). Propensity does not lead one to that conclusion. Why does the hon. and learned Lady believe that it does?
      Vera Baird: I did not say that. On the contrary, that is the issue, under paragraph (e), for the judge to decide. He has to say that previous convictions can be mentioned to show propensity if that propensity makes it more likely that the defendant has committed the offence in question. There is clearly a grey area. Occasionally, if a series of similar offences has occurred recently, propensity might be probative. The judge must decide under paragraph (e) whether the evidence of propensity—about which, as a general proposition, I confess I am a little unhappy—makes it more likely that the defendant has committed the current offence.
      That question can fairly be asked, but under paragraph (d) no such question is asked. Previous convictions tumble in simply because they exist,

      1005
      although they do not make it more likely that the defendant has committed the offence with which he is charged. If they did, they would go in under paragraph (e). Reference to previous convictions will prejudice juries to no effect, and that is a prejudice that the Government accepted in the section of the White Paper from which I quoted. It is a prejudice against which they set their face in that same White Paper.
      What will the consequences be? They have been mentioned by others. Our stated policies are to catch more criminals, to convict more criminals, to punish more criminals and to rehabilitate more criminals. How will people be rehabilitated when they know that if any offence is committed in their locality that resembles the one of which they were convicted in the past, they will be picked up. They are bound to be picked up for it by a police service that knows that that will help it to get a conviction. They are bound also, more frequently than prior to the Bill, to be prosecuted by a Crown Prosecution Service that knows that in deciding whether a prosecution is likely to succeed, it can weigh in the balance the fact that previous convictions will be put before the jury.
      The criminal, who was intended to be rehabilitated, will also know that he is far more likely to be convicted because of his previous conviction. The Government say that they want to rehabilitate such people. The Government say they want them to go straight, to turn over a new leaf. But those people will be trapped in their past. They will be unable to get away from their past. For what? For no reason at all. Every conceivable justification for admitting bad character into a trial has been set out in all the other paragraphs of clause 85(1). Paragraph (d) is extremely dangerous, and I urge all hon. Members to vote it out of the clause.
      Mr. Llwyd: The Bill is part of a panoply of measures meant to address the perception that: the legal process is skewed in favour of defendants and therefore against the prosecution. This measure is part of what I believe to be a series of measures to redress the balance in favour of the victim, but I regret that the likely upshot of this part of the Bill will be to create victims, who may well be queueing up in the criminal Court of Appeal in due course. I listened carefully to 1he speeches by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), and I fully agree with what they said. I will confine my remarks to certain points that they did not cover.
      If the current proposals pass through the House unamended, allowing evidence of previous bad character and/or convictions will be hugely detrimental to the trial process in our crimilal courts. Let us remember that there are circumstances—albeit limited ones—in which we already have the right to introduce evidence of bad character and previous convictions, and that is absolutely right. Any practitioner will agree, however, that those circumstances are usually exceptional because, by definition, they are relevant only in exceptional cases. But the Bill proposes a wholesale, blanket introduction of previous bad character. Would that not mean that every defendant, once convicted, was beyond redemption?
      1006
      I refer to what the hon. and learned Member for Redcar said about rehabilitation. This measure would effectively mean a life sentence for some people. Perhaps that is dramatic language, but it would not be pleasant for a person to be picked up just because someone in the locality had offended in a way similar to that in which he had. For years to come, such people might await the knock on the door. That would be hugely damaging to the whole image of the judicial process, from the police investigation upwards.
      Worse still, the proposals pander to the "round up the usual suspects" culture that is, I am afraid, prevalent in some parts of the justice system. Some of us feel that this one measure will throw the criminal justice system into disrepute. The next stage will be to dismantle the system of trial by jury. The job will then be complete. If these provisions are enacted unamended, I believe that it would be simpler to dismantle the jury system in due course, and that such a move might meet with less opposition then.
      Let us remind ourselves briefly of the circumstances in which character can be admissible. First, if a defendant asserts that he or she is of good character when he or she is not, it is perfectly right to introduce that evidence in a criminal trial. Secondly, if a defendant attacks the character of a witness, it would be perfectly right for that to be admitted. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney)—echoed by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal—mentioned evidence involving striking similarities that would make it almost unbelievable that another person had committed an offence in exactly the same way as the person before the court. Introducing such evidence in those circumstances is perfectly acceptable. I have been involved in trials in which such evidence has been presented, and, of course, the judge will decide in those circumstances whether it is right or proper to do so, and whether to do so would create any prejudice to the trial or to the defendant.
      Clause 85 should be removed altogether. The law already provides for the rare circumstances in which character and/or previous convictions need be introduced, and, like the hon. and learned Member for Redcar, I see no reason to include the clause other than to introduce prejudice.
      On 3 March, The Guardian cited the views of Lord Falconer and observed:
      "In one recent case, a jury trying a doctor accused of raping a patient was not allowed to know that he had previously been convicted of indecently assaulting six patients and acquitted of raping another. The defendant was addressed as 'doctor' even though he had been struck off, and the jurors were unaware that he was being brought to court each day from prison. That typifies the sort of case, argues Falconer, where juries should not be kept in the dark."
      Lord Falconer was quoted as saying:
      "I'd have thought the classic case is an apparently respectable professional man, say a doctor, who assaults patients in the course of his work."
      He said that if that behaviour had led to convictions, they should be admissible.
      It seems to me that precisely such cases are already covered by similar fact evidence. If such a person repeatedly assaults or rapes his victims in his surgery, it is only right and proper for any half-decent, half-sensible prosecutor to apply to the judge, and I am almost sure that few judges would see any reason to

      1007
      dispute such an application. The best case presented by Lord Falconer in defence of these draconian provisions is the one example covered by current law and practice.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I agree, in general terms, that in the example given by Lord Falconer the evidence would have been admitted. However, I take issue with the hon. Gentleman on the use of the term "similar fact evidence"; indeed, I have objections to its use in a general context.
      As the hon. Gentleman will know, the terms "similar fact evidence" and "striking similarity" have recently been disapproved of by the courts. The test now applied is that of relevance to an issue of propensity. In the example given, the evidence would plainly be relevant to an issue of propensity and would therefore be admitted. The issue that I have with the hon. Gentleman—and, I am sorry to say, with the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)—is this: the test proposed in the Bill is identical to the one currently applied.
      Mr. Llwyd: Far be it from me to argue with the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is far more experienced in criminal trials than I am. I understand what he says, but that was not apparent to Lord Falconer when he defended the Bill.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I agree.
      Mr. Llwyd: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
      My main problem with the Bill is the routine introduction of evidence of bad character. That is a defect. It will, unfortunately, instil prejudice in the minds of jury and/or magistrates. That has been referred to in what I erroneously described as the Birmingham study, which I think is in fact the Oxford study, and was also referred to at length by the hon. Member for Stafford and the hon. and learned Member for Redcar. We are discussing a change in the law that will enshrine a right to introduce prejudice to a fair trial, which is asking for trouble. We are treading a dangerous path.
      Yesterday, when we considered the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, there was disparaging talk about the standard of justice meted out in other European jurisdictions. If we do not accept the amendment, we will find ourselves at the bottom of the league, and people on mainland Europe will ask when we will start to act toward accused people in a fair and reasonable manner. I honestly and sincerely believe that the provisions are highly objectionable.
      Clause 88 includes a measure on propensity, but the Law Commission made no such recommendation on that score. I know that some of its recommendations have been used and some have been declined. The upshot of passing clause 86 and the other provisions without amendment will be to bring the criminal courts into disrepute. The provisions will make thoroughly bad law and I urge hon. Members to support the amendments.
      6 pm
      Mr. Mullin: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar
      1008
      (Vera Baird) that the Bill is better than the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) acknowledged during his otherwise compelling speech. I agree that the problem is fairly narrow but it gives a damaging impression and stains the whole Bill, so I hope that the Government will do something about it. I shall speak to amendments Nos. 125 and 126, which I tabled. I support amendment No. 133, which was tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar.
      Amendment No. 125 would provide that a person could not be convicted solely on the basis of bad character. It is an attempt to ensure that other evidence, such as an eye-witness account or fingerprints, links the defendant to the offence with which he was charged. That is not too much to ask in this day and age. When Lord Falconer attended a sitting of the Home Affairs Committee to discuss the Bill, he was at pains to assure us that the judicial discretion provided by clause 85(3) would be sufficient to prevent the use of bad character evidence to prop up a weak case. No doubt that will usually be true, but not necessarily always. I can foresee what might happen in a high-profile case because that would give rise to the greatest temptation. A judge might feel obliged to, allow bad character evidence to go to the jury for fear of otherwise allowing the case to collapse. That is because the police would be under the greatest pressure to get results and the Crown Prosecution Service might be willing to throw such evidence to the jury, although it was a bit iffy, to find out what would happen. The amendment would prevent that from happening.
      I am grateful to Lord Falconer and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for their courtesy and the trouble that they have taken to explain the Government's position. However, I cannot say that I am happy with the outcome. I have tried to be constructive and I provided Ministers with half a dozen proposals for modifying the provisions in addition to those in the Select Committee report. I regret that they have rejected every proposal.
      I received a letter yesterday on amendment No. 125 that suggested that the Government envisage circumstances—albeit very limited ones—in which a conviction could be obtained on the sole basis of previous convictions. That is a recipe for mistakes and it is easy to imagine how they might happen. Whenever a serious offence such as a child murder is committed, the police reasonably search out people with previous convictions that make them potential suspects. People with alibis would be quickly eliminated but those without them would have a problem, especially if little or no other evidence were required. Experience implies that juries are especially suggestible in cases that involve sex offenders and that admission of previous sex offences against children would be fatal, whether the defendant was guilty or not.
      On 7 March, The Guardian reported a story about a police search for the murderer of a young woman who was killed in Hampton in south-west London recently. It contained a sentence that gives us a glimpse of the possibilities:
      "Detectives are also scrutinising 60 people whom they regard as being 'of interest', and a dozen whose backgrounds make them credible suspects."

      1009
      If we subtract those who have alibis, we might be left with half a dozen credible suspects. There would be evidence of bad character for them all, and if that is all there is to go on, a result could be obtained on any of them. That happens from time to time.
      Mr. Oliver Letwin: The implication of the hon. Gentleman's comments of a moment ago is coming over me in waves. Did he receive a letter from the Government that stated that they expected that there would be cases in which a person was convicted solely on the basis of previous bad character?
      Mr. Mullin: I must be careful not to misrepresent the Government. The case that they cited was Straffen in 1952. I cannot find the letter at the moment, but it seemed to me that the evidence in that case bore a signature and that the Government had not given an example that was relevant to my point. Perhaps I have misunderstood and the Under-Secretary can clarify the matter, but it appeared to me that they wanted to leave open the possibility, albeit remote, of convicting someone on the basis of bad character.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Perhaps I may assist. When evidence of bad character is adduced in criminal cases, it is clearly good law that the judge tells the jury that it must not convict on the evidence of bad character alone. That is currently the law. Although the Bill is flawed, I do not believe that it will have any effect on that part of the common law.
      Mr. Mullin: I have now found the letter. The Government say that we should leave matters to the judge, who does not want to be hamstrung by the sort of amendment that I tabled. However, the track record of judges is variable—I put that as generously as I can. Most, but not all, can be relied upon. I remember the words of Lord Justice Bridge at the beginning of the summing up in the Birmingham pub bombings case. He said that some of his colleagues took the view that a judge should be an Olympian detached observer and impartially set out the case without revealing a view. He said that he was not one of those and went on to spell out his view of the case for 189 pages, destroying defence witnesses at random, with results that we all know. There are good and bad judges, and I am sure that most are good.
      I do not want bad character evidence to be used to prop up a weak case. We can all think of examples: dodgy identification evidence or a cell confession. There are cases in which someone who has been interrogated for several days in custody and has not coughed is put in a cell with a known villain and, blow me down, is pouring out his heart in a few hours to a person who suddenly agrees to give evidence, in return for early parole or other offences being overlooked. My ears always prick up when I hear about a cell confession. I am sorry that they happen more often than they should. Add a bit of bad character evidence to dodgy ID evidence and a cell confession and, Bob's your uncle, there is a conviction. That worries me.
      Amendment No. 126 is designed to extend the judicial discretion in clause 85(3). As drafted, the clause provides eight grounds for the admission of bad
      1010
      character evidence, and a defendant can challenge them in only three circumstances, which the amendment would extend. The Government's proposals are a bridge too far and I hope that, even at this late hour, they will think again.
      The Liberal Democrat amendment No. 29 goes further than I would like, but I shall support it to send the Government a message that they need to examine their proposals again. If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar decides to press her amendment, which also bears my name, I shall support that, too.
      Mr. Letwin: The debate has had the unusual characteristic of changing my mind in an important respect. I had not previously accepted the force of the argument advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) about clause 85(1)(d). She made a compelling argument and I shall invite my hon. Friends to join her in the Lobby if she presses her amendment. Our amendments Nos. 23 and 24 do not deal with the serious problem of paragraph (d) and I profoundly hope that when the Bill reaches the other place, the hon. and learned Lady's arguments will be read by and resonate with the noble Lords. I certainly hope to see paragraph (d) expunged from the Bill.
      I do not agree with the hon. and learned Lady's observations about the general tenor of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), because I thought he was on to something. I disagree with the hon. and learned Lady partly because she has not taken into account the full force of the effect of the Government's other proposals. I shall explain why in more detail: to some degree, it has emerged from previous discussions.
      In all these matters, the key issue is not the words on the page, but their effects in court. It is arguable—hon. Members have argued—that, broadly speaking, the law already achieves what the Government seek to achieve. If that were utterly the case, the proper step would be for us to accept and support the Liberal Democrat amendment. If the law already admits propensity, already restricts it appropriately and already admits appropriate factors—similar fact and so forth—there would no point in introducing the clause in the first place.
      The current Home Secretary is the most legislative Home Secretary in British political history. He would take great pride in that; I am not accusing him of anything that he would be cross about. It is not a track record that I would seek to emulate if I ever succeeded to his post. However, even this Home Secretary with his great legislative propensity has no previous convictions for producing legislation that will have no effect. I doubt that he has marshalled the awesome resources of the Home Office to establish a set of intricately interlinked clauses—clauses 82,85 and 88—with the sole purpose of having no effect whatever on British legal practice. He surely intends the provisions to have an effect. Presumably, the many highly paid and highly expert lawyers at his disposal will have advised him that the clauses will have an effect. It is unlikely that the only effect that he intends or expects will come about through paragraph (d)—though, as I say, I am persuaded that that provision will have an untoward effect. The Home

      1011
      Secretary intends a wider effect, so it is important to recognise that and wrestle with its implications. That is precisely what our amendments are designed to achieve.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I know that the right hon. Gentleman considers, as I do, that this Government have a bad character when it comes to introducing legislation that assaults civil liberties. That happened twice in the previous Parliament, and corrections had to be made in the House of Lords. The previous Conservative Administration had a similarly bad character, for the same reasons. One way that that bad character is acquired is through the thoroughly meretricious practice of rephrasing existing law in ways that attempt to make it appear that it is being strengthened against criminals, when no such thing is happening in fact. I should be very interested to hear how the right hon. Gentleman considers that the present law differs from the proposals in clause 85. The earlier clauses, as described by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), are different.
      Mr. Letwin:: I shall answer that request, but first I should admit that there are instances—the Anti-social Behaviour Bill that will come to the House in the near future may be one such—where legislation is a form of public relations. That is regrettable, but it has occurred. However, I do not think that this Criminal Justice Bill is in that category. It is the centrepiece of the Home Office's suite of legislation in this Parliament, and I doubt that the Government want to achieve a purely public-relations effect with it.
      I think that the Government are trying to do something with this Bill, and roughly what that is has become clear in this debate: they are trying to send to the judiciary a signal that its members should somewhat alter their presumption. No more, just that—but it is an enormously important action. None of us in this House can guess or know how far the judiciary will pay attention to that signal. Judges have proved splendidly able to disregard such signals from time to time, but they may pay attention to this one, and that is what concerns us. I do not want to dwell on the problem, which has been eloquently described by others. The Opposition's concern is exactly as has been described—that, if rounding up usual suspects were to become a regular phenomenon, it would alter the character and reputation of British justice as very little else could.
      6.15 pm
      The most important feature of our constitutional arrangements, and of people's sense of justice in this country, is that we operate from the presumption of innocence. I do not think that there is a more important principle in Britain. If, over a period of 10 or 20 years, the British public come to believe that being a usual suspect will often lead to being convicted, and that it is not as important to the courts as it used to be that there must be proof beyond reasonable doubt, that will undermine our system of justice in a way that nothing else could.
      We have a very precious inheritance, and we must go the last mile to protect against the effect that I have set out. That is why it is important that we redress the balance by introducing into the clause a provision that will prevent the signal that I have described from being
      1012
      conveyed to the judiciary. That is precisely the intent of our amendments Nos. 23 and 24. Their effect would be clear and simple: they would require the judge to look at the potential probative value of the evidence, and minutely to consider whether that is outweighed by the prejudicial effect of the bad character evidence.
      In amendment No. 24, we go in some detail into the steps that the judge needs to take to make that determination. We do so to ensure that no judge could possibly be tempted, after reading this legislation—we hope that it will become an Act—to conclude that he was being asked to take the risk of allowing evidence whose probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect.
      The most important part of amendment No. 24 is contained in proposed new subsection (4A)(b). We ask judges to consider whether the risk of
      "convicting the defendant on the basis of his previous conduct rather than because they are satisfied of his guilt in relation to the matters now alleged"
      outweighs the probative value. That theme has run through all the speeches in this debate so far, and it unifies Members on both sides of the House. I think that those in the other place will regard it as critical. If judges were asked to do that, they would know how to do it, and it would turn the clause into one that would have no effect, which is exactly what we want it to do. We want to be sure that the clause would only codify a position that is already sensible and to avoid prejudicing trials by giving judges a signal that they can admit evidence even when they are somewhat unhappy about it.
      The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) used the phrase "somewhat unhappy about it" towards the end of her remarks. It emphasised the force of my argument with her about the parts of the clause outside paragraph (d). Everyone who has spoken in the debate has been somewhat unhappy about the prospect of previous character evidence being given too great a weight. That is an instinct and a feeling to which we ought to attend, as it springs from the deepest understandings of the nature of our system of justice. Parliament ought not to be allowing legislation to be enacted in a form that leaves people who want to convict the guilty but want to preserve the ability of the innocent to go free feeling somewhat unhappy.
      Lady Hermon: It is unclear from the amendments whether the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues agree with the definition of bad character evidence in clause 82, which concerns me greatly. The clause states:
      "Evidence of a person's bad character is … he has committed an offence, or … he has behaved, or is disposed to behave, in a way that, in the opinion of the court, might be viewed with disapproval by a reasonable person."
      The right hon. Gentleman will know that there are reasonable Ministers in the Government who believe that rap music is associated with a serious and worrying form of conduct. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that definition? Does he think that it goes too far? In my view, it certainly does. Before I vote for his amendments, he must clarify what he understands by bad character.
      Mr. Letwin: The hon. Lady makes a serious and salient point, but it should be tackled in the light of the free advice given to us by the hon. and learned Member

      1013
      for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), acting in his capacity as the local lawyer. He told us, rightly from what I have been able to understand, that the statement in clause 82(1)(b)—I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) that it is bizarre—is not a bad codification of the way courts understand bad character at present. They allow propensity, as the hon. and learned Member for Redcar made clear and, amazingly—I had not understood this fact before dealing with the Bill—they admit, or have shown some inclination or propensity to admit, character evidence that is not evidence of a previous conviction but goes beyond that. It might even include an acquittal. I agree with the hon. Lady that, taken at face value, clause 82(1)(b) is jolly worrying. As the hon. and learned Member for Medway informed us, the present state of the law is somewhat worrying. However, to return to the point that I am trying to make about our amendments, as I understand it—I hope that I am right—the courts have an extraordinary inclination to look very closely at any such evidence before they allow it to be brought forward. They worry a lot about whether any such evidence should be brought forward. In particular, they worry about evidence that is not a previous conviction. The general attitude of the courts is therefore not to allow such evidence unless there are extremely strong arguments for doing so in the interests of justice.
      The problem with the signal that is sent by the clause as it stands—the signal that I believe the Government intend to send to the courts—is that it is intended to diminish the degree of angst that the courts rightly exhibit. If clause 82(1)(b) is a reasonable synopsis of the current definitions on which the courts operate in practice, what we have set out in amendments Nos. 23 and 24 becomes all the more important. If there has been a previous acquittal, and if the prosecution argues that it should be admitted in evidence, the judge should be able to ask whether there is a risk that, if such an acquittal is brought before the jury, the defendant will be convicted on the basis of previous or alleged conduct instead of on the facts of the case. If, through amendment No. 24, we could restore the position so that the courts do worry about such questions, we could reasonably leave it to judges to protect the presumption of innocence. My impression is that the English judiciary still has a strong attachment to the presumption of innocence.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I would like to correct one misapprehension. I do not say that clause 82(1)(b) represents succinctly the law as it stands. Indeed, I cannot think of a court of appeal that would have expressed itself in terms, or in prose, as awful as the wording of clause 82(1)(b). However, perversely, therein lies the safeguard. This clause will undoubtedly be interpreted and construed by the Court of Appeal, and
      1014
      it will be interpreted and construed in precisely the same terms as the present law. That is not satisfactory, but it is not a burning-at-the-stake issue.
      Mr. Letwin: I—
      Mr. Gummer: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Letwin: Of course.
      Mr. Gummer: Like my right hon. Friend, I am not a lawyer. One of my big problems with this issue is that, although the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) is always extremely seductive in presenting his views, I am not at all sure that hon. Members should agree to phrases that, simply because they are manifestly barmy and inadmissible, judges will interpret in a wholly satisfactory way. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be much better to get rid of clause 82(1)(b), so that those words do not deface what may otherwise be considered a reasonable part of the Bill?
      Mr. Letwin: I am in danger of being persuaded twice in one afternoon. I agree with my right hon. Friend that, on the face of it, clause 82(1)(b) is jolly odd—that is my translation of his "manifestly barmy". If clause 82(1)(b) does not properly provide a synopsis of the way in which the courts currently deal with these matters, it will be necessary to change it—in the other place, because it is too late here and now—so that it does. It is clear to me from the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Medway and others that the courts have a conception of something that goes beyond mere conviction, and that needs to be captured in clause 82(1)(b) if we are to have a decent piece of law. I take it that that is what the Government tried to achieve in the clause, but I am persuaded by my right hon. Friend that, if it does not do so, it must be amended so that it does and so that it makes sense.
      6.30 pm
      I want to say one last thing in this connection. To respond to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), even if we reach the point where clause 82(1)(b) is a reasonable synopsis, it will operate properly, in the spirit of the kind of justice that we want, only if it is allied to a set of provisions that ensure that before the court admits such evidence it will look extraordinarily closely at the matter and ask itself very carefully whether there is a prejudicial effect. That would require amendments Nos. 23 and 24, or similar amendments.
      Mr. Garnier: Notwithstanding clause 85(1)(e) and (f), which cover relevance to an important matter and substantive probative value, the House should be worried about clause 82(1)(b) because it relates to matters that may have nothing whatever to do with a criminal act. Although it is bad enough in many circumstances to admit previous convictions, to admit evidence in relation to behaviour that is not criminal, but may be immoral or disapproved of by reasonable people, is something that I invite my right hon. Friend to resist strongly. Whether he resists it through his

      1015
      amendment or through amendments tabled by other hon. Members, I urge him not to allow himself to be seduced by any arguments that the Government advance, no matter how reasonably they are put.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, I must say to the House that I am even less of a lawyer than any other right hon. or hon. Member who has participated, but I am bound to observe that we are dealing with clause 85 and must not spend too much time on clause 82.
      Mr. Letwin: I am mindful of your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall leave it at this: I have become utterly persuaded that clause 82(1)(b) requires pretty drastic attention in the other place.
      I hope that the House will send to the other place—because that is where the argument will be carried on and where the votes will be won or lost in a meaningful fashion—a clear signal that is very different from that which the Government wish to send to the judiciary: namely, that one way or another we have to arrive back at a position in which the courts are very reluctant to admit evidence of this kind and do so only in circumstances where they are absolutely convinced, upon prolonged consideration, that the presumption of innocence will not be so prejudiced as to change the character of British justice. If we can arrive at such a position, the means by which we do it are far less important than the effect that we will have.
      Mr. Heath: This has been an extraordinarily interesting debate in which we have heard valuable contributions from lawyers and non-lawyers.
      There is a cliché in the film and television worlds of the police movie or the police serial in which one policeman is stolid in appearance, has a stolid car and a stolid house, and takes a stolid approach to policing matters that goes by the book. That person is not the hero. The hero is the rebel who refuses to wear the correct uniform, insists on living in completely inappropriate accommodation and continually bends the rules to breaking point and beyond in order to secure the conviction. We are supposed to assume that that policeman is the one who is doing his job in a better and more admirable way. That is not the case, however. That police officer is a danger both to himself and those around him and to the course of justice. Sometimes, when the Government address matters of crime, policing and justice, they take that somewhat reckless attitude. They take the view that the end of securing more convictions of guilty parties—an aim that we all share—allows them to take reckless risks with the means of arriving at that point, which are the judicial and, especially, the court processes. That is what we are debating.
      In some ways, the proposals are a codification of current practice. Members on both sides of the House have been at pains to say that we accept such codification as right, proper and a sensible way forward. However, is the use of that vehicle to extend the introduction and admissibility of bad character evidence, as the Government propose, a sensible reaction to rebalance the scales of justice; or will it take things to the point at which it is likely that manifest injustice will be done? The latter is more likely.
      1016
      I entirely accept your strictures about clause 82, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we must be aware of what it says, because it provides for the bad character evidence that would be used under clause 85. I am wholly unpersuaded that subsection (1)(b) of clause 82 represents an acceptable definition of what might be admissible evidence of bad character. As that provision is unacceptable, it is even more difficult to accept clause 85 because it would provide for such bad character evidence to be admissible in a wide range of circumstances.
      Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) asked why we wanted to delete the whole of clause 85 even though we accepted codification. The answer is that the clause would be extremely poor codification. Indeed, professionals in the field have said that it is more likely to result in more lawyers making more arguments about admissibility than in fewer lawyers making fewer such arguments. Although we believe that it is possible to reach consensus on appropriate codification, this clause is not it. We can pray in aid the comments not only of Labour Members but of Plaid Cymru and Conservative Members. They share our view that the provision is unacceptable.
      There are several layers of unacceptability. First, we must start with the presumption of innocence and proceed on the basis that, in British law, the case before the court is the one that is being tried—not previous circumstances that may not be relevant to that case.
      Secondly, it is wholly unacceptable to define a criminal class, whereby people who are identified as likely to have committed a crime, in the eyes not of the police but of the court, are more likely to be convicted of that crime irrespective of any other evidence that is submitted. I am reminded of the unlamented Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys and his infamous, and probably apocryphal, dictum during the bloody assizes in Taunton, when he tried some of my ancestors and others after the Monmouth rebellion: "Do not waste the time of the court by pleading your innocence." We say much about British justice, but at one time it was not quite as finely balanced as it is at present. When a person is before the court, we want no presumption or prejudice that merely their past record or character, rather than the other evidence adduced, suggests that they are more likely to have committed the crime.
      Separate from the provision's effect on the defendant and the conduct of cases is its effect on the conduct of investigations—a point made by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). Several hon. Members have alluded to the practice seen in "Casablanca" when the policeman René, whose rank escapes me, gives the order to round up the usual suspects. That process is not acceptable in British policing, but clearly the temptation to use it will be greater if the usual suspects are more likely to be convicted in a British court. The provision encourages sloppy policing and sloppy case preparation, as the hon. Gentleman said, and it makes it more likely that investigators will concentrate more on investigating previous convictions and history than the circumstances of the current case, which is bad practice in itself. All those problems combined make the provision corrosive of investigative and judicial procedure in a way that we in Parliament should not accept.

      1017
      I believe that the Government could propose a formulation to which all of us agree. The lead amendment would delete clause 85 in its entirety simply because the Liberal Democrats think that the Government should go back to the drawing board and start again. The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) takes a narrower view: she has no problems with much of the clause but wants to get rid of subsection (1)(d), which she finds especially offensive. We agree that that is the most offensive part of the clause, so we can support her amendment. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has been persuaded by some of the arguments about subsection (1)(d) but not of the desirability of deleting the whole clause; he would introduce a new test—a balance between the probative value of the evidence and the prejudicial effect. We agree with that, as well: although it is perhaps the least satisfactory way to redress the imbalance in the clause as it stands, it is a move in the right direction and we are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for suggesting it.
      Mr. Kidney: The hon. Gentleman feels sure that the House could agree on a proposal to replace the Government's. Might that be found in the Law Commission's draft Bill?
      Mr. Heathy: I think that that proposal comes close, and it should certainly be the starting point because it is founded on research done, advice taken and the application of judicial minds to the problem and it builds on current practice. I am told that similar fact is now called propensity—I am not a lawyer, so I did not know that—but it appears to cover broadly the same area. I share the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) that if we rely on the Court of Appeal to interpret what we in Parliament draft sloppily, we are not doing our job properly. I hope that we can get the provision right in the other place; it clearly is not right now.
      Whatever the solution, let us all accept that there is a problem with the Government's drafting. They have attempted to be popular in some ways and to send out signals. I deeply mistrust the concept of sending out signals; that is not what legislation is about. Legislation is about making law that is unambiguous and will work, not about sending out signals that might be misinterpreted at the point of receipt. If a measure so crucial to the judicial process and the reputation of our courts is wrong now, let us go back to the drawing board and reach a consensus on an alternative proposal. I agree with the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who said that those who yesterday, debating the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, decried other countries' judicial systems will have to look again at ours if we accept into our law the Bill in its present form, complete with the demerits, deficiencies and imbalances that it will introduce into our system.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Cameron: This has been a fantastic debate to listen to, perhaps especially for the non-lawyers among us. I wanted to add my voice in opposition to what the Government are trying to do in clause 85 in terms of previous convictions.
      1018
      As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, we have been offered a menu of ways of changing what the Government are suggesting. The Liberals propose that we leave out clause 85 all together; my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) suggests that we consider prejudicial and probative value in each case and try to codify the law; and the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) proposes what is possibly the neatest solution—taking out clause 85(1)(d), as paragraph (d) is the biggest problem.
      After all the arguments that the Government have heard, I am sure that they are aware that they must go away and rethink the provisions. They have a range of options, including those proposed by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and by the Law Society. I think that anything would be better than clause 85(1)(d), which is the real problem.
      There is a charitable view of what the Government are trying to do and an uncharitable view. When I served in Committee, I felt that the charitable view was that they are trying to find a balance between two principles: first, the jury should be able to see the facts—
      Mr. Letwin: Just for the record, will my hon. Friend confirm that he cannot have heard the Committee discuss the provision in question, as opposed to the many others, because the proceedings were so organised that it never reached clause 85?
      Mr. Cameron: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are many things that we did not reach. Indeed, we did not reach some things in Committee that we have not reached today and will not reach.
      The charitable view of the Government is that they are often wrestling in the Bill with two principles. The first principle is to let the jury see the facts, let the dog see the rabbit and let all the facts be laid out in front of the jury and trust it. The second principle is that we must do what we can to keep a fair trial. The uncharitable view of what the Government are doing is that they wanted to have a public relations exercise—this is the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset—and a tough Bill. They wanted the police to say "Yes, this is a great, tough Bill" and the Prime Minister to be able to speak at the Dispatch Box about a tough law-and-order Bill. There were moments in Committee when one felt that the police had given the Government a list of things that they would like to be written into law, and I suspect that they were pretty amazed that the Government said yes to all of them. The provision that we are talking about in relation to previous convictions probably falls into the second category, or the rather uncharitable interpretation of the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Stafford and the hon. and learned Member for Redcar made powerful speeches in which they tried to give a charitable interpretation of what the Government are doing. However, I say to them that they have to ask why the Government are going ahead with clause 85(1)(d) if its purpose is to prejudice a trial and poison the well. I say to the hon. Member for Stafford that he needs to ask the Government why they are going ahead with a provision that goes beyond what the Law Society recommended if not to send some sort of message about toughness that I think is inappropriate and will not be right.

      1019
      On the whole, I am in favour of giving the jury more information. I want instinctively to trust the jury. I am not a barrister, but I have served on a jury in a trial and I had great faith in the common sense of the jury system in getting it right. I have some form on the issue, having worked in the Home Office when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who is not a known liberal, was Home Secretary and reformed the right to silence. To me, that was a wholly appropriate and welcome change. It gave juries the chance to consider more information and find out whether someone had said something when they were first arrested and then decided to stay silent afterwards. Information that juries could not previously consider could be brought out in court and commented on as a result of the changes that we made as a Government.
      I think that the provision before us is entirely different. As several hon. Members have mentioned—I shall not repeat their remarks—much of what is contained in paragraphs (a) to (h) of clause 85(1) tries to codify current practice and what currently happens in the law. The real problem is paragraph (d), which is the big kahuna, as it were. Let me repeat it:
      "it is evidence of the defendant's conviction for an offence of the same description, or of the same category, as the one with which he is charged".
      A point needs to be made—I do not think that it has been made so far—about the fact that, in asking what counts as the same category, one has to look at clause 87, which states:
      "two offences are of the same category as each other if they belong to the same category of offences prescribed for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State."
      So the Home Secretary's fingerprints are clearly on what would be considered as the same category. As the hon. and learned Member for Redcar said, that is the biggest change.
      When we vote tonight, we must ask ourselves whether we want juries to think, "He did it before, so he has done it again." That is what clause 85(1)(d) tries to do. I have consulted lawyers about clause 85, and they all point to—[Interruption.] I do not believe that that is my pager.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Whoever has that machine please silence it.
      Mr. Cameron: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I look forward to seeing how the Hansard writers will report that—perhaps with dots and dashes.
      Everyone to whom I have spoken says that clause 85(1)(d) is an attempt to prejudice the trial, to poison the well. There can be no other reason for setting it out as it has been drafted.
      Mr. Kidney: The hon. Gentleman has twice said "Law Society", when he means Law Commission. Does he consider the Law Commission's draft Bill to be much more acceptable than the Government's present proposal?
      Mr. Cameron: I certainly believe that it is, but having listened to the argument, in many ways the neatest solution would be to take out paragraph (d), as
      1020
      proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar. However, it is for the Government to go away, listen to the debate in the other place and come up with a codification of the current law that does not go nearly as far as clause 85(1)(d), because, from everything that I have heard, that provision will prejudice the trial.
      I wish to make two final points. First, many hon. Members have talked about how police investigations will be skewed if clause 85 becomes law, and they are right. Police officers are human beings. What will happen in a police investigation, when they are under enormous pressure to get a result and they have one, two, three or four suspects who have previous? Will they go after them? Of course they will; they are human beings and they will want to get a result, by rounding up the usual suspects—a cliché, I know, but I really believe that that will happen.
      The second and final point is about miscarriages of justice. If we pass clause 85 into law unamended, we may get more convictions in the short term, as juries will hear about previous convictions. If the aim is to convict more criminals, I suppose that that will be seen as a success, but I truly believe that, in the longer term, we will live to regret clause 85. I believe that because we have been here before with police evidence. In trials 20 years ago, police evidence was believed far more in the courts than it is today.
      Whether we like it or we like it not—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said—public appreciation and trust in the police has declined. Certainly in courtrooms, police evidence is not always wholly trusted by the jury, and barristers perhaps quite rightly point to previous occasions where police evidence has been tainted or whatever. As a result, it has been more difficult to get a conviction.
      Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend adds to the benefits that I draw from the debate. Does he agree that, as one reflects on it, the bureaucratic disasters attending the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which we are only gradually beginning to see, were necessitated by precisely the problem to which he alludes? Does he also agree that there is altogether too great a chance that, if such a measure were agreed unamended, we would find ourselves with the need to produce a further ghastly bureaucratic measure to constrain the police' s tendency to act in the way that he describes, which is exactly the wrong way to go about things?
      Mr. Cameron: My right hon. Friend has foreseen the conclusion of my speech, but I shall say it anyway. We will see more convictions, but then we will see evidence of miscarriages of justice and evidence that the police rounded up the usual suspects, possibly because of the pressure that they were under, and that juries were prejudiced by hearing about previous convictions. We will then be back not necessarily to where we started, but possibly to a situation even worse than where we are now. In future, the law may have to be changed, as my right hon. Friend says; or we will have trials in which jurors will tend to have a very jaundiced view of the authorities prosecuting someone with previous convictions.
      I have never seen the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) perform in court. I am a great admirer of his speeches, and perhaps it is

      1021
      something that I should do. However, I can imagine that he would say: "Ladies and gentleman of the jury, my client is here for one reason and for one reason alone and that is because my client has previous convictions. That is why the police have rounded him up and brought him to this court." We can all imagine that. He would then be able to say, "Of course we have had a history of this happening in the past. People with previous convictions have been sent down for crimes that they did not commit." There would be celebrated cases and we would find that what was happening in our courts was not a return to common sense, which is what the Government want, but a flight from it. That is why I feel so strongly that the Government must think again, particularly about paragraph (d).
      Mr. Edward Garnier: I rise with some diffidence. I must confess that I have missed about 50 per cent. of the debate. I am sorry about that. However, I am familiar with the issues. I am acutely aware that the guillotine comes down at 7.20 pm and that the constitution rolls on. The Minister must have an opportunity to reply to the many speeches that have been made and the arguments that have been advanced.
      I shall contribute briefly to the debate so that those who come to study it hereafter do not get the impression that it was contributed to by only a few Members who had nothing better to do than sit in the Chamber on a warm, sunny afternoon.
      I am sure that the purpose of the proposed legislation is well meaning, and no doubt the Government thought about it quite carefully. However, I am concerned, as are others, that the clause is defined as part of the target-hitting or message-sending agenda. Legislation should not be for the purpose of sending messages; it should be for the purpose of making law. If we are not careful, this piece of legislation will just become another early-day motion, or something similar to it, which we can all sign up to because it looks good and will go down well with the readers of certain newspapers. We can then all go home feeling that we have done something to achieve something better—re-election possibly—for our fellow citizens who feel plagued by persistent criminals.
      That is not good enough. The arguments that have been deployed this afternoon to unpick the clause that we would like to see amended are ones that need to be answered. They need time to be answered, and perhaps the Minister will not have enough time to deal with these matters today. I hope that his noble Friends in another place will listen to what has been said in the Chamber and will undo what the Government intend to do by means of the clause.
      I sit as a Crown court recorder. I have not nearly as much experience as a criminal lawyer as the hon. and learned Members for Redcar (Vera Baird) and for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). However, my experience of sitting as a recorder and also, and more importantly, going to Judicial Studies Board courses is that real judges—full-time judges and full-time magistrates—are appalled at the low level of criminal justice legislation that we push through the House. We churn it out as though the House were nothing more than a sausage machine.
      1022
      When I was last at a JSB course, which was about three weeks ago, a senior member of the judiciary came up to me privately and asked, "Are you serious about the contents of the current Criminal Justice Bill and its provisions in relation to previous convictions and bad character?" I said, "I am not, but the Government are, and the Government will have their day." By and large, most of the legislation contained in this great fat telephone book of a Bill will go undiscussed. The judge, like many of his brother judges, threw up his hands and said, "I suppose it makes good work for the JSB."
      I urge the Government to pay close attention to the genuine concerns of the judiciary, who have to apply legislation in court when dealing with real criminal cases. I can assure the Minister that they do not enjoy being criticised later for applying badly drafted and ill thought-out laws that Parliament imposes on them. I urge the Government to think carefully before they whip Government Members, either here or in the other place, to support clause 85 as currently drafted.
      7 pm
      I do not want to exaggerate, but the wording of the clause is silly and dangerous, and needs a lot of careful thought. If that not does happen, it will end up, as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said correctly a moment ago, leading to miscarriages of justice; vast amounts of time and money spent in the Court of Appeal; and Parliament having to come back and look at the matter all over again. Nobody will be the winner—not the justice system, not Parliament's reputation, not the citizens whom we seek to protect by passing good legislation, nor, indeed, the defendants who, although they do not like to go to prison or be convicted, believe that when they are convicted they are convicted fairly under proper rules that they can understand and which everyone accepts as fair. I will not prolong the Minister's wait any longer except to say that there is a lot that needs to be said about this. A lot has been said about it, but the Government must think a great deal more carefully before they advance bull-headedly down the road of passing the clause without further thought.
      Hilary Benn: May I begin by saying that this has been an extremely important debate? The importance that right hon. and hon. Members attach to the issue has been reflected in the speeches by Members on both sides of the House, to whom I have listened intently. I must confess, however, that someone who is not a lawyer might have been left slightly puzzled at the end of our discussion. We heard from some quarters the argument that the proposed changes in clause 85 are so radical and far-reaching that, as regards the operation of the criminal justice system, they will effectively bring the house down. We also heard the opposite argument, which was put most strongly by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). He argued, as I understood it, that the clause will not make a lot of difference. The truth is, the Government are trying to find a balance in making the proposed change to the law. I am the first to recognise the anxiety that has been expressed about the changes, and I will seek to offer Members some reassurance.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Could I correct a misapprehension? I agree with the general thrust of the

      1023
      Minister's remarks. In truth, I do not think that the clause will make a great deal of difference, except for subsection (1)(d), which makes a very considerable difference indeed.
      Hilary Benn: I am grateful for that clarification from my hon. and learned Friend.
      During the debate, the Government were accused of a number of things in introducing the clause and the Bill. I want to put it on record that it is not our intention that the clause should be used, to pick up a concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), to round up the usual suspects. I acknowledge his expertise on the subject, which is probably greater than that of all other hon. Members, gained as a result of work that he has done for many years on miscarriages of justice. However, that is not the intention of the clause—it is not about trying to prejudice juries; it is not about trying to damage the rehabilitation of offenders; it is not about undermining the principle of innocent until proven guilty; and, to repeat a point that I made in the last debate, it is not about the prosecution no longer having to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. The clause is intended to get the balance right.
      There was wide agreement during the debate that the current law potentially provides for a large amount of bad character evidence to be admissible. That was accepted across the House. No one argued that that should not be the case. The question is whether the current arrangements for determining when bad character is admissible are satisfactory. All the evidence suggests that they are not. Those who have examined the issue—the Law Commission, Lord Justice Auld and others—have, if I may sum up in three words, described the present situation as haphazard, inconsistent and unpredictable. In other words, the current arrangements are a mess. That must be the starting point on which we are all agreed.
      If we are agreed that the current system is a mess, it needs to be sorted out. The question that we are debating is, in essence, how evidence should be put before juries so that they can judge it in reaching their verdict. Three main issues came up during the debate. The first was whether we should have an inclusionary or an exclusionary approach. The second, which was touched on by the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), was whether leave should be applied for. The third was to which categories of bad character evidence should the safeguards in clause 85(3) apply.
      I shall try to address each of those issues in turn, but to illustrate the argument I shall refer briefly to two real cases. In Commit tee I cited the example of a High Court judge who was dealing with a horrific murder case involving a woman who was stabbed 81 times. The defendant in that case had previous convictions for using a knife and for beating people. Reflecting on the experience of presiding over that case, the judge wrote:
      "It's a classic case of where you might argue that previous convictions should be admitted to the jury. The more I sit as a judge, I think that we trust juries with so many important decisions, why not a defendant's background? It's something I've changed my mind about since I was Counsel."
      I would say to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) that the point about that judge's experience is that, in that case, that evidence was not included.
      1024
      The second case was mentioned by one of my hon. Friends. Last month there were reports of a case concerning the alleged rape of a woman by a doctor. In the trial the complainant had not been allowed to give the proper circumstances of her story because that would have involved revealing to the court the doctor's convictions for sexual assault in respect of nine other patients. To add insult to injury, the complainant was cross-examined about a child whom she had adopted 36 years previously, the taking of a valium tablet, and an alleged sterilisation operation. In the light of her treatment, she said afterwards:
      "I feel the law's got to be changed because had I been able to tell the whole truth I feel sure the jury would have seen a totally different picture. Something is wrong with the way the system is working. Having first-hand knowledge of the system I now understand why".
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews rose—
      Hilary Benn: If my hon. and learned Friend will bear with me, I shall complete the point.
      In the second case, the previous convictions were clearly not admitted. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) spoke with passion in support of his view that the Bill undermined justice. I ask him to reflect whether the two examples that I have given do not also undermine justice and the public's confidence in the system. The public are not lawyers, and I am not a lawyer, either. They look at the way in which the present rules can be interpreted, and say from a lay person's perspective, but with no less force than the arguments that we have heard from Members much more qualified than I in matters legal, that the current system does not make sense.
      Mr. Gummer: Surely that proves my point. The evidence in both those cases ought to have been admitted under what reasonable people understand the law to be. If the Government were merely putting into better terms, more neatly and conveniently, what they understood the law to he, that would be one thing, and I would support it. My argument is that, in the course of doing that, they did not follow the suggestion of the Law Commission but added to it some twirls and baubles of their own, which are themselves dangerous and do not admit of being within the kind of attitude with which we all agree.
      Hilary Benn: I hear the argument that the right hon. Gentleman advances. The conclusion that I draw, however, from the two examples that I have just given is that they make the case for shifting the way in which the system works in favour of an inclusionary approach subject to appropriate safeguards. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman might disagree, but that is the Government's view. On the evidence of those two examples—there are others—and despite the fact that a potentially wide range of bad character evidence can currently be admitted, it is not the case that those provisions are being applied consistently.
      Simon Hughes rose—
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews rose—
      Hilary Benn: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), and then to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway.
      Simon Hughes: Does the Minister not accept that the two cases that he mentioned could lead perfectly

      1025
      reasonably to a different conclusion? That conclusion would be that, if we have not got it quite right in law as to when similar facts should be admitted, we need to address that problem. Equally, if evidence is excluded when it is directly relevant to a case, it should be able to be included. That does not, however, lead automatically to the conclusion that the presumption should be that not only past criminal convictions but past history should be admitted unless certain qualifications apply.
      Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman may advance that argument, but it is not one that the Government accept. We are trying to find a system that will provide reasonable certainty and simplicity in the way in which it operates, because the current arrangements are very confusing and are applied inconsistently. Different people reach different judgments in different circumstances. That is the case for our setting out in clause 85 the rules as to the circumstances in which bad character evidence can be admitted, together with the safeguards. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford that that is one reason why we are not in favour of having leave arrangements. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) set out extremely clearly why, in each of the categories—I know that we take a different view in regard to paragraph (d)—there are cogent arguments for the law being set out in the way that it is, in the clause as drafted.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I will not weary him with this point, but if the doctor case is going to be used as a seminal example in the argument for a serious change in the law, will he tell us why that doctor's form was not admitted before the jury? On the facts that he has given us, any lawyer would say that that was manifestly a case in which the doctor's form should have gone in. That might have been a case not of an aberrant law but of an aberrant judge.
      Hilary Benn: The honest answer is that I do not know why that evidence was not included., but my hon. and learned Friend's point does not make the case. [Interruption.] No, what it illustrates is the case for a change in the approach to these matters, and clause 85 provides for an inclusionary approach, subject to safeguards. I would argue strongly that such an approach will deal with the current problem of inconsistent application of the law while addressing the concerns that have been raised about the circumstances in which certain evidence can be brought to bear in a case. In those circumstances, clause 85(3) provides for the protection to which I shall turn in a moment.
      Mr. Letwin: Does the Minister riot accept that the case to which he referred is a case of similar fact?
      Hilary Benn: Indeed I do—and the question is, if the system currently allows such evidence to be admitted, why should the same not be allowed in that case and in others of which Members will be aware? The problem that the right hon. Gentleman must address is the way in which the system currently does riot work. He need
      1026
      not take my word for that; he need only look at what the Law Commission and Lord Justice Auld had to say about it.
      7.15 pm
      Clause 85(1)(d) provides a straightforward route for the admission of evidence of the convictions we are discussing, so that the law can be transparent and its effects readily anticipated and so that it can be consistently applied, avoiding protracted arguments about relevance whenever possible but subject to the safeguards in subsection (3). The clause does not make evidence of such convictions any more admissible than it would otherwise be: the exclusionary test ensures the exclusion of evidence that is insufficiently relevant. That is a key point. Paragraphs (d) and (e) provide for two slightly different routes, both of which are subject to the same safeguards.
      Vera Baird: I hope that I can make my hon. Friend understand that giving a judge the right to exclude evidence of previous convictions in exceptional circumstances will not deal with the situation. Although judges are not always ready to receive signals from the House, they are obliged to accept the law as we lay it down. We are about to enact a measure stating that evidence is admissible even if it is utterly irrelevant. How can any discretion allow such evidence to be excluded when we have told judges, in each and every case, "In it goes"?
      Hilary Benn: The answer is simple. When considering an application under clause 85(3). a judge must ultimately decide whether the probative value of evidence covered by paragraphs (d), (e) and (h) outweighs the prejudicial effect. When representations are made on application by a defendant under subsection (3), surely that is the right test and the one that provides the safeguards.
      The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) got it right when he said that this was about trying to achieve a balance that would give juries the picture and then enable them to make a decision in the end. The Government believe that the intention behind the new inclusionary rule is that evidence of this kind should be capable of being heard, subject to the safeguards in the Bill. It is on that basis that I commend clause 85 to the House.
      Simon Hughes: We have heard 11 speeches during this guillotined debate, and apart from the Minister's, not one voice has been raised in support of the Government's proposition. It has been opposed in 10 speeches and two interventions. Representatives of six parties have said they are unhappy about it.
      There is a difference of view about how we should proceed, and we respect each other's differences, but the overriding view is clearly this: the Government's proposal, which they say will preserve in English law the requirement for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty and for the defendant to be presumed innocent at the outset, will not in fact protect that position adequately.
      This is partly technical and complicated, and three options have been discussed. I hope that the House will support at least one of the proposals for change. The

      1027
      Chairman of the Select Committee said that, although this would not be his preferred option, he was willing to support our proposal for the removal of clause 85 and the rebuilding of that part of the Bill. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said that we should introduce a better protection. The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) suggested that we concentrate on deleting one measure, under which evidence of previous convictions would automatically be admitted. I urge the House to support at least one of those options, but above all I urge the Government to listen to the clear voice saying that this is a dangerous proposal, which goes far further than previous recommendations, should not be accepted by Parliament and should no longer be proposed by the Government.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 68, Noes 290.

      Division No. 158]

      [7:19 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Baird, Vera

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Baker, Norman

      McDonnell, John

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Breed, Colin

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Burnett, John

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Burnside, David

      Moore, Michael

      Burstow, Paul

      Mullin, Chris

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Öpik, Lembit

      Chidgey, David

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Cotter, Brian

      Rendel, David

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Dodds, Nigel

      Sanders, Adrian

      Doughty, Sue

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Shepherd, Richard

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

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

      Gerrard, Neil

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Stunell, Andrew

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Heath, David

      Thurso, John

      Hermon, Lady

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Hunter, Andrew

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Hurst Alan (Braintree)

      Willis, Phil

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Keetch, Paul

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Mrs. Annette L. Brooke and

      Lamb, Norman

      Mr. Alan Reid

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Barnes, Harry

      Ainger, Nick

      Battle, John

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Alexander, Douglas

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Allen, Graham

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Benn, Hilary

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Berry, Roger

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Best, Harold

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Betts, Clive

      Bailey, Adrian

      Blackman, Liz

      1028

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Gardiner, Barry

      Boateng, rh Paul

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Borrow, David

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Godsiff, Roger

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Goggins, Paul

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Bryant, Chris

      Grogan, John

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Burden, Richard

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Burnham, Andy

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Hanson, David

      Cairns, David

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Casale, Roger

      Healey, John

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Challen, Colin

      Hendrick, Mark

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clapham, Michael

      Heppell, John

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Heyes, David

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Clelland, David

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Cohen, Harry

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Coleman, Iain

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Colman, Tony

      Connarty, Michael

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hutton, rh John

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Cooper, Yvette

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Corston, Jean

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cousins, Jim

      Jamieson, David

      Cranston, Ross

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Crausby, David

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Cummings, John

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      David, Wayne

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Davidson, Ian

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Kidney, David

      Dawson, Hilton

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Denham, rh John

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Doran, Frank

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Lammy, David

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lepper, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Leslie, Christopher

      Efford, Clive

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury 5)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Farrelly, Paul

      Linton, Martin

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Love, Andrew

      Fisher, Mark

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Flint, Caroline

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Foster, rh Derek

      McCabe, Stephen

      1029

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Ruddock, Joan

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      MacDonald, Calum

      MacDougall, John

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McGrady, Eddie

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sawford, Phil

      McKechin, Ann

      Sheridan, Jim

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      McNulty, Tony

      Singh, Marsha

      MacShane, Denis

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      McWilliam, John

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Soley, Clive

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Southworth, Helen

      Martlew, Eric

      Speller, rh John

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Squire, Rachel

      Merron, Gillian

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Michael, rh Alun

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Stevenson, George

      Miliband, David

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Miller, Andrew

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Stringer, Graham

      Moran, Margaret

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Morgan, Julie

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Morley, Elliot

      Taylor, David (NW Leis)

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Mountford, Kali

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Trickett, Jon

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Truswell, Paul

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Olner, Bill

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Organ, Diana

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Owen, Albert

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Pearson, Ian

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Perham, Linda

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Pickthall, Colin

      Ward, Claire

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Plaskitt, James

      Watts, David

      Pollard, Kerry

      White, Brian

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Wills, Michael

      Purchase, Ken

      Wilson, Brian

      Purnell, James

      Woodward, Shaun

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Woolas, phil

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Worthington, Tony

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Wright Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Rooney, Terry

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      Ruane, Chris

      Dan Norris

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 133, in page 54, line 19, leave out paragraph (d).—[Vera Baird.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 266.

      Division No. 159]

      [7:32 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Garnier, Edward

      Allan, Richard

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Amess, David

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Gidley, Sandra

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Gillian, Mrs Cheryl

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Goodman, Paul

      Bacon, Richard

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Baird, Vera

      Grayling, Chris

      Baker, Norman

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Baldry, Tony

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Barker, Gregory

      Greenway, John

      Barnes, Harry

      Grieve, Dominic

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Gummer, rh John

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Hague, rh William

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Hammond, Philip

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hawkins, Nick

      Bercow, John

      Heald, Oliver

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Heath, David

      Best, Harold

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Blunt, Crispin

      Hendry, Charles

      Boswell, Tim

      Hermon, Lady

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Brady, Graham

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Brazier, Julian

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Breed, Colin

      Hurst Alan (Braintree)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Jack, rh Michael

      Browning. Mrs Angela

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Burnett, John

      Burns, Simon

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Burnside, David

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Burstow, Paul

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Cameron, David

      Keetch, Paul

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Cash, William

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Chidgey, David

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Chope, Christopher

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Lamb, Norman

      Cohen, Harry

      Lansley, Andrew

      Collins, Tim

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Connarty, Michael

      Leigh, Edward

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Cotter, Brian

      Lidington, David

      Curry, rh David

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      McDonnell, John

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Maples, John

      Dawson, Hilton

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Dodds, Nigel

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Doughty, Sue

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Maude, rh Francis

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Evans, Nigel

      Mercer, Patrick

      Fabricant, Michael

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Fallon, Michael

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Moore, Michael

      Fisher, Mark

      Moss, Malcolm

      Flight, Howard

      Mullin, Chris

      Flook, Adrian

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Forth, rh Eric

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Öpik, Lembit

      Francois, Mark

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Ottaway, Richard

      1031

      Page, Richard

      Steen, Anthony

      Paice, James

      Stunell, Andrew

      Pickles, Eric

      Swayne, Desmond

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Syms, Robert

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Redwood, rh John

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Thurso, John

      Rendel, David

      Trend, Michael

      Robathan, Andrew

      Trimble, rh David

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      Ruffley, David

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Sanders, Adrian

      Watkinson, Angela

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Whittingdale, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Selous, Andrew

      Wiggin, Bill

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Willis, Phil

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

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

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Spring, Richard

      Mr. Neil Gerrard and

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Julie Morgan

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Ainger, Nick

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Allen, Graham

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Clelland, David

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Coaker, Vernon

      Battle, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bayley, Hugh

      Coleman, Iain

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Colman, Tony

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Benn, Hilary

      Cooper, Yvette

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Corston, Jean

      Berry, Roger

      Cousins, Jim

      Betts, Clive

      Cranston, Ross

      Blackman, Liz

      Crausby, David

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cummings, John

      Borrow, David

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      David, Wayne

      Davidson, Ian

      Bryant, Chris

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Burden, Richard

      Denham, rh John

      Burnham, Andy

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Cairns, David

      Doran, Frank

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Casale, Roger

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Edwards, Huw

      Challen, Colin

      Efford, Clive

      1032

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Linton, Martin

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Love, Andrew

      Farrelly, Paul

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Flint, Caroline

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Foster, rh Derek

      McCabe, Stephen

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Gardiner, Barry

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      MacDougall, John

      Gilroy, Linda

      McGrady, Eddie

      Godsiff, Roger

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Goggins, Paul

      McIsaac, Shona

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McKechin, Ann

      Grogan, John

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McNulty, Tony

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      MacShane, Denis

      Hanson, David

      McWalter, Tony

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      McWilliam, John

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Mendelson, rh Peter

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Healey, John

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Martlew, Eric

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Heppell, John

      Merron, Gillian

      Hesford, Stephen

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Heyes, David

      Miliband, David

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Miller, Andrew

      Hinchliffe, David

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Moran, Margaret

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Morley, Elliot

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Mountford, Kali

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Olner, Bill

      Hutton, rh John

      Organ, Diana

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Owen, Albert

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Jamieson, David

      Pearson, Ian

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Perham, Linda

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Kevan (N Durharn)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Purchase, Ken

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Purnell, James

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Kidney, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Lammy, David

      Rooney, Terry

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Lepper, David

      Leslie, Christopher

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Sawford, Phil

      1033

      Sheridan, Jim

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Trickett, Jon

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Singh, Marsha

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Ward, Claire

      Soley, Clive

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Southworth, Helen

      Watts, David

      Spellar, rh John

      White, Brian

      Squire, Rachel

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wills, Michael

      Stevenson, George

      Wilson, Brian

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Woolas, Phil

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Worthington, Tony

      Stringer, Graham

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Dan Norris

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 23, in page 54, line 30, leave out from third 'the' to 'that' in line 32 and insert
      'potential probative value of such evidence is so outweighed by its prejudicial effect'.—[Mr. Grieve.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 284.

      Division No. 160]

      [7:44 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Chidgey, David

      Allan, Richard

      Chope, Christopher

      Amess, David

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Collins, Tim

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Cotter, Brian

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Curry, rh David

      Bacon, Richard

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Baker, Norman

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Baldry, Tony

      Barker, Gregory

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Dodds, Nigel

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Doughty, Sue

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Evans, Nigel

      Bercow, John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fallon, Michael

      Blunt, Crispin

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Boswell, Tim

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Flight, Howard

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Flook, Adrian

      Forth, rh Eric

      Brady, Graham

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Brazier, Julian

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Breed, Colin

      Garnier, Edward

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Burnett, John

      Gidley, Sandra

      Burns, Simon

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Burnside, David

      Goodman, Paul

      Burstow, Paul

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Grayling, Chris

      Cameron, David

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Cash, William

      Greenway, John

      1034

      Grieve, Dominic

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Gummer, rh John

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Hague, rh William

      Redwood, rh John

      Hammond, Philip

      Reid. Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Rendel, David

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Heald, Oliver

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Heath, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hendry, Charles

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Hermon, Lady

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Ruffley, David

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Selous, Andrew

      Jack, rh Michael

      Shepherd, rh Mrs Gillian

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Shepherd, Richard

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

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

      Keetch, Paul

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Lamb, Norman

      Spring, Richard

      Lansley, Andrew

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Steen, Anthony

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Swayne, Desmond

      Lidington, David

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Syms, Robert

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Maples, John

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Thurso, John

      Trend, Michael

      Maude, rh Francis

      Trimble, rh David

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      Moore, Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Moss, Malcolm

      Whittingdale, John

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Widdecombe rh Miss Ann

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Wiggin, Bill

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Willis, Phil

      Ottaway, Richard

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Page, Richard

      Young, rh Sir George

      Paice, James

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Pickles, Eric

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Mr. Mark Francois and

      Angela Watkinson

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Ainger, Nick

      Berry, Roger

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Betts, Clive

      Alexander, Douglas

      Blackman, Liz

      Allen, Graham

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Borrow, David

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Barnes, Harry

      Bryant, Chris

      Battle, John

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Bayley, Hugh

      Burden, Richard

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Burnham, Andy

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Benn, Hilary

      Cairns, David

      1035

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Healey, John

      Casale, Roger

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Challen, Colin

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Heppell, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Heyes, David

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clelland, David

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Cohen, Harry

      Coleman, Iain

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Colman, Tony

      Hutton, rh John

      Connarty, Michael

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Corston, Jean

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cousins, Jim

      Jamieson, David

      Cranston, Ross

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Crausby, David

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Cummings, John

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      David, Wayne

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Davidson, Ian

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Kidney, David

      Dawson, Hilton

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Denham, rh John

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Knight Jim (S Dorset)

      Doran, Frank

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Lammy, David

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lepper, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Leslie, Christopher

      Efford, Clive

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury 5)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Farrelly, Paul

      Linton, Martin

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Love, Andrew

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Flint Caroline

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gardiner, Barry

      McCabe, Stephen

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Gerrard, Neil

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      MacDonald, Calum

      Gilroy, Linda

      MacDougall, John

      Godsiff, Roger

      McGrady, Eddie

      Goggins, Paul

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Grogan, John

      McKechin, Ann

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McNulty, Tony

      Hanson, David

      MacShane, Denis

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      McWalter, Tony

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      McWilliam, John

      1036

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mallaber, Judy

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mendelson, rh Peter

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Singh, Marsha

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Martlew, Eric

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Merron, Gillian

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Soley, Clive

      Miliband, David

      Southworth, Helen

      Miller, Andrew

      Speller, rh John

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Squire, Rachel

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Moran, Margaret

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Morgan, Julie

      Stevenson, George

      Morley, Elliot

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mountford, Kali

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stringer, Graham

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Olner, Bill

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Organ, Diana

      Tipping, Paddy

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Owen, Albert

      Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Trickett, Jon

      Pearson, Ian

      Truswell, Paul

      Perham, Linda

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Plaskitt, James

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Ward, Claire

      Purchase, Ken

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Purnell, James

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Watts, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      White, Brian

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Wills, Michael

      Wilson, Brian

      Woodward, Shaun

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Woolas, Phil

      Worthington, Tony

      Rooney, Terry

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Ruddock. Joan

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Dan Norris and

      Sawford, Phil

      Mr. Fraser Kemp

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Amendment made: No. 134A, in page 54, line 37, leave out subsection(5).—[Hilary Benn.]

    Clause 87
      OFFENCES "OF THE SAME DESCRIPTION" OR "OF THE SAME CATEGORY"
      Amendment made: No. 95, in page 55, line 4, leave out `an information' and insert 'a written charge'.—[Hilary Benn.]
    Clause 91

      "ATTACK ON ANOTHER PERSON'S CHARACTER"
      Amendment made: No. 135, in page 56, line 28 after 'he' insert
      '(or any legal representative appointed under section 38(4) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999(c. 23) to cross-examine a witness in his interests)'.—[Hilary Benn.]

    Clause 97

      INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER 1
      Amendments made: No. 136, in page 59, line 29, at end insert—
      "'offence" includes a service offence;'.
      No. 96, in page 59, line 34, at end insert—
      '"written charge" has the same meaning as in section 24 and also includes an information.'.
      No. 137, in page 59, line 34, at end insert—
      '"service offence" means an offence under the Army Act 1955 (3&4Eliz.2 c. 18), the Air Force Act 1955 (3&4Eliz.2 c. 19) or the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c. 53);'.
      No. 138, in page 59, line 38, at end insert—
      '(3) Nothing in this Chapter affects the exclusion of evidence—

      (a) under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (c.23), or

      (b) on grounds other than the fact that it is evidence of a person's bad character.'. —[Hilary Benn.]

    Schedule 5

      EVIDENCE OF BAD CHARACTER: ARMED FORCES
      Amendment made: No. 101, in page 191, line 17, at end insert—
      ' 1A Section 87, as it applies in relation to proceedings before service courts, has effect with the substitution in subsection (1)(a) of "charge sheet" for "written charge or indictment".'.
      No. 102, in page 192, line 9, after 'advocate', insert
      'in proceedings before a court-martial'.—[Hilary Benn.]
      Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That at the sitting on Thursday 3rd April, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister relating to matters to be considered before the forthcoming adjournment may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, or until Six o'clock, whichever is the later, and shall then lapse.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

  PETITIONS

    Pharmacies
    7.55 pm
    Bob Spink: Local pharmacies are part of the primary health care service. They take a great burden off general practitioners and could do more if regulations were relaxed. They are part of the very fabric of our society, not merely retailers, but professional health care service providers. The Office of Fair Trading proposals on control of entry regulations would damage
    1038
    chemists and therefore the most vulnerable people in society—people who are disabled and have low mobility, who have babies in pushchairs and young children, or who are elderly. Deregulation would set back the pharmacy service for 10 years.
    The petition states:
    To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
    The Humble Petition of Mr. Robert Smith, Sailesh Patel, Ashleigh Sharp, Jessica Arnold, Jackie Govier and others of like disposition sheweth that local communities are best served by local community-based pharmacies, and that the OFT recommendations to abolish the 'control of entry' regulations would seriously damage local pharmacies.
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Government to reject proposals that would 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 your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Iraq
  7.57 pm
  Bob Spink: I have a further petition, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  As a Member of Parliament, I have a duty to listen to all views and give voice to them, even those with which I fundamentally disagree. The petition is on Iraq. I believe that if taking action in Iraq saves more lives than not doing so, we must have leaders who have the moral courage to take that action. That is why I supported the Prime Minister in his action. Until the outcome is clear, we will not know which side of the argument will survive. What is certain is that we who live in a democracy must always be prepared to listen. I therefore present the following petition to the House.
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons.
  The Petition of Mrs. Susan Al-Shaar, Mrs. Joan Wills and Mr. Rob Cook.
  Declares that, whilst unreservedly condemning the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, supporting the cause of democracy in all countries of the Middle East and expressing solidarity with civilian Iraqi men, women and children who will be the main victims of any war, opposes any military attack on Iraq by the USA or Britain; believes no case for war has been made, such action is in defiance of international law, and hold that it is possible to resolve the present international crisis by exclusively peaceful means.
  The Petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House of Commons urge the Government to stop this war and to pursue peaceful means to bring about a satisfactory resolution.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Food Supplements and Herbal Remedies
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Tim Collins: Sometimes the purpose of a petition is to draw the House's attention to an issue for the first time; sometimes it is to remind the House that an issue remains live and that the strong feelings surrounding it have not diminished with the passage of time. It therefore gives me great pleasure to present a petition

  1039
  signed by some 295 of my constituents as part of the ongoing campaign on behalf of Consumers for Health Choice. It is part of a petition that has so far been signed by approximately 1 million people whose views remain strong, but unheard.
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons
  The Petition from Consumers for Health Choice and its supporters declares that:
  Consumers in the United Kingdom have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies and fear that the European Food Supplements Directive and the proposed European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Herbal Products will severely restrict the number and range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural herbal products.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Pharmacies
  8 pm
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: I wish to present a petition on behalf of 195 of my constituents who recognise the value of local pharmacies to the community and who oppose the recent report from the Office of Fair Trading.
  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, preserves local pharmacies and safeguards their continued services to local communities.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.
  8.1 pm
  Pete Wishart: It is my pleasure to present this petition on behalf of my constituents of Brechin and district in west Angus. This is another petition in support of local pharmacies that expresses grave concerns about what is recommended in the Office of Fair Trading report, which my constituents believe would especially threaten pharmacies in rural areas and in rural Scotland. It is worth noting that the Scottish Executive last week rejected the report and we hope that this House will respect the decision of the Scottish Parliament to go its own way on community pharmacies.
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons
  The Petition of the constituents of Brechin and district declares that they oppose the recommendation made in the OFT Report—The Control of Entry Regulations etc.
  1040
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons encourage the Government to rethink its decision regarding the recommendations of 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.
  8.2 pm
  Mr. David Lepper: I present a petition signed by 4,648 residents of the city of Brighton and Hove who are concerned about the implications for their community pharmacies of the Office of Fair Trading report.

  The petition stales:

  The Petition of the users of

  Field's Pharmacy

  Stallion's Pharmacy

  Preston Park Pharmacy

  Ross Chemists

  O'Flinn's Pharmacy

  Moss Pharmacy

  Pharma Supply

  And other concerned residents

  Declares that the proposals of the Office of Fair Trading to allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense N.H.S. prescriptions would result in a decline in the availability and quality of local health care currently provided from community pharmacies.
  The Petitioners request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reject these proposals by the Office of Fair Trading and promote the N.H.S. pharmacy plan to encourage and support local community pharmacies.
  To lie upon the Table.
  8.3 pm
  Chris Grayling: I think that the residents of Epsom and Ewell just about win the battle tonight. I have here more than 5,000 signatures, once again in support of community pharmacies. It is an indication of the strength of feeling in the country tonight that so many of the petitions before you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and before the House deal with this extremely important subject. They do so because so many residents in all our constituencies are both aware of the importance of their community pharmacies and determined to ensure that the service that they provide is preserved for those who need them today and those who will need them in future.
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons
  The Petition of Pharmacists and their customers in the Epsom and Ewell area
  Declares that the Office of Fair Trading Report on pharmacies would threaten the future of their local services and urges the Government to reject the proposals that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions, and to preserve local pharmacies and safeguard their continued services to local communities.
  And the Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons takes whatever action it can to block the proposals.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Higher Education (Plymouth)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger]
8.5 pm
Linda Gilroy: I am very pleased to have secured a debate on this important topic at a time when the consultation on the White Paper on the future of higher education is nearing its conclusion. The White Paper is set to affect many of my constituents—whether students, their parents or staff—and those of my neighbour, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson).
In launching the White Paper, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills paid great tribute to the success story of our universities. I join him in acknowledging that success, particularly that of Plymouth university. I welcome the publication of the White Paper and the boldness with which my right hon. Friend has set out an agenda to address what he calls the great missions, describing them as strengthening and improving our research and development, knowledge transfer and, perhaps most importantly, teaching.
Nowhere is that agenda of greater importance or better appreciated than in Plymouth. We need to provide university activity in a dynamic and increasingly competitive world—a world where we need to do much more to harness our knowledge to the process of creating wealth and to extend the opportunities of higher education to all, irrespective of their personal and economic backgrounds.
From a low and unfunded research base in 1989, Plymouth, which became a university in 1992, now has a research and consultancy turnover of more than £11 million. More than half of its research activity is rated at international and/or national standard across a wide spectrum of technology, science, social science and the arts. Seventeen subject areas have been assessed for teaching quality, yielding an average mark of almost 90 per cent.
Student numbers have grown from 6,000 to 27,000–16,000 of those are full-time, with nearly 500 PhD students. Staff numbers in the same period have grown by only 50 per cent. to 3,000, reflecting not only high productivity gains, but substantial pressures on staff. I welcome the recognition in the 'White Paper that achieving better conditions for staff—whose pay has increased in real terms by only 5 per cent., while average pay in the community has increased by some 45 percent.—has an important part to play in improving the quality of teaching to which the White Paper aspires.
That growth in activity has been accompanied by developing partnership work with 17 further education colleges, with 4,500 higher education students funded through the university in those colleges. Links with industry and commerce are now embedded in a variety of ways—for example, through 30 teaching company schemes, funded by the Department of Trade and Industry, as well as competitively funded initiatives, such as "reach out to business" and "community rural access training", run by RATIO—Rural Area Training and Information Opportunities—and the university's consultancy company. Together, that amounts to business worth well over £50 million since 1989.
1042
Together with Exeter university and local NHS trusts, the university successfully bid to establish the Peninsula medical school, which is one of the first new medical schools for 30 years. It admitted its first students in 2002 and is already making a substantial name for itself.
That substantial record of achievement marked the success of the 13-year tenure of Professor John Bull as vice-chancellor of the university, and Victor Parsons as chairman, both of whom relinquished their posts in 2002, thereby giving the university the opportunity to recruit a new vice-chancellor. They set out to look for someone who could help the university to make a further transformational leap forward and, through developing its research and technology, to become the dynamic engine house of the sub-regional economy in Devon and Cornwall. Cornwall has objective 1 status and Plymouth has objective 2 status. Large parts of Torbay and north Devon also have that status, reflecting poverty in the sub-region.
The university has been fortunate to find Professor Roland Levinsky, the first vice-chancellor of a new university to come from one of the elite Russell Group research universities. He has a long and successful track record in medical research and he was described to me by a colleague who knows more about these matters than I do as someone for whom almost any university would give its eye teeth.
When I went to meet Professor Levinsky during the week in which the White Paper was published, I expected to face some challenges about how student fee proposals might affect the development of our university. I shall return to that matter towards the end of my remarks. However, I was met—on reflection, I understand this—with much greater concern about the proposals to concentrate research funding in a few universities, and the impact that that will have on the aspirations of the University of Plymouth.
The fear is that funding research in elite universities at the 2001 research assessment exercise snapshot level will maintain the status quo for a long time to come and, on the worst-case scenario, perhaps for ever.
Writing to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, Professor Levinsky said:
"I think one should just reflect where the Universities of York, Warwick, Southampton, Bath and Lancaster were in research terms 10–15 years ago and look how they reached the top 20. Some of today's leaders may be overtaken by some of the new (ex-polytechnic) universities if they are nurtured and funded appropriately over the next generation and one or two may indeed become the UK's equivalent of Ann Arbor USA. I acknowledge that Universities need to have diverse missions but regions should also have strong research and teaching universities to promote economic vitality."
My region, especially the sub-region, needs that more than almost anywhere.
Paragraph 2.7 of the White Paper sets out the Government's position that there is apparently no direct relationship between research and teaching quality. It states:
"There is ample evidence of the highest quality teaching being achieved in circumstances which are not research intensive".
That may be true in certain areas—perhaps, for example, undergraduate mathematics—but in areas where the technology, methods and codes of practice are fast evolving, high-quality teaching will not be achieved

1043
where research to attainable national excellence levels does not exist. I would argue that these areas include disciplines such as engineering, medicine, health and allied studies, as well as environmental sciences, all of which happen to be key activities at the University of Plymouth. They are complementary to the economic development priorities that have been identified by the South West of England Development Agency.
I understand that the professional accreditation of such degrees includes explicit linkages between research, teaching and professional practice. Such departments are often teaching intensive, to further the Government's aims to widen participation and to provide the technologically literate work force that modern society demands. The proposals in the White Paper require careful consideration if, as some fear, they set in tablets of stone the significant reduction of the research resource resulting from RAE 4—the research assessment exercise for rated departments—bearing in mind the fact that there was a 43 per cent. reduction in allocations between 2001–02 and 2003–04. That is particularly relevant to institutions such as the Plymouth university, where the research trajectory is strongly upwards. I have described how, over the past 10 years, Plymouth has developed from a polytechnic in to one of the most successful modern universities.
The University of Plymouth is understandably concerned about the apparent vision in the White Paper that universities such as Plymouth should become teaching-only institutions with some regional involvement, perhaps, in the delivery of business skills and the transfer of technologies that have, however, been developed elsewhere. If the Government are serious about promoting a regional agenda that regards regional development agencies as the engine of national as well as regional growth, they must surely support research on a regional basis, particularly, as I have already mentioned, because we have objective 1 status in Cornwall—my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education is visiting the county today, and will see for herself what is being done—and objective 2 status in Plymouth and Devon. We have a significant gap to make up, and being at the cutting edge of research and development is one of the visions that our RDA must help us to achieve.
I want to mention two specific examples from Plymouth, which show the importance of considering carefully the consequences of the White Paper proposals. First, on environmental sciences, the most recent RAE exercise resulted in only four 5-rated departments in the whole country. If RAE grade 4 Departments in environmental science are not funded, the UK will throw away some of the best environment al science in the country—Plymouth, which has a grade 4, is the seventh-best department in the UK—leaving only two universities doing environmental science research, including one doing meteorology, which is a narrow focus.
Secondly, Plymouth has one of the eight new medical schools, which, because of the point at which they were formed during the RAE cycle, did not have research staff to put forward for assessment. Because of the way in which that cycle and the comprehensive spending review work, the fear is that it may be 2008 before ally revenue funding for research comes on stream for medical faculties. In most people's view, medical
1044
education needs to be conducted in a research-rich environment. In addition, the significant contribution that the Tamar science park is making to economic regeneration in our city, could, it is feared, slow down as a result of the emerging deficit in research funding. A vicious circle may result if it then becomes less easy to attract and retain the best clinical academic staff, with a consequent impact on the quality of teaching.
Finally, I want to deal with the perceived impact of student fees and finance. As the Minister knows, there is general concern that increasing levels of student debt will result in more people turning to locally provided higher education, particularly as students from debt-averse, low-income families will inevitably choose the lowest-cost option. If, alongside that, the fears that I have outlined of a teaching-only university are realised, students from the peninsula could have less access to high-quality higher education than they do at present or indeed than their counterparts elsewhere. I hope that my hon. Friend will offer some reassurance about those matters. Plymouth university has a wealth of experience in raising standards through good practice in the research-teaching nexus, and in achieving high-quality access, for which it has been praised by the Audit Commission.
This is an age when education, knowledge and skill are likely to become a powerful determinant of the ability of individuals and their communities to meet their full potential—as powerful a determinant as money. It is a period when regional policy is supposed to improve economic performance in each and every region, and thereby contribute to the overall economic performance of UK plc. If we are to
"create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us as a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many and not the few"—
my hon. Friend will recognise that quote from clause 4 of the Labour party constitution—it is important that we take the opportunity offered by the Government's White Paper to set a course for the higher education community in Plymouth, as well as in some of our longer-established university cities, which truly achieves those "great missions" that the Secretary of State clearly wants to see.
8.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important Adjournment debate, and take this opportunity to acknowledge her passionate advocacy on behalf of her constituents and the institutions in her constituency across a range of issues, but particularly in relation to education. I am delighted that she is conducting a survey in her area on the higher education White Paper to ascertain the views of students, constituents, academics and people working in the world of education, to get a considered and measured response to the various proposals in the White Paper.
I acknowledge the strength and achievements of the University of Plymouth. I refer particularly to its strong strategy for widening participation and excellent collaborative links with further education colleges

1045
throughout the region. I endorse my hon. Friend's plaudits for the former vice-chancellor and chair of the University of Plymouth and for Professor Levinsky.
Linda Gilroy: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the things for which Plymouth is well known in respect of widening participation is not only getting students into the university, but supporting them in such a way that they get good qualifications, which is much more difficult to achieve?
Mr. Lewis: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's assessment of the success of Plymouth in that regard. It is important to welcome and encourage applicants and entrants to university from a far more diverse range of backgrounds than has been the case historically, but that would be futile if too many of those young people, having gained access to university, dropped out. Plymouth's work in widening access and ensuring that that is meaningful and leads to high-level qualifications and ultimately skilled employment should be supported as good practice. Other institutions can learn from the work that Plymouth has done in that respect.
My hon. Friend raised a number of issues related to funding. It is important to place in context the level of investment in her area. The University of Plymouth will receive total resources of about £78 million in 2003–04. That excludes capital allocations and special funding initiatives. That sum represents a 7.3 per cent. increase on the funding provided last year and includes increases in funding for teaching, widening participation and research. The neighbouring University of Exeter will receive total recurrent resources of just under £46 million, which is a 6.5 per cent. increase on 2002–03.
As my hon. Friend has said, in order to meet the current and future needs of the national health service, the Government have engaged in a major expansion of the number of students studying to become doctors. New medical schools, including the Peninsula medical school, are making a significant contribution towards those targets. I very much welcome their work and congratulate them on what they have achieved so far. I am aware of the specific issue of research funding for the Peninsula medical school, given that it is in a very early stage in its development. The Higher Education Funding Council for England—HEFCE—and the Department of Health are currently considering the situation, and will make their views known in the near future.
Linda Gilroy: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that Plymouth has nearly 200 of the 1,000-plus extra doctors in training? We want them to have the research-rich environment that other doctors in training are able to experience.
Mr. Lewis: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's determination to push her case in this debate, and I would expect nothing else of her. HEFCE and the Department of Health will respond in due course, but the Peninsula school is making an important contribution towards our drive to achieve our health service objectives.
1046
It is important to put research funding and knowledge transfer into context. We want a system that encourages excellent teaching and knowledge transfer, as well as excellent research. We know that the funding system over the last few years has distorted priorities, leading too many institutions to feel that they have to pursue research even when that did not reflect their strengths. That often led to unsustainable research being undertaken, as institutions carried out too much research at too low a price, and with too little investment in infrastructure. In some cases, it also led to a relative neglect of teaching.
We want all missions to be valued. We want institutions to concentrate on their strengths, and to deliver on those in a sustainable way. There will never be enough resources to fund everyone to do the research that they want to do. We must therefore find the most effective way of targeting resources. Because of increasing international competition, we need to focus public funding on high quality work: research that is at thy cutting edge globally. We need to encourage and support further improvement in quality.
The White Paper sets out how we will go about that, using three mechanisms. First, we shall focus on the best by providing increased funding to the very best departments and giving extra capital funding to the best institutions. Secondly, we shall provide funding to promising, mid-ranking departments and to emerging research areas. Thirdly, we shall encourage and reward effective collaboration—for example, by linking up pockets of excellence in less research-intensive institutions.
After resources had been devoted to those priority areas, there was a reduction of about 2 per cent. of the total HEFCE research funding in the resources left to fund 4-rated departments. HEFCE therefore decided to remove the residual across-the-board funding from 3a-rated departments. I acknowledge that the University of Plymouth's research funding will be affected by those recent decisions. The university's three 5-rated departments will see an increase in funding. Funding will be cut for its seven 4-rated departments and removed from nine of the 3a-rated departments. However, Plymouth will qualify for HEFCE's new capability development funding, because it has a 3a-rated department in art and design, and a 3b-rated department in nursing—two of the seven "under strength" disciplines identified by HEFCE. A total of £18 million will be available in 2003–04. We intend fully to implement the White Paper proposals over the next two to three years, alongside continuing to increase the funding for research. In this context, HEFCE will be looking at how to implement these policies and, in particular, at how to differentiate and reward promising mid-rated research departments.
My hon. Friend has raised a number of issues relevant to Plymouth. Consequently, I would like to say to her that, if she could put together a delegation from her constituency and from the university, I am sure that the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education would be more than happy to meet it and to explore some of the implications for Plymouth of the White Paper proposals.
Linda Gilroy: I welcome my hon. Friend's offer, and I am sure we shall want to take advantage of it. Plymouth's track record—its experience of both raising the quality of teaching through research and widening access—suggests

1047
that it should be heard when it expresses its fears. I think it still feels that the cuts are a bit like taking the seedcorn away from a football team—removing the lower levels that show promise and, in this case, could make the university one of the best in terms of research. It fears ossification.
Mr. Lewis: As a Manchester City supporter, I like the football analogy, as I am sure any Leeds United supporters would at this time.
As the White Paper explains, we see scope for less research-intensive institutions to concentrate on acquired technology and to work mainly with local companies through consultancy rather than licensing new technology. As for whether a university could transfer technology if it had no research facilities, there are several points to be made. First, there is the question of what we mean by research. The Government are keen to ensure that our basic research is world-class, which requires an increased focus on the very best in the allocation of funds. That does not mean that institutions with little or no HEFCE research funding will do no research; there is still scope for more applied research work supported by business funding, for example. There is also scope for less research-intensive institutions to acquire from elsewhere knowledge that they can then share more widely.
I have acknowledged Plymouth's particularly impressive track record in widening participation. As my hon. Friend has said, this is not just about improving access; it is about ensuring that access leads to hard-edged qualifications that have currency in the labour market. Recognition of the extra costs of supporting students recruited from non-traditional backgrounds—young people who in the past would have been denied a chance to go to university—is reflected in the provision
1048
of £265 million for 2003–04 for the specific purpose of widening participation. Central to that recognition is the range of support services that we give all students to ensure not just that they stay in education after the age of 16 and go on to further and higher education, but that they do not drop out later, with all the social and economic consequences that that would entail.
The spending plans in the recent White Paper will reverse decades of underfunding. Between 1989 and 1997, funding per student fell by some 36 per cent. as universities managed to expand by recruiting students at marginal cost. In stark contrast, our planned investment in higher education will mean that by 2005–06 public spending on higher education in England will have reached nearly £10 billion, an average increase of more than 6 per cent. above inflation in each of the next three years; spending per student will have risen by 7 per cent. over and above inflation compared to the comparable figure in 2002–03; and universities will have received a 34 per cent. funding increase over and above inflation compared with the 1997–98 total. Those exceptional increases will cover the short-term needs of the sector, and will help our universities to build on their enviable reputation for international excellence.
I hope my hon. Friend feels that I have addressed the concerns she expressed so eloquently. I have every confidence that Plymouth university will respond positively to our vision of a country in which world-class universities are at the centre not just of our education system but of the social and economic regeneration of our regions and the country as a whole.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Nine o'clock.

Preamble
[MRS. IRENE ADAMS in the Chair]

Listed Sporting Events
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
9.30 am
Alan Keen: I am looking forward to the debate, and I am pleased that the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting will be responding. For a few hon. Members here, football is pretty high on the agenda, and they may just slip in the odd word about football. However, the subject of the debate is the broadcasting of listed sporting events, and that is what I intend to begin with.
It is fitting that the Minister responsible for broadcasting is here, because the results over the past couple of months show that football is moving ahead of rugby in Wales. I understand from the Welsh Rugby Union that rugby is developing well and building for the future, but it would be a shame this morning not to congratulate Mark Hughes and the Welsh football team, who have done magnificently—and what a great time it is for Ryan Giggs to have the opportunity to apply his skills in a major international tournament.
It crossed my mind this morning to invite the Minister to watch our parliamentary football team, but I remembered his comments on the shortlist for the Turner prize and I thought it best not to let his literary talents free on our football.
The principle of listed events is established, and it is vital that everyone should have the opportunity to watch the main international sporting events. We may occasionally debate what events should be included in that list, but I am confident that the principle will always be adhered to, whatever changes occur in the delivery package or in television broadcasting technology. I leave it to others to go into detail about the attempt, in the Communications Bill, to strengthen the listed events.
I shall not forget the first game that I saw on television. I remember gathering with my family, friends and other teenagers around the only TV set within 3 miles of my home to watch the Stanley Matthews cup final. I am still playing football more than 44 years later, and not only because of that inspirational match, although it illustrates the effect that major events can have on young people.
It is vital that we retain the principle that the main events should be available for all to see. I do not have time this morning to go into the whole argument, but we must never forget the fantastic individual satisfaction and personal enjoyment that sport can bring. Even if we did ignore that, however, we should never forget the resulting benefit to the economy of the reduction in health care and criminal justice costs. Let us all hope that it will be no more than a handful of years before the only conflicts on the globe are those to be seen in its arenas and stadiums.
256WH
Those events need to be available to all—for the inspiration of young people, and to give the more mature of us, such as the Minister and possibly one or two other hon. Members, the chance to watch major events from our old people's rest homes should we be unable to afford to travel to the games. I am sure that someone will respond to that comment. In talking about the need to involve older people and veterans in sport, we must remember that that segment of the population tends to have surplus money. I am sure that if we looked into the matter in the near future, we would find that some of that money could be channelled into sport to help those who are much less well off. Nevertheless, the televising of world sporting events has a most valuable and ongoing benefit.
I move on to football, just by coincidence. As chairman of the all-party football group, I have several supporters here today, among whom are a number of experts on listed events. I want to illustrate the effect that football can have on individuals, and I apologise to those who heard me tell this story yesterday at the Football Supporters Federation lobby. Yesterday was April Fool's day. I have a close, but sometimes fiery, relationship with my own Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), and the first thing that she said to me yesterday morning, clearly trying to be pretty vindictive, was that she had just heard on the news that Juninho had had another serious injury. I did not believe her, but I put on the teletext to make sure that it was not true.
My hon. Friend has every reason to be nasty to me occasionally, and to the little fellow too. A few years ago in Dublin, on a new year weekend, she broke a leg. When we got home to Brentford, I was speaking on the phone to her mother, who was extremely worried about her daughter. She asked, "Is it bad?" I said, "It could have been a lot worse." She replied, "Oh, my God, why's that?" I said, "It could have been Juninho's leg." Football is important and has a big effect on many people.
I want to outline some of the points that the FSF made at yesterday's lobby. As a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee I have many opportunities to ask questions of, and make points to, the top executives in our television companies. I am full of praise for the way in which Sky, the BBC and other companies present football, but I keep reminding some of those executives that it is not their money that does so; it is our money—supporters' money—which comes through gate receipts, season tickets, the sale of merchandise and replica shirts, and subscriptions to the television companies. We must remember that.
I want to make some of the points that the FSF wants the Government and industry to understand and act on. The supporters understand the difficulties, and they know that these matters are not straightforward. I know that there is a battle between the financiers outside football in the public limited companies and some of the enthusiastic financiers inside football, many of whom would not have become financiers had they run their own companies in the same way as they have run the football clubs that they have taken over. The FSF and I know that serious negotiations are taking place in Europe, and we understand the competition issue, which I hope the Government are addressing extremely seriously. Football as we know it could come to an end in a short time if that matter is not tackled properly.

257WH
We also understand the difficulties that the premier league, the football league and the Football Association administrators face; they are not in control. Football is not a top-down organisation controlled by people who can impose rules on the clubs. We know which major clubs would be guilty of being enticed into Europe, as they nearly were a few years ago, to form a European league with no promotion or relegation, but that would be of short-term benefit to only a few clubs. We all know that what keeps football going is the dream factor—the pyramid. We all dream that our club can climb from the lower divisions, or even from outside the league, and reach the top. I shall not go into the Wimbledon issue, as we have already debated that in this Chamber, but I have only to mention the name for hon. Members to know what I mean.
I shall finish by listing what the FSF wants. It wants a better, fairer distribution of the revenue to retain the dream factor. To help to achieve that, it wants one free evening a week for the football league and smaller sides to play their games, without the competition of major games on television. Finally, it wants consideration to be given, during negotiations for televising the premier league, to the needs of travelling supporters. It has been three months at least since some clubs last played at 3 o'clock on a Saturday. As many MPs who have to come down early after the weekend know, travelling on Sundays is absolutely dreadful, and extra cost can be involved for supporters who have to stay overnight to watch their team play.
We must never forget that football supporters' money pays for football—for the wonderful foreign players who play here and the standards that have now been achieved. The premier league is the outstanding league in the world, and supporters' money, and no one else's, pays for that. More importantly, however, the supporters provide the atmosphere at the games. We all know that no sponsor will give people free tickets and entertain them, or put money into the game, if the grounds are empty and there is no atmosphere. We owe that to the football supporters, and we need to take notice of it.
9.40 am
Mr. Derek Wyatt: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen) on tabling a debate on listed sporting events, a matter that interests me enormously. Although it may be a little premature to mention my hon. Friend the Minister's winding-up speech, I should be interested to know whether Ofcom is complete in the sense of including all the regulations about listed events, and perhaps he can address that when he winds up. I was discussing Ofcom yesterday and discovered that some aspects of internet broadcasting are not included in it.
Mr. John Greenway: That is in the Communications Bill.
Mr. Wyatt: It is in the Bill.
The European Commission has embarked on a review of the television without frontiers directive. How are we going to react to that? Does it come within my
258WH
hon. Friend the Minister's or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's duties, or is there a role for MPs to play in going to Europe, meeting the Commission and making a presentation to it? How would that role start?
Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman has made an extremely good suggestion. I should be very happy to go with him to visit the Commission.
Mr. Wyatt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. It is always good to find cross-party support when we have debates on sport. It is a genuinely cross-party subject.
Looking at the A list of events, I want to discuss the Olympic games, the football World cup, European football and the rugby World cup. I am still at a loss to understand how a United Kingdom Government can list events that they do not own and over which they have no jurisdiction or control. The headquarters that run those events are not in the UK. I am sure that at some stage there will be a challenge. In response to my comments, someone may say that those events are held under the European broadcast rules, but that is a cartel, as we know, and under investigation. Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell us what legal advice he has had that permits him to list events that are not owned or controlled by UK broadcasters or UK sports rights holders?
Rugby league currently has only one offer on the table, which is from the BBC. Is it fair for the future finances of rugby league always to depend on a single broadcaster? Because the event is listed, rugby league is between a rock and a hard place. If the rugby league people decided, in their wisdom, that they wished to go for the highest bidder, what leeway would Ofcom be able to give them? The situation seems terribly unfair.
We shall no doubt hear later that things are difficult for some soccer clubs because of the way in which rights are divvied up, but what happens when people own the sporting rights and do not want an event to be listed? We ought to have a vehicle for the sporting organisations to review the list regularly, so that a via media can be found. Perhaps that should be every two or three years. There should be some way of reviewing the list.
I have investigated how often the list has been reviewed. It has happened only four times in almost 50 years; the first listing was in 1954. We need some way of getting a more regular update into the codicil, because the pace of television and what we see is so fast that legislation cannot keep up with it.
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. I sense, however, that he is talking theoretically and not as a consequence of having spoken to the various parties involved. I am not aware that we have received a single request from any sporting organisation for a review of listed events—certainly not since June 2001.
Mr. Wyatt: The Minister is probably right. He would know better than me. I sense that we are having a rock-and-a-hard-place discussion on rugby league. I shall move on to category B—the non-universal channels. The original purpose of the listed events legislation—that a listed event should be broadcast on a channel with universal coverage—is being flouted by some public

259WH
service broadcasters with multi-channel interests. The loophole allows the broadcaster of a category A service, such as BBC 1, BBC 2, ITV or Channel 4, to acquire rights to listed events ostensibly for its category A service, and broadcast them on a category B service, such as BBCi or ITV2.
Last year, ITV broadcast some World cup matches exclusively live on ITV2, which does not have universal coverage, and the BBC has done the same with its interactive service BBCi. That occurred despite the fact that other category B broadcasters were not given a reasonable opportunity to bid for the rights to those matches, which were subsequently not broadcast either by BBC or ITV on a category A service. It would be helpful if the Government clarified why that continues to be allowed to happen, and how the Communications Bill will protect against that.
In relation to the number of events on the list, the Independent Television Commission gave approval for BSkyB to broadcast the cricket World cup—a B list event—exclusively live, even though no category A universal free-to-air terrestrial broadcaster had acquired any secondary rights. The ITC was satisfied that those services had a reasonable opportunity, but it is a listed event.
I would like to query the number of events on the list. It is one of the longest in the European Union. Why does it protect events of so-called national interest when some of the public service broadcasters are not even interested in showing the highlights or choose to cherry-pick what they want at a later stage, impacting on the planning of sports bodies and, more important, their revenue streams?
I conclude with two points. First, on cricket, I hope that many politicians will come out against the Zimbabwean cricket tour to England this summer. It was clear from all the polls that no one wanted England to play Zimbabwe in the cricket World cup that has just ended. I find it appalling that the England and Wales Cricket Board should invite Zimbabwe so quickly. It would have been much better if it had invited Kenya, and I hope that hon. Members will make their opinions known about the tour.
Lastly, on athletics, in the past year we have seen the Commonwealth games on the BBC, which was spectacularly covered, and the World indoor championships in Birmingham, which was also wonderfully covered by the BBC. I am concerned about the future of UK athletics on the BBC. I wondered whether the Minister has been in touch with UK: Athletics regarding the progress of coverage of UK athletics.
9.45 am
Joan Walley: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen) on securing this timely debate. I am aware that it is a debate about broadcasting of listed sporting events, and I am equally aware that, of all sports, there is a particular concern about football at the moment. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for emphasising football more than other sports.
Throughout my time in Parliament I have tried hard to follow this whole debate. The debate has taken place in the UK Parliament, in sporting authorities and in
260WH
Europe, and trying to unravel and fathom the ways of ensuring that we end up with access to the major national sporting events in our country has been a complex process.
I welcome the fact that the Minister with responsibility for broadcasting is present. I hope that his grasp of the whole agenda will enable him to work in his Department and across other Departments to ensure that, through a co-ordinated policy, we are able to deal with broadcasting rights and sporting events, to recognise the part that sport plays in our national fabric and all the economic, recreational and educational issues that stem from that. This debate is not just about broadcasting; it is about the need to adopt a joined-up approach to the effect that broadcasting rights have on all our lives and on everyday life in our constituencies continuing as normal. I hope that the Minister will be able to emphasise that there is a joined-up approach to sport across all Departments.
At this time, given the situation in Iraq, many of us find it difficult to concentrate on everyday issues. However, once a war ends and some semblance of reality and normality returns, sport is often a means of rebuilding things. I am very much aware of the context in which the debate is taking place.
I am also aware that there is a sense of urgency about the debate. In the European context, our rules work in the best interests of UK viewers and enable us to tune into the World cup or other sporting events on free television. It is vital that the forthcoming review of the TV without frontiers directive takes account of the views that hon. Members express this morning. I would welcome from the Minister a timetable or road map relating to how he will deal with the directive, how, for example, the European Scrutiny Committee will deal with the matter in the House, and how we, as parliamentarians, can influence that debate.
I want to concentrate on how the broadcasting of listed sporting events affects football. I make no apology for highlighting that matter. Many of us are concerned about the European Commission's statements of objection to the FA premier league television contracts. I am glad about the presence of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who is the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman on this matter and has a great interest in football, like everybody present. I am grateful to see him nodding his head. The 90 days relating to the European Commission's objection are ticking away, and it is vital that the Government, through their defence of broadcasting rights, ensure that we safeguard the arrangements in this country. I want the Minister to be aware that, in the defence of broadcasting rights and his response to the directive, he should set out how we can safeguard football across the board. That is important.
The FA premier league, which holds the joint broadcasting rights on behalf of its member clubs, needs to persuade the Commission of the significant benefits of the current joint arrangements. Those joint arrangements are what is at stake; the Commission has indicated that it may prevent the premier league from selling its broadcasting rights on that basis. If that were to happen, it would cause considerable and irretrievable harm not only to the top level of football in the United Kingdom, but to the wider game, and ultimately to fans and viewers everywhere.

261WH
I have a sense of déjá vu. My good friend Joe Ashton is a former Member of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston is his successor as chair of the all-party group on football. Joe Ashton and I were involved the last time the joint issuing of broadcasting rights was in jeopardy. In 1999, we represented the all-party group on football at the restrictive practices court. Many football fans from across the country were also present. Along with many other witnesses, we gave evidence. We joined other representatives of stakeholders in the English game in making the case that the joint arrangements were in the public interest. The court finally decided that joint broadcasting rights should be exempt from the Competition Acts.
The clock is now ticking, and it will be full time before we know where we are. Our problem is that the Commission argues that the UK court and EC competition law applied different legal tests, but that misses the point. In dealing with this whole agenda, my hon. Friend the Minister must consider what the impact on soccer as we know it will be if we are unsuccessful.
The Minister is a great lover of rugby, so perhaps I should remind him, for the benefit of football, how much money the football league receives from the joint broadcasting arrangements. There is £5 million for youth development and £36 million for the parachuting arrangements, which apply when clubs are relegated from one division to another. My good friend Gordon Taylor of the Professional Footballers Association does wonderful work with many clubs that are in administration. The association receives £38.7 million of premier league funding, which goes towards providing education, medical insurance and welfare payments for players in lower divisions.
Most importantly, however, income from the joint broadcasting arrangements makes a significant contribution to the Football Foundation—formerly the Football Trust—which admirably chaired by Lord Pendry. I am acutely aware of the fact that if we lose this battle, there will be a huge shortfall in the funding available to the foundation to support grassroots football. Foundation funds have been used to provide pitches in all our constituencies and to bring our stadiums up to acceptable standards following the Taylor report. The let's kick racism out of football campaign is also financed by money from collective broadcasting rights.
Where will the money come from if we lose this battle? Will it come from the Government? Will they take a joined-up approach? Supporters Direct is currently facing problems because it is desperately waiting for the money that the Government promised from the New Opportunities Fund. Will the Government make up the shortfall in the Football Foundation's funding? Such questions are part and parcel of the wider issue of listed sports events and arise from the European Commission's insistence on treating football like any other business, rather than as part of the everyday fabric of life in our constituencies.
For those reasons, it is important to speak up today. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston has done us a great service by securing this debate. I
262WH
understand that these are issues for the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and that this is about broadcasting, but it is also about sport. Football in this country is facing a crisis. How many clubs are currently in administration? As we speak, the club in my constituency, Port Vale, is on a knife edge in terms of its membership and whether a Supporters Direct consortium, the preferred bidder, can obtain the necessary funding.
Dr.Howells: I have listened with great interest to my hon. Friend, but I want to ask her a brutal question about the administration of football clubs. It is something that I know little about, but if clubs are in the hands of incompetents who have overstretched themselves, and who have been afraid to take on issues such as wage capping, why should the Government be blackmailed into bailing out a private enterprise that cannot run itself?
Ms Walley: A brutal question deserves a brutal reply. I know that my hon. Friend's great interest is in Welsh rubgy, but the problem is the way in which big business has taken over football in this country, as has been spelled out so many times in debates in the House—I am only sorry that my hon. Friend was not present at those debates to hear the reasons why football is in such a state. There is concern that football has been damaged by big business, by the shareholders and by the winner-takes-all approach, which lacks the understanding that the football league, with its 92 clubs— one for all, and all for one—spreads across the country.
At one time, before the broadcasters and big business moved in, revenues would have been shared and the distribution of the receipts from football would have been fair. We accept that football must move into the modern world, but through the work that has been done at grassroots level, there is a different way forward. The work of this Government is putting us on the path towards ensuring that there is a future for football. Look at the number of debts that football clubs such as Huddersfield have. It is critical that we sort out a way forward, and that is part and parcel of unravelling the whole issue of broadcasting rights.
Mr. Greenway: Never mind Huddersfield Town, or even my own club, York City, Leeds United, a premier league club, is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy and the situation is extremely serious, although the Minister makes a valid argument that some clubs could be better managed.
Ms Walley: I agree that many clubs could be better managed. The important point is that many clubs that are fighting for survival and whose supporters want to ensure that they are run properly are using organisations such as Supporters Direct. It is vital that we are able to revive football in a proper fashion, which is why this whole debate about broadcasting rights is so important. If we end up with a situation in which an individual club such as Manchester United—no disrespect to Manchester United, which is obviously a successful club, if not the most successful club in the country—can get whatever price it wants on broadcasting rights, where does that leave the rest of the premier league and the football league?

263WH
We must protect our joint collective agreements for broadcasting, and we are relying on the Minister to do that in Europe. Then we can take a joint approach to football, ensure that all our clubs are managed properly and are properly accountable, and that they are not running up the sort of debts that the hon. Member for Ryedale mentioned.
I know that other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, so I shall conclude by asking the Minister to provide some framework for preserving our 92 clubs not just for the sake of it, but because of the important role that they play in each constituency. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston for allowing us to have this debate this morning.
Mrs. Irene Adams (in the Chair): Hon. Members may wish to know that I intend to allow the winding-up speeches to commence at 10.30 am. I should, therefore, be grateful if hon. Members kept their eye on the clock, so that we can accommodate everyone.
10.4 am
Mr. John Grogan: It gives me great pleasure to make a short contribution to the debate, and I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen) on securing it. There is no more passionate and convincing advocate of the value of sport in ordinary people's lives than him, and he has played a key role as chairman of the all-party group on football.
I should like to stress the importance of the renewal of the television without frontiers directive in 2003, and to sign up for what sounds like an important and convivial trip to Brussels with the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), although my emphasis in that meeting might be slightly different from his. He implied that our list may be too big, but in Australia, for example, about 50 events are listed, such as the FA cup final and all the Australian national football games. I suppose that that shows how important it is to the Australian psyche to inspire new generations to come forward and beat the English. By international comparisons our list does not do too badly.
It is worth reflecting on why the television without frontiers directive is important, which relates to another point that my hon. Friend mentioned. As I understand it, the directive ensures that each member of the EU recognises the lists in the other countries. In the TV Denmark case, which went to the House of Lords, a TV company based in Britain tried to undermine the listed events in Denmark. The House of Lords found in favour of the Independent Television Commission and recognised the legality of the Danish list. It is therefore important that the Government are arguing for the renewal of the directive's provisions for listed events.
It is worth asking what would happen if there was no directive and if we did not have listed events. One has only to look back to the last football World cup, or forward to the next one, to see what happens in European countries that do not have listed events. In Spain during the last World cup, only a very few games were shown on terrestrial television; the rest were available on satellite or via digital. Germany may have
264WH
beaten Britain for the rights to stage the 2006 World cup, but at least we shall be able to watch all the games on terrestrial television. In Germany people might not be able to do that, because the deals have not yet been done and the listed events provision is not as strong as it is here. The World cup is the best example of that point. In a sense, everyone was in the stadium during the last World cup, because they could see the games. Even the smallest bar did not have to take out a subscription if it wanted to put up a television and make everyone feel part of the event, which inspired a new generation.
Incidentally, I think that the rugby league challenge cup final is among the listed events largely because the rugby league argued strongly at the last review that it should be. The league saw the inclusion as a matter of prestige, and it felt that the list should not feature rugby union events only. The rugby league is anxious that the cup final, which is the crown jewel of its portfolio of events, continues to be on terrestrial television.
At some point the list will probably be reviewed. The Minister is right to say that there has not been a cacophony of demands that it be reviewed, but eventually it will be. I think that the list was reviewed in 1991 and 1998, and if the next one is seven years on from the last, it will still be in this Parliament. I should like to make two suggestions for changes in the list in the event of a review.
Tonight England play Turkey. The game is available on terrestrial television and it will get a massive audience. An equivalent game in the run-up to the last World cup was England against Germany, when we had a great 5-1 victory, which I think attracted 11 million viewers on terrestrial television. Our national games in qualifying for the European and World cup championships are not listed, as they are in Italy. For example, the Turkey game, which could be the decisive match in the qualifications for the European championships, is not listed and will be available only to those with access to subscription television. There is a case for listing the competitive games involving our national football teams, although I would not list the friendlies, such as England against Australia—that would be far too painful.
There is a case for changing the Ryder cup, which is arguably the third biggest sporting occasion, from category B to category A.
Mr. Greenway: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present in the Public Gallery of the Standing Committee on the Communications Bill when we discussed these matters. I asked the Minister at least to consider adding the third day of the Ryder cup to list A. One cannot enjoy the excitement while listening to the radio—one cannot hear whether a golf ball is going to go down a hole. Undoubtedly, the nation missed a great treat last year when the European team won.
Mr. Grogan: I am very grateful for that interesting suggestion; I have not heard it before. The highlights of the Ryder cup on the BBC attracted up to 3.5 million viewers—more than double the highest audience for live coverage on Sky Sport—so there is a case for making a move in that direction.
Finally, it is not just the Government who have responsibility for listed events; it is the broadcasters as well. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for

265WH
Sittingbourne and Sheppey that it was a great shame that no highlights of the cricket World cup were shown on any terrestrial channel. The England v. Australia game, which was of most interest to many people in this country, was seen by only 600,000 viewers. Cricket missed a trick for inspiring future generations, considering that half the population of India were watching some of the games in the cricket World cup. Very few people watched them in Britain, limiting the impact of the tournament.
I believe that Channel 4 made a half-hearted bid for the rights to show the highlights. However, I do not know why it did not tell the ITC that it would have paid a fair and reasonable price, and ask the ITC to adjudicate. The English Cricket Board could also have done more to lobby for some of the highlights to be shown on terrestrial television. It signed a voluntary agreement in 1996, under the auspices of the Central Council for Physical Recreation, which said that for important sporting events the board would try to use its influence to have at least the highlights shown on terrestrial television.
Many sporting bodies—rights holders—see the advantages of having wide access to their events. Wimbledon, for example, has recently changed its policy. It is one of the listed events in this country, and it is now making an effort to ensure that at least some of the tournament is seen on terrestrial television throughout Europe. The organisers realise that its impact on the world will be so much bigger if large numbers of people can see it. The US Masters golf tournament has a similar philosophy. This matter is not of grave importance compared with the many other debates in Parliament, but it is important for the quality of life of many people.
10.13 am
Mr. Adrian Bailey: I join others in congratulating my honourable Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen) on securing this debate and on choosing this subject. When he started by talking about Welsh rugby, I realised that he was relying on the ruthless logic of his arguments rather than trying to charm the Minister. My perspective is that of a lay person, a passionate lover of sport, particularly of football. When I saw the subject of this debate, my first reaction was that the issue was arcane and technical. However, on further consideration, I realised that it was not, because literally millions of people share my perspective on sport.
I feel quite emotional when I want to watch a big sporting event. However, if I have not done the research beforehand so as to find out what channel I should watch and what I should do to access the sporting event, I find, at the last minute, that I cannot see it. If the listed events were to be changed or removed, that experience would happen on a grand scale, and a huge number of people would he affected. It is an important issue.
In examining the relationship between the media and sport, I can see that there is an obvious and genuine argument in favour of sports benefiting from the income generated from their media presentation. However,
266WH
there is also an argument about accessibility for the public and about the public's right to watch the events. There must be a balance. The present system of listed events provides such a balance. However, as far as football is concerned, I do not think that that balance is right in the negotiations between the FA premier league and the media companies. That leads, in part, to enormous dissatisfaction and disaffection among everyday football fans.
I am concerned that, if we do not highlight in advance the issue of the television without frontiers directive review, profound changes could take place without anybody realising their implications for the public's reaction or the consequences of the chain reaction that would occur throughout all the sports. If listed events were to be removed—I recognise that there have been challenges to the legal position of listing events—the alternative would be a free-for-all in a deregulated market. That would not be confined to national listed events; there would be a domino effect. Major soccer clubs would then have the right to negotiate individual deals with media companies, with all the implications for national coverage and accessibility.
Such a change would have further implications. The rich clubs would get richer, and we would not have the distribution about which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) talked. That is vital to our grassroots football and to sport in general. In fact, the knock-on effects have not been fully considered or debated, perhaps until this moment.
This debate is important because it highlights some of the issues. There are huge accessibility issues regarding listed events, which we have not fully considered. If listed events were removed, they would go largely to pay-per-view, and the people most disadvantaged would be those who are housebound—disabled people or the elderly—or those on lower incomes who could not afford to pay. That has social implications that must be highlighted.
The tension between commercial and social priorities will continue for a long time. I believe that the current corporate structure of football clubs, in particular, and possibly of other clubs, is not appropriate and does not reflect the right balance between community interests and the commercial basis on which the clubs are run. We must consider another corporate structure that would make it easier legally to defend the exemptions from the current deregulatory framework.
Ms Walley:Does my hon. Friend agree that one way forward might be for clubs in the lower divisions to become social enterprise companies?
Mr. Bailey: Absolutely. New models of community benefit companies, with asset locks and so on to deter those who might want to privatise them, are being considered. That is the way forward, but much more work needs to be done on that. As that is not the main subject of the debate, I shall not go on about it. However, if we are to have a totally deregulated market, the consequences for sport and public access to it will be devastating. One way in which we can reinforce the legal case for exemption from deregulation is to give sport clubs a different corporate status from conventional companies. That is an avenue that we should explore.

267WH
To conclude, we need to debate such issues and publicise them. We must make sure that those who consider these issues in Europe and in our courts recognise that sport is not just a commercial enterprise; it is about community, health, a way of living and enriching people's lives across the country. Access to sport cannot be determined purely by commercial and deregulatory processes.
10.21 am
Mr. Clive Betts: The very fact that we are talking about listed sporting events is a sign that the Government recognise that sport is different—it is not simply a business and commercial activity like any other. Both the nation, through our national teams, and communities, through their clubs and local teams, have an interest in sport. That marks it out as needing to be handled and treated differently in many regards, although I accept the Minister's point that perhaps greater commercial and business common sense could be applied to how some football clubs are run. No one doubts that. I emphasise again, however, the fact that sport is different and that we should treat it as such in many ways. That is why we have the list of sporting events.
One complaint is that, by listing events and preventing the market from operating completely freely, sport loses out financially. I will confine my remarks mostly to football, which is my prime interest. One could almost argue that if we listed all the premiership and football league games and less money came in from television as a result, but the money was more fairly spread, that might be an awful lot better for the game. That remark is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but television's influence on our national game has led to many regrettable situations. I shall outline one or two of them.
The money that football has received in recent years from the admittedly excellent coverage of companies such as Sky, which have improved television coverage no end, should have greatly enhanced our national game. However, we should, collectively, scratch our heads, and one or two football chairmen should scratch theirs even harder and consider what they have allowed to happen to our game as a result of the money that has come in. Several clubs, some of which, hon. Members have named, were nearly destroyed in that process.
We could argue about which came first, the chicken or the egg—whether the creation of the premiership or the influx of money from Sky created the process that caused so many problems—but the two came about together. The premiership was created because of the potential to get money out of Sky under a separate deal, and the Sky money became available because of the creation of the premiership. In some ways, that dual process has destroyed the concept of the national game as one that takes place at club level. That fissure has created so many problems.
If the money had resulted in enormous benefits across the game, and had gone right down to the bottom, people would have said, "Okay, the money has gone from the top, but there has been a trickle-down effect and we support that." Many of us would argue that much of that money has been wasted on enormous salaries, not for the very best players, whom we can admire, but for a lot of second-rate imported players.
268WH
People wonder why they are being paid such salaries. That money simply goes straight out of the game. That, and the Bosman ruling, stops the money going to clubs lower down the leagues, which has stopped the development of home-grown players. They do not come up through the leagues, and those at the top do not pay money to smaller clubs to buy them. There has been that debilitating effect as well.
In arguing the case for football as a whole, we should consider the fact that half the people who go to watch football in this country attend games outside the premiership. They watch their local community clubs, which is why this issue is so important.
Problems have been created, and there are splits and fissures at a number of levels. At one level, only Manchester United and Arsenal can win the premiership, although Liverpool might come back at some stage. Clubs such as Leeds and Chelsea have tried to buy their way up, but they are in the hole between the also-rans and the elite, and struggling because of their debts. At the next level, there is an enormous gap between the teams in the Nationwide league and those in the premiership, and the struggle to get one leg up into the premiership and to stay there has created a black hole into which clubs such as Leicester, Sheffield Wednesday, Coventry, Nottingham Forest, Derby and Bradford have fallen.
In the lower leagues, money is being sucked out of the clubs because of the failure to buy their players and the failure to bring on and develop players within the game as a whole. That has caused problems to clubs such as Port Vale, York and others that have been mentioned. All those problems should have been addressed, as there is so much money in football, but they have got worse and more difficult to solve over the past few years.
What should we do? That is the test for us. We can all complain and express our disappointments and concerns about such things as the nature of the game and where it has gone; the influence of television money and the fact that it goes to a handful of clubs, so it is less spread around; the fact that there is less recognition of the game as a whole as the national game; and the fact that that not everybody wants to watch Manchester United and Arsenal. If we end up with a game in which only those two sides can win the premiership—perhaps along with one or two others that come in from time to time—and that is the only real competition left, football will suffer and so will Manchester United and Arsenal.
I will briefly raise three issues. The first has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley): the further proposals from the European Commission to treat football as a business that is subject to the usual rules of competition, although forcing individual clubs to negotiate their own television rights will take us backwards rather than forwards. We must at least establish the right of clubs to negotiate television deals collectively. That is very important. If we move in the direction that some in the Commission are suggesting, football will almost be finished as a competitive sport: only the very few elite clubs in this country will have real opportunities to win trophies, and clubs at the bottom of the game will die. We must resist those proposals, as they will make things worse rather than better.

269WH
Secondly, we must strongly argue for a better spread of television money within the game—the football supporters are doing that. There must be recognition of the fact that the game at the top relies on the game at the bottom, and it is important to remember that the game cannot have a head if its roots are not surviving and flourishing. I give my support to that better spread, and I am sure that other hon. Members do as well. We should argue that case positively for the health of the game as a whole: television money should be more equally spread among league clubs and not concentrated so much on the premiership.
Finally, why is no body in the national game putting forward those views? That should be the job of the Football Association, and we have to wonder whether it has any real sense of direction. It has had its problems recently, which have been articulated well. The premiership grew out of the FA, but now it is funding the FA. In that situation, I begin to wonder whether the FA can take the premiership on and face up to the consequences of proposals such as that on spreading the television money more fairly.
I say this to Ministers: let us at least again raise the possibility of looking at a statutory regulator for football. It is our national game; many people love and enjoy it, and the Government have a responsibility to it. They resisted having a statutory regulator when they last looked at the matter and created the Independent Football Commission. Given the lack of direction and control from the FA, the time has come to put a statutory regulator back on the agenda for further debate.
10.29 am
Nick Harvey: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen) on securing the debate, which gives us the opportunity to discuss issues that are of great importance to many of our constituents. I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) that there are many more crucial subjects on Parliament's agenda, but we should not lose sight of things that are of such profound importance to the daily lives of our constituents.
Although we are notionally discussing the list of sporting events, the debate has tended to move on to the state of football. One has to say at the outset that we must recognise the limited scope for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and for Parliament to influence many of the negotiations that we have been discussing and bemoaning. It is perfectly right that Parliament and Members of Parliament who have an interest in these matters should give an opinion, and when we meet people from the sports world we should try to convey that opinion to them, but the state is not party to many such negotiations, as they take place between the sporting world and the broadcasters. The sporting world has not always done itself many favours in them.
Take, for example, the television deal between the Nationwide league and ITV Digital. The football clubs felt a great deal of righteous indignation over the fact that a contract that they had signed would not be
270WH
honoured. Frankly, they were utterly stupid in their response to the warning signals that ITV Digital sent out. ITV Digital told them that it would go bust if they did not agree to a reduced fee. They did not believe that. ITV Digital went into receivership, and the receivers made the football clubs another proposal, saying that it was their last chance. They were too stupid to take it, and they ended up signing a deal with Sky worth less than the one offered to them by the ITV Digital receivers.
I have a great deal of sympathy over the state that football is in, but in many ways football clubs have been the architects of their own misfortune. There is, I am afraid, an element of greed in the game that has done it little good. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) reminded us of the predicament of Leeds United. I am afraid that my heart does not bleed for Leeds United—let us be perfectly honest, nobody's heart bleeds for Leeds United. It got itself into this mess by going on a completely insane buying spree under the previous manager but one. That extraordinary buying spree is about equivalent to its debt. In pursuit of glory, which is what, I suppose, motivates everyone in the game, the club did things that got it into a mess.
Mr. Wyatt: Leeds United is a publicly listed company, so it has specific roles to play. It did not play them, however, and the Department of Trade and Industry could do something about that.
Nick Harvey: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The role of plcs behind football clubs is interesting. It takes them into the realms of normal company regulation, which may offer us scope for exerting control and bringing sanity to bear.
The list of events has undoubtedly done a great deal of good, as have the 1998 additions to it. The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) reminded us that arrangements in this country have worked rather better than those in other countries. The rights to the last World cup and to the next one were bought by a German company, but that has not done German television viewers much good. Several hon. Members referred to the threat that each premiership club will be allowed to negotiate its own television rights, although similar attempts in Spain and Italy did not succeed, and that would be enormously damaging if it happened here.
One understands where the European Commission is coming from: if people are obsessive lovers of free market competition—it became rather voguish in the 1980s and 1990s—they get themselves into all sorts of trouble, but this matter concerns sport. Going down the road that the EU would have us go down would damage competitive sport. Competition of a quite different sort will be destroyed for the reasons that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) mentioned. We could reach a situation in which two clubs at most have a regular, realistic chance of winning the FA premiership. That will do nothing for competition in the sporting sense and the situation will be 10 times worse if clubs market their own television rights.
The hon. Gentleman also made good points on the aspirations of football supporters. A better divvy-up of television moneys is undoubtedly needed. I should dearly like to see the premiership's contribution to the

271WH
Nationwide league rise from 5 per cent. of revenues to 10 per cent. For all the reasons that I have given, I am not confident that that will happen. It would be much easier either if the FA was not in such a close relationship with the premiership or, better still, if the premiership was still as one with the Nationwide league. We can only hope that sanity will prevail. If parliamentarians, among others, speak up, that might be achieved.
We have also heard about football fans' travel problems. They are particularly acute for those who have season tickets and make travel arrangements weeks in advance to get the cheapest fares. If a match that is notionally scheduled for a Saturday is moved to a Sunday or another day, that is unfair on such people, who dig deep into their pockets to support their clubs. It is important to give greater consideration to the plight of ordinary supporters. A good suggestion has been made about keeping one night free for the Nationwide league to be on television, or for people to watch it live and not be tempted to stay by the fireside. That, too, would require the enlightened common sense that we have seen little of in the game.
The top of the game depends on the grass roots—that is certainly the game's tradition, although it does little for the plight of the smaller clubs that the larger ones bring in indifferent players from abroad and pay them excessive wages, rather than buying players from the lower leagues as they used to.
David Beckham, too, has come out against changes in the timing of televised matches, if only because he does not like having to eat pasta at 9 am on match day to prepare for a noon kick-off. While his diet should not be our top concern, it is interesting that people at that level of the game are making such points.
The threat from Europe is serious. The Bosman ruling has already done a great deal to disrupt the natural balance of the game, and what is threatened will make it a great deal worse. We should do anything that we can to put the European Union on to a healthier course, and if that involves a trip to Europe to plead the case, timed around a good match, I am sure that either I or my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) will be only too pleased to support the endeavour.
10.38 am
Mr. John Greenway: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen) on securing the debate. The first live televised match that I, like him, saw was the Blackpool v. Bolton cup final. I remember that Arsenal won the league that season, and 50 years later I am still a gooner. I should also remind hon. Members that for the past 15 years I have been the president of York City football club. The last time we discussed this matter in Westminster Hall, the club had just about gone into administration—it is now out, and a supporters' trust is in charge in the boardroom. Although listed events are not as controversial as they were, the televising of sport remains a live issue, and the debate has provided us with the opportunity to reflect on it. Hon. Members have referred to the situation in the premier league; clearly, the after-effects of the collapsed ITV Digital deal with the football league are still being felt by many league clubs.
The subject of listed sporting events was discussed briefly in the Standing Committee of the Communications Bill as recently—or perhaps I should
272WH
say to the Minister, as long ago—as 23 January. How the weeks fly by! It was interesting that no one sought to amend the Bill; the Committee had a stand part debate. The existing arrangements for lists A and B seemed to be generally accepted as the settled position. It is fair to say that the group A list will always remain central to the life of the nation. Suggestions are made from time to time about how we might extend it. Some have argued that the British grand prix for Formula 1 motor racing should be on the list. I believe that day 3 of the Ryder cup should be on the A list, for the reason that I outlined in my intervention on the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), and I think the Minister was impressed by that. I understand that the Bill allows Ofcom to review the lists and make recommendations to Ministers. I hope that what we have said today will help them to realise that we believe that some amendments may be appropriate in the years ahead.
In maintaining a list at all—this was the point made by the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt)—we are likely to deprive the listed sports of the full revenue that they might have received had there been an open market for the sale of rights. When we are establishing the lists and deciding on the sporting bodies, we must strike a balance, but I recall that far more controversy surrounded this issue in the Standing Committees considering the 1990 and 1996 Broadcasting Bills than it does now. I believe that the lists are relatively settled.
The new lists A and B were introduced in June 1998 following the inclusion of listed events provisions in the 1997 TV without frontiers directive. The key point about events on list B is that they can be broadcast exclusively live only if adequate provision is made for secondary coverage. The European Commission has embarked on a review of the directive's provisions with a view to proposing any changes to the current directive at the end of this year. Listed events rules will be one of the issues discussed, although I understand that the Commission has expressed firm support for their retention. In the light of the challenge by Kirch Media of the rules relating to the TV rights for the football World cup, the Commission must consider how it can strengthen current provisions to ensure that they cannot be circumvented by rights holders in future. This debate is an opportunity for us to do that.
I have real concerns about whether the EC understands some of the issues surrounding the sale of sporting TV rights and the regulation of sport generally. Its intervention in the football transfer market has been disastrous, although when I went to see the Commissioner and two of the chefs de cabinet, we were able to ameliorate some of the worst features of the proposals. Nevertheless, its intervention in the transfer market has contributed significantly to the financial plight of many clubs in the lower leagues. No longer can we sell a player for £1 million, because at the end of the season he can walk away for nothing.
The Commission is now challenging the legality of the collective sale of rights by, for example, the premier league. I agree with all those who have said today that, if we lose this argument, it will be a disaster for English football. Yes, there are issues about the percentage of money from TV deals that should go to grassroots and lower league clubs, but we must be circumspect. Not that long ago we were arguing that the premier league

273WH
should follow Central Council of Physical Recreation guidance and pay the 5 per cent. When one adds up all the other money that the premier league sends down, it becomes clear that it is distributing more than 5 per cent. Cricket and tennis distribute 11 per cent. each. We have made real progress over the past 10 years, and I believe that more can be made. However, I cannot for the life of me see that the premier league will agree to distribute more in the immediate future when premier league clubs such as Leeds United and Chelsea are facing such severe financial difficulty.
A further problem—I have much sympathy with what has been said here—is the timing of matches and the effect of live broadcast on attendance at other matches. When we have fewer Champions league fixtures next season, hopefully there will be fewer occasions on which divisions one, two and three have mid-week fixtures on nights when clubs such as Arsenal, Manchester United or Newcastle United are being shown live on television playing a top European side. That has a huge impact on the revenue from games.
However, we must accept that the current collective agreement benefits smaller clubs. Those benefits would be lost if the collective agreement was replaced by individual clubs selling their own rights. To see that, we need only look at the shambolic mess in Italy, where the serie A clubs sell their own rights. At the start of last season, some clubs could not organise their fixtures because the weaker teams had not sorted out their deals. It would be a complete disaster to have such a system, and I am astonished that the Commission has not paid greater attention to what has happened in Italy.
Such a system would, I believe, cause the break-up of the league and bankruptcies even in the premier league. It would probably lead to more games being on television, but the timing of games would probably be worse for fans. Paradoxically, the current premier league deal replicates the arrangements in list 13 and the directive—with live games on Sky and recorded highlights on free-to-air ITV. People might, as a result of that, begin to wonder whether the Commission really knew what it was doing, but in my view, something far more damning challenges and undermines the EC argument on the sale of collective rights. The Commission's case does not adequately take into account the consumer interest or the special characteristics of sport. Those were enshrined by EU heads of state and Governments in the Nice declaration on the specificity of sport agreed in the year 2000. The declaration explicitly recognises the principles of solidarity and the redistribution of broadcast revenues.
In other words, sport is a special case. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) rightly drew attention to the fact that the Commission argues that the legal test applied differs between the UK courts and EC competition law. However, that misses the key point that although the legal tests differ, the findings of fact are entirely relevant, especially as the Commission claims to have taken into account the specific characteristics of English football. If it had done that, it would have reached an entirely different conclusion.
At one and the same time, we see a different part of the EC reviewing the television without frontiers directive while the Commission pushes for a treaty of Rome
274WH
amendment to strengthen the position of sport as a special case. The Government are against that, but I suggest to the Minister that they should reconsider. Also at the same time, the Commission is trying to say that the collective television rights that underpin the competition are anti-competitive. All three positions cannot be right. Sport needs greater legal certainty than at present, but we cannot, in the same breath, say that we should strengthen the exception given to sport in terms of competition law and throw the baby out with the bathwater in terms of the agreements that we already have.
The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) said that there was limited scope for Parliament and Government here. I suggest to the Minister that the Government could challenge the EC view on collective rights by praying in aid the Nice declaration and supporting the concept of a treaty amendment. I appreciate—I am a Conservative, after all—the anxiety that a treaty amendment may have other consequences, and it is not something for which we would naturally want to argue. Why should we have to rely on an EC initiative to protect our national game? However, the threat to football from another EC initiative, the challenge to collective rights sales, is real and potentially disastrous. We would not choose to pursue the matter ourselves at national level, but this is something that the EC is trying to do to us. Clearly, we have to fight back. What has come out of the debate today is the willingness of three or four of us to go and see the Commission and convey our argument. We need to know that we have the Government's support for that.
10.49 am
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen) on securing the debate. I am well aware of his enthusiastic interest in sport and his sporting background. This debate is a reminder of the strength of feeling among hon. Members and their constituents about sport on television and the broadcasting of listed events. That is why I welcome the opportunity to debate those issues.
As hon. Members have said, sport plays an important role in our society. It provides a focus for civic and community values, which can contribute to social cohesion and regeneration. It also provides employment opportunities for people from all kinds of educational backgrounds.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) made clear, the health of sport in this country depends greatly on the broadcasting sector. Top-level sport is now big business. I did not quite understand my hon. Friend's reply to my rather bellicose intervention about the way in which soccer is run but she pointed out that it has something to do with the way in which big business has elbowed its way in and tended to capture the sport. Perhaps there are ways of doing business now that did not exist 30 years ago.
The governing bodies are faced with greater financial demands than ever before. To achieve success on the world stage in any sport requires substantial investment in training and development, and people attending sporting events expect better facilities as well as greater comfort and safety than in years gone by. Television

275WH
income plays a vital role in securing those things. May I just give hon. Members a little warning? Welsh rugby now has the best stadium it has ever had. It has more coaches and more money has been spent on development and grassroots matters than ever before, but I cannot remember a rugby team as inept as the current Welsh rugby team.
The desire to attain success at an international level can sometimes be confused, as an aim, with remembering what sport is about at a grassroots level. The issue is not easy and many people have wrestled with the matter in relation to Welsh rugby. English rugby has been much more successful in dealing with the matter. We have learned very painfully that moderate or even large amounts of money from broadcasters do not necessarily guarantee international success. Many other things have to be done to achieve that success, and sometimes those things are painful.
A number of major UK sports invest substantial proportions of broadcasting revenue at grassroots level under the Central Council of Physical Recreation's voluntary code on broadcasting. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) reminded us that some of the sums are large, and very welcome they are too. Signatories, including the FA, the Rugby Football Union, the Rugby Football League and the England and Wales Cricket Board, commit to invest at least 5 per cent. of broadcast income in the development of their sports, which is important.
The Government do not intervene unnecessarily in the sports broadcasting market. Our main concern is to ensure that everyone has access to the key events that have a clear national resonance. Such events are known as listed events and are protected under part IV of the Broadcasting Act 1996. Those events have a significance that cannot be measured solely in terms of their economic value relating to ticket sales and broadcasting rights. That point has been emphasised this morning. The events generate interest among those who normally may not even follow sport, and they make an important contribution to the way in which we perceive our national identities. Events such as the World cup final, the Wimbledon tennis championships and the grand national are national treasures. I understand that 10.5 million people watched the grand national when it was last run.
Mr. Greenway: It is this week.
Dr. Howells: It is. That is a huge audience by any standards. I understand that the England rugby game on Sunday had a 51 per cent. share of people watching television. That is huge, and it compares well with the very small number of viewers that watched England games when those were shown exclusively on Sky. Sky got good audiences but nothing like the audiences for terrestrial television.
Although the broadcasting rights to such occasions are owned by governing bodies, many people regard them as public property. The widespread interest that they generate is only partly a result of the efforts of the promoters; it is also, in many cases, the result of the long history of the events, and the fact that they bring together major national and international participants and involve British national teams. There is often a long
276WH
history of broadcasting such events on free-to-air television, and people have come to expect to be able to see them live without having to pay extra for the privilege.
A list of events was drawn up in 1956, and it has been reviewed on several occasions since then, as my hon. Friends the Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) and for Selby (Mr. Grogan) have reminded us. The most recent revision of the list took place in 1998, when the then Secretary of State appointed an advisory group chaired by Lord Gordon of Strathblane to review the content of the list and to advise him which events should be included. I emphasise that we intend to review the list regularly, but we have no plans to do so in the immediate future, because I believe it is too soon after the last review. The list has only ever included sporting events, although I am sure that hon. Members are aware that it is possible to include other key events in national life. However, we are not considering that today.
Listing seeks to ensure that free-to-air broadcasters reaching at least 95 per cent. of the population are given a fair and reasonable opportunity to acquire the rights to broadcast live coverage of "crown jewel" events. Presently, the channels that meet those requirements are BBC 1, BBC 2, ITV 1 and Channel 4. Listing does not guarantee that any event will be broadcast live. Rights holders are not required to sell live rights and broadcasters are not obliged to purchase them or to show the events. However, the legislation ensures that where live rights are made available, they must be made available on free-to-air channels on fair and reasonable terms. The Independent Television Commission is currently responsible for ensuring compliance with the 1996 Act, and it maintains a code on the operation of the legislation, although once the Communications Bill is enacted that task will fall to Ofcom.
I was not entirely sure about the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey about internet coverage and access, but if he writes to me, I will try to answer him.
I do not want to go into the details of the Communications Bill—the hon. Member for Ryedale and I spent many weeks on it. Suffice to say that it amends the 1996 Act to give statutory effect to the two existing categories of listed events—group A and group B—and to ensure their smooth operation by the new regulator. EU member states, the European Parliament and the European Commission have also recognised the need to protect events of major importance for society and, through the TV without frontiers directive, to give mutual recognition to each other's lists. The UK's list was verified by the Commission in July 2000.
I have only a few moments left, but I want to say something about ensuring that the competition authorities in the EU recognise the gravity of the issue, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North and the hon. Member for Ryedale were worried. I was a Minister with responsibility for competition for three and a half years. Every so often, competition authorities tend to get a rush of blood to the head and start looking at soccer and other issues as if they were looking at sales of washing powder.

277WH
We must be very careful about that. This might be a commodity, in the looser sense of the word, in that it is a product to be sold involving contracts, but as the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) reminded us even more brutally than I did, some very stupid people are involved in the sales of certain contracts and properties. I hope that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members realise that we are aware of the need to communicate that.

Yemen
11 am
Keith Vaz: I thank you, Mrs. Adams, for the opportunity to raise the current state of relations between Britain and Yemen. I am pleased to see the Minister here. I regard him as one of the best Ministers in the Government. He certainly has an interesting portfolio, and I admire the dedication and stamina that he has shown, especially over the past few weeks. I am also glad to see the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), my near neighbour, on the Opposition Front Bench, because he has a keen interest in Yemen. He is a member of the all-party group on Yemen and has frequently visited the country.
Britain and Yemen have had close relations extending over centuries. Naturally, that relationship was especially intimate between 1839 and 1967, when Yemen was a British colony. Relations between our countries are of importance not just to the Yemeni Government. who have repeatedly expressed a wish to improve and to intensify their relations with Britain. the United States, and indeed the west as a whole, but to the British Government and their citizens. At this time, it is vital that we continue to assist Yemen to combat the horrors of trans-national terrorism, which poses a threat to people's security around the globe. To defeat the common perception of Yemen as a terrorist stronghold is crucial for attracting foreign direct investment and tourists, and to improve Yemen's international trade relations. All those components are necessary if the country is to escape poverty and if development is to be advanced.
Yemen is a beautiful country situated at the southern part of the Saudi Arabian peninsula, sharing borders with Oman in the east and Saudi Arabia in the north. It has a seashore 2,000 km long. With a land area of 550,000 sq km, Yemen is slightly bigger than France. The Yemeni population currently amounts to about 19 million. Yemen has an extraordinary history and culture stretching back over 3,000 years. Its geographical and economic situation favoured the creation of one of the earliest primitive societies, which established political and economic relations with other countries of the ancient world. The legendary Queen of Sheba came from ancient Yemen.
Before I proceed, it is only appropriate that I should declare my interest. For the benefit of those hon. Members who were not present on 16 February 1999, when I previously had the opportunity to speak about Yemen in the House, I am the chairman of the all-party group on Yemen, which is just about to be re-inaugurated after a short period of inactivity.
I was born in Aden, Yemen in 1956. For economic reasons, my parents had migrated from Bombay, India, and settled in Tawai, then called Steamer Point, in British-occupied South Yemen. My mother worked as a full-time teacher in the Arab girls college in Khomaksar. My father worked as an administrator for Shell. I spent the first nine years of my life there, before leaving with my family to escape the mounting conflict.
I still feel strongly attached to Yemen, and I have vivid and happy memories of my early childhood there. I was educated at St Joseph's convent school in Aden,

279WH
and I used to sit on the beach watching the grand ships preparing to enter the Suez canal. I remember that the number one pop record at the time was "Ya Mustapha, Ya Mustapha an a by hibak Ya Mustapha." I still search the specialist record shops for it. There is as yet no cover version by Kylie Minogue.
I remember looking in awe at the governor's mansion. The then governor of Aden was Richard Luce. His son served as a Member of this House, and as Sir Richard Luce became governor of Gibraltar. I met him when I was Minister for Europe. He is now the Queen's Lord Chamberlain.
My interest in Yemen has naturally remained, and I am seriously concerned about its situation, particularly its relations with Britain. I revisited that extraordinary country for the first time in 1998, when I headed a delegation of British travel industry representatives to rediscover and to encourage bilateral relations. I met President Ali Abdullah Saleh, the Ministers of Health, Culture and Justice and the Speaker of the Yemeni Assembly.
I went back in October 2000, when I was Minister of State at the Foreign Office. Although I was dealing with European matters, and Yemen is clearly not in Europe, the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), asked me to undertake the visit. Since then, I have met Yemeni officials on several occasions.
I frequently meet the excellent ambassador to London, Mutahar Abdullah Alsaeedi, who came to see Leicester City play Sheffield United. Another visitor to the Walkers stadium on that day was the Minister for Sport, whose constituency in Sheffield has the largest number of British Yemenis in Britain, including Prince Naseem, probably the most famous person of Yemeni descent. In December last year, I met the Prime Minister Abd al-Qadir Bajammal in the House of Commons.
Yemen is a complex country and extremely difficult to understand, but to appreciate the challenges faced by its Government in their struggle against terrorism and their efforts to enhance internal security and development, I want to give a brief account of related difficulties. When British colonial rulers, after a 120-year long occupation, left the sparsely populated South Yemen in 1967, it was captured by Marxists, while the densely populated north never came under colonial rule. The country was united in 1990, but internal stability was never secured, and a civil war that lasted for roughly six months broke out in early 1994. Since then, the Government have worked hard for reconciliation between the north and south. I commend the efforts of the president and the Government.
As in many former colonial states, the Government must tackle further the problems related to decentralisation. Many tribesmen stay loyal to their local leaders rather than the central Government, who struggle to rule an area that initially was artificially created by western powers. The lack of governmental control and security in some areas has been made only more difficult by the country's geographical features. The western and southern parts of the country have long coastal strips along the Red sea and the Arabian sea respectively, whereas the inlands consist of mountains and highlands with a desert area to the east, making it
280WH
easier for terrorists to pursue their illegal business, and for some tourists to he kidnapped, which has happened far too often in recent years.
Despite those challenges, in the past few years, the Government of Yemen have made significant progress in the fight against terrorism and their transition towards democracy. I do not try to conceal the horrors that occurred in Yemen at the beginning of the millennium. As most of us will remember, 17 US personnel were tragically killed when a suicide bomber attacked the US naval vessel USS Cole in Aden harbour in October 2000. In the same month, four Yemenis claimed to have been behind the bomb that exploded in the British embassy.
In the wake of 11 September, however, Yemen has shown significant commitment and co-operation in the international fight against terrorism. In November 2001, President Saleh visited the United States for talks with President George W. Bush. It was agreed that Yemen would freeze bank accounts of individuals believed to be associated with al-Qaeda, and that it would arrest suspected members. In February 2002, Yemen expelled more than 100 foreign Islamic scholars, including British and French nationals, as part of a crackdown on terror and suspected al-Qaeda members. The Government have also begun to tackle the problems of decentralisation by extending security measures to all districts beyond central areas.
Unfortunately, the attack on the French supertanker Limburg on 5 October last year refocused attention on Yemen as a base for international terrorism. Only a fortnight ago, on 18 March, an American, a Canadian and a Yemeni employed at a western oil firm were shot dead in the oil-rich province of Marib, about 170 km east of Sanaa. I would like to send my condolences and those of the House to the families of all who died.
Ruling a country is not an easy task, as we know, but Yemen is certainly more difficult to rule than other countries. President Saleh has a pivotal role, balancing the wishes of those who, like him, want to fight terrorism in co-operation with the west, and the priorities of tribal leaders. He has played a fragile hand impressively, offering the west great support while reassuring his tribal supporters. In my view and that of many others, he has been a good president.
Against that reality, it is easy to comprehend why Yemen has kept a low profile in the current Iraq conflict. I am assured that the Yemeni Government do not support the Iraqi regime but have a common position with the Arab League, believing that conflict is unjust and could have been avoided by using alternative solutions in tandem with a United Nations agreement. I, of course, disagree with that view, and fully support what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is doing. However, I understand the position of Yemen and the Arab League.
My aim is not to dwell on current controversies, which clearly will have an effect on Yemen, but to talk about the situation in that country. As I mentioned, Yemen has not merely improved its record in combating terrorism but made gains in decentralisation. Yemen still has two parallel political systems: an ancient tribal system that is dependent on consensus, and an emerging democracy. The latter has advanced significantly. The 1997 general election, the second since the 1994

281WH
reunification, was judged to be predominantly fair and free by independent observers. Local elections were introduced in 2001.
New general elections to the Yemeni Parliament will be held on 27 April, and British observers, including representatives of the British Parliament, have been invited to attend as spectators. I have accepted the ambassador's invitation to attend. However, as usual, I will take the Minister's advice on whether I should travel there. I would be glad if the Minister confirmed Foreign Office advice to all those—not just me, obviously—planning to travel to Yemen. Foreign Office travel advice has a huge effect on the tourist industry and the Yemeni Government want Yemen to be given the all-clear as soon as possible.
The majority party, the General People's Congress, has for the first time selected women candidates to represent it in the forthcoming elections. I welcome that decision. Some of the other parties, I am pleased to say, have also followed that route. Yemen, the first country in the region, has reformed its educational system extensively, eliminating the religious education programme and integrating 350,000 students into its general educational programme. Construction of a civil society has been encouraged, and several political parties, trade unions and human rights organisations have been formed. I deeply welcome all those developments and it is important that we persist. Yemen and Britain are bound together by history, and it is crucial that we should encourage and support our relations with Yemen. I acknowledge what both Governments have done recently in that respect. Dr. alQirdi, the Foreign Minister of Yemen, paid an official visit to the United Kingdom in March 2002, which was followed by Prime Minister Bajammal's visit in July.
In 2002, the British Government provided bilateral development assistance valued at about £2 million per annum. I have been informed that that sum is due to increase over the next few years. The Government also support Yemen indirectly—for instance, through multilateral aid programmes implemented by the World Bank—and since Yemeni unification, the European Union has committed more than €165 million to economic and social development.
Although those contributions are important, they are not sufficient to overcome all the problems faced by the Yemeni Government. To escape the poverty trap, Yemen must attract foreign direct investment and reduce its trade deficit. Using the most current figures available, UK exports to Yemen were valued at £73.5 million, whereas UK imports were worth only £4.8 million.
We must first help Yemen in its continuing struggle against terrorism. Only when security is complete will foreign companies be interested in investing in and trading with Yemen. At present, no British aid programme allocates funds for the fight against terrorism, and I urge the Minister to take immediate steps in that direction. The Minister may say that the Yemeni Government must demonstrate a greater will to deal with terrorism but I am assured that co-operation is available if it is asked for. In that respect, we should
282WH
remember that the president, despite local difficulties and the need to balance the various interests, has always been receptive.
I would like Yemen to become part of the Commonwealth. I raised the matter with Don McKinnon, Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, when I met him 10 days ago, and I would like to hear the Government's view on the matter. I believe that it would be in Yemen's interests, but also in the interests of the Commonwealth, to have for the first time an Arab country as a member.
I hope that in his reply the Minister will be positive about the relations between Britain and Yemen, and I look forward immensely to the next ministerial visit to Yemen. It is time that Yemen took its rightful place in international affairs.
11.17 am
Mr. Alan Duncan: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) and to the Minister for allowing me to speak. My plight is that, although I have visited Yemen five times in the past six years, as a Front-Bench spokesman on foreign affairs, the rules of the House forbid me initiating a debate of this sort. I am glad that the hon. Member for Leicester, East has done so, and I agree with everything that he said. It was a helpful contribution to our relations with Yemen. I agree with him, even if he cannot sing the pop song, "Ya Mustapha, Ya Mustapha".
When it comes to Yemen, a few simple points need to be made. It has many elements of democracy to commend it. There is an increasingly solid unity between north and south. There are genuine attempts in the country to rein in al-Qaeda, yet there are difficulties in applying the writ of law to all corners of what is an intensely tribal country. However, we should bear it in mind that if we demand that it curtails unhelpful activities in Yemen, it will expect us to do the same here on matters that affect it.
As the hon. Gentleman said, a good case can be made for increased aid from the Department for International Development, and I am pleased to say that the Secretary of State is giving serious consideration to doing so. There is a lot of pressure for Yemen to join the Commonwealth.
If I could make only one point, it would be this. Whenever I visit Yemen, I find that the people there feel rather neglected by this country. The hon. Gentleman is the only person who has visited Yemen in a ministerial capacity during the past six years, and Yemen is longing to revive a deeper friendship. The country has an excellent ambassador here, and in Frances Guy we have a supremely effective and brave ambassador in Yemen.
I hope, as does the hon. Gentleman, that the Minister can say some reassuring words, with some intent, to enable our relations with that important country to be revived and enhanced in the years ahead.
11.19 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) on securing a debate on

283WH
Government relations with Yemen. I welcome the opportunity that this debate presents to discuss our relations with a country that, as others have said, receives too little public attention. Yemen is rarely in the news in the west, and when it is, it is often for the wrong reasons. That does an injustice to a country that has worked hard since the civil war in 1994 to balance its economy and work out a strategy to alleviate its poverty and that, more recently, has made considerable efforts to root out terrorism. Yemen is an ancient country making a strong commitment to enter the modern world, and it gets little credit for it. It deserves more credit.
I hope to help to redress the balance to some extent today. I shall not pretend that Yemen does not face problems. Of course it does, and I shall touch on them, but if we work together, as old friends should, Yemen can have a better future. I want to talk about that long friendship, the difficulties that Yemen faces and what we can do to help.
The Republic of Yemen is a modern state formed on 22 May 1990 from the unification of the former communist South Yemen and the Arab republic of North Yemen, but Yemen has existed in one form or another for thousands of years. As my hon. Friend said, the Yemeni province of Marib may once have been the site of the legendary kingdom of the Queen of Sheba. That may help to explain why many Yemeni women are keen to be involved in the political process, a point that I shall return to if I have the chance.
Britain has had a long connection with Yemen and many of the friendships formed during the time of the Aden protectorate from 1839 to 1967 remain intact. I am pleased that we have been able to help with the restoration of the "Little Ben" clock in Aden, a fitting symbol of the timeless nature of our relations.
The origins of the Yemeni community in the United Kingdom can be traced back to 1885. It was the first Arab community to settle in the UK in any number. Yemenis have worked on board British merchant navy ships and have settled in Cardiff, London, Sheffield and Birmingham. There are now between 30,000 and 40,000 in the Yemeni community in this country. The community has been and remains an active and important part of our society. That is one reason why I hoped to repeat my hon. Friend's visit to Yemen. Indeed, I intended to go there in March. However, following the deterioration in the security situation, which was reflected in our travel advice, I was advised that it was not safe to go. I hope to visit as soon as the security situation improves. I have told our ambassador there, Frances Guy—I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan)about her—that I intend to visit as soon as I can. Unfortunately, our travel advice is still not to go. I hope that that will change soon.
Yemen has not had an easy history. Periods of peace were punctuated by invasion and internal strife. The civil war in 1994 was a reminder of the troubled past. The divisions that remain in Yemen are the roots of modern-day problems, which are fuelled by the widespread availability of small arms. It is estimated that there are about 40 million small arms in circulation—two for every man, woman and child. That gives Yemen the dubious honour of having the highest number of weapons per capita in the world.
284WH
The wide availability of weapons undoubtedly makes Yemen an attractive staging post for terrorists, who also take advantage of the misplaced hospitality of some local tribes in areas where central Government's writ does not run. Yemen is a victim of terrorism. Al-Qaeda and groups and individuals sympathetic to its aims have operated in Yemen. The attacks on the American destroyer USS Cole and the French tanker the Limburg were undeniable proof of that. As long as that scourge remains, Yemen's reputation will be tarnished.
Security also affects trade and investment. There are good opportunities in Yemen, but companies naturally want to be sure that their investment and their staff are safe. Corruption and the legal framework also put off some would-be investors.
Some have questioned our travel advice, although I do not accept that our assessment of the security environment is too harsh, not least in the light of the tragic shootings in Marib last month and the murder of three American aid workers in Jiblah in December. However, we keep the situation under close review. I would dearly love to be able to recommend that UK nationals visit that most beautiful and fascinating of countries, but only when the security environment has improved and it is safe for them to do so.
There is light at the end of the tunnel. President Saleh has given his commitment to fight terrorism, and I welcome the actions that the Yemenis have already taken. We stand ready to help where we can. Since 1994, Yemen has taken pains to make peace with all its neighbours. The most significant agreement was that with Saudi Arabia in June 2000. The demarcation of the border continues peacefully, despite running through some of the most disputed tribal areas. That success is a great tribute to both countries.
However, defeating today's terrorists is only part of the solution. We also need to ensure that we address the causes of terrorism and extremism. Yemen is woefully underdeveloped and is one of the poorest countries in the world outside Africa. Yemen is ranked 144th out of 173 countries in the 2002 human development index. More than 15 per cent. of the population are forced to survive on less than $1 a day, and 45 per cent. have under $2 a day. Infant and maternal mortality rates are among the highest in the world. Illiteracy among women is a staggering 74.7 per cent., and 32.5 per cent. among men.
The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund approved the Yemen Government's poverty reduction strategy paper at the end of July 2002. The paper sets out the major development challenges for Yemen, which are bringing population growth under control, controlling internal migration, dealing with the rapidly increasing labour market, decreasing the gender gap, enhancing opportunities for women, reducing child labour, managing diminishing water supplies, improving access to health care and education, reforming public administration, tackling endemic corruption and improving the security situation—a daunting list. However. Yemen deserves support for its efforts to tackle those problems, its attempts to decrease poverty and its hard work in improving its democracy. DFID has for many years had substantial support and investment in Yemen, and we propose to continue that.
Things are not all doom and gloom in Yemen. Yemen's achievements are not always recognised in the west, especially those to do with political reform. This

285WH
month's parliamentary elections will be Yemen's third since reunification. Yemen has made significant progress in providing a modern representative system of government. Women can vote and stand as candidates for Parliament, which is a genuine debating chamber. Opposition parties have a voice in the media. Women and men—up to 92 per cent.—are registered to vote; more than 3.5 million women, as well as nearly all the men, are registered in Yemen. That is a considerable achievement.
The final list of candidates for the elections is being drawn up now, and I hope that all the political parties in Yemen will give women a chance to stand as candidates. For the first time, voters in Yemen will be faced with a simple choice between the governing party and the coalition against it. I welcome President Saleh's commitment to ensuring that the elections will be the freest and the fairest in Yemen's history. I share the dream of a safe and secure Yemen, a Yemen with an enviable democratic pedigree and strong democratic institutions, a prosperous Yemen where poverty is a thing of the past. I hope to be able to visit Yemen soon. I believe that with the support and good will of its many friends in the international community the Yemenis can make their dream of a prosperous and democratic Yemen come true.
11.29 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Government Accounting
2 pm
Mr.Mark Hoban: Coming just a week before the Budget, this is a timely debate. Next week the Chancellor will no doubt stress how prudent he has been, how low Government borrowing is and how he is satisfying his golden rule. Yet there is strong reason to believe that he has been able to achieve that only through sleight of hand, by relying on accounting wheezes that have led him to be dubbed the Enron Chancellor.
What is it about the Enron scandal that can be applied to the Chancellor? One of the central aspects of the Enron affair was that the transactions that the company entered into were structured in such a way that liabilities were kept off its balance sheet, so its debts were much greater than the balance sheet showed. The unravelling of those structures led to Enron's collapse and to the phrase "Enron accounting" passing into the English language. Debts were kept off the Enron balance sheet by carefully constructing transactions so that they followed the letter of United States accounting rules. Therefore, although the economic and commercial reality was that the liability or the debt was Enron's, the legal structure said that it belonged to another entity; the accounting reflected the legal form rather than the economic or commercial substance of the transaction.
It is relevant to note that because UK GAAP—generally accepted accounting practice—requires the substance of the transaction, and not its legal form, to be reported, it is commonly held that Enron could not happen here, at least not in company accounts. In that context I want to look at two areas of the Government's accounting: the treatment of the £21 billion of debt from Network Rail and the obligations placed on the private finance initiative.
I see the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), a former member of the Treasury Committee, here today. He did an admirable job of questioning the Government and their advisers on the accounting that lay behind Network Rail. I want to focus on the evidence presented to that Committee.
The Government's accounts are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, and are prepared under UK GAAP. In Sir John's view the Strategic Rail Authority is a Government agency, with a significant equity interest in and a dominant influence over Network Rail, so Network Rail's debts should be included in the Government's accounts and, therefore, in their total debt. However, the calculation of Government debt to be used in next week's Budget and in the Red Book is based not on those figures but on a different set of figures prepared by the Office for National Statistics. Curiously, Network Rail's debt is excluded from those figures, because for this purpose it is treated as part of the private sector rather than the public sector. Why is that?
The ONS takes a more simplistic view of Network Rail's status than the National Audit Office. Its view is that, given that the majority of board members of Network Rail are drawn from the private sector, Network Rail must be part of the private sector and thus its debt is private sector debt. Therefore, this year's borrowing requirement is £21 billion lower than it

287WH
would have been if the NAO's view had been applied to that transaction. The evidence from the Treasury Committee illustrates the simplicity of the argument used to justify treating Network Rail as part of the private sector.
When the Treasury Committee questioned ONS staff, the following exchange took place. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) asked:
"If the selection panel had happened to appoint 11 consultants from St. Thomas's Hospital, who are employees of the NHS. would that have transferred Network Rail from the private sector to the public sector?"
Mr. Robin Lynch, the head of national accounts at the ONS, said:
"In the sense that they are members of the public sector, yes, it would."
To clarify the point, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central went on to ask:
"You have told me quite clearly that the reason Network Rail is in the private sector is that the people whom the selection panel appointed happen to be employed by the private sector, but if they had happened to pick 11 consultants from St Thomas's Hospital instead of 11 whoever they might have been, then it would have been in the public sector because the people would have been employed by the public sector?"
Mr. Lynch replied, "That is correct."
The selection panel, appointed by the Government, chose people to be part of the board of Network Rail. However, because those people are employed by the private sector, not the public sector, Network Rail is, for the purposes of the ONS, included in the private sector.
Using the opportunity presented by the rules to take a simplistic view of control, the Network Rail debt has been excluded from the Government's borrowing requirements. It appears that, for the purposes of the Government's accounts, the NAO considered the substance of the relationship between the Government and Network Rail, but for the purposes of Government statistics and therefore the Government's debt figures, the ONS focused on the form, not the substance, of the relationship. That is a clear echo of the way in which Enron prepared its accounts.
What makes the situation look worse is Sir John Bourn's answer to a question posed by the hon. Member for Yeovil. Sir John said of that case that
"it is the first one to my knowledge where you have had the running together of these different ways of looking at the matter".
This was the first instance in which the ONS and the NAO disagreed about the treatment of an item for inclusion in the Government's accounts. We can speculate as to why that difference occurred, but I believe that it arose because the Government wanted the debt off their balance sheet, so that their borrowing numbers were lower. Rather like the Enron situation, the debt presented to the public showed a lower figure than the true extent of the Government's liabilities.
The other issue that troubles me is the private finance initiative. First, let me say that I support the PFI. It was, of course, a Conservative idea to use private sector finance for projects that would historically have been funded by the public sector. The Institute for Fiscal Studies summed up well the rationale for using PFI when it said in its "Green Budget" for 2003:
"The only economic rationale for using the PFI is that it is hoped it will offer better value for money. Despite the fact that the private sector faces higher borrowing costs, these are expected to
288WH
be offset by its greater operating efficiency. If this holds, the private contractor can provide a given standard of public service at a lower cost, which will, all other things remaining equal, lead to lower levels of public borrowing."
The costs of PFI projects are paid by the taxpayer, often through a unitary charge, and cover the ongoing costs of the operation of the facility, such as maintenance and the staff who operate the facility, as well as payment for the use of the facility—a form of rent or lease payment—and for the capital elements of the project, which may be a hospital, school or road. Those payments can stretch over 30 years and are disclosed in the Red Book, but disclosure is only part of the issue.
Let me return to the components of the unitary payment made under PFI. As I said, the Government pay for the use of the facility. I characterised that as rent, but equally it could be seen as a payment to acquire an asset, in the same way that we may choose to buy a car through hire purchase. At the end of the day, the car ends up with us. If the payments made under PFI are a form of finance to purchase the facility, the asset—the school, hospital or road—should be shown on the Government's balance sheet, as, crucially, should the debt financing its acquisition.
The Government will argue that the PFI payments are correctly treated and should not be deemed to be the repayment of borrowings or a method of finance. That is principally because they argue that the risk of ownership of the assets remains with the PFI operator. As a consequence, the assets and related debts required to finance those assets should remain on the PFI operator's balance sheet, not on the Government's balance sheet. That is another example of off-balance sheet financing.
Risk plays a pivotal role in the accounting treatment of PFI projects: who bears the risk depends on whose balance sheet the asset and the related debt are held on. A distinct flavour of the debate on 29 January about the Public Accounts Committee reports was that the risks were not transferred to the operator and that the public sector stands behind all these projects. My hon. Friends the Members for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) made comments along that line. If they are right, the justification for keeping those liabilities off the Government's balance sheet would be fatally flawed and the debt should be added to the total of the Government's liabilities. Government borrowing would increase, increasing the ratio of public sector debt to national income; the annual increase in borrowing would also be higher.
How much higher? It is hard to say. It depends on how one separates the various components within the unitary charge. The increase could be as high as the net present value of the stream of future payments on PFI projects, which is some £62 billion at the latest calculation. The IFS has looked at it differently. It says:
"On the basis of deals signed so far, public sector net debt at the end of March 2006 would be 3.8 per cent. of national income higher if all the capital spending from PFI deals signed so far had been carried out using conventional finance."
The impact of the decision as to whether PFI projects should be on the Government's balance sheet is significant, as it will have an impact on some of those key borrowing numbers that the Chancellor will present in his Budget next week.

289WH
I wonder whether the accounting attractions of PFI mean that as many projects as possible will be pushed down this route regardless of whether it is in taxpayers' interests. The Government will cite the public sector comparator as the benchmark to ensure that that does not occur. However, during the debate on the PAC reports, my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk quoted an example from the redevelopment of the main MOD building in which the public sector comparator was —746.2 million and the PFI price was —746.1 million. The project met the benchmark by —100,000. That has a degree of accuracy about it that looks slightly spurious.
Indeed, when one looks below the headline number and tries to understand how the public sector comparator was reached, one finds that the Government incorporated various risk factors, as well as the cost of construction. The interaction of the risk factors and the costs could lead to that public sector comparator being, not quite any number that one would want, but certainly one from a range of values. A cynical observer might say that given the pressure to keep a lid on Government borrowings, the calculations of the public sector comparators are subject to reiteration until the right answer is obtained. The impression—perhaps exaggerated to make the point—is that if a project cannot be financed through PFI, it will not go ahead, because the Government will be loth to increase their borrowing above the number predicted by the Budget.
I hope that my concerns about PFI are clear. The accounting for these projects is dependent on the risk being borne by the operator, and who bears that risk is a matter of debate and discussion. The pressure to restrict Government borrowing adds extra pressure, implicit or otherwise, to ensure that the public sector comparator is worse value than the PFI project and therefore that more projects are financed off the Government's balance sheet. The inclusion of PFI or any element of PFI on the Government's balance sheet would significantly increase the level of Government debt.
As I said at the outset, I am broadly supportive of PFI as a concept, but there are growing doubts about how it is being used in practice. It is not surprising therefore that there are increasing calls for an inquiry into its use. Indeed, the Labour party conference supported a motion in favour of an inquiry into PFI back in October.
Mr. George Osborne: As I understand the Labour party constitution, the conference can mandate the Labour leadership, and I believe that it mandated the leadership to conduct an investigation into PFI. Does my hon. Friend know whether the Government—of course, they are a Labour Government—have conducted that investigation into PFI or contacted the NAO, as the conference also mandated them to do?
Mr. Hoban:My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I am sure that the Financial Secretary will enlighten us about what the Government have done about the conference's call to investigate PFI projects.
290WH
What is the correct name for the Chancellor? Is it the Enron Chancellor, or the iron Chancellor? He has been able to present himself as the iron Chancellor because he is indeed the Enron Chancellor, too.
Mr. Richard Bacon: While my hon. Friend is on the subject of Enron, I want to make a point. He has made powerful points about PFI; has he considered that the recent tendency of companies to go into the market to raise finance for PFI projects has included a worrying trend of failure to disclose the financial model? That increases the cost of borrowing more than would otherwise be the case—of course, we accept that borrowing will be higher. Ratings agencies, such as Standard and Poor's, have drawn attention to the fact that the opaque nature—the black box, as they call it—of many deals is actually proving a limiting factor in the market.
Mr.Hoban: My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. As he says, the opaqueness of the information supplied to credit rating agencies will lead to an increase in the interest rates paid on the debt. Clearly, because the debt is financed through payments made under the PFIcontract, the taxpayer must be losing out as a consequence of that opaqueness. The black box approach works against the interests of taxpayers, rather than in their favour.
By putting the Network Rail liabilities off the Government's balance sheet, the Chancellor has been able to portray himself as prudent and cautious. By significantly increasing the scope of PFI, he has reduced today's borrowings, but he has mortgaged future revenues to pay for today's public investment. If he chose to finance the projects in a conventional way, and that was taken together with the debt of Network Rail and other contingent liabilities, Government debt could be increased by as much as £100 billion. Indeed, this year's borrowing requirement would be not £20 billion, but at least £41 billion, which would include £21 billion extra for Network Rail and an additional amount to cover the capital element of the PFI contracts signed this year.
Roger Bootle of Capital Economics has adopted another approach and valued the additional liabilities incurred by the Government at some £25 billion. He focused primarily on contingent liabilities and treated the Network Rail debt as a contingent liability, rather than an actual liability of the Government.
As the range of estimates indicates, there is a lack of transparency surrounding the treatment of the liabilities and commitments to which the Government have signed up. My hon. Friend highlighted that point when he talked about the opaqueness of the financing arrangements in relation to credit rating agencies. In light of that, it is ironic that transparency is one of the Chancellor's much vaunted principles of public finance. He says that transparency is important to an understanding of public finance, yet the presentation of the Government's current and future liabilities is, rather like Enron's, somewhat opaque. It is time that the true extent of the Government's exposure to those liabilities is made known to taxpayers and markets, so that we can all judge once and for all whether the right hon. Gentleman is the iron Chancellor or the Enron Chancellor.
2.18 pm
Sir George Young: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) on his speech on this important subject and on initiating the debate. I want to step back to consider briefly three strategic issues that arise from his contribution.
First, there is what I call the profile of the problem. Although the question of what is or is not public expenditure concerns all Governments—the Conservative Government certainly grappled with what were then called the Ryrie rules—the problem is much more serious for a new Labour Government. Under a traditional Conservative approach, the philosophy was to disengage, divest control totally and put an industry wholly in the private sector, where it was neither funded nor controlled by the Government. It flowed from that that there was no question of any expenditure by the industry in question scoring as public expenditure. Thus, we do not have such debates in relation to BT, BAA, water or electricity.
Likewise, the problem did not exist for an old, traditional Labour Government. They wanted to control, and they wanted to fund. They were not bothered about borrowing or taxing—those were badges of honour—and the subject of my hon. Friend's debate also did not arise. However, there is a problem with new Labour, because it wants to control, but it does not want to fund. It wants to boast about taking Railtrack back into public ownership, but it does not want the cost to appear on the balance sheet. Hence, we have the problems raised by my hon. Friend.
An obsession with presentation is a second issue, which is peculiar to this Administration. There are two sides to the coin that we are debating—Government expenditure and Government income raised through taxes or borrowing. We have seen repeated announcements on public expenditure, including a sensational comprehensive spending review in which the same amount was counted three times. It was widely condemned at the time, but happily not repeated. On the other side of the coin are stealth taxes, and now we are seeing their brother—stealth borrowing. Stealth taxes avoided putting up headline tax rates, but achieved the same end by eroding allowances and by hitting indirect taxes and the council tax hard. That has been taken to extremes this month with the national insurance increase. The Government have nearly run out of runway on that.
Now there is stealth borrowing, which my hon. Friend described. The debt does not appear on the balance sheet, as far as the lender to the Government is concerned, but the Government are seen to be standing behind the transaction, as far as the contractor is concerned. I recently asked a contractor about Network Rail's credit rating. He replied that, initially, it was not that good. Now, the advice given to him by the professionals is that it is okay, because the Government would not let Network Rail go under. As my hon. Friend said, the action that secured that good credit rating does not appear as a Government liability.
My third point is that other UK institutions have been less fortunate than the Government when defining potential liabilities. For example, pension funds are applying new rules that oblige them to take a pessimistic
292WH
view of their liabilities by crystallising them at a time when the stock market is low and by being obliged to increase employer and employee contributions.
The best parallel for the Government is what they are doing to local government. I do not know whether the Minister has had time to look at the Local Government Bill explanatory notes, but they deal with the local government borrowing regime. On clause 18, they say, regarding local authority companies:
"The present system ensures that authorities cannot evade the capital controls by operating through companies they own or influence. That broad principle will be preserved under the new system".
That strikes me as a different regime from what my hon. Friend described. I refer to the note on clauses 7 and 8, covering credit arrangements:
"Credit arrangements (as defined in clause 7) will continue to be treated like borrowing under the new system ߪ The definition of credit arrangements is much simpler than under the present system, relying on the accounting concept of long-term liabilities".
It appears that the Government have one rule for local government and a much more relaxed regime for central Government.
My final point is to ask what the point is in having rules—the sustained investment rule, the golden rule and the rest. They are there to convince the financial community that the Government are prudent, and to convince citizens that their Government are not overextending themselves. They are also there to establish the Administration's credibility. However, if one plays around with the figures, one may win the battle but lose the war. One may keep the figure within the limit that one has set oneself, but if that injures the rules, the trust sought in the first place becomes forfeit. The Administration's credit rating will be hit in the same way as if the figures put on the balance sheet had gone through the limits. Institutions such as the European Commission are now publicly questioning the management of our economy.
My message to the Government is that going through the procedures that we have just heard about is not worth the candle. Better to be upfront about it and to put the figures where they should be, as the financial community will come to exactly the same conclusion as it would have had the figures been concealed. It is not worth indulging in the charade that has been described to us this afternoon, and I hope that the Government bring it to a conclusion as soon as they reasonably can.
2.24 pm
Mr. George Osborne: I join my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) on securing this timely debate a week before the Budget. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on the convincing way in which he introduced the subject, covered all the bases and drew proper attention to the work of the Select Committee on the Treasury, which has been so important on this issue. He showed the extent to which some of the figures on which the Chancellor has built his economic forecasts are based on shifting sands.
In a sense, all Governments have unquantified liabilities. When I was a special adviser in the much-lamented Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,

293WH
we discovered that there was a link between BSE and human health, and within two weeks we had more than doubled the Department's spending, increasing it by £2 billion or £3 billion. We spent that money to prop up the British beef industry, which faced complete ruin. That was not a liability in law—there was no legal requirement to prop up part of the agricultural sector, but it was a requirement in practice, because the Government were not prepared politically to allow the farming industry to go to the wall. That was an unquantified liability for which we had to pay.
The foot and mouth crisis last year was also a good example of an unquantified off-balance sheet liability for the Government. They had not accounted for a foot and mouth crisis, but they had to bail out the farming industry again. A further example is that, after 11 September, they had to step in to prop up the airline industry for several weeks. It was impossible for the industry to obtain insurance, and the closure of UK airspace was bankrupting some airlines. Moreover, if, God forbid, there was a major terrorist incident in London, I have no doubt that the Government would step in to rebuild part of the city. Governments therefore have off-balance sheet unquantified liabilities, many of which will be unknown until they suddenly arise.
The difference, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham elucidated so well, is that the issues under discussion are quantified liabilities that we know about and that almost everyone believes should be on the Government's books. Among those who believe that are the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, the Treasury Committee, of which I am not a member, and the Comptroller and Auditor General, as my hon. Friend mentioned.
Last month, the National Audit Office said that, unless at least one of those off-balance sheet liabilities is fully disclosed—namely the£21 billion owed by Network Rail—the Comptroller and Auditor General will not sign off the whole of Government accounts when they are first produced in two years' time. I suggest that that would be an embarrassment to the Treasury. It is certainly an embarrassment to the permanent secretaries of other Departments, such as the Department for Work and Pensions, when their accounts are qualified by the Comptroller and Auditor General. However, it would be a major embarrassment if the whole of Government accounts were qualified for that reason. Some have likened that to a company's auditor refusing to sign the "true and fair view" statement at the end of an annual financial statement.
I have had the pleasure of working with the Comptroller and Auditor General over the past couple of years. I read the other day in a newspaper report—I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is always assiduous in ensuring that his view is properly reflected in newspapers—that he is becoming increasingly irritated with the Comptroller and Auditor General. The report in The Daily Telegraph said:
"Mr. Brown is growing increasingly irritated with Sir John, who is 69 and has been Comptroller and Audit or General since 1988. The Chancellor is said to think he is 'going on for ever' but a spokesman for Sir John said he has 'no plans to retire."
The Chancellor is famously frustrated by people who have no plans to retire. It is interesting that he is getting irritated by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
294WH
However, as I am sure the Chancellor is aware, the Comptroller and Auditor General is beyond his grip; he is appointed by Parliament, and I am delighted that he has no plans to retire, because he is doing such an excellent job. It would be a tragedy if he retired before he had to sign off the whole of Government accounts.
Why does it matter whether these large off-balance sheet liabilities of the Government are off-balance sheet? Does it involve anything more than the political rough and tumble of fiddled figures? I suggest that it matters for three reasons. The first is the credibility of key economic indicators on borrowing and public debt. Off-balance sheet liabilities add up to more than £100 billion. There are £73 billion for private finance initiative contracts; £7.5 billion for public-private partnerships for the London underground and for the letters of comfort that have been issued in that regard; and £21 billion for Network Rail borrowing.
Those are real liabilities, because if Network Rail could not honour its debts, the Government would have to step in. If the public-private partnerships in the London underground failed, the bidding companies have letters of comfort that they could call on. If the Government are locked into payments on a PFI project, they will not let it fail, and the Public Accounts Committee has seen several instances of that. The Royal Armouries museum in Leeds, which we examined in some detail, is a very good example. The effect of £100 billion off-balance sheet liability would be considerable if it was disclosed by the Government. I am assured by my hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury that net debt would rise from about 30 per cent. to more than 40 per cent. if off-balance sheet liabilities were on the books. That is significant when we judge how the Chancellor is managing the economy and public debt.
The second reason is that it is important to know where a Government's true responsibilities lie. The Select Committee on Transport, of which I am a member, has looked at Network Rail and found that there are huge problems with it. There are no proper financial controls, and it is managed by a committee of more than 100 people. It is difficult to manage a Cabinet committee of 20 people, yet Network Rail has more than 100 people, representing the stakeholders in the rail industry, running it. Its running costs are £6 billion more than expected, and they are stopping the improvements to track and the upgrades that we were promised.
The buck stops with the Government. A press notice from the National Audit Office gave the view of Sir John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor General. It said:
"The Government is effectively providing security for the providers of debt finance to Network Rail and is acting as the lender of last resort in the event of financial difficulties. Therefore the Government is the party bearing the risk that would normally be borne by equity capital."
It is important in a democracy to know where responsibilities lie. If Network Rail went belly up, the Government would have to step in. We should know that in advance, and we should know what the Secretary for State for Transport is doing about Network Rail.
The third reason, which was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham, is PFI. It is important to have proper off-balance sheet accounting, because otherwise the nature of PFI will be distorted. When PFI

295WH
was originally conceived under a Conservative Government, it was intended to be a means of bringing private sector innovation into the public sector. It was intended to be a means of incentivising risk and of transferring the risk of delivery from the public sector to the private sector. That was how the scheme was devised. However, a public authority, be it a Government Department or a council, will not now go down the PFI route for any of those reasons. Public authorities will choose PFI because they know that that is the only way that they can get their projects past the Treasury, and the Treasury can relax because the projects will not appear on its books.
Mr. Hoban: On that point, I have been told in conversations with members of my local education authority about the need for a new secondary school to cope with demand in an area of rapidly growing population. They have been advised that they would not be able to get the funding from the Government for a new school: PFI money would be required to build it. That example illustrates my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Everyone knows that, for spending Departments and local authorities alike, the only game in town is PFI. The trouble is that they go down the PFI route not because they want the benefits of PFI nor because their projects are necessarily suited to PFI. They do not want to bring in private sector innovation, and in their heart of hearts they do not really want to transfer risk. They do not have the emotional commitment to PFI projects, which, as the Public Accounts Committee knows, is necessary to make them work.
As my hon. Friend said, such bodies use PFI because it is the only way to get a project completed. The result is that many drawbacks of PFI are being ignored. Many projects unsuitable for that route are being carried out under PFI, and that is having a hugely distorting effect on the PFI scheme. As someone who supports the scheme, I think that that is a tragedy.
The Government's off-balance sheet accounting ruses have had an effect. They are designed to do only one thing, which is to make the Chancellor's management of the economy look more prudent than it is. As I said, it undermines the credibility of key economic data. It hides the true extent of the Government's responsibilities, and it distorts PFI projects. It is the economic equivalent of dressing mutton as lamb. The problem is that the taxpayer is paying a very high price.
2.36 pm
Mr. David Laws: I am pleased to take part in this important debate. I add my congratulations to those expressed by other hon. Members to the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) on securing a debate and on choosing this subject—and on having the good fortune to raise it only a week before the Budget. It is anticipated that the Government will continue to have problems with public sector borrowing, which makes the subject particularly topical.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Fareham on identifying the two salient issues that we need to consider today—accounting for PFI transactions and the recent accounting changes for Network Rail, and the
296WH
wider implications of that for other public sector entities such as foundation hospitals, a problem that may arise in the coming months. I also welcome the comments of other Members, including those of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who said that the issue is becoming increasingly important because the traditional boundaries between the private and public sectors are becoming blurred. That point was raised in correspondence by Sir John Kingman of the Statistics Commission when trying to bring to a conclusion the unsatisfactory accounting issues surrounding the debate between the Office for National Statistics and the NAO over Network Rail.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) on bringing out the three salient issues that we need to address. The first is whether the Government's accounts are credible in their treatment of many items. The second, in respect of entities such as Network Rail, are the blurred responsibilities that arise as a result of the Government's attempts to keep some of those bodies in the public sector but at arm's length for accounting purposes. Last are the important questions that he raised about whether PFI is securing better value for money for parts of the public sector, or whether it is being used simply to massage particular debts off the balance sheet of Government and local government.
I want to cover those three issues. We need first to deal with the accessibility and accuracy of Government information in respect of off-balance sheet liabilities and the implications for Government borrowing. The second is how the Government are accounting for the achievement of value for money by the PFI scheme for different parts of the public sector. The third is the question of the Government's honesty and transparency about the debts of entities such as Network Rail.
2.39 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
2.50 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Laws: First, I want to cover the accessibility and accuracy of information on the Government's off-balance sheet liabilities. Each year, particularly under this Government, and as we shall witness next week when we receive the documents, the Budget bundle has become larger and the Red Book has increased not only in cost but in size. Unfortunately, that does not necessarily mean that the information is more accessible or that all we need is included.
Will the Minister consider how information on off-balance sheet liability is displayed in the Red Book in relation not only to PFI transactions but to contingent liabilities? She will be aware that the Treasury Committee's recent report on the classification of Network Rail recommended that contingent liabilities should be reported in the Red Book. At present, they are disclosed annually in the Consolidated Fund and national loans fund account supplementary statements—documents that are not widely read, either in this place or outside it. They are usually released to the House on the last sitting day before Christmas, which is a time not best designed for them to catch the eye.

297WH
Perhaps that did not matter so much when off-balance sheet liabilities were not as significant as they are today, but, because of the Government's increasing use of such contingent liabilities, it is more important that they be reported, not merely in musty Government documents that are rarely looked at —[Interruption.] I am surprised that the Minister laughs. I do not think that many Members of Parliament have read the documents.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has.
Mr. Laws: The Minister may overestimate my assiduity, but I am grateful for her comment. All of us would be better served if the information was embedded in the Red Book, which some people read, rather than in accounts that few look at.
Mr. Howard Flight: As the hon. Gentleman will have noted, there was no reference in the Consolidated Fund document to Network Rail or any matters that we have discussed, because there was no up-to-date information when it was published.
Mr. Laws: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that the Minister reconsiders the matter, even though the Government's response to the Select Committee report appeared to reject the proposal that a summary of contingent liability should be included in the Red Book. I am reminded that that was a unanimous recommendation by an all-party Committee with a Labour majority.
If the Government's fiscal rules matter as much as the Chancellor suggests, and if it is important that we monitor the debt-to-GDP ratio in the way that he has suggested is fundamental to his fiscal rules, how we report our debts and liabilities is important. The Government should take issues such as PFI and contingent liabilities much more seriously in their Budget documents, rather than relying on people seeing documents that are inaccessible and issued at an inconvenient time.
The second issue has been touched on in relation to PFI by a number of speakers, including the hon. Member for Tatton. If PFI is genuinely being used to transfer risk in a way that represents better value for money for the taxpayer, any sensible person should welcome it. However, there has been a concern for some time that Governments and public sector entities have sought to use PFI not because it represents better value for money but simply to get debt and Government liabilities off the balance sheet.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies covered the issue in some detail in its "Green Budget" before the 2002 Budget. In particular, the IFS looked at the proportion of capital spending in all Departments and public sector entities accounted for by PFI. It found vast differences between the former Department of the hon. Member for Tatton, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which at that stage was funding no capital
298WH
expenditure through PFI, and local government, which just over a year ago was funding about 38 per cent. of its capital expenditure through PFI.
The IFS asked itself whether the excessive use of PFI by local authorities compared with Departments reflected a peculiarity of local government expenditure that made the use of PFI preferable or whether it simply reflected the fact that capital constraints on local government may be more serious and effective than those on some Departments.
The IFS, in its "Green Budget", gave this summing up:
"The aim of meeting the Chancellor's fiscal rules should not produce an incentive to pursue PFI investment for 'balance sheet' reasons—the golden rule explicitly allows borrowing for investment".
So, there is still scope, even under this Government's fiscal rules, to expand public sector investment without breaking the golden rule. If we are finding that particular public sector entities are using PFI simply to get debt off the balance sheet, because the alternative is not practical, we may be getting bad value for Government money as deals are being skewed to deliver PFI solutions when the alternative of conventional public sector debt could be cheaper.
I have been approached several times by people from local government in the Somerset area and close by, who have expressed their concern about some PFI transactions in which they have been involved. They have formed the impression that the Government and those responsible for policing PFI transactions have been determined to ensure that the public sector comparator results in the PFI solution being chosen, even if, in their view, it is of dubious value for money compared with conventional finance.
The third issue is Government honesty and transparency in classifying new entities, particularly in respect of Network Rail. Perhaps we shall see the mirror image of that problem with foundation hospitals, because the Chancellor seems to be leading the ONS to a different solution from the one it was led to in the case of Network Rail. Commentators in the City and elsewhere were universally scornful of the ONS decision to classify Network Rail as outside the public sector. The hon. Member for Fareham was right to draw attention to the extraordinary exchanges that took place in the Treasury Committee hearings, in particular between the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr.Cousins) and officials appearing before the Committee, who were asked why the ONS had decided to classify Network Rail in that way. Essentially, it came down to the fact that the board of directors were chosen as individuals who could be regarded as representing the private sector or household sector, rather than the public sector, even though it is clear that the entity that stands behind the debts taken on by Network Rail can only be the taxpayer. The taxpayer is assuming that risk.
Many members of the Treasury Committee, representing all parties, shared the frustrations that were clearly experienced by the Statistics Commission during the tussle between the ONS and the NAO over the classification issue. I draw the Minister's attention to a letter from Sir John Kingman of the Statistics Commission to Sir Andrew Turnbull at the end of November 2002, in which Sir John says:

299WH
"As you know, the Statistics Commission has been concerned for some time about the need for greater transparency over Network Rail. We believe that Parliament and the public should have access to clear, simple and consistent information."
Sir John goes on to refer, as the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire did earlier, to the issue's growing significance for the Government:
"In modern society the boundaries between the public and private sectors are complex and the rules and criteria, which served in simpler times, may not now be sufficient to provide the full picture."
The hon. Member for Fareham rightly picked up on the substantive point raised by Sir John Bourn when he appeared before the Treasury Committee. Sir John noted the proud UK accountancy tradition of giving primacy to substance over form, and it is clear that the NAO has done so in dealing with Network Rail, because it sees the company's debts as essentially public sector liabilities for which the taxpayer ultimately bears the risk.
Mr. Osborne: Although it pains me to say so, is not the Chancellor right and the Secretary of State for Health wrong about foundation hospitals? How they will be set up means that any debts they run up will be Government debts. The Treasury therefore has a legitimate interest in having some control over them. If they were set up differently, it would be a different story.
Mr. Laws: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, but he tempts me on to the final page of my speech. If I may, I shall return to the issue in a moment.
Sir John Bourn's key point was that public sector accounting must put substance before form. The ONS, whether or not it has correctly interpreted European accounting standards, has come up with a solution that seems to satisfy the Government and may satisfy the technicalities of the relevant European regulations, but is completely out of keeping with the tradition of putting substance before form. The proposed solution gives the impression that what are essentially public sector debts, public sector liabilities and contingent liabilities are off the public sector balance sheet when, clearly, they should be on it.
As the Minister knows, the Select Committee report raised several other serious issues as regards Network Rail, not least how advice was sought from particular individuals about the company's classification. I return to the point that it was particularly unwise of ONS officials to take "independent" accounting advice on the issue from the head of accountancy at the Department for Transport. When such transactions are considered for other public sector entities, I hope that the Government ensure that the accounting advice offered to the ONS and others is genuinely independent of Departments with a clear interest in the conclusions to be reached.
To return to the point raised by the hon. Member for Tatton, it seems that there could be a rerun of the Network Rail issue in the context of foundation hospitals. Given the elegant way in which the Government managed to move Network Rail off the public sector balance sheet, one can imagine how easy it would be to set up similar structures for foundation hospitals. A series of individuals could then come forth from the private sector. Indeed, they might even be public sector workers acting in a private capacity,
300WH
judging by the exchanges in the Select Committee. Suddenly, a proportion of NHS capital expenditure for foundation hospitals would miraculously disappear from the public sector balance sheet.
That is a tempting approach, and it would no doubt meet the standards applied by the ONS to Network Rail if one went about it in the right way, but in this instance we find the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the opposite side of the argument. Instead of being happy to facilitate the process of moving debt off the balance sheet, as we discussed in the context of Network Rail, he seems determined to block the efforts of the Secretary of State for Health, who wants to give foundation hospitals more flexibility in terms of their funding, rather than relying on central Government controls and insisting that borrowing be reported in the public sector.
It was interesting to see the chief economic adviser to the Treasury give evidence to the Treasury Committee on the Budget recently. He made patently clear the Government's view that foundation hospitals are in substance part of the public sector, and that therefore their debt must count against the Government's fiscal rules and against the growth and stability pact. It is extraordinary that the Government expect us to believe in two different models of public sector debt accountability for two potentially different organisations.
Returning to the point that the hon. Member for Tatton made, I have some sympathy for the Secretary of State for Health in this debate. For too many years. Governments of all parties have been overinclined to micro-manage such things as public borrowing and local organisations from Whitehall, instead of giving local bodies greater flexibility to set their own priorities and determine the debt that they can take on. Perhaps that is one reason for local authorities being so dependent on PFI, which accounts for 38 per cent. of their capital expenditure. One does not find such dependence in countries where local and regional government can borrow locally.
Mr. Osborne: That trend began under Lloyd George, a Liberal Chancellor, with his national insurance scheme.
Mr. Laws:I take responsibility for many things, but not for all the policies that Lloyd George pursued. He had some extremely good policies, but he went off track during the latter part of his career, just as the Conservative party has in some respects gone off track recently.
The argument between the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Health is ongoing, as is shown by the revelation that Treasury officials have written to the ONS for clarification of its views on foundation hospitals. I hope that the ONS has written back. Perhaps the Minister can update us on the reply and say whether the ONS sides with the Treasury or with the Secretary of State for Health. I hope that through that debate we can consider how to give local authorities and other public sector entities more power to raise capital within overall prudential guidelines that take into account their assets. and not fall back on the centralised control over capital expenditure that has adversely affected the country for so long and has pushed local government into, potentially, quite expensive PFI borrowing.

301WH
We are looking for additional transparency and information from the Government on those important issues, and more consistent accounting rules between such entities as foundation hospitals and Network Rail. I hope that the Minister sheds light on the important issue that the hon. Member for Fareham has raised in today's timely debate.
3.7 pm
Mr. Howard Flight: May I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) on securing this important debate? I praise the excellent contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws). I also apologise to the Financial Secretary, who might have other things on her mind, but who now has a fair barrage of arguments to answer.
The Government would be wise not to duck the issues on such crucial territory. There is no case to argue for greater transparency in the private sector, to which Higgs and the accounting reforms refer, when the public sector and the Government could do with a great deal more transparency in relation to such crucial matters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham pointed out, Enron accounting is the exploitation of accounting rules to structure transactions so as to keep liabilities off-balance sheet, rather than showing the true substance. That is the essence of Sir John Bourn's point.
At the end of the day, the accounting rules, which are debatable, must be dealt with. However, I suggest that one way to ensure transparency and integrity would be for the Red Book to set out clearly the total off-balance sheet liabilities. That way, although the Chancellor could pretend that the figures were as he reported them and not off-balance sheet, what was off-balance sheet would be made absolutely clear. The people who buy Government gilts, and those who are looking to Government credit and borrowing ratios could judge for themselves.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton pointed out, the Opposition do not oppose PFI. We believe that, in most cases, the private sector does things better than the public sector. Our objection is to the Government's prostituting of the PFI principle. PFI exists, as has been argued, to get things done better in the private sector when it pertains, but it has been used to force public sector investment off-balance sheet as much as possible.
We have referred to some £100 billion in total off-balance sheet, and arrived at that figure by considering the three areas, which, as has emerged from the debate, are quite separate. First, allowing for new PFI deals made this year, and for the fact that the figures in note 19 of the Red Book cover only 25 years, whereas PFI contracts are typically for 30 years, the current total liabilities for PFI are about £115 billion. The Government could negotiate a sum with a bank to remove those liabilities at their current value if they so wished, discounted, arguably, at today's interest rates. Too high a rate of interest would give a total of some £75 billion.
302WH
Secondly, there is Network Rail's £21 billion liability, to which I shall refer later. Thirdly, there are the PPP deals—the new category of PFI. One often concludes that the Government want to privatise fully, and PPP deals are the nearest that they can get to doing that. However, such deals are deeply flawed because the principle of PFI is to transfer the operating risk as far as possible. With PPP deals such as that for the tube, there is no fundamental transfer of risk when the funds can be raised only on the back of Government letters of comfort or guarantee. When I last looked at the issue, the tube guarantees on money drawn amounted to £4 billion. That figure will rise to £15 billion throughout the whole phase of the tube.
Ruth Kelly: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will accept that the tube PPP is on-balance sheet.
Mr. Flight: Perhaps the Minister can show me another time where it is on-balance sheet. I will be delighted if she is right, but it was certainly not on-balance sheet when the deal was signed.
One can argue the figures in several ways. As has been said, Roger Bootle examined the capital figures for PFI, although they are not quite what he thought they were. Some £100 billion is now off-balance sheet. Since 1996, finance for the total PFI liabilities has approximately doubled.
I shall make some specific points about PFI. My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham mentioned Sir John Bourn's criticism that PFI rules dictate that, on principle, accounting should be on-balance sheet when the Government acquire a major property through a hire purchase arrangement that is analogous to a financial lease. However, there is something called the 90 per cent. guideline, which has served as a way of keeping it off-balance sheet. At the very least, the rules should be clarified, and I am pleased to note that the Accounting Standards Board is in the process of doing that. I understand that that will result in the need for several PFI deals to come on-balance sheet.
The joke of the public sector comparator has already been mentioned. Last year, I made the point that using a 6 per cent. discount rate was nonsense given prevailing rates of interest. I was interested to note that the rate had been reduced by 3.5 per cent. That news was slipped out over Christmas, but I thought that the point had at least been acknowledged. When I read further, however, I found that even more latitude had been given to those involved to use in whichever alliances they wanted to use it. The truth is therefore that there is no meaningful public sector comparator. Although I admit that it is difficult to achieve objectively, it is lacking in transparency and integrity to claim that there is a process when it does not exist in reality.
PFI has worked better in some areas than in others. It has worked well in hospitals and prisons, but has been a disaster in information technology. Others have raised the issue of the ridiculous legal costs that are being incurred in many PFI contracts, especially in the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham said, there are criticisms that monolined bond documents do not contain all the information that they should; the professional costs and other legal charges involved have

303WH
been admitted. In three years' time, when we are back in power, we will have a considerable economic mess to sort out in respect of PFI.
I want to complete the story of Network Rail, because there will be whole of Government accounts next year. Sir John Bourn has agreed that, this year, the Strategic Rail Authority and Network Rail accounts will be consolidated into the SRA accounts, and that there will be notes about contingent liabilities in the Department for Transport accounts. Next year, the SRA and Network Rail will be consolidated into whole of Government account figures. However, there is no agreement that they will still be included in the Red Book figures. Technically, it turns on whether the SRA and Network Rail accounts are consolidated into the Department for Transport accounts. Sir John Bourn feels passionately that they should be so consolidated under accounting standards FRS 2 and 5. As has been said, the principle is that the Government clearly have a controlling equity interest. If, as is expected, Sir John Bourn wins his accounting argument, it will blow out of the water the arguments advanced by the ONS and Len Cook—to which the hon. Member for Yeovil referred— that the directors really control the business even though the NAO regards that as mythology. Sir John has made it clear that he will not sign off the accounts if he does not believe that the accounting standards have been upheld.
I had a lengthy discussion with the NAO on foundation hospitals. My understanding is that, if a foundation hospital has the power to raise money without Government guarantee or letter of comfort and it is structured to run its own affairs, there is a perfectly proper argument that it should not be on-balance sheet. The NAO's rulings are common sense. If a public sector entity acting on an independent basis raises money without Government guarantee and it gets into trouble, it will take the administration route like the public sector. It is perfectly right and justified that it should not be on-balance sheet. However, with Network Rail, the Government have tried to have their cake and eat it and have been universally condemned.
I understand that the Government are committed to addressing unfunded public sector employee pension liabilities under FRS 17. On the basis of their valuation, that will show an unfunded liability of about £400 billion, which will be in next year's whole of Government accounts. I will be pleased if the Financial Secretary can confirm that that information will be available.
My colleagues have put all the key points and so I close by simply saying that this is, in essence, about transparency and integrity. There will be arguments about accounting rules, but if the information about the contingent liabilities on the PFI deals that the Government have entered into is easily available—be that in full clear notes in the Red Book rather than in the balance sheet—everyone can read it and come to their own conclusions. If the Chancellor does not make that information available and then forces as much as possible off-balance sheet, he will be presenting figures with a lack of integrity that will return to haunt him.
Mr. Bill O'Brien (in the Chair): Because of the time taken for the Division, this debate can continue until about 3.40.
3.20 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I congratulate the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) on securing the debate. I listened with interest to various contributions, but I found some of the charges against the Government extraordinary, and some of the proposed remedies fringed on the absurd. One suggestion was to abandon independent accounting standards, which are widely regarded as being at the forefront of international best practice and accepted as such within the private sector. Other suggestions contradict the findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Having said that, I am pleased to be given the opportunity to dispel some of the myths that have developed about the robustness of Government accounts. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) recognised the role that accounting standards have to play in this area. The United Kingdom is one of the few countries in the world where the Government are required by statute to report their liabilities, assets and all other key financial information in the same way as companies are expected to do.
The Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 requires the accounts of Departments and those for the whole of Government, as and when they are developed. to comply with UK generally accepted accounting practice, or GAAP. adapted only as necessary to reflect the public sector context. That follows the commitment made by the Government in the code for fiscal stability in 1998 to follow best practice accounting methods, and an even earlier commitment by the previous Administration to adopt a resource accounting and budgeting approach for the planning and accounting of the costs of resources consumed by Government.
It is also worth stressing that the Government are working hard further to improve their standards of accounting and accountability through the development of whole of Government accounts. That is a complex task that will take a number of years to complete. The publication of the whole of Government accounts will be an important landmark in fulfilling the commitments in the code for fiscal stability. For the first time, we will have GAAP-based accounts for the whole of the public sector on a consolidated basis. Whole of Government accounts will set a new standard in transparency in governmental financial reporting. On current plans, we aim to publish whole of Government accounts for 2005–06, with a consolidated central Government account being published for 2003–04 as an interim stage, again on a GAAP basis.
The plain fact is that Government accounts must comply with GAAP and the accounting standards developed by the Accounting Standards Board. Enron was, of course, supposed to comply with US GAAP and often did not. In the UK, any adaptations from GAAP are required to pass a number of important hurdles. First, the Government are required by statute to take advice from an independent advisory board—the Financial Reporting Advisory Board. The board's terms of reference require it to aim to ensure that the Government's accounting guidance follows GAAP and that any departures or modifications are fully explained and justified. Under the chairmanship of Elwyn Eilledge from the private sector, the board's membership

305WH
represents a range of key interests, including the Accounting Standards Board and the National Audit Office. The FRAB reports annually to Parliament on its activities and can highlight any instances of the Treasury not following its advice. To date, that situation has not arisen.
Secondly, all Government accounts are audited by the independent Comptroller and Auditor General on Parliament's behalf. The CAG can and does qualify his audit opinion on the accounts of a Government body if he feels that the accounting guidance has not been complied with, or if in his opinion the accounts do not represent a true and fair view. In his general report for 2001–02, the CAG welcomed the significant improvement in the truth and fairness of departmental accounts, as represented by the results for 2001–02. A number of departmental resource accounts still have an audit qualification, but the Government are working hard to secure further improvements in the quality of accounts for 2002–03 and future years. It is important to bear all those considerations in mind.
Mr. Flight: Will the Minister confirm that one objective of whole of Government accounts is that what is shown in such accounts should essentially be the same as what is shown in the Red Book?
Ruth Kelly: No, they are compiled on different bases. I shall come in due course to precisely how the national accounts are calculated. To answer a previous question asked by the hon. Gentleman, I can confirm that they will show public sector pension liabilities in their fullest form, so he can be reassured on that point.
Let me deal with some of the points raised in the debate. I accept that accounting for PFI, PPPs and other complex transactions has often been controversial, but I do not accept that PFI and PPPs exist simply to move transactions off-balance sheet. That is not the case. The key question in considering any PFI project is whether it represents value for money. Balance sheet issues are irrelevant to that decision.
PFI transactions are accounted for in accordance with their substance. In accounting terms, that substance is determined by following the overriding principles set out in FRS 5, as developed by the independent Accounting Standards Board. The Government follow application note F to FRS 5 in accounting for PFI, supplemented by the Treasury taskforce technical note, which the Treasury discussed and cleared with the ASB. As a result, we have seen a number of significant PFI transactions in which the assets are on the public sector balance sheet—indeed, that is increasingly the case. All the major English prisons, most road schemes and the tube PPP are on-balance sheet.
In considering the appropriateness of accounting for PFI, I again draw right hon. and hon. Members' attention to the CAG's general report for 2001–02, which was published recently. It makes it clear that where the CAG—who, let us remember, is independent—
306WH
"considers that the liabilities arising from financing arrangements are not correctly reflected in the financial statements of the bodies that he audits then he will qualify his opinion and report to Parliament accordingly. He has not yet had the need to do so."
Mr. Hoban: Will the Minister recognise that the CAG's report also stated:
"Notwithstanding the guidance on accounting for PFI programmes ߪ the National Audit Office has noted some apparent inconsistencies in accounting treatments applied to projects in different parts of the public sector. This may have an impact on Whole of Government Accounts incorporating the local authority and health sectors"?
She paints a rosy picture of the application of accounting standards and guidance, but will she recognise that there are many grey areas, and that the CAG has highlighted the way in which those standards have been applied inappropriately in some areas?
Ruth Kelly: No. I do not think that the CAG said that standards have been applied inappropriately; he said that there is room for increased sophistication in how particular assets are classified, for example. The ASB is considering how a more sophisticated approach could be applied in future. Hon. Members have accused the Government of using PFI as a tool for moving things off-balance sheet. I would say that the use of the public sector comparator and the discount rate that applies are completely irrelevant to the accounting treatment of a PFI project. The comparator is used purely to determine whether a PFI project provides value for money.
Mr. Osborne: Will the Minister give way?
Ruth Kelly: I have only a little time left, so I had better make some progress.
Mr. Flight: The Minister has 11 minutes.
Ruth Kelly: Very well, I will give way.
Mr. Osborne: I am not sure that the Minister believes what she is saying. She knows that PFI is the only game in town, as evidenced by the 121 PFI contracts that the Public Accounts Committee has considered and the words of the permanent secretaries from spending Departments. All those to whom we have spoken say that if one wants a project to get past the Treasury, that is what one has to go for. I fear that either she has not looked at what the spending Departments are doing, or she is just reading what Treasury civil servants put in front of her.
Ruth Kelly: I am certainly not doing that. I have looked at the comprehensive NAO report on PFI procurement, which shows that PFI revolutionised public sector capital procurement—before PFI, 70 per cent. of projects were late and 73 per cent. over budget, but under PFI the situation was dramatically reversed: 76 per cent. of projects were on time and 78 per cent. within budget. What is more, where projects were not delivered on time the private rather than the public sector bore the cost.
Let me turn to contingent liabilities, the other major matter that has been discussed. Another myth that has grown up is that the Government are trying somehow to

307WH
hide contingent liabilities off the balance sheet. Again, let me point out that the Government follow independent accounting standards—in this case, FRS 12 in particular—in judging whether a liability is contingent.
Mr. Laws: Does the Financial Secretary agree with Sir John Bourn that the accounting for Network Rail was a triumph of form over substance?
Ruth Kelly: I shall come to the accounting treatment of Network Rail after I have developed my argument on contingent liabilities. Under FRS 12, a liability is contingent if it is dependent on uncertain future events, cannot be estimated with sufficient reliability or is likely not to be called. If a liability satisfies that definition, it will be treated as contingent and so will not score as expenditure or borrowing.
Exactly the same treatment would apply in the private sector. Again, the treatment is subject to independent audit by the CAG. I should also stress that the Government adopt full transparency in disclosing contingent liabilities. They are fully disclosed in the notes to departmental resource accounts. In addition, Departments report contingent liabilities to Parliament if statute requires it or, if they are non-statutory, when they are over £100,000 or outside the normal course of business.
As the hon. Gentleman has already told us, a list of contingent liabilities reported to Parliament can be found in the annual supplementary statement to the Consolidated Fund and national loans fund accounts. He claims that nobody reads those, but I suggest that if he makes his case coherently, people will start to do so with more interest. Comprehensive information on contingent liabilities will be published in the whole of Government accounts. I suggest that he wait patiently for the development of those accounts.
Mr.Laws: In order to make sure that the contingent liabilities see the light of day, will the Minister undertake to move forward their publication from the day before the Christmas recess?
Ruth Kelly: I shall not comment on when the interim central Government accounts will be in place. When they have been developed for the current financial year, they will be the best source for anybody seeking a consolidated picture.
I turn to Network Rail. A lot has been said about it, not least in the Treasury Committee report published in January. It is important to remember when considering Network Rail that we are dealing with two different regimes, the GAAP-based accounts, prepared by Departments and other central bodies, and the national accounts, which are compiled by the independent ONS, following international rules for the compilation of economic statistics. We are required by EU regulation to use national accounts for economic statistics reported to the European Commission.
The CAG and the national statistician specified in their joint statement last October the different bases on which they had reached their different judgments about the classification of Network Rail. That statement made it clear that the financial statements of central
308WH
Government bodies and the national accounts are prepared for different purposes and under different sources of guidance.
It is not the case that the Government and the CAG are somehow taking different positions. On a GAAF' basis, Network Rail is consolidated into the accounts of the Strategic Rail Authority. In 2003–04, the SRA will be consolidated into central Government accounts,. That is entirely consistent with the CAG's view. It would be wrong for the Government somehow to override the decision of the ONS. As the Government made clear in their response to the Treasury Committee report, it would be inappropriate for the Government to seek to align the different positions of the CAG and the national statistician. The Treasury will work with the ONS to ensure that the whole of Government accounts include a full and transparent reconciliation with relevant national accounts data.
In the remaining minutes I will address a few of the issues that have been raised in this debate. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) argued that there is a different regime operating for central Government and for local government. He believes that central Government are seeking to control local government in a way that has not happened before. However, I would argue that it is not a case of imposing one rule for local government and another for central Government. The aim is to make both GAAP-compliant. The aim of the accounting treatment should be to bring it up to what is considered to be international best practice.
Foundation hospitals have also been raised. I shall not today make an announcement on their treatment to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws). However, the ONS is looking at the classification of foundation hospitals for national accounts purposes. No decision has yet been reached. The Treasury is also looking at their classification for the whole of Government accounts. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will look at the substance, not the form, of the arrangements in deciding their classification, as we have on other issues.
This has been a valuable debate. I am glad that at least the odd Member has recognised the role of accounting standards. The Government are at the forefront of international best practice in applying them. We are certainly not in the business of hiding liabilities, or of indulging in dubious accounting practices. Our commitment to best practice accounting is perhaps most clearly demonstrated by my response to the remarks of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs. The Government will, from this year onwards, recognise a total provision of £350 million for unfunded public sector pension scheme liabilities, in line with the Accounting Standards Board FRS 17. In that respect, the Government will be ahead of private sector practices.
Mr. Flight: Million, or billion?
Ruth Kelly: I should have said billion.
In summary, the approach that we have taken will ensure that our accounting for Government activities remains amongst the best in the world. That has to be in the interests, not only of Government and Parliament but of the millions of taxpayers and citizens whom we represent.

Education Funding (Cornwall)
3.38 pm
Andrew George: I am delighted to have secured this debate, which is very important to Cornwall. Many difficult decisions need to be taken on the budget and planning for the next financial year for schools in Cornwall. From his correspondence with the local authority, the Minister seems fully to understand the nature and climate of the debate, and I do not intend to make it combative. There is a shared interest between the Liberal Democrats and the Government. Making the essential investment in education can sometimes mean that taxes need to be increased. We fully support the Government's generosity shown by the global figures for education. I congratulate them on that.
Now that those budgets are being devolved and passported to schools in Cornwall, some hard decisions will need to be taken. It may have to be drawn to the Minister's attention that the Government may not have foreseen the problems that many schools are facing. It may be a question of bedding in or fine tuning. Now that the new funding package is in place, and with local authorities such as Cornwall looking closely at the impact of the budget on their schools, the Minister may want to reflect on the difficult decisions that will need to be made.
I intend to speak first, and primarily, about school funding. It appears that we are facing a perverse situation. This year, schools are going to have to tighten belts, sack teachers and increase class sizes, yet the Government are telling them that they have never had it so good. Secondly, I want to speak about parity of funding between colleges of further education and sixth forms attached to schools. Thirdly, I want to highlight the important progress that has been made and to congratulate the Government on their contribution to t he combined universities in Cornwall but also to draw attention to the many challenges that that project faces over the next couple of years.
Cornwall has 283 schools, 241 of which are primary schools. It is inevitable that Cornwall should have a large number of small schools because of the county's geography and the way in which its population is dispersed among small peninsulas. My constituency has its share of those problems, and we have little option but to ensure that provision is made for those communities, because it would otherwise mean transporting very young children long distances to school. The cost of providing those extra schools needs to be borne in mind, just as much as the large transport budget for a county such as Cornwall.
Cornwall is the poorest region, as proved by European figures on gross domestic product—hence our success in obtaining objective 1 status. Social exclusion is a significant problem among families whose children go to Cornish schools, especially as many of them are on low incomes. However, despite having below-average settlements for education under Conservative and Labour Governments, the county achieved good results.
The latest figures show that Cornish secondary schools received about £126 less per pupil and primary schools received £220 less per pupil than the average in England. Some authorities obviously have to be below
310WH
average; if formulae are set, we must accept that some will be above and others below the average. The Government are no doubt used to those who are below the average complaining about the fact. However, despite those problems, Cornwall is a three-star authority. It is also a beacon council in respect of its local education authority. It received a further award this week for transforming secondary schools, which the secretary for education came to London to collect, and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister gave it an excellent billing as a local authority. However, the settlement this year is a problem. The portfolio holder for education, Councillor Mrs. Doris Ansari, has written to the Minister; I have a copy of that exchange of correspondence, which is enlightening. No doubt further work will be needed on the matter, subsequent to this debate.
We accept, and are pleased with, the global increase, but many schools that I have visited recently face the stark choice of sacking staff and increasing class sizes or going into debt. They may not go into debt this year but they will do so next year, because although some of them have reserves, those will not last for more than 18 months. Those schools simply want to maintain their current staffing levels so as to maintain their current class sizes, and to keep their classroom assistants, whom they believe to be important in maintaining educational standards, which I am sure the Minister agrees is important.
In cash terms, the increase in Cornwall is approximately 4.4 per cent. per pupil; I believe that the Minister accepts that figure. The Minister notes that, in authorities where pupil numbers continue to rise, that will be reflected in the 2004–05 settlement. Cornwall has experienced a decrease in composite primary school pupil numbers and an increase in composite secondary school pupil numbers. The composite numbers are used for budgetary purposes and are composed of the actual numbers for January 2003 and the estimated numbers for September 2003. The increase in per pupil funding is passported to schools by the county council. This year, that has been equivalent to 5.8 per cent. per pupil for the primary sector, and 5 per cent. per pupil for the secondary sector.
I have a copy of the Minister's letter of 15 March to Councillor Ansari acknowledging that the council has set the schools budget
"consistent with passporting in full the increase in schools funding."
The local education authority is, therefore, doing nothing wrong. It is not holding back money that the schools should receive, and I think that the Minister has now accepted that point. However, the inflationary salary increase of 2.9 per cent. for teachers and 3.5 per cent. for support staff, plus the estimated increase in teacher on-costs of about 6 per cent., will require a total increase in funding of about 7.5 per cent. per pupil.
Moreover, if one adds in the leadership spine increases, which are only part funded, the fact that most eligible teachers are successful in progressing from one spine point to the next, which is also only part funded, and the stable teaching population, of which Cornwall is proud but which is generating incremental drift up the salary scales, the actual increase required will be in excess of 8 per cent. per pupil. The exact amount would depend on schools' individual circumstances.

311WH
The local education authority tells me that, under those conditions, the schools budget represents, at best, little more than a standstill budget, especially in the secondary sector. Schools with a reasonable turnover of staff to set against incremental drift, and with fewer staff progressing on to the higher spine points, may feel that the budget is not so bad, but Cornwall has a fairly stable staff population.
The significant impact of the loss of the standards funds, on top of the issues already identified, may be the straw that has broken the back of many schools. The increase in base budgets for schools covers only inflationary costs and increases to employers' superannuation and national insurance contributions. The impact of the standards funds losses is therefore experienced in its entirety. The net effect is a reduction in school income in real terms.
The increase in budgets, taking account of the standards fund and the standards grant, is 8.2 per cent. per pupil for the primary sector and 5.5 per cent. for the secondary sector. The loss of the standards funds—some £3.7 million for Cornwall—has been covered in total by the increase in the standards grant of £1.5 million. The impact on secondary schools of the net loss of standards funds and the net gain of standards grants is therefore clearly disproportionate in relation to the impact on primary schools. That net effect has resulted in budget settlements for secondary schools in Cornwall that are well below inflationary pressures.
The council also raised with the Minister its concern about the unanticipated increase in pupil numbers from 500 last year to 800 this year. That increase is costing the local authority some £1.5 million a year, which equals 1 per cent. of the schools delegated budget. Although that is compensated for, the LEA tells me that the situation is not entirely satisfactory.
I have spoken to several schools, and have corresponded with the Minister about Connor Downs primary school in my constituency. The head teacher, Allan Lawrence, wrote to me about the school receiving the reducing infant class sizes fund. It has had the full benefit of that fund and is grateful to the Government for it, but it will not receive it in future. Thanks to that very welcome grant, it could maintain its current average class size of 25 pupils. However, if there is no increase in that money, or if it is lost, as I anticipated in my correspondence with the Minister last year, its reserves will probably be entirely taken up in maintaining staff over the next 18 months and it will have to lose an extra member of staff. Its average class size will then increase to 36 pupils. That is unacceptable, and it will not help that school, the LEA or the Government to meet the standards and to make the improvements that I believe we all want to see.
I recently received a letter from Richard King, who is a parent governor of Cape Cornwall school, a small secondary school near Lands End in my constituency. He wrote:
"As a parent governor at Cape Cornwall School, I am horrified that we face a 2.7 per cent. CUT in our budget for 2003–2004."
The school anticipates that the cut will result in the loss of four teachers in a school with a stable population. It is important for the Minister to accept that the LEA is doing all that it can, and is doing nothing wrong when passporting all the money that the Department is giving
312WH
it. He should also accept that schools must now make stark choices about their future. I am not suggesting that the Government are doing anything wrong, but there is a need under the new system for a review of the way in which the funds are being given to schools. We have had the opportunity to assess the impact of the funding on schools, and we now know that a reduction will have a severe impact on many schools in Cornwall.
I assure the Minister that Cornwall is not crying wolf. It does not do so by nature and does not complain. However, it has always had lower than average funding, despite which we have managed very well.
The Minister should bear in mind the fact that this is a three-star LEA and a beacon council, which has been given an award of excellence. I hope that he will accept that we are doing everything that we can to passport the money. We need to ask him whether Cornwall has done something wrong. Will he consider the matter and say what it has not done? Are its calculations incorrect?
Matthew Taylor: My hon. Friend asks whether the Minister believes that the LEA has done anything wrong. Perhaps he can put it to him that there is a fundamental flaw in what the Government have done. They decided the increase in costs to schools in relation to awards for teachers, which no one is against, but they have not allowed for funding to meet those awards. That increase in costs to schools is higher than the fully passported increases that the Minister agreed, incidentally, not only in Cornwall. The education unions put that point to Ministers, but the Secretary of State seemed to be unaware of it.
Andrew George: I am grateful for that intervention. A new funding regime is bedding in and I hope that the Minister accepts the fact that that there may be different effects across the country. Some LEAs will be extremely happy; others will be less happy. The subject needs to be reviewed.
The Minister said that he is too busy—I am sure that he is extremely busy—to meet the LEA in Cornwall in the foreseeable future. Given the nature of the questions that I have raised, I hope that, if we do not arrive at satisfactory answers this afternoon, he will welcome a delegation from the LEA to go over some of the figures.
A number of FE colleges are concerned that they are not receiving parity of funding compared with schools. I am not suggesting that schools are getting too much funding, but the colleges have a justifiable argument in respect of the funding that they receive from the Learning and Skills Council and their case for parity.
I congratulate the Government on the money that they have put into the combined universities in Cornwall. The project is excellent and is doing well, but some difficult decisions need to be taken in respect of the next phase in 2005. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the project and give the board team all the support that he can.
3.56 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): I look forward to being kept in order and on time under your careful chairmanship, Mr. O'Brien.

313WH
I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on securing the debate. I know that it is a competitive process. I am happy to participate in the debate and welcome what I think he described as the non-combative tone. His acknowledgment that taxes need to rise to pay for public services may have raised some eyebrows behind him. The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) may have thought that the hon. Gentleman was about to venture into a spending commitment when his party is donning the cloak of prudence.
I hope that I can respond in a suitably co-operative and helpful way. Obviously, the Government have the interests of students in Cornwall at heart. If I may chide the hon. Member for St. Ives, perhaps it was a little ungenerous not to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) on the outstanding work that she has done and the campaigns that she has led on behalf of parents and pupils in Cornwall. My understanding is that the highly innovative combined universities in Cornwall have most of their facilities in my hon. Friend's constituency. She has been a tireless campaigner not just for school pupils but for higher education pupils.
As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I have been having an enjoyable and, I hope, fruitful exchange with his friend the lead member for education in Cornwall. That exchange has included phone conversations.
This is a year of change for the schools funding system. The local government funding formula has changed. There have been significant changes in the balance between central and local discretion. There has been an end to some ring-fencing of central grants by central Government; many Liberal Democrats criticised ring-fencing for a long time. There have been changes to the distribution of the money.
There has also been a significant drive by the Government to ensure that there are longer-term budgets for schools. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that, but it is significant that the Government, who have three-year budgets for their Departments, are giving three-year budgets to local authorities and encouraging three-year budgets for schools. When schools consider their budgets for this year, it is important for their confidence and planning that they have as much notice as possible of the three-year horizon. That view is widely shared.
The hon. Gentleman did not dwell on this point, but when we speak about education in the House, it is important to recognise the outstanding performance of many schools. He touched on that. I asked for the figures to be dug out for this debate. Since 1998, the percentage of young people leaving primary school in Cornwall who are doing well in English has risen from 66 per cent. to 74 per cent; in maths from 62 per cent. to 71 per cent; and in science from 74 per cent. to 86 per cent. Many people are ready to disparage the education system, but I am glad that he was ready to congratulate the schools of Cornwall on what they are doing. He would recognise that Cornwall now has 3,880 teachers in its schools, compared with 3,590 in January 1998. Those teachers are to be congratulated on their outstanding work.
314WH
The picture on funding is striking. Since 1997–98, Cornwall's education standard spending assessment has increased by more than £52 million, an increase of about 5.5 per cent. a year. [Interruption.] I hope that I will be allowed to run through the changes that have occurred since 1997–98, because they are relevant. The funding increase of £52 million is only part of the picture. The amount that Cornwall received through the standards fund has increased from £3.4 million in 1997 to almost £21 million this year. The school standards direct grant, which goes directly from the Government to schools, is now more than £6 million. It is because we have chosen not to deliver the direct grant through the formula that more of it goes to Cornwall's schools.
It is worth pointing out that the capital investment figures for Cornwall are striking. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the decline in the quality of the capital stock was shameful. In 1997–98, capital expenditure in Cornwall was about £8 million. Last year, it was £16.6 million and this year it is £24 million. For 2003–04, we have already provisionally allocated about £27 million to Cornwall. I am pleased to say that two private finance initiative projects have been agreed in Cornwall, the total value of which is no less than £130 million. That money is needed and will be well spent. I am sure that he will agree that it will make a major difference.
Let me deal with the serious issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about the distribution of funds. He rightly says that it is all very well for the quantum of funding to increase but that distribution is important. I hope that he will agree that the old funding formula, based on the regression from 1991 census figures, was not adequate. The new system may not give everything to everyone. I was pleased to hear him recognise that some authorities have to be below average. Sometimes, hon. Members are loth to accept such a basic mathematical principle. However, the new system aims to be simpler and fairer. I never claimed that it was perfect, but it is fairer than the old one.
I wish to say a word about how the new system works. Our simple aim, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares it, is that similar pupils in different parts of the country should have a similar amount of money attached to them by central Government. Our aim is for funding to recognise the separate responsibility of schools and of local education authorities. That is why the schools and the local education authorities blocks are separate in the new system. There are three basic funding entitlements for all pupils: first, £2,000 in a primary school and £2,600 in a secondary school; secondly, a top-up for deprivation and additional educational needs; thirdly, a recognition of extra costs.
I shall run through the last two elements and explain Cornwall's position on them before I address the matter of sparsity, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. There has been a significant change on additional educational needs, which should benefit Cornwall. The present system is based on the 1991 census, and there are two problems with it. The first is that the pattern of expenditure is not accurate for today's needs. Secondly, the pupil characteristics that were used in 1991 are not good indicators of educational need. The Government had a major decision to make in defining additional educational needs. In our consultative paper, we said

315WH
that we could base need on income support or we could add in a recognition of the working families tax credit when we define educational need.
That is particularly relevant to Cornwall, because about 29 per cent. of families there receive working families tax credit—nearly a third of all families. That is well above the national average of 19 per cent. We have embedded in the new system a recognition that children who come from low-wage families as well as from families in which the parents are unemployed have additional needs. Those needs are now recognised in the new system. That is a significant change that will benefit the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
The hon. Gentleman asked about cost adjustment. There are now 99 authorities that benefit from the operation of the area cost adjustment. Many schools, particularly in London and the south-east but also in the 99 authorities, face extra costs in recruiting and retaining staff. That is not related to the pay scales, which are national in the education system, but arises from high turnover. We have recognised that some authorities have to adopt special measures to tackle the problem. I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Gentleman that Cornwall did not appear in the top 99 authorities. It was one of the 51 that did not gain, but it is important to put on the record why that was.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned issues relating to rural schools. Particular problems are faced by authorities with sparsely populated areas. That is why the new formula contains a sparsity element to reflect the costs of home-to-school transport in rural areas and to help rural primary schools. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that. Sparse authorities wanted us to introduce a sparsity factor for secondary schools, too. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) nods his head, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman). This is not restricted to Cornwall. We examined the issue in some detail and found no evidence of a connection between secondary school size and sparsity: small secondary schools are as likely to be found in densely populated metropolitan authorities as in shire counties such as Cornwall.
We recognise that secondary school pupils often have to travel further to get to school in sparse authorities, so we have examined the transport expenditure of each LEA to assess the impact of sparsity. In the new formula, 60 per cent. of the transport element of the LEA block has been distributed through the sparsity index and 40 per cent. through the numbers of pupils living in the authority. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that recognises some of the additional transport needs that exist in a place such as Cornwall.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that this year was a transitional year and asked what additional help central Government would provide. The system of floors and ceilings that has been introduced in the new system has offered considerable protection at considerable cost. When we published our consultation paper on the new system last summer, we received a lot of correspondence from authorities and schools expressing concern about the overall effect. That is why there is a floor in the system of 3.2 per cent., paid for by a maximum of 7 per cent. Cornwall's increase this year is 4.4 per cent. After taking account of pupil number changes, the increase is 6.4 per cent. On top of that, following the recent
316WH
spending review, education formula spending will rise nationally by 6 per cent. per pupil in 2004–05 and 7 per cent. per pupil in 2005–06.
Andrew George: The Minister has explained how the formula is made up and broken down, but he has not addressed the fundamental question. Is there something that the local authority is doing wrong that is resulting in schools, having passported all the money to which they are entitled, facing the prospect of sacking staff and having larger classes?
Mr. Miliband: The hon. Gentleman has taken 20 seconds away from my opportunity to deal with precisely that question, which I want to do before I touch on the issue of the combined universities project. I take seriously reports from any school anywhere in the country that, as a re cult either of what we or others have done, their budgets are falling, at a time when national budgets are rising. I urge the hon. Gentleman and any other hon. Members to ask such schools to write to me. We are collecting all data from all LEAs and all schools to scrutinise the issues carefully.
There are two important factors. First, although we have a national system, we do not have a single national funding formula under which money is paid to each school in the country. We have LEA funding formulae and they are obviously important in the distribution of funds to schools. I cast no aspersions on Cornwall's formula, but how that formula is structured has an effect on each school. Secondly, there is an issue about how money that is for pupils but not spent by schools is allocated—for example, for special educational needs.
That may not be an issue in Cornwall, but in some parts of the country there is pressure on the special educational needs budget, which competes with other priorities at school level. The matter has been raised by other local authorities and it may be relevant in Cornwall. I cast no aspersions on the way in which the authority is working, but it is an issue in other parts of the country.
Mr. Ben Chapman: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Bill O'Brien (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene unless he has permission from the hon. Member who secured the debate. That is the rule of the House.
Mr. Miliband: We cannot break the rules of the House, so I shall carry on.
I am happy to consider any of the issues raised by individual schools.
The Government have supported phase 1 of the combined universities project to the tune of £28 million. The Higher Education Funding Council has also given some support. My hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education is today visiting Cornwall to see the progress that has been made and to look at the proposals for phase 2. I am sure that she will join other hon. Members in giving those proposals a fair wind.

317WH
The CUC will have its first students in September. We have made it clear that a proper evaluation of phase 1 is needed before considering phase 2, but the energy, enthusiasm and commitment—
Mr. Bill O'Brien (in the Chair): Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Cuba
4.11 pm
Dr. Nick Palmer: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, which I do partly in my capacity as chair of the all-party Cuba group. In the press and in the general political context, Cuba is associated with a left-wing position, so it is surprising to some that Opposition Members join the group. I am happy to say that there is broad support for the group, which includes many Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members. I acknowledge the parallel work done in the business community by the Cuba initiative, which is chaired by the noble Lord Moynihan, who sits on the Conservative Benches. What members of the group have in common is not a political view of Cuba but a view that that country deserves fair treatment that is comparable with that of other countries at a similar stage of development that have similar advantages and drawbacks.
Like so many areas in world politics, Cuba presents a difficult challenge to most of us, as it does not fit neatly into any category. Most members of the all-party group recognise that Cuba's Government, under pressure from decades of blockade and hostility from exiles, has a number of policies that no one who supports full freedom of opinion can welcome. We recognise that progress needs to be made, and the only issue that people debate is how that progress can be achieved without provoking a general destabilisation of the country that would be against the interests of the people of Cuba.
Given its limited resources, Cuba's social record is startling; its education is excellent, and life expectancy in the country is almost at UK levels, despite a health service that can afford only a fraction of our expenditure. It is perhaps fortunate that no Conservative Member is present when I say that we can learn from Cuba, as well as Cuba learning from us, about how it is possible to achieve progress in public health with relatively limited resources. I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), a member of the Select Committee on Health, who has been to Cuba more than once and especially commends its work in primary health care.
Jeremy Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Bill O'Brien (in the Chair): Order. Has the hon. Gentleman asked for permission from the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) to intervene in the debate?
Dr. Palmer: Yes: I should have informed the Chair that I had agreed.
Jeremy Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise for not informing the Chair of this in advance.
I have been to Cuba twice, and I was very impressed by its health service. Does my hon. Friend agree that the success of its health service is due not only to the skill of the doctors, surgeons and other health technicians, but to a popular understanding of the need for preventative

319WH
medicine and of the role that doctors play in society? That is a complete role that involves encouraging health education and healthy living and eating, which is demonstrated by Cuba's excellent statistics, despite having far fewer resources to throw at health care than the United States or this country.
Dr. Palmer: My hon. Friend is right. On that matter, I defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, who is more of an expert on the subject: he agrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) that the key issue is the focus on popular involvement in healthy living. As someone who hates sport, I regret to say that that includes a national commitment to sport. That is reflected in Cuba's national health statistics in a way that gives us pause for thought.
Even for those of us who are new Labour to our toenails, it is good for the world that there is one country that is still trying to show that an alternative economic model can work: a little political world competition is never a bad thing. However, there are sustained efforts against the Cuban Government by exile groups that are hostile to them, and there are advisers on the fringes of the United States Government who would like to label Cuba as part of an axis of evil. The agenda of those groups is hostile to the existence of the Cuban Government in their current form—or anything similar. They seek to lead the US Administration and its allies in a direction that very few people on both sides of the Atlantic wish to go.
The peculiar treatment of the "Miami five" Cuban agents also highlights the very strong influence of those exile groups. I appreciate that the Minister has no responsibility for the Miami five trial, but it is worth noting that their attempt to be tried outside the heated atmosphere of Miami was refused, despite the fact that the State Department sought to have a different trial affecting its own employees moved because of anti-Cuban-Government feeling in Miami. Therefore, there are clear inconsistencies. Also, Amnesty International is concerned about the fact that the accused are being held in solitary confinement as they attempt to prepare for their appeal.
Those groups would like Cuba's Government to be removed by pressure, and even by force. It is important that we make it clear that that is not British policy and that our first choice is constructive engagement. The key issue is what form that should take.
That brings us to the question of the Cotonou agreement. The successor to the African, Caribbean and Pacific agreement, the Cotonou agreement contains commitments to human rights, and I think that we all feel that they are an important advance on the ACP agreement. We are saying, "We want free trade but we want it under conditions that we can defend with partners we fully respect." It has been argued that no country that is not already in full compliance should be admitted. However, it is worth noting that there are countries that are partners in the Cotonou agreement that might not be said fully to fulfil the requirements. Nigeria's applications of Sharia law make it possible in principle for women to be stoned to death for alleged moral offences. Zimbabwe's leader reportedly describes himself as the new Hitler, and his behaviour makes Cuba's Government as uncontroversial by comparison as Cossall parish council in my home village.
320WH
It is worth noting that, contrary to what one might expect, the application has universal support from other ACP countries. They do not see Cuba as a potential competitor, because it has voluntarily agreed not to seek trading advantages at the expense of the other partners. If Cuba were to be the only country in the ACP area to be excluded from Cotonou, that would be a clear act of political selectivity. By contrast, its admittance would commit Cuba to the words of the agreement:
"the promotion of human rights, processes of democratisation, consolidation of the rule of law and good governance",
and it would provide the European Union with an important measure of leverage on all those issues. As a strong supporter of our action in Iraq, once it had become clear that there was no other way in which to stop a fascist dictator with biochemical weapons—
4.20 pm
Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.
4.46 pm
On resuming—
Dr. Palmer: As a strong supporter of our action in Iraq—because, in my view, it has become clear that there is no other way to stop a fascist dictator who has biochemical weapons—I believe that it is all the more important that we show that we are open to voluntary and co-operative progress on human rights by Governments with whom we have, by comparison, far less serious disagreements. The Cotonou application is supported by the relevant EU Commissioner and by most European Union countries, and I very much hope that we will not use our effective veto to block it. We believe in constructive engagement, and Cotonou is all about that. I hope that it will present the way forward for Cuba.
4.47 pm
Mr.BenChapman: First, may I apologise for the fact that I must leave before the end of the debate, owing to a previous commitment? Also, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) on securing this important debate.
As I see it, Cuba is in a state of stalled transition. The economic crisis of the 1990s forced the regime to implement liberalising reforms, but subsequent signs of recovery have been met with counter-reform and ideological reassertion. The country remains poised for further policy change, which could lift the economy out of its slump, but the current political situation prevents that from occurring. That said, the dynamics of Cuba's transition may be unclear, but we can be sure that the process of reform is ultimately inevitable.
I hope that he forgives me for saying so, but notwithstanding his many achievements, the erstwhile revolutionary leader of Cuba is, in some sense, a relic of the cold war. Over the past 42 years, there have been many incautious predictions of his demise, beginning with the ill-fated and ill-conceived attack at the Bay of Pigs. However, it is not such bellicose actions that have been shown to effect change in Cuba, nor has it been isolation and embargo, which simply entrench the regime's position. Rather, it is engagement. We have seen that process throughout the 1990s and

321WH
subsequently. Although the regime has limited the progress of reform, it cannot be stopped altogether, not least because that would cripple the economy. Small economic successes in the past decade have tended to be closely followed by ideological crackdowns, but the seed of reform has been planted and it will grow.
In view of that process, further engagement of Cuba by the UK, the EU, and indeed the US, is advisable and a matter of self-interest. I welcome the gaps that I see emerging in Washington's economic blockade of Cuba, but as the US begins to reverse its failed policy, the UK should not be left behind. As my hon. Friend mentioned, Cuba is not a signatory of the Cotonou agreement. I encourage it to become so. The UK has no bilateral aid programme with Cuba, nor plans to develop one, which is a shame. To some extent, that is a product of the aid-to-the-poorest policy, which means that a country that has helped itself above a certain median level cannot qualify as one of the poorest. Ultimately, therefore, we continue to put aid into areas that are perhaps unchangeably poor, rather than helping countries that can improve incrementally, such as Cuba.
Department for International Development assistance to Cuba via non-governmental organisations totalled a mere £346,000 in 2001–02. We also provided £1 million towards the EU aid programme for Cuba, but that is not much in the scheme of things. I recognise that we have significant trade links, and tourism develops apace. Also, I very much welcome and applaud the Cuba initiative that my hon. Friend mentioned, but our bilateral relationship is insufficient.
Aside from the €15 million in aid and a Havana office that deals almost exclusively with trade matters, the EU is more or less inactive in Cuba. It is the only country with which the EU has no formal agreement on economic co-operation, yet in terms of trade and tourism, the EU and Cuba are closely linked. The euro is legal tender in many Cuban resorts, and the EU accounts for 40 per cent. of Cuba's trade. The de jure institutional linkages should be allowed to match the de facto situation. They do not match, of course, because of the nature of Cuba's political system and its human rights record, but history has taught us that washing our hands of a problem and isolating a regime reap little reward. Those circumstances continue to isolate not only the regime but the Cuban people. We will garner little favour with reformers on the island if we simply let them hang.
Of course, 11 September impacted on Cuba's economy through oil prices and declining tourist revenues, and Hurricane Michelle exacerbated that. The economy has barely been off its knees since 1990, and there are still severe shortages of many essential goods such as food and medicine. We must act now to build linkages to bring Cuba into the international community, jump-starting the stalled process of transition. Cuba must be engaged, riot isolated, and the ways of achieving that immediately are bilateral dialogue and aid or accession to the Cotonou agreement.
The creeping juggernaut of reform is on the verge of changing the Cuban regime. We can say for certain only that regime change will occur at some point, but it is my
322WH
contention that we should be there positively when it does. Such engagement would allow us to steer the transition process to the betterment of the Cuban people, the Cuban economy and our bilateral relations.
4.53 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) on having won the ballot and secured the debate. This is an important issue, and it is right that we should debate it.
The United Kingdom enjoys cordial diplomatic relations with Cuba. However, along with our European Union partners, we cannot have entirely normal relations with Cuba because of the nature of the Castro regime, and especially the violations of human rights that it commits.
Managing relations with Cuba is a complex business, and I shall describe how we do it through the EU and other multilateral forums, and bilaterally. We want Cuba to develop economically, politically and socially, and to build on the significant advances that its Government have already made in health and literacy, which have been mentioned. Cuba has the natural and human resources .to become one of the region's most prosperous economies, but its political and economic system needs to develop for that to happen. The EU, the United States and the UK share the same goal for Cuba: a peaceful transition to a pluralist democracy. However, we seek to achieve that through constructive engagement, rather than through isolating Cuba.
I admit that there are times when constructive engagement can be somewhat difficult. The EU has been proposing a political dialogue with Cuba for years, yet the on-off process remains frustratingly barren. Cuba will talk, but only on Cuba's terms. The human rights situation in Cuba remains a major cause for concern, and the arrest of 80 people last month in a crackdown on dissident activity is a further setback for all, including the Government, whose aim is the progressive normalisation of relations between the EU and Cuba.
Since 1996, EU relations with Cuba have been governed by a common position that sets out the EU desire to be Cuba's partner through constructive dialogue and co-operation. However, at the same time that position affirms that the intensification of those relations depends on Cuba's making progress on human rights. The common position makes it clear that full cooperation will not be possible until Cuba commits itself to international human rights standards. The EU calls for freedom of assembly and expression, a free media and freedom for all political parties. We urge an end to arbitrary detention, intimidation and imprisonment on political grounds. The common position has proved a useful means of managing EU relations with Cuba, and it has been maintained unanimously in 12 consecutive evaluations.
The EU also deals with relations with Cuba in two United Nations forums: the Commission on Human Rights and the General Assembly. The EU has cosponsored a resolution on Cuba at the UN Commission on Human Rights for the past 10 years. The resolution voices—in modest terms—international concern at the systematic denial of fundamental civil and political

323WH
rights to the people of Cuba. It also focuses the frustrations felt at Cuba's lack of co-operation with UN human rights mechanisms and its refusal to acknowledge any domestic human rights problems. This year as last, Latin American countries tabled the resolution. We welcome the involvement of countries within Cuba's home region.
The EU acts in concert in the General Assembly and each year votes against a US embargo. The EU also rejects the US attempts to pursue its Cuba policy through the extension of its legal jurisdiction beyond US borders by means of the Helms-Burton Act.
My hon. Friend referred to the Miami five. The Government believe that that is a bilateral matter between the US and Cuba, and that any questions about the sentencing and treatment of those prisoners should be addressed to the appropriate US authorities. As my hon. Friend understands, the Government have no formal standing to intervene in the United States domestic judicial processes with people who are not UK nationals.
In January, Cuba applied to join the Cotonou agreement, which is an agreement between the EU and African, Caribbean and Pacific countries that can bring benefits to those countries in trade and development. Cuba wants Cotonou, and the EU sees Cuba as a natural signatory, but we must see some improvements in human rights first. Unconditional entry to Cotonou would reward Cuba's intransigence on human rights. We cannot have that. Cuba's application is yet to be discussed formally in the EU. However, the chances of its being accepted must have receded significantly in recent weeks, following the arrests. Cotonou can and will benefit Cuba, but Cuba must show itself ready to take on the human rights obligations that Cotonou imposes. To date, it has not demonstrated its willingness to do so. Arresting a further 80 dissidents last month seems almost to have been calculated to prevent the EU from assessing Cuba's application positively.
Some argue that Cotonou will give us further opportunities to engage Cuba. I understand that. Let us work with Cuba through the agreement and we can all benefit. Other countries, arguably with worse human rights records, are in the Cotonou agreement, so people say, "Why bar Cuba?" That would be a fair point if we could cite just one example when the Cuban regime has responded positively to the EU or international diplomacy in that way. Sadly, however, the history of Cuba's relations with the international community does not support such moves. We cannot approach Cotonou, the common position or the UN Commission on Human Rights as if there were no such history. We must seek at least some positive demonstration from Cuba of a willingness to change, as demanded in the EU's common position.
Having said that, I do not wish to portray UK-Cuba relations as bleak—far from it. The Government strive to maintain a framework for the development of UK-Cuba relations in conformity with the common position. An active UK-Cuba agenda is pursued by ambassadors in Havana and London, by other
324WH
Departments and by the voluntary and private sectors. The Cuba initiative is a UK-Cuba body, dedicated to reinforcing non-governmental links, especially on trade, investment and culture. Lord Moynihan was appointed the British chairman in December, and I welcome the energy that he is bringing to the task.
Direct UK trade and investment in Cuba is modest, at some £20 million a year. Cuba offers British companies both commercial and strategic investment opportunities. We continue, through the EU, to encourage the Government of Cuba to make the country's trade and investment climate more favourable for European investors. Various Departments are promoting links with Cuba. Our law enforcement collaboration with Cuba, for example, is viewed positively by both sides. UK drugs liaison officers have established effective working relations with the Cubans on operational and policy matters.
Through the British Council, we collaborate with Cuba on science, medicine and biotechnology—areas in which Cuba has considerable expertise. We need to build on that. Promoting successful UK scientific endeavour helps us to communicate a modern image of the UK, and it shows that we regard Cuba as a modern country that is seeking to deal with some of the challenges that we all face.
Unfortunately, stronger and closer development of our links is damaged in the area of human rights. We are scoping a pilot project in the Democratic Republic of Congo to explore how Cuban doctors might be engaged in the fight against AIDS. The embassy and the British Council sponsored a Cuban-British bio-informatics seminar in Havana in November 2002 and an international distance learning workshop in February 2003. A Cuban biotechnology mission to Glasgow is planned for mid-2003.
There is a growing number of sporting exchanges between the UK and Cuba. Sir Rodney Walker, the president of the UK Sports Council, will visit Cuba this month to sign a sporting memorandum of understanding. In 2002, our embassy in Havana mounted a programme of events celebrating the relationship and presenting Britain's cultural heritage, creativity and diversity. Many opportunities have presented themselves.
We just wish that Cuba would open its doors and be more sensible in respect of international human rights standards. If it did that, the prospects for building closer relationships with the European Union could be good. We want those relationships to become closer. We want Cuba to be brought into the wider family of nations. We want it to recognise that its people have the right to speak out against Castro, if they wish. No leader has the right to be beyond criticism. If Cuba showed that it was willing to make some changes in its out-of-date attitudes on human rights—attitudes which, as my hon. Friend has said, belong more to the cold war and to eras gone by than to any country that hopes to be recognised as a modern member of the international community—the opportunities for Cuba with the European Union would be enormous.

325WH
We hope that, through continued constructive engagement and modest thickening of bilateral relationships, the Government can convince the Cuban Government that Britain is serious about wanting improved relationships and a genuine dialogue. We
326WH
want closer relationships. We hope that Cuba will provide the opportunity through its reform of human rights to give us the opening that we need to create stronger and better relationships.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Five o'clock.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Conservative Party
  Norman Baker
  To ask the President of the Council pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) of 18 March,Official Report, column 621W, if he will give a breakdown of the travel expenses for 2002–03. [105495]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Pensions
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the President of the Council if he will list the(a) funded and (b) unfunded public sector pension schemes for which his Department, its agencies and its non-departmental public bodies are 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. [104932]

  Public transport support (£million)

  Concessionary fare reimbursement (£million)

  1999–2000

  2000–2001

  2001–2002

  1999–2000

  2000–2001

  2001–2002

  Greater

  Manchester

  22.5

  27.4

  27.5

  38.0

  38.1

  40.7

  Merseyside

  12.5

  13.6

  14.5

  33.5

  35.2

  36.4

  South Yorkshire

  8.2

  9.1

  10.0

  9.5

  10.1

  12.9

  Tyne and Wear

  11.0

  11.9

  12.5

  21.5

  21.5

  22.0

  West Midlands

  30.4

  28.9

  28.5

  54.0

  58.3

  62.1

  West Yorkshire

  24.2

  29.0

  29.4

  18.5

  19.8

  20.0

  All English PTAs

  108.8

  119.9

  122.4

  175.0

  183.0

  194.1

  Central Line
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether penalties will be imposed on London Underground for the delay in re-opening the Central Line. [105814]

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground are bearing the full costs of the closure of the Central Line, including making the necessary safety modifications to trains and of compensating customers as well as the loss of income resulting from the suspension of services.

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether compensation will be offered to those businesses which have lost trade as a result of the closure of the Central Line. [105815]
  698W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Privy Council Office has one unfounded pension scheme for its staff, the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS). A Full actuarial valuation was carried out at 31 March 1999. Details of the scheme can be found in the resource accounts of the Cabinet Office: Civil Superannuation (www.civilservice-pensions.gov.uk).

  The department has no agencies or non-departmental public bodies.

TRANSPORT

  Aston Clinton Bypass
  Mr. John Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his latest estimate is of the cost of the construction of the Aston Clinton bypass. [106195]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The estimated cost of the construction contract for the Aston Clinton bypass is £22.1 million excluding VAT.

  Bus Companies
  Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what level of transport subsidies was allocated to bus companies by each passenger transport authority in each of the last three years. [106453]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The table shows the funding in support of bus services provided by each of the Passenger Transport Authority (PTA) areas in each of the three years to 2001–02. The figures for public transport support include subsidies allocated to bus companies but also local authority administration and technical costs. The figures are the latest available and those for 2001–02 are based on provisional estimates.

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground have already put in place arrangements to compensate customers who have suffered as a consequence of the withdrawal of services on the Central Line. They do not propose to compensate businesses for any related loss of trade.

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the impact on(a) retail trades, (b) small businesses and (c) the evening economy of the closure of the Central Line. [105820]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 28 March 2003 to the hon. Member for the Vale of York (Miss McIntosh),Official Report, columns 412–13W.

  Cliffe Airport
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the risk of a bird strike to aircraft at the proposed Cliffe airport; [104717]

  (2) what additional research has been commissioned since the publication of the consultation on the future development of air transport in the south-east on the risk of bird strike to aircraft at the proposed Cliffe airport; and if he will publish the results. [104718]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SERAS study included a preliminary assessment of the risk of birds colliding with aircraft at Cliffe. Details of this work are contained in appendix four of "The North Kent Marshes Ecological Study" (phase 1 report), copies of which are available in the House Libraries.

  The Central Science Laboratory and British Trust for Ornithology were jointly commissioned in September 2002 to conduct further research to assess more fully this risk and identify possible mitigating measures. It is intended that the final report of this work will be published shortly.

  Commercial Confidentiality
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [105561]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is not standard practice in my Department to verify claims of commercial confidentiality on receiving information from organisations, as this is normally only relevant if the question arises as to whether such information should be disclosed to another party. My Department follows the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The Code, and the guidance on the operation of the Code, helps officials determine whether such information should be disclosed.

  The Code provides a specific exemption 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 Department to decide in accordance with the Code whether to disclose the information, the third party whose interests may be adversely affected is normally consulted in order to inform the Department's decision. Even where the exemption prima facie applies, the information in question may still be disclosed if there is an overriding public interest in disclosure, but 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.

  Creche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what crèche facilities are provided by his Department; and at what cost. [104303]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport (central) currently provides six subsidised child care places, costing approximately £26,000, covering staff in London and Hastings. This amounts to 45 per cent. of the cost of these places.

  The former DTLR provided 12 subsidised child care places as part of an inter-departmental nursery scheme administered by the Home Office, and the places have been split between ODPM and DfT

  DfT also participates in the Westminster Holiday Playscheme, which provides holiday care for children of school age. The Department subsidies 50 per cent. of the £26 per day cost of each place. The contract is with DTLR, and it is therefore not currently possible to identify DfT costs only.

  The review of child care (originally begun by the former DTLR) has been jointly conducted with ODPM. The Departments are separately considering recommendations in the review, but the aim is to provide an enhanced package of provisions that will benefit more staff including central Department staff outside London.

  Helplines
  Mr. Mark Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport[pursuant to his answer of 6 February, Official Report column 369W], on telephone helplines, how many calls were made to each helpline charged at national and premium rate in the last year for which records are available; and what the average duration was of these calls. [105879]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport has 134 Helplines of which 66 are charged at national rate and three at premium rate. A table detailing calls made to each national and premium rate helpline between January and December 2002, together with the average call duration where known has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Local Government and the Regions Committee
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the members of the working group referred to in the Government's response to the Ninth Report of the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee, HC557 Session 2001–02, on Road Traffic Speed. [106402]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The rural road hierarchy working group consisted of representatives of this Department, Babtie Ross Silcock consultants, the Highways Agency, Scottish Executive, Scots (Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland), National Assembly for Wales, CSS (County Surveyors Society), Countryside Agency, Slower Speeds Initiative, Motorists Forum, ACPO and IHT (Institute of Highways and Transportation).

  Rail Services
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what discussions he has had with the Strategic Rail Authority on the past and future undertaking of funding for rail freight through(a) Freight Small Schemes Fund, (b) incremental output statements for freight, (c) freight facilities grant and (d) track access charges; and if he will make a statement; [104503]

  (2) if he will list the Strategic Rail Authority Freight Small Schemes Fund schemes (a) which have commenced, (b) where feasibility studies (i) have been completed and (ii) are continuing, (c) which have been placed on hold and (d) which have been cancelled, indicating in each case funding from the Strategic Rail Authority, (A) awarded, (B) approved and (C) projected in 2003–04; [104501]

  (3) what representations he has received from the freight industry on the (a) Freight Small Schemes Fund, (b) incremental output statements for freight, (c) freight facilities grant, (d) track access charges and (e) potential changes in funding for each, during the financial year 2003–04. [104502]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ministers and officials in my Department meet regularly with the Strategic Rail Authority about a wide range of issues and receive representations from time to time about the funding of rail freight

  The SRA's Strategic Plan sets out its proposals to introduce a new Company Neutral Revenue Support scheme later this year. It is also revising its rates for calculating freight grant awards (Sensitive Lorry Miles). The Freight Small Schemes fund is used internally by the Strategic Rail Authority to fund development work and is not available as a source of funding for outside bodies.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what meetings he(a) has had and (b) plans with members of York council on the Rail Passenger Scheme proposed for new stations at Haxby and Strensall. [104496]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Transport has exchanged correspondence with City of York council about the North East York Rail Scheme.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he estimates there will be a new railway station in Peterborough. [105806]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are currently no plans for a new railway station at Peterborough.

  Rural Roads
  Mr. David Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will commission demonstration projects on rural road speed management. [106401]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has no immediate plans to commission any demonstration projects on rural road speed management.

  Signage
  Mr. Robert Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is on signage for local destinations from trunk roads in urban areas. [106199]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The overall policy is to provide drivers with sufficient information to reach their intended destination safely and efficiently, but not more information than they can readily absorb or which would require the use of excessively large and environmentally intrusive signs. Local transport note 1/94, based on the results of research into the assimilation of information on directional signs, recommends a maximum of six destinations on any one sign on an all-purpose road, which may include a mixture of primary, non-primary and local destinations. The Highways Agency would normally consult the local traffic authority on traffic management priorities for signing local destinations from the trunk road, to ensure that there will be continuity of signing on the local road network.

  Stansted Airport
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of air travel from Stansted airport was accounted for by(a) residents of the south east of England, (b) residents of other parts of the UK and (c) overseas residents, in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [106218]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 1 April 2003]

  Distribution of passengers1 at Stanstead airport by area of residence: 2001

  Percentage

  South East2 (including London)

  30

  East of England3

  23

  Rest of the United Kingdom

  19

  Overseas

  28

  Note:

  In 2001, 81 per cent. of all passengers at Stansted Airport started or ended their journey in the South East, or East of England GORs.

  1 Arrivals and departures

  2 Government Office Region (GOR)

  3 Including Essex and the rest of the East of England GOR

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how the noise preferential routes for Stansted airport under the option of three additional runways as outlined in The Future of Air Transport in the South were determined. [106502]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No noise preferential routes have been determined for any of the possible additional runways in the consultation document. Aircraft arrival and departure routes were developed for various airport locations to assist with the modelling of noise exposure and local air quality, so that the relative impacts of the many runway development options could be compared.

  Routes to and from new runways in all the airport options were derived in essentially the same manner. Routes to and from existing runways were left unchanged wherever practical, and routes for new runways were based on the existing airspace structure of airways, waypoints, holding areas etc.
  703W
  Arrival routes to all runways were assumed to be straight in on the runway heading. Departure tracks for new runways at an airport, and existing runways where necessary, were based on existing departure routes as far as practical.

  In practice, the development of one or more new runways in the south east would require substantial changes to the region's airspace structure which could affect thefinal configuration of routes. It was not feasible to predict in detail how airspace in the south east might need to be reorganised in the long term to cater for increased activity. As part of the SERAS study, CAA and NATS did carry out a high level assessment of the overall pressures on airspace of sample combinations of new airport capacity up to 2030 and concluded that the increase in air traffic could be accommodated.

  Transport Council
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the outcome was of the Transport Council held on 27–28 March; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [106359]

  Mr. Spellar
  The transport segment of the Transport, Energy and Telecommunications Council was held in Brussels on 27–28 March. I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council reached a general approach on a proposal to further accelerate the phase-out of single hull tankers and to ban the carriage of heavy grades of oil in such ships sailing to and from EU ports. The regulation will apply to all ships calling at or leaving Community ports and to all ships carrying Community flags anywhere in the world. The final date for phase-out of single-hull tankers is 2010, with an exemption until 2015 for certain vessels under specified conditions. A presidency compromise date of 2008 was agreed for the coming into effect of a ban on carriage of heavy oil intankers below 5000 tons deadweight. The definition of heavy oils was agreed as those having a density at 15°C higher than 900kg/m3. I would have preferred a transitional period to 2010, and a definition of 950kg/m3, but these compromises are acceptable to the UK so, together with other Member States, I was able to support them as part of an overall package.

  The Commission presented its proposed Directive on ship source pollution and the introduction of sanctions, including criminal sanctions, for pollution offences. The presidency concluded that the Council would return to the matter in June.

  The Council agreed a general approach on a Directive to streamline the assessment of minimum vocational training standards for seafarers. The UK supports the proposal.

  The Commission outlined the content of its Communication on Maritime Security, which is expected shortly. It will include a draft regulation on security for ships and ports in the EU, implementing existing IMO obligations, and set out the Commission's future strategy including a Directive on port zones and staff security in the second half of the year. The presidency hoped that the Council would be able to take decisions on these issues at its June meeting.
  704W
  Under AOB, Belgium and France urged action by Member States to support an unlimited liability system in respect of oil spills arising from recklessness by ship owners and charterers. This went beyond the Commission's original proposal. Council had previously agreed that the proposed Supplementary Fund to the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (IOPC) regime, to be adopted at the May 2003 IMO Conference, should have a limit of up to €1 billion. The Commission noted that, if the IMO failed to adopt this supplementary fund, the EU should adopt its own regime before the end of the year.

  Also under AOB, the Council discussed a paper for IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee in July, tabled jointly by France, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the UK, proposing the creation of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs), around our coasts. The proposal requires further work on points of detail, but there was support in the debate. The Commission stressed the need for consistency with the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

  The Commission presented a progress report on the EU satellite navigation project, Galileo, and outlined the state of play on negotiations with third countries. A Commission mandate for negotiations with China about their involvement in the project was agreed on the condition that security arrangements would be the same as for Russia and the US. The presidency looked forward to conclusions on integrating the existing EU EGNOS system in June.

  The second rail package, which includes measures to complete market opening for rail freight, promote interoperability and safety and establish a European Rail Authority, was agreed. The package brings forward full liberalisation of international freight from 15 March 2008 to 1 January 2006 and requires liberalisation of domestic rail freight markets by 1 January 2008.

  The Commission presented its proposal to improve safety in road tunnels following disasters in Alpine tunnels in recent years. The Directive will apply to all tunnels over 500m long on the Trans European Road Network and will stipulate technical changes, safety instructions for users and different management procedures. At least seven tunnels in the UK would be within scope I expressed concerns about the costs and benefits of the proposal—which are shared by a number of Member States—and about the potential adverse impact on traffic flow.

  The Council confirmed the common position it had reached at the special session held on 31 December last on extension of the ecopoints scheme for limiting Alpine lorry transit traffic. In doing so the Council rejected the amendments proposed by the European Parliament in its first reading on 12 February 2003, which could result in a difficult conciliation. The issue is not one in which the UK has a substantive interest.

  On aviation issues, the Council debated the Commission's request for a mandate to allow the Commission to negotiate air service agreements with the US. Most Member States were willing to give the Commission a mandate but only in return for greater certainty over future arrangements for the negotiation and implementation of bilateral agreements with third

  705W
  countries in light of the recent judgement of the European Court of Justice. The presidency concluded that work would continue with a view to reaching agreement in June.

  The Council was asked whether it supported the broad aims of the Commission's proposed regulation on unfair pricing practices by third countries, and where it could be improved to facilitate agreement at the next Transport Council. The Commission's proposal would allow Community measures to be applied to non-EU airlines found to be using state aid to price unfairly. Most Member States agreed with the broad principles of the proposal, but had specific concerns on the detail. The Presidency invited COREPER to consider the issues and submit a text to Council in June for Common Position.

  There was a unanimous political agreement on the proposal to improve safety standards of third country airlines operating to and from Community airports.

  Following discussion over lunch the presidency reported general support for the Commission's view that state assistance for European airlines during the conflict in Iraq should be limited and proportionate.

  No formal votes were taken at this Council.

  Working Time Directive
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of the working time directive on the transport industry; and if he will make a statement. [106408]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Transport workers will be subject to the original working time directive (93/104/EC), as amended by 2000/34/EC, by August 2003. The Department of Trade and Industry published a draft impact assessment on 31 October 2002 along with a consultation document covering all the sectors excluded from the original Directive. This draft will now be revisited following comments received from the consultation exercise that closed on 31 January.

  My Department has recently consulted on implementing a separate directive on the working time of mobile workers in the aviation sector (2000/79/EC) and will be finalising its cost assessment based on the responses we received on our consultation. We will also consult both sides of industry on the likely impact of the directive for mobile workers in the road transport sector (2002/15/EC). A draft regulatory impact assessment will be published later this year, alongside a formal consultation document on our proposals.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he raised the awarding of post-war reconstruction contracts to Halliburton during his visit to President Bush on 26 and 27 March 2003. [106430]

  The Prime Minister
  I had discussions with President Bush on a range of issues relating to the conflict in Iraq, including the post-Saddam Administration and 706W
  reconstruction of Iraq, which should be endorsed in a UN Security Council Resolution. Specific contracts were not discussed.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the rules are for payment of the national minimum wage to(a) 16 to 17-year-olds in employment, (b) 16 to 17-year-olds in employment but exercising the right to time off for study, (c) 16 to 17year-olds on publicly funded modern apprenticeships and (d) 18 to 24-year-olds on publicly funded modern apprenticeships. [106656]

  Alan Johnson
  All 16 to 17-year-olds and apprentices aged 18 are exempt from the national minimum wage. Apprentices aged 19 to 25 (inclusive) are exempt from the minimum wage during the first 12 months of their apprenticeship and entitled to receive at least the rate of minimum wage appropriate to their age thereafter.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent estimate she has made of the number of(a) people and (b) households in the Buckingham constituency that are in fuel poverty. [106377]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government published "The UK Fuel Poverty Strategy 1st Annual Progress Report" on 4 March 2003. This showed that the number of households in fuel poverty in the UK is estimated to have fallen from about 5.5 million in 1996 to about 3 million in 2001.

  The most recently available information on fuel poverty in the South East is set out. Figures are not available centrally for individual constituencies.

  Number and percentage of households in fuel poverty1,2

  2001 Number of households (thousands)

  Percentage

  South East

  232

  6.9

  England

  1,761

  8.6

  1 For England and its regions the main source of information is the five yearly English House Condition Survey (EHCS). The latest figures on fuel poverty from this survey relate to 2001.

  2 Fuel poverty is defined as when a household needs to spend more than 10 per cent. of its income (including Housing Benefit and Income Support for Mortage Interest) on fuel in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime.

  Inspection Staff
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) total number of staff and (b) number of inspection staff employed by the National Weights and Measures Laboratory was in each year since 1997. [100211]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to reply on my behalf.
  707W
  Letter from Dr. J. W. Llewellyn to Mr. Norman, dated 2 April 2003:
  The Secretary for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML) to your question on what the (a) total number of staff and (b) number of inspection staff employed by the National Weights and Measures Laboratory was in each year since 1997.
  (a) The total number of staff employed by the National Weights and Measures Laboratory in each year since 1997 was:

  1997—53

  1998—53

  1999—57

  2000—58

  2001—56

  2002—57

  2003—57 as at current

  (b) NWML does not have powers of inspection under the Weights & Measures Act 1985.

  Non-executive Directors
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the Financial Reporting Council's decision to restrict consultation on the Higgs Review of the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors to fatal flaws and specific drafting matters during formulation of the revised combined Code by the FRC. [105876]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Derek Higgs consulted extensively during the course of his review. I understand that the FRC Chairman, Sir Bryan Nicholson, has made it clear that the FRC is happy to receive comments on any matters related to the proposed revisions to the Combined Code and that all such responses will be considered carefully.

  Nuclear Waste Liabilities
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether a total audit and cost estimate of all Britain's nuclear waste liabilities has been completed. [105592]

  Mr. Wilson
  The government White Paper Managing the Nuclear Legacy—A strategy for action estimated the cost of dealing with the UK's civil public sector liabilities to be £48 billion (undiscounted) as at March 2002.

  As part of the process of preparing the ground for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) the Liabilities Management Unit within DTI is acquiring a detailed knowledge of BNFL and UKAEA liabilities.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the estimated total cost of storing Britain's nuclear waste will be each year once a single storage sight has been agreed. [105594]

  Mr. Wilson
  The cost of storing Britain's nuclear waste in future will depend on the long-term management strategy we adopt. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said in her letter to you dated 29 July 2002 that the Government and the devolved administrations for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would set up a new independent body to recommend a long term strategy for managing UK radioactive waste. This 708W
  process will indicate whether any new waste facilities or sites are needed. DEFRA has now advertised for a Chair and Members of this new Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. Applications are due by 2 May 2003. My right hon. Friend hopes to receive its recommendations by 2006 or sooner.

  Office of Fair Trading
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received on the issue of the OFT's access to information on past convictions of applicants for consumer credit licences from the Police National Computer; and if she will make a statement. [102786]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We have had no representations.

  Pharmacies
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish the research undertaken (a) by and (b) on behalf of the Office of Fair Trading for its recent report on entry controls for pharmacies. [105446]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 31 March 2003]: When the OFT published their report on pharmacy entry controls on 17 January, they also published supporting evidence in Annexes A-I (Volume 2) and Annexes J-0 (Volume 3).

  Solar Power
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) names and (b) political affiliations are of the panel appointed by the Energy Saving Trust to assess her Department's Solar PV Major Demonstration Programme Stream 2 applications. [106030]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 31 March 2003]: The panel represents a broad cross-sector of interests and experience to enable detailed assessment of all of the elements of bids to the programme. The Department has not published the names of the panel members to ensure that they are not lobbied by applicants. I are not aware of their political affiliations.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish the minutes of the meetings of the panel appointed by the Energy Saving Trust to assess her Department's Solar PV Major Demonstration Programme Stream 2 applications. [106031]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 31 March 2003]: The Department already publishes a list of the winning proposals and provides a summary of comments made at the panel meetings to all applicants. There are a number of issues of commercial confidentiality discussed at the meetings which we would not want to publish. To do so may inhibit specific proposals coming forward to the programme. The Department and its agents also provide a significant amount of information on the Major Demonstration Programme outside the panel meeting process to installers and the general public.
  709W
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the panel appointed by the Energy Saving Trust to assess her Department's solar PV Major Demonstration Programme Stream 2 applications will provide written feedback to unsuccessful applicants. [106062]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 31 March 2003]: Yes. It is already the Department's policy that all bidders receive written feedback on their applications.

  Wind Farm, Solway Firth
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many jobs are expected to be created in England and Wales by the(a) construction and (b) operation of the Robin Rigg windfarm in the Solway Firth. [105807]

  Mr. Wilson
  While it is too early in the project's development for contracts to have been awarded for the Robin Rigg project, it is my understanding that such a project is likely to involve the creation of around 100 jobs during construction and 10 during operation. The location of the jobs will depend on the contracts.

  Working Time Directive
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate the Government have made of the costs to(a) the haulage industry and (b) the UK economy of implementation of the Working Time Directive. [106411]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department of Trade and Industry published a consultation document containing a draft impact assessment on 31 October 2002. According to this, the original cost of implementing the Working Time Directive was £2.4 billion. Included in this was the cost of applying the Horizontal Amending Directive (2000/34/EC), which will extend working time law to the transport sector from 1 August 2003. This was estimated at £100 million per annum; it was not possible to break this down further into individual transport sectors. This figure will be revisited following comments received from the consultation exercise that closed on 31 January 2003.

  The Department for Transport will consult both sides of industry on the likely impact of the directive for mobile workers in the road transport sector (2002/15/EC). A draft regulatory impact assessment will be published later this year, alongside a formal consultation document on their proposals.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  County Councils
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to review the powers of county councils. [106166]

  Mr. Leslie
  We are streamlining the role of county and district councils in relation to planning. Otherwise we have no plans to specifically amend the powers of every county council.

  Parish Councils (Code of Conduct)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the operation of the code of conduct for parish councils. [106167]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Model Code of Conduct has applied to all parish councillors since 5 May last year, and the vast majority are meeting its requirements.

  Affordable Housing (Somerset)
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the availability of affordable housing in Somerset. [106168]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Communities Plan announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 5 February sets out the key challenges facing Somerset and the South West region. It provides a clear and coherent summary of the way the Government's policies will address these. The new responsibilities of the Regional Housing Board will be crucial in delivering more effective housing and planning policies in Somerset.

  Regional Referendums
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the responses that have been received in respect of his proposals for regional referendums. [106169]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is still receiving responses about the level of interest in each English region in holding a referendum on an elected regional assembly. To date we have received about 5,000 responses. We will announce our decisions after the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill has received Royal Assent.

  New Localism
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what definition he uses of the term new localism. [106170]

  Mr. Raynsford
  New localism embraces the enhanced role that we wish to see for local councils in leading their communities, engaging more fully in innovation, taking more responsibility for their own decisions and using greater freedom to shape services to meet local needs.

  New Towns
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the New Towns. [106171]

  Mr. McNulty
  Officials have met the New Town Special Interest Group on a number of occasions to discuss the implications of our developing sustainable communities agenda. The most recent, with the Group Secretariat, was on 27 January.

  Regional Assembly (East of England)
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the number of responses received to, and how much support there was for, the Government's proposal for a referendum on a regional assembly for the East of England. [106172]
  711W
  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has so far received approximately 5,000 responses to our soundings exercise about the level of interest in each English region in holding a referendum about an elected regional assembly. We have identified just over 200 responses from the East of England.

  We will announce our decisions after the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill has received Royal Assent.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received from organisations representing disabled people in connection with the consultation on the establishment of a single equality body. [106173]

  Mrs. Roche
  We received nearly 300 written responses to the consultation on the future of Great Britain's equality institutions that finished last month. These included a significant number of contributions from groups representing disabled people. During the consultation period I also met several groups with particular needs, such as people with learning difficulties, to hear their views in person.

  Council Tax
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will rank each local authority in England by the percentage of total expenditure raised by council tax in 2001–02. [106505]

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

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for what reasons the spouses of servicemen deployed overseas cannot claim the sole occupier discount for council tax. [106519]

  Mr. Leslie
  A full council tax bill assumes that at least two adults have their sole or main residence in a dwelling. There is a 25 per cent. discount for a dwelling that is the sole or main residence of only one person. Service personnel are treated in the same way as anyone else who is working away from home when determining their sole or main residence. When a person is employed overseas, the dwelling in which their spouse lives remains the main residence unless it can be shown that there has been a change of sole or main residence. A single person discount will not therefore apply.

  Emergency Calls
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) genuine and (b) malicious false alarm emergency calls were received in Buckingham in (i) 2001 and (ii) 2002. [105707]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Buckinghamshire Fire & Rescue attended 1,650 genuine false alarm calls and 468 malicious false alarm in 2001–02 (the latest year for which data are available). Data for 2002 are not yet held centrally.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what the average number of days lost through sickness absence was per firefighter at each station in Buckinghamshire in 2002; [105709]

  (2) how many firefighters based in Buckinghamshire were on long term sick leave in 2002. [105708]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Information about sick absences at each fire station and the number of firefighters on long-term (more than 28 days) sick leave is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. On the basis of the annual return for 2001–02, the following information about the numbers of shift/days lost to sickness by regular firefighters in Buckinghamshire is available and tabled.

  Number of shifts/days lost to sickness by wholetime firefighters in Buckinghamshire in 2001–02

  Duty system

  Short-term sickness

  Long-term sickness

  Total

  Wholetime shift

  774

  831

  1,605

  Day-crew

  337

  386

  723

  Day duty

  52

  19

  71

  Flexible duty

  28

  149

  177

  Total

  1,191

  1,385

  2,576

  Fire-related Deaths
  Mr. John Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many fire related deaths in dwellings in Buckinghamshire there were in 2002. [105713]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There were five fire-related deaths in dwellings attended by Buckinghamshire Fire & Rescue in 2001–02. Data for 2002 are not yet held centrally.

  Firefighters' Strike (Iraq)
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement in relation to the Iraq crisis on the basis of his policy on the firefighters' strike and the safety of the public. [104870]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made a written ministerial statement concerning the firefighters' dispute and emergency fire cover on the 25 March 2003. He announced that the armed forces personnel deployed on firefighting duties have been stood down on the grounds that no further strike dates will be announced before the Fire Brigades Union re-called conference on 15 April. The Fire Brigades Union would then be required to give seven days notice of any further strike.

  The armed forces role during strike periods has been and will continue to be to provide emergency cover, thus seeking to save lives and ensuring that essential services are maintained. Emergency cover will, as far as possible, be maintained for as long as strikes continue and balanced with other demands on military resources, such as current military action in Iraq.

  IND 2000 Review
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he plans to publish his review of the IND 2000; and if he will make a statement. [103029]
  713W
  Mrs. Roche
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement given on 24 March 2003,Official Report, column 4 WS.

  Local Government Pension Scheme
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will issue guidance and advice to local authorities on changes in the rules on part-time employees in the Local Government Pension Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [105224]

  Mr. Leslie
  Regulatory changes are envisaged to give part-time employees backdated membership where they were unlawfully denied access to the scheme. This follows the House of Lords' judgement and reference to the European Court of Justice and subsequent test case hearings by the Employment Tribunal. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is discussing with representatives of local authority employers and trade unions the form and content of these changes and in due course, will issue advice and guidance to all the interested parties.

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what projects(a) are being funded and (b) will be funded in the next year in the East Worthing and Shoreham constituency as a result of the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund. [106575]

  Mrs. Roche
  There are no projects currently being funded in the East Worthing and Shoreham area under the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund as it is not in one of the 88 eligible areas. There will also be no funding available to this area under the Fund for the 2003–04 financial year.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister under what statutory powers regional assemblies can act in regional matters. [105519]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The voluntary regional chambers, which all now call themselves regional assemblies, do not have any statutory powers. However, the Government has designated the chamber in each region, under section 8 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, as a representative regional body. They work with the Regional Development Agency, commenting on its Regional Economic Strategy and scrutinising the delivery of that strategy.

  Five of eight regional assemblies already act as Regional Planning Bodies, and it is the Government's intention to extend this to the remaining three. The Government also supports the role of the assemblies in promoting the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of their region.

  Starter Homes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people in the Buckingham constituency have purchased houses under the Starter Home Initiative. [106021]
  714W
  Mr. McNulty
  As at the end of February 2003, 39 key workers in Buckinghamshire have been helped to purchase houses under the Starter Home Initiative. Figures broken down by local authority are shown in the table.

  Local authority

  Number of key workers assisted

  Aylesbury Vale

  13

  Chiltern

  8

  Milton Keynes

  1

  South Buckinghamshire

  3

  Wycombe

  14

  Total

  39

  Utility Companies (Pipe Laying)
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what(a) planning and (b) other restrictions apply to utility companies seeking to lay pipes under bridges. [105526]

  Mr. McNulty
  Statutory undertakers have certain permitted development rights set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (SI 1995/418) ("the GPDO") that enable them to carry out development for the purposes of their undertaking without the need to make a planning application. Parts 15, 16 and 17 of Schedule 2 (development by the Environment Agency, sewerage undertakers and statutory undertakers) are likely to be relevant. These permissions generally do not permit the installation of pipes above ground, and they are subject to exceptions and conditions. Any development that goes beyond what is permitted by the GPDO requires planning permission. The office of the Deputy Prime Minister is not aware of specific restrictions that apply to the laying of pipes under bridges. Under the New Roads and Street Works Act there is a notification procedure between the statutory undertaker and the highways authority that deals with proposed works under the bridges.

TREASURY

  Administration Costs
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria HM Treasury used to define administration costs as set out in Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses; and if he will make a statement. [105204]

  Mr. Boateng
  Table 5.1 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses sets out gross spending on administration by those central government departments which are subject to administration cost controls.

  Administration cost controls apply to all central government departments except the Ministry of Defence, the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the Forestry Commission. Most Executive Agencies are included in the regime, but trading funds and most non-departmental public bodies are excluded. Administration cost controls cover the costs of all

  715W
  central government administration other than the costs of some direct frontline service activities and support activities that are directly associated with these.

  Civil Service Pensions
  James Purnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the annual cost of in-service death benefits if they were extended to unmarried partners, in accordance with the definitions for the new Civil Service Pension Scheme, but with those costs borne by the Exchequer rather than by the members of the scheme, for(a) the financial year 2003–04 and (b) each of the 10 subsequent years at 2003–04 prices for (i) the whole of the public sector, (ii) the Teachers' Pensions Scheme, (iii) the NHS Pension Scheme, (iv) the Local Government Pension Scheme, (v) the Firemen's Pension Scheme, (vi) the Police Pension Scheme and (vii) the Armed Forces Pension Scheme; [105361]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the costs arising from the future service of current members if in-service death benefits were extended to unmarried partners, in accordance with the definitions for the new Civil Service Pension but with those costs borne by the Exchequer rather than by the members of the scheme, at 2003–04 prices for (a) the whole of the public sector, (b) the Teachers' Pensions Scheme, (c) the NHS Pension Scheme, (d) the Local Government Scheme, (e) the Firemen's Pension Scheme, (f) the Police Pension Scheme and (g) the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. [105360]

  Mr. Boateng
  The costs to public service pension schemes of making changes to benefits for future service are normally assessed by estimating the percentage points of pay which would need to be added to contribution rates on an on-going basis from the date of the change to cover the long run costs which the change would impose on the scheme. The Government's policy

  Scheme

  Additional contribution for future service (percentage pay)

  Unmarried partners Cash equivalent of additional contribution (2003–04 prices)(£ million)

  Capitalised cost for past service of current active members (£ million)

  Lifetime survivor pensions— additional contribution for future service (percentage pay)

  Lifetime survivor pensions— cash equivalent of additional contribution(2003–04 prices) (£ million)

  Lifetime survivor pensions— capitalised cost for past service of current active members (£ million)

  Teachers

  0.3

  50

  500

  0.1

  20

  200

  NHS

  0.3

  50

  500

  0.2

  40

  400

  Local government

  0.3

  70

  700

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Fire Service

  0.5

  5

  50

  0.2

  2

  20

  Police

  0.5

  20

  200

  0.2

  10

  100

  Armed forces

  0.4

  15

  160

  0.2

  8

  80

  1 Lifetime spouses' pensions were introduced in the Local Government Pension Scheme with effect from 1998.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the benefit of joint industry and Government initiatives, including Commercial Awareness Training for HM Customs and Excise officers in targeting illegal imports. [106036]

  John Healey
  Commercial Awareness Training for Customs and Excise staff is designed to ensure that
  716W
  is that the introduction of entitlement to survivor pensions for unmarried partners in public service pension schemes should be covered by members of schemes who want the change to be made. But the same estimates of additional percentage points of pay to be made in contributions would apply to employer contributions if the costs were to be met by employers. The figures provided by the Government Actuary are given in the following table. In the schemes where the Exchequer provides the benefits, which are unfunded schemes, the annual net cash cost to the Exchequer would build gradually over a number of years before reaching a steady state. The Government Actuary has not made estimates of the profile of this build-up. In the pension schemes where local authorities provide the benefits (Local Government Pension Scheme, Police Pension Scheme and Fire Pension Scheme in the table below) the costs of benefit improvements financed by employers would fall to Council Tax payers rather than the Exchequer.

  No estimates are available for the total public sector, as this would need to include a number of non-statutory pension schemes in the wider public sector on which data is not held centrally. The figures in the following table cover all survivor pensions including those where the death of the scheme member occurred after they had left active service; separate estimates identifying survivor pensions following death-in-service are not available. The table includes costings for making married partner survivor pensions payable for life (instead of ceasing on remarriage of the survivor) as this is conventionally assumed to be a change which should be associated with the introduction of unmarried partner survivor pensions for life, as in the new Civil Service Pension Scheme. The costs of making the benefit changes retrospective to cover the past service of active members at the date of the change are shown as the capitalised one-off additions to scheme liabilities which the Government Actuary estimates that this would create.

  Customs understand their role in helping businesses, and to help businesses to be compliant. A foundation level guided learning package has been written with the assistance of representatives of businesses affected by Customs' work, and two pilot training courses have been held which were jointly designed, developed and delivered with them. It is planned to make this training available to Customs staff nationally later this year, once the pilot courses have been fully evaluated.

  European Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress with achieving transparency in respect of the European working groups for which his Department is responsible. [105735]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government has long been committed to greater openness in the ED Institutions. This was a key theme of the UK Presidencies in 1992 and 1998. Making it easier to gain access to non-sensitive documents is crucial to this. The Government welcomed Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. As a result, more documents are released to the public, while genuinely sensitive documents are given the protection they need.

  Much of the Council's work takes place in preparatory bodies, including working groups. Published reports on the work under consideration by the Economic Policy Committee, and its various working groups are available on the committee's website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/ economy_finance/epc_en.htm. The items currently under consideration by the Economic and Financial Committee are those to be discussed in the coming months by the ECOFIN Council, when they are subject to normal parliamentary scrutiny.

  Other bodies such as the High Level Tax Group, the Financial Services Committee and the Budget Committee report to the Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) and the Economic and Financial Committee and their outputs go through the ECOFIN Council.

  Accountability and transparency of council business to Parliament are ensured by the scrutiny process, to which the Government is also firmly committed.

  We strongly supported the measures agreed at the Seville European Council to make the Council more open when in legislating mode. We remain committed to increasing transparency. For the first time at ECOFIN, there was a televised session for the final stages of reaching political agreement on a legislative procedure—the Prospectus Directive in November 2002. The Future of Europe Convention is also looking at ways to make the EU more open.

  Iraq
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what request he has received for additional funding from the Ministry of Defence further to his commitment of £1.7 billion to meet the costs of military action in Iraq; [105679]

  (2) what contingencies HM Treasury has put in place to fund the current conflict in Iraq; [105680]

  (3) what research he has commissioned and what assessment his Department has made as to the cost of British involvement in Iraq for (a) one year, (b) two years, (c) three years, (d) four years and (e) five years or over; [105681]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the cost to HM Treasury per man per day of the current conflict in Iraq. [105683]
  718W
  Mr. Boateng
  A contingency reserve of £1.75 billion was set aside to meet the cost of security and military preparations. Now that UK armed forces are in action in Iraq the Chancellor has announced a further £1.25 billion to increase the special reserves to £3 billion, to be drawn on as necessary. It is too early to make an assessment of the final costs of our involvement in Iraq. The Treasury does not estimate costs for such operations in the manner requested.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions his Department has had with(a) other European states, (b) the United States of America and (c) other coalition countries about the funding of the current conflict with Iraq. [105688]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have been in discussions with European states, the United States of America and other coalition countries on a wide range of issues regarding the present situation in Iraq.

  Landfill Tax Credit
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Treasury has spent on consultations regarding changes to the Landfill Tax Credit scheme. [105759]

  John Healey
  The information is not available in the format requested. HM Treasury and Defra published a joint consultation on the Landfill Tax Credit scheme last year. A number of officials in both Departments worked on the consultation which generated 700 responses. These were all given careful consideration in assessing policy options and informing the Government's decisions.

  The document was made available on both HM Treasury and Defra websites, and the cost of publishing the consultation was minimal.

  Pension Projections
  John Mann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of differences between the pension projection basis provided by the Financial Services Authority and the Department for Work and Pensions(a) to new businesses and (b) in annual forecasts. [105904]

  Ruth Kelly
  I understand that the Financial Services Authority (FSA) have undertaken an analysis of the pension projection basis set by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) for Statutory Money Purchase Illustrations (SMPIs).

  Following consultation in April 2002, the FSA decided that the assumptions, including mortality rates, annuity interest rates, and other data, used by firms to compile point of sale projections should be amended to bring them into line with the DWP basis.

  SMPIs will be in real value terms, while projections at the point of sale, which are governed by FSA rules, are in monetary terms, although firms have the option to show real value figures. The FSA are currently consulting on a new disclosure regime. This proposes SMPI based projections should be mandatory at the point of sale.

  PFI/PPP Contracts
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what heading of public expenditure in departmental accounts the management of PFI and PPP contracts is defined. [105205]

  Mr. Boateng
  To the extent that government departments incur costs in the management of PFI and PPP contracts, these would be included within the heading of 'Administration costs' and charged to the department's Operating Cost Statement.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his Department has undertaken regulatory impact assessments on(a) changes to stamp duty levels, (b) capital gains tax taper relief, (c) changes to charities taxation in the Finance Act 2000 and (d) changes to the VAT regime for energy saving goods in the Finance Act 2000; and if he will make a statement. [105211]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A regulatory impact assessment (RIA) has been required since August 1998 where proposals for legislative changes may have more than a negligible impact on the compliance costs of business, charities or voluntary bodies.

  (a) No RIA has been made of the changes to stamp duty levels since 1998 as an increase in rates has a negligible impact on compliance costs.

  (b) Changes to capital gains tax taper relief made after August 1998 were expected to have a negligible regulatory impact so no RIA has been made.

  (c) A RIA on the FA 2000 charity changes was published on 21 March 2000 and a copy was placed in the House of Commons Library.

  (d) A RIA was carried out on the changes made to the VAT regime for energy-saving goods in the Finance Act 2000. This is available in the House of Commons Library (RIA: 00/109).

  Self-assessment
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the proportion of income tax due that is collected per self-assessment tax payer, in the latest year for which figures are available. [104759]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue's accounting year for tax runs to the end of October each year.

  In the account year to the end of October 2002, the Revenue collected £23.2 billion out of £24.5 billion self-assessment income tax due. On average, that amounts to collecting £94.7 per cent. of the tax due for each self-assessment taxpayer who has sent in a return. Further amounts will have been collected after the end of the accounting period.

  Smoking Survey
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has set a date for the publication of the Office of National Statistics survey on smoking behaviour and attitudes. [106650]
  720W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Chris Grayling, dated 2 April 2003:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the publication date of the Office for National Statistics survey on smoking behaviour and attitudes.
  The report is planned for publication on Thursday, 3 July 2003.

  Student Debt
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the taxability of employers' contributions to the write-off of student debt in(a) the public sector and (b) the private sector. [105306]

  Dawn Primarolo
  An employee is taxable on the amount of student debt which his employer pays on his behalf. The tax rules are the same for employees and employers generally, whether in the public or private sector.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the delay in processing claims for the working tax credit; how many claims(a) have been submitted and (b) are awaiting processing; and if he will make a statement. [105217]

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 24 March 2003,Official Report, column 65W, on tax credits, how many forms have been processed; how many awards of (a) child tax credit and (b) working tax credit have been calculated from forms received; and how many awards he expects to have been calculated in time for the launch of the new tax credits in April. [105673]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answers 27 and 28 March 2003]: There is a single form covering claims to both working tax credit and child tax credit. By 28 February 2003, over 3 million claims had been received (including 334,000 on-line). Where people have claimed in good time, they have answered all the questions on the form and there are no outstanding queries they should have their award set up in time for their first payment in April.

  Telephone Helplines
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report column 483W, on telephone helplines, how many calls were made to helplines charged at national rate in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by each telephone number; and what the average duration of the calls was. [105898]

  John Healey
  The information in respect of the Office for National Statistics is as follows:

  Helpline

  Telephone number

  Number of calls

  Average Duration of call

  Labour Market Division

  0207 533 6094

  3,040

  unknown

  IDBR Helpdesk

  01633 813229

  120

  3 minutes

  IDBR Analysis service

  01633 812293

  204

  7 minutes

  721W

  Helpline

  Telephone number

  Number of calls

  Average Duration of call

  Standard Industrial Classification

  01633 812999

  4,200

  5 minutes

  Census Customer Services

  01329 813800

  6,900

  unknown

  RPI helpline (recorded message)

  020 7533 5866

  14,042

  RPI helpline manned

  020 7533 5874

  14,710

  5 minutes

  ONS Geography

  01329 813477

  721

  unknown

  The information relating to HM Customs and Excise and the Royal Mint is not available.

  As my earlier answer made clear, none of the Chancellor's other Departments and agencies has telephone helplines charged at the national rate.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many individuals are estimated to be eligible in 2003–04 for(a) pension credit, (b) housing benefit, (c) council tax benefit, (d) child tax credit, (e) working tax credit, (f) income support and (g) income-based jobseeker's allowance. [95236]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Six million families in the United Kingdom are expected to benefit from the new tax credits in 2003–04. However, information on the number of individuals eligible for working tax credit and child tax credit is not available.

  The number of individuals estimated to be eligible for pension credit is 4.9 million (3.8 million pensioner households). We have set a PSA target to ensure that at least 3 million households are in receipt of pension credit by 2006. We expect to have made good progress towards this target by October 2004, when we aim to have 2.8 million households in receipt of pension credit.

  The available information on existing benefits is in the table.

  Estimated numbers of individuals eligible for benefit in 2003–04

  Benefit

  Eligible individuals (million)

  Housing benefit

  5.1

  Council tax benefit

  8.1

  Income support

  3.0

  Jobseeker's allowance (income based)

  1.1

  Notes:

  1. Individuals are defined as single adults, or both adult partners in a couple, children and non dependent adults are not included in the estimated eligible case load.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest 100,000.

  Sources:

  1. Benefit forecasts—based on PBR 2002 forecasts and take-up estimates from the DWP report "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-up in 1999/2000".

  2. Pension credit forecasts—from DWP Policy Simulation Model.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate for 2000–01(a) income support take-up, (b) minimum income guarantee take-up, (c) housing benefit take-up and (d) council tax benefit take-up, broken down by region. [106611]
  722W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not available. The processes involved in producing take-up statistics are complex and national estimates cannot be routinely disaggregated by region.

  The latest take-up statistics covering income related benefits are contained in the DWP report "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-Up in 2000/2001", a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether he has set a target for the number of benefit transactions currently paid in cash to be paid(a) into a current account, (b) into a basic bank account and (c) into a Post Office card account. [105179]

  Malcolm Wicks
  No target has been set for each individual account option: current bank account, basic bank account, and the Post Office card account. Customers will be supplied with information which clearly sets out their account options and will enable them to choose the account that best meets their needs and circumstances. The take-up of each account option will be dependant on a variety of factors, including the number of people receiving a benefit or pension and customers' behaviour.

  The Post Office card account is now up and running and the main banks are making their basic bank accounts available at Post Office branches. Universal banking services has, therefore, been introduced as planned and on time. This represents a very considerable effort and achievement by the Post Office, banks and other parties concerned.

  In line with sound principles for managing risks when introducing major projects, we will be increasing the numbers of Post Office card accounts very gradually so that we can ensure the new systems are robust. I will provide the House with regular updates on progress.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he has taken to identify the number of people in the East Riding of Yorkshire who are of a pensionable age who are not accessing benefits to which they are entitled. [105196]

  Mr. McCartney
  We want as many pensioners as possible to take up their entitlement in the East Riding of Yorkshire and across the country. The creation of The Pension Service provides an ideal opportunity to further encourage pensioners to take up their entitlements. We now have a Pension Service local service active throughout England, Scotland and Wales meeting customers in their local community. Not only are our customers being encouraged to claim when they ring their pension centre but local service teams run both appointment and drop in surgeries giving advice and actively encouraging take-up of entitlements.

  There is a local service team of 18 staff covering the East Riding of Yorkshire area, dealing with both pensioners and pre-pensioners. The team is currently establishing services in partnership with local organisations. Some examples of this activity include:

  a) Bridlington Spa—Over 50s WorkFayre, used for an event in partnership with East Riding council under the auspices of the European Social Fund.

  723W

  b) Kirby House, Driffield—drop-in surgery location used to talk to members of Railway Housing Trust.

  c) Hull and East Riding Institute for the Blind—several drop-in surgeries to various members of the group plus participation in a Low Vision Exhibition.

  d) Gregson Court, Hornsea—drop-in surgery for residents of local sheltered accommodation group.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were claiming(a) unemployment-related and (b) sickness-related benefits in each (i) local authority and (ii) parliamentary constituency in Wales in January. [105245]

  Malcolm Wicks
  For the latest available information on the number of people claiming sickness related benefits I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 25 February 2003,Official Report, columns 491–92W.

  Information of the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance in January is in the table.

  Number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance January 2003

  Unitary Authority

  Total Wales

  50,500

  Anglesey, Isle of

  1,700

  Blaenau Gwent

  1,800

  Bridgend

  2,000

  Caerphilly

  3,200

  Cardiff

  5,900

  Carmarthenshire

  2,700

  Ceredigion

  1,000

  Conwy

  1,700

  Denbighshire

  1,400

  Flintshire

  1,900

  Gwynedd

  2,500

  Merthyr Tydfil

  1,200

  Monmouthshire

  900

  Neath Port Talbot

  2,600

  Newport

  2,800

  Pembrokeshire

  2,600

  Powys

  1,300

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  3,700

  Swansea

  4,100

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  2,100

  Torfaen

  1,500

  Wrexham

  1,800

  Parliamentary Constituency

  Total Wales

  50,500

  Aberavon

  1,200

  Alyn and Deeside

  1,100

  Blaenau Gwent

  1,800

  Brecon and Radnorshire

  800

  Bridgend

  1,200

  Caernarvon

  1,300

  Caerphilly

  1,800

  Cardiff Central

  1,500

  Cardiff North

  700

  Cardiff South and Penarth

  2,200

  Cardiff West

  1,800

  Carmarthen East and Dinefwr

  900

  Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire

  1,400

  Ceredigion

  1,000

  Clwyd South

  1,000

  Clwyd West

  1,000

  Conwy

  1,300

  Cynon Valley

  1,100

  Delyn

  800

  Gower

  1,000

  Islwyn

  1,100

  Llanelli

  1,400

  724W

  Number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance January 2003

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  800

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  1,600

  Monmouth

  800

  Montgomeryshire

  500

  Neath

  1,400

  Newport East

  1,300

  Newport West

  1,700

  Ogmore

  1,100

  Pontypridd

  1,200

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  1,600

  Rhondda

  1,300

  Swansea East

  1,600

  Swansea West

  1,600

  Torfaen

  1,400

  Vale of Clwyd

  1,200

  Vale of Glamorgan

  1,700

  Wrexham

  1,000

  Ynys Mon

  1,700

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Figures are seasonally unadjusted (seasonally adjusted figures are not available for Local Authorities and Parliamentary Constituencies). Comparisons of different months in the year will be affected by seasonally and are not therefore a guide to trend.

  Source:

  Count of claimants of Jobseeker's Allowance, Jobcentre Plus computer systems (including clerically held cases).

  Benefits (Scotland)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of the population in Scotland were in receipt of means tested benefits in(a) 1997 and (b) the most recent year for which figures are available. [103021]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the tables.

  The latest data available for all income related benefits is May 2001. Please note that figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  Table 1

  All

  60 or over

  Under 60

  May 1997: All income related benefits (including FC and DWA)1

  Adult beneficiaries (Thousand)

  940,000

  400,000

  540,000

  Percentage of relevant population

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Income related benefits are IS, JSA (IB), HB, CTB, FC and DWA excluding all overlaps between benefits.

  Table 2

  All

  60 or over

  Under 60

  May 1997: Income related benefits (excluding FC and DWA)1

  Adult beneficiaries (Thousand)

  900,000

  400,000

  500,000

  Percentage of relevant population

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  May 2001: Income related benefits1

  Adult beneficiaries (Thousand)

  780,000

  360,000

  420,000

  Percentage of relevant population

  19.2

  33.7

  14.0

  1 Income related benefits are IS, JSA (IB), HB, CTB, excluding all overlaps between benefits.

  For 1997, overlaps with FC and/or DWA have not been considered.

  For 2001, overlaps with Working Families Tax Credit and/or Disabled Persons Tax Credit have not been considered.
  725W
  In May 1997: income related benefits were Income Support (IS), Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA (IB)), Housing Benefit (HB), Council Tax Benefit (CTB), Family Credit (FC) and Disability Working Allowance (DWA). However, in October 1999 FC and DWA were replaced as Working Families Tax Credit and Disabled Persons Tax Credit. Therefore, as the figures for 2001 will only include IS, JSA (IB), HB and CTB, figures are provided for May 1997 both including and excluding FC and DWA to enable comparisons to be made.

  Notes:

  1. Figures for beneficiaries have been rounded to the nearest ten thousand.

  2. Percentages for May 2001 are derived from the mid-2001 ONS population estimates.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, May 1997 and May 2001, 5 per cent. samples.

  Jobseeker's Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, May 1997 and May 2001, 5 per cent. samples.

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System, Annual 1 per cent. sample, taken in May 1997 and 2001.

  Family Credit Computer System, May 1997, 100 per cent. count of all claims.

  Disability Working Allowance Computer System, May 1997, 5 per cent. sample.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of children in poverty in Portsmouth, South in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [97276]

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of children in poverty in(a) Haltemprice and Howden and (b) the East Riding of Yorkshire in each year since 1997. [96709]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Poverty is a complex and multidimensional problem that affects many aspects of people's lives. We published "Opportunity for all—Fourth Annual Report" (CM 5598) in September 2002, which contains information on a range of indicators of poverty for children and young people. Unfortunately, not all indicators can be broken down to the constituency level due to sample size limitations.

  We expect to publish the preliminary conclusions of our consultation on Measuring Child Poverty in spring 2003.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the implementation of the new Child Support Agency maintenance legislation. [105089]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We began operating the new child support scheme for new cases from 3 March. We intend to report to Parliament of progress when information on trends is available.

  Civil Servant Retirement Plans
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total value of benefits paid to retirees in civil servant retirement plans was in each of the last 10 years. [105220]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.
  726W
  The total of pension payments made to retired members (and dependants) of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme for each of the last 10 years is shown as follows.

  Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme, pensions expenditure, 1992–93 to 2001–02

  £000

  Year

  Expenditure

  1992–93

  2,067,179

  1993–94

  2,216,083

  1994–95

  2,281,541

  1995–96

  2,412,510

  1996–97

  2,508,824

  1997–98

  2,498,527

  1998–99

  2,547,568

  1999–2000

  2,642,655

  2000–01

  2,676,032

  2001–02

  2,727,787

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many retirees there are in public employee (civil servant) retirement plans. [105221]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  The number of members of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme are as follows:

  Active members: 527,000

  Deferred members: 263,000

  Retired members (officers): 396,000

  Retired members (widow(er)s): 126,000

  Members in receipt of annual compensation (or other on-going payment) for which former employer is financially responsible: 20,000

  Departmental File Stores
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answers to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), of 3 March 2003,Official Report, columns 878–79W, and 4 March 2003, Official Report, columns 895–96W, on filestores, for what reason the (a) number of staff employed in the Department's filestores and (b) the cost of those stores has increased since 1998–99, with particular reference to the rises prior to the Department's name change. [104535]

  Mr. McCartney
  In the answers I gave earlier I explained that separate figures for staffing and costs for most filestores are not available for some or all of the years in the table. The available information included data from just 13 filestores in 1997–98, rising to 62 filestores in 2001–02. The figures for each year are therefore not comparable and there is no evidence that staffing numbers or costs have increased.

  Pension Credit
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how he intends to ensure that hard-to-reach pensioners, in particular those being cared for at
  727W
  home by a family member, will receive information to help them to take up the benefits of the Pension Credit. [105817]

  Mr. McCartney
  As part of the Pension Credit take up campaign which will be running from April 2003 to June 2004, a specially designed direct mail pack will be issued to carers of pensioners. Targeted Press and TV advertising will also be used to ensure carers are notified of Pension Credit. This is to ensure that everyone aged 60 and over will have the necessary information and support in order to consider an application.

  The Pension Service local service managers will work with partner organisations to advise pensioners about their entitlement. We hope to make full use of local business/community publicity and communications opportunities for Pension Credit to raise and maintain awareness of Pension Credit among pensioners, carers, friends and family.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what help he will give those pensioners who(a) feel discouraged from filling in the form and (b) have literacy problems to apply for Pension Credit. [105818]

  Mr. McCartney
  People applying for Pension Credit will be encouraged to apply by telephone. In this way staff at dedicated Pension Credit telephone centres will complete the application form for the customer. This telephone service will be backed up by The Pension Service local service, for those customers who are unable to conduct their business by telephone. Local services are also working with their local partner organisations to reach those vulnerable customers who might not take-up their entitlements.

  To support the organisation and ensure that we are prepared and equipped to handle the extra work, we have been recruiting the additional staff needed throughout The Pension Service (telephone service, pension centres and local service), so that we can handle the telephone calls and are able to process the applications.

  Targeted Press and TV advertising will also be used to ensure pensioners, carers, family and friends are aware of Pension Credit. This is to ensure that everyone aged 60 and over will have the necessary information and support in order to consider an application.

  For people with hearing and language difficulties, we will have a text-phone and will be producing large print, Braille, audio and translated versions of Pension Credit general information.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many suspected cases of(a) housing benefit and (b) council tax benefit fraud there were in the financial year 2001–02; how many of these led to a prosecution; and how many of these prosecutions were successful. [88203]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table.
  728W

  Fraud investigations conducted by local authorities (LAs) 2001–02

  Number

  Cases referred to the LA fraud/investigation section for further action

  380,000

  Cases referred to the LA fraud/investigation section for further action that were investigated

  310,000

  Cases referred by LAs for prosecution

  2,800

  Successful prosecutions1

  1,700

  1 Data from local authority subsidy returns has been used to provide a count of successful local authority prosecutions. This data is returned by all local authorities and is audited. Subsidy data may differ from management information data at local authority level; however, analysis shows a high level of consistency between the two data sources at national level.

  Notes:

  1. The data refers to households, which may be a single person or a couple.

  2. Management information data is not available for all local authorities. The figures include estimates for local authorities that have not responded. These estimates are based on historical and regional data. This type of estimate is standard practice in reporting totals where there have been non-respondents. The figures have been rounded to 2 significant figures.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System Quarterly Administration Returns and local authority subsidy returns

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Education Formula Spending Share
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of the 2003–04 Education Formula Spending Share funding each local education authority is passported directly to its schools. [105575]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Education Formula Spending Share is divided into two main funding blocks: one for Schools and one for LEAs. Earlier this spring, the Department carried out an exercise to obtain information on how much of the increase in schools funding had been passported into the Schools budget, which covers all provision for pupils including under-fives education and provision for pupils with special educational needs outside the maintained sector. 124 authorities passed on the increase in funding in full or more. A further six did so when allowance is made for the fact that they are affected by the ceiling for increases in revenue support grant. The remaining authorities did not passport in full. Following intervention by the Secretary of State in two authorities, the amount of funding being passported to their Schools Budgets was increased.

  The division of the Schools Budget between the Individual Schools Budget and centrally retained items is a decision for local education authorities, after consultation with their schools forum. Local education authorities have until 31 March 2003 to submit their actual budgets to the Department for 2003–04.

  Education Targets
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimates he has made of how
  729W
  many schools will achieve the target of 85 per cent. of children attaining level 4 at Key Stage Two by 2004. [102294]

  Mr. Miliband
  There is no Public Service Agreement (PSA) target for the number of individual schools achieving 85 per cent. The Spending Review 2000 set a target to increase the percentage of children who achieve level 4 in each of the Key Stage 2 English and maths tests to 85 per cent. This PSA has been rolled forward as part of Spending Review 2002, with a view to sustaining this level of performance to 2006. In the 2002 tests, 75 per cent. of pupils nationally achieved level 4 or above in English and 73 per cent. did so in mathematics.

  Enuresis
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the guidance he gives on how teachers should assist children with enuresis. [105809]

  GCSE

  A level

  French

  German

  Spanish

  French

  German

  Spanish

  20021

  311,960

  124,766

  48,502

  —

  —

  —

  2001

  321,200

  130,623

  45,626

  14,666

  7,343

  4,259

  2000

  313,146

  127,437

  42,288

  14,426

  7,142

  4,146

  1999

  311,384

  129,765

  39,523

  16,322

  7,828

  4,204

  1998

  307,293

  127,374

  38,810

  18,152

  8,233

  4,074

  1997

  306,055

  127,510

  34,454

  19,676

  8,315

  3,882

  1996

  315,746

  126,233

  33,814

  21,004

  8,589

  3,661

  1995

  316,847

  121,259

  31,314

  20,837

  8,379

  3,153

  1 2002 A level figures are not currently available.

  Information Technology
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has for an increase in the number of Government-funded training schemes for IT jobs. [105973]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government are currently undertaking a Review of the Funding of Adult Learning. The Review is exploring how to best use Government funded provision to ensure that it meets the business needs of different sectors. The outcome of the Review will be set out in the Government's Skills Strategy to be published in June. Our recent statement "14–19: opportunity and excellence" announced the introduction (from 2004–05 onwards) of an entitlement for all young people to continue studying up to age 19 until they reach the standard of a good GCSE or the corresponding Level 2 key skill qualification in IT skills.

  The Government are supporting the teaching and development of the skills required for IT jobs in a variety of ways, including a wide range of further education provision and specific Modern Apprenticeships. We are seeking to put employers at the heart of meeting skill needs through the establishment of Sector Skills Councils (SSCs). The new bodies will help to ensure that government funded learning opportunities meet particular sectoral needs. A recent joint initiative of Jobcentre Plus and the National Employment Panel has been the Ambition programme designed to engage industry expertise in the design of demand-led programmes to get unemployed and disadvantaged jobseekers into good jobs that pay well and have real
  730W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  All schools in England were made aware, in June 2000, of the guidance in the Department of Health's publication "Good Practice in Continence Services" (www.doh.gov.uk/pdfs/continenceservices.pdf). The joint publication by my Department and the Department of Health on "Supporting Pupils with Medical Needs—A Good Practice Guide" (www.teachernet.gov.uk/healthandsafety) gives more general guidance for schools.

  Foreign Language Teaching
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 3 March, ref 99605, how many students sat the(a) GCSE and (b) A Level exam in (i) French, (ii) German and (iii) Spanish in each year since 1995. [102156]

  Mr. Miliband
  The number of students who sat French, German and Spanish at GCSE and A level in each year since 1995 are set out in the following table:

  career potential. Participants in the Ambition: IT programme train for work primarily in the areas of systems support and software development.

  National Grid for Learning
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much National Grid for Learning funding has been granted to schools in the Buckingham constituency in 2002–03. [106008]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  National Grid for Learning funding is allocated to local education authorities and information is not kept on a constituency basis. In 2002–03 schools in Buckinghamshire LEA have benefited from a total allocation of £2,852,279 (including LEA match funding).

  Buckinghamshire LEA was also allocated £794,205 (including LEA match funding) to provide high speed broadband connectivity to schools within the LEA through their membership of the South East Grid for Learning.

  Senior Civil Servants
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the turnover of senior civil servants within his Department. [105822]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department seeks to ensure a turnover of senior civil servants which is consistent with bringing in a diverse range of skills and talent, developing and refreshing the senior management group, and delivering our business.
  731W
  The overall turnover of senior civil servants in posts funded by the Department for Education and Skills, and the former Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) for each of the years from 2000 to 2002 was:

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Entrants

  28

  22

  20

  Leavers

  21

  22

  7

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the system of education grant distribution in recognising the additional costs associated with educational provision for children with special needs; [105867]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the extent to which additional financial support provided to (a) local authorities and (b) primary and secondary schools reflects the costs of providing for children recognised as being on the autistic spectrum. [105863]

  Mr. Miliband
  The new system for distributing education grant is known as Education Formula Spending Shares. The distribution formula recognises the additional costs associated with educational provision for children with special needs in two ways. Firstly there is an uplift of £1,300 in the under five, primary and secondary formulae for pupils with additional educational needs. This draws on evidence from research by PricewaterhouseCoopers (a copy has been placed in the Library) on the costs schools face for pupils with additional educational needs. Secondly, there is a separate funding block recognising the costs associated with provision for high need pupils. This uses a formula to estimate how many children in each authority have very high costs, using measures of the proportions of children with parents on income support and of low birth weight, and distributes £6,801 per high cost pupil. This figure is based on historical evidence of what local educational authorities spend on average on such pupils.

  The additional financial support provided to primary and secondary schools for children in general with special needs and in particular for those on the autistic spectrum is for local education authorities to decide: many have factors in their local formulae for such provision.

  Teachers' Pensions
  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 employers' contributions to the Teachers' Pension Scheme announced on 13 March in the(a) financial year 2003–04 and (b) school year 2003–04. [105571]

  Mr. Miliband
  It will not be possible to calculate the additional cost of the increase in employers' contributions to the Teachers' Pension Scheme for each local education authority for 2003–04 until we have analysed the contributions data for March and April 2003.
  732W
  Nationally, a total of £650 million has been transferred into Education Formula Spending to meet the costs of the 4.75 per cent. increase in employers' contribution that arises from the inclusion of the costs of pensions increase on the scheme. This comprises a baseline adjustment to the Education Formula Spending total of £586 million; £20 million to meet the additional costs of Threshold grant payments; and a £44 million transfer to the Learning and Skills Council in respect of sixth forms.

WALES

  Administrative Costs
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what have been the administrative costs of the Wales Office as a percentage of total spending since 1999. [103812]

  Peter Hain
  The information is provided in the following table:

  (1) staff and other administration costs £000

  (2) Programme expenditure £000

  (3) Column (1) as percentage of column (2)

  1 July 1999 to 31 March 2000

  1,482

  5,036,528

  0.03

  2000–01

  3,039

  7,118,193

  0.04

  2001–02

  2,911

  7,964,573

  0.04

  Bilateral Concordants
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many bilateral concordants have been concluded since April 2002. [103372]

  Peter Hain
  My Department has entered into no new bilateral concordants over this period.

  Civil Contingency Planning
  Mr. Paul Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Department's(a) responsibilities and (b) assets with regard to civil contingency planning; what funds are committed; what action he is taking within his Department to improve such planning; and what action he is taking in collaboration with other departments. [102630]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer he received from the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, on 21 March 2003,Official Report, column 958W, which explains the cross-Government arrangements for civil contingency planning. Detailed plans for Wales are the responsibility of the lead Department (which will be the National Assembly for Wales in respect of transferred functions). My Department works with both the Civil Contingencies Secretariat and the Assembly to facilitate this process.

  Commercial Confidentiality
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance his Department issues to civil servants on
  733W
  how to deal with claims from organisations that the information they provide to the Department is commercially confidential. [105481]

  Peter Hain
  Release of information by my Department is covered by the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Second Edition 1997). While each request must be considered on its merits, Part 2 of that Code sets out the exemptions from the right of access. Some of these exemptions relate to categories of information regarded as confidential, examples include the privacy of an individual, third party commercial confidences, and information given in confidence. Decisions to provide or refuse access to such information are subject to a public interest test.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the total cost of his Department's website was in the last 12 months; and how many hits it received in the same period. [104199]

  Peter Hain
  For the period 1 September 2002–31 August 2003, the Wales Office was invoiced £1,600 for running of the departmental website.

  Over the last 12 months, March 2002-February 2003, the Wales Office website has received 563,219 hits and 267,177 page impressions.

  PFI Schemes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the expected saving to public funds from the Private Finance Initiative schemes due to become operational in 2003. [105770]

  Peter Hain
  My Department has no PFI schemes due to become operational in 2003.

  Rail Services
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with(a) train operating companies, (b) the Strategic Rail Authority and (c) ministerial colleagues on the removal of certain rail services between Wales and London. [104150]

  Peter Hain
  I have regular meetings with ministerial colleagues on a range of subjects including transport issues. I have recently met with the SRA and Wales and Borders Railways and discussed train services to and within Wales.

DEFENCE

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made in joint working between Thales and BAE Systems on the aircraft carriers order. [105419]

  Mr. Ingram
  Our discussions with BAE Systems and Thales to determine the structure of the Alliance for the Future Aircraft Carrier programme are continuing. During the course of those discussions, BAE Systems and Thales have been working together extensively and 734W
  design activity has continued in parallel. We expect to be in a position to commence formal joint working on the next phase of assessment shortly. Subject to the normal internal approvals, we remain on course to award the main build contract for the carriers in the spring of 2004.

  Armed Forces (Postage)
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the weight limit was prior to the recent change of the weight limit for free postage for British armed forces to two kilograms; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the change. [105763]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is no free postage to United Kingdom armed forces personnel other than Forces Free Air Letters ("blueys") and the electronic equivalent, the e-bluey, which are available to authorised BFPO numbers, including all those in the Gulf.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to raise the two kilogram weight limit on packages that may be sent free of charge to the armed forces personnel in the Gulf. [106517]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 1 April 2003]: There is no free postage to United Kingdom armed forces personnel other than Forces Free Air Letters ("blueys") and the electronic equivalent, the e-bluey, which are available to authorised BFPO numbers, including all those in the Gulf. I also refer the hon. Member to the answers given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 31 March 2003, Official Report, column 651, to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) and Official Report, column 661, to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay).

  Armed Forces Documentation
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide members of HM armed forces serving in the Gulf with documentation to enable them to authorise a family member or other person to act for them in transactions relating to(a) car licensing, (b) insurance, (c) housing payments and (d) payments to utilities. [106090]

  Mr. Ingram
  Personnel are briefed prior to deployment on the need to make suitable arrangements to cover these sorts of eventualities during their period of absence. They are reminded that these are private matters for which they are responsible. The armed forces have not previously found it necessary to provide their deploying personnel with documentation advising them how to grant power of attorney to a family member. Families encountering specific difficulties are encouraged to seek assistance from Unit Welfare Officers.

  Commercial Confidentiality
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [105552]
  735W
  Dr. Moonie
  When information is marked as commercially sensitive it is treated as such and protected and managed in accordance with the relevant security guidelines, any contract conditions and other departmental processes. The need to verify any claim of commercial confidentiality will generally arise only when considering whether the information should be disclosed to a third party. Ministry of Defence guidance requires officials to comply with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in deciding whether to disclose information. Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice relates to a third party's commercial confidences. In deciding whether or not to withhold information, officials must consider whether "unwarranted disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party". While the decision ultimately rests with MOD, the third party whose interests may be adversely affected will normally be consulted. Even where, prima facie, the Exemption applies, the Code of Practice says that information should be disclosed if there is an overriding public interest in doing so and no statutory restriction or legal obligation to prevent this.

  Department Catering Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was of(a) in-house canteen and (b) other catering services provided by the Department in 2002. [104267]

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

  Departmental Events
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) conferences, (b) seminars, (c) workshops, (d) exhibitions and (e) press conferences which have been sponsored by his Department and which took place on non-departmental premises in the last 12 months, broken down by title, purpose, date and cost. [104273]

  Dr. Moonie
  This information is not held centrally in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I regret I am therefore unable to provide a substantive answer under the terms of Exemption 9 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Depleted Uranium
  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the United Nations Environment Programme study of Depleted Uranium in Bosnia published on 25 March. [105975]

  Mr. Ingram
  I welcome this report which adds to the body of evidence on the environmental effects of Depleted Uranium (DU) ammunition. Officials have made a preliminary assessment of the main body of the report including the conclusions and recommendations. The findings of this study are consistent with previous United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) studies in Kosovo (2001) and in Serbia and Montenegro (2002). We note the UN EP assessment that the recorded contamination levels are very low and do not present immediate radioactive or toxic risks for the environment 736W
  or human health. We note also that anecdotal reports of rises in cancers in the Balkans were not substantiated by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as part of this project. UNEP say that,
  "WHO concludes that, due to the lack of a proper cancer registry and reporting system, claims of an increase in the rates of adverse health effects stemming from DU cannot be substantiated. The existing scientific data on Uranium and DU health effects indicate that it is highly unlikely that DU could be associated with any of the reported health problems".

  We have stated previously that any DU contamination will be limited and localised and that actions to reduce any potential intakes will only be necessary in some extreme cases, and we note the findings of this report are consistent with that view. Specifically, the report concludes that DU contamination occurs at low levels, detectable with radiation monitors up to two metres around an impact at the surface, but also detectable in laboratory chemical analysis of soil up to 200 metres away in some cases. The report states that
  "the corresponding radiological and toxicological risks from such low-level contamination are insignificant."

  Where Depleted Uranium has been detected in air and water, it has still been within normal levels of naturally occurring Uranium. The concentrations are described as very low and the resulting radiation doses insignificant. The report recommends that further work is carried out on the corrosion and dispersion of DU in the soil and possible subsequent uptake by groundwater. The Ministry of Defence's independent research programme on DU, announced in March 2002, already includes such work.

  We support the view that sensible pragmatic precautions should be taken to protect the civil population in areas where armed conflicts occurred and that these precautions should address all potential hazards. In particular UNEP has drawn attention to the fact that past ammunition production and current ammunition destruction activities have produced surface concentrations of heavy metals above levels at which precautions should be taken. The report also draws attention to the fact that industrial radiation sources present a greater health risk than DU contamination. UNEP makes recommendations to raise awareness, train personnel in decontamination, strengthen the radiation safety infrastructure and to investigate health claims. This will be achieved initially by improving data capture of health statistics, particularly with regard to cancer registration and to improving knowledge of basic epidemiology and interpretation of clinical findings in clinical staff. We support these recommendations. The press release on the UNEP website gives a good summary of the findings.

  Gurkhas
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the(a) pay, (b) pension and (c) service conditions of Gurkhas serving with British defence forces; and if he will make a statement. [106413]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since 1 October 2002, we have received representation from six hon. Members about Gurkha pensions and 11 hon. Members about Gurkha
  737W
  conditions of service more generally. We have also received enquiries from 25 members of the public and a petition of 445 signatures which seeks enhancements to Gurkha pension arrangements.

  Gurkha terms and conditions of service are unique and reflect the status of Gurkhas as Nepalese citizens, recruited and discharged in Nepal. In a recent High Court ruling, Gurkha pay and pensions arrangements were judged to be fair and non-discriminatory. Inter alia, the Court noted that Gurkha remuneration is broadly in line with the pay of British personnel and that Gurkha pensions, available after only 15 years of service, compare favourably with professional salaries in Nepal. Although claims relating to Gurkha accompanied service provisions were also dismissed, we recognise that the current arrangements are a cause for concern and are therefore studying these aspects of the ruling very carefully.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what depleted uranium munitions have been used by coalition forces in Iraq; and what steps are being taken to clean up the toxic and radiological pollution arising from their use. [105544]

  Mr. Ingram
  At this stage in the conflict, we are unable to give precise details of what depleted uranium (DU) munitions have been used by coalition forces in Iraq. The British Army's Challenger II tanks have been firing their 120 mm DU anti-tank rounds, but I am unable to comment on DU munitions belonging to United States forces.

  It is not feasible to clean up DU residue in the midst of a war zone. The post-conflict administrators of Iraq will be responsible for monitoring DU levels in the environment, and cordoning off and decontaminating sites of penetrator impacts. The United Kingdom has a long tradition of providing practical and financial help in such situations.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK nationals are suspected to be fighting for Iraqi armed forces, terrorist groups or militias; how many UK nationals have recently been captured or detained in Iraq and are suspected of being a member of the Iraqi armed forces terrorist groups or militias; whether those captured or detained are being held as prisoners of war; whether they will face criminal charges under UK law; and if he will make a statement. [106061]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 31 March 2003]: I can confirm that as of today, contrary to media reports, we have no record of any United Kingdom nationals having been detained as Prisoners of War by coalition forces. Captured members of the Iraqi armed forces will be treated as Prisoners of War. Should this include British nationals, such persons will also be afforded proper protection under the Geneva Conventions.

  The Ministry of Defence is not in a position to make an assessment of the numbers of United Kingdom nationals that may be fighting for Iraqi armed forces, terrorist groups or militias.
  738W
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place daily in the Library transcripts of press briefings by Coalition commanders at Centcom Media Centre in Qatar on the invasion of Iraq. [106412]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave on 5 March 2003,Official Report, column 1043W, to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). A copy of daily press briefings by Coalition commanders at the Centcom media centre in Qatar can be viewed on the Ministry of Defence website www.operations.mod.uk/telic/statements.htm.

  Iraq Casualties
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the number of(a) civilian and (b) military lives lost in the conflict in Iraq; and if he will make a statement on the coalition's strategy to avoid civilian casualties. [105442]

  Mr. Ingram
  We have no means of ascertaining the numbers of military or civilian lives lost during the conflict in Iraq to date, although we make every effort to keep any impact upon the Iraqi civilian population to an absolute minimum. All our military planning is conducted in full accordance with our obligations under international law to employ the minimum necessary use of force to achieve military effect, and to avoid injury to non-combatants or civilian infrastructure. Practically, this is achieved through a combination of an extremely careful targeting process and highly accurate precision guided weapons.

  Military Equipment
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Exocet missiles were found by coalition forces in the last Gulf War; [105510]

  (2) what military equipment manufactured in France, other than missiles, was found in Iraq at the end of the last Gulf War. [105511]

  Mr. Ingram
  Detailed information of equipment found by coalition forces in the last Gulf War is not held centrally by the Ministry of Defence and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  MOD Land
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list Ministry of Defence sites in the South East of England that were classed as(a) common land and (b) manorial waste prior to their acquisition by the MOD in the last 30 years. [106214]

  Dr. Moonie
  Departmental records for the South East (SE) are currently being searched to extract the information requested. The geographical area handled by Defence Estates' SE Region covers Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Berkshire, North Hampshire, Surrey, West and East Sussex, Kent and Greater London. There are potentially 10,000 records/deeds that need to be investigated by Records staff, based at Aldershot and Canterbury.
  739W
  Once the search has been completed I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) funded and (b) unfunded public sector pension schemes for which his Department, its agencies and its non-departmental public bodies are 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. [104924]

  Dr. Moonie
  With one exception the Ministry of Defence, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are not responsible for any funded pension schemes. The schemes for the three Armed Forces Sports Boards are unfunded schemes that are analogous to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme and are paid for by grant-in-aide and non-public funds. As such they have no assets and are not subject to actuarial valuation.

  Of the seven executive non-departmental public bodies listed in "Public Bodies 2002", the National Army Museum scheme is analogous to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme and is paid for through grant-in-aid. It has no assets and is not subject to actuarial valuation. The Royal Naval Museum, the Royal Naval Submarine Museum and the Fleet Air Arm Museum have privately provided money purchase schemes. Again, the schemes have no assets and are not subject to actuarial valuation. The RAF Museum supports a money purchase stakeholder pension to which it does not contribute and there is no designated pension scheme for the Royal Marines Museum. The one funded scheme is run by the Oil and Pipelines Agency. The last actuarial valuation of the scheme was 5 April 2001 at which the value of the assets was £2.11 million. The funding surplus at the last valuation was f£0.468 million.

  MOD is also responsible for unfunded schemes for locally engaged staff in Gibraltar, Cyprus and St. Helena. These schemes have no assets and are not subject to actuarial valuation, being funded locally through operating costs.

  The Armed Forces Pension Scheme is an unfunded, salary-related contracted-out occupational pension scheme open to most members of the armed forces. There is also a scheme for Non-Regular Permanent Staff and the Army Careers Officers Pension Scheme. The latter two are minor schemes incorporated with the Armed Forces Pension Scheme for actuarial and Resource Accounting purposes, whose membership amounted to some 0.54 per cent. of the overall Armed Forces Pension Scheme as at 31 Mar 2002.

  The last actuarial statement for the Armed Forces Pension Scheme was produced by the Government Actuary's Department for the year ending 31 March 20021, and was included as part of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme Resource Accounts 2001–02 which are laid before Parliament. As at 31 March 2002, the value of liabilities for the Armed Forces Pension Scheme was
  740W
  £53.5 billion. The next full valuation is currently in progress and will be included in the Armed Forces Pension Scheme Resource Accounts for 2002–03.

  1 Based on an approximate assessment carried out as at 31 March 1997, updated to reflect known changes that had occurred since that date.

  Procurement
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many contracts the Defence Procurement Agency is dealing with. [105504]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Procurement Agency placed a total of 938 new contracts during the past two financial years up to and including FY 2001–02. During the first nine months of the current financial year it placed a further 457 contracts. The precise number of contracts being managed could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Secondments
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what Department for International Development staff have been assigned to his Department in the past year; to whom they report; and what are and will their responsibilities be; [104034]

  (2) which officials within his Department have responsibility for liaising with the Department for International Development; whether their roles are full-time; whether they report through the chiefs of staff; and what their (a) purpose and (b) function are. [104031]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no Ministry of Defence (MOD) staff dedicated exclusively to liaison with the Department for International Development (DfID). Liaison occurs at all levels on an ad hoc and routine basis where co-ordination and consultation on policy and implementation is required.

  No DfID staff are assigned to MOD. A number of DfID officials are, however embedded in the United Kingdom National Component Command Head-Quarters in Kuwait, advising on contingency planning for humanitarian assistance in the period immediately following conflict A DfID official is also embedded within the Defence Advisory Team, based at Shrivenham, which provides advice on Security Sector Reform advice and co-ordination as part of the cross departmental Conflict Prevention Initiative. All embedded staff report to DfID.

  South Korea
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many MOD personnel are serving in South Korea. [106135]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave on 6 March 2003,Official Report, column 1175, to the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and on 24 March 2003, Official Report, column 20W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan). In addition to these posts, a Ministry of Defence civilian fills the First Secretary Defence post at the British Embassy in Seoul.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Chechnya
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the opportunities which exist in Chechnya for those opposed to Russian policies in that country to voice that opposition. [104748]

  Mr. MacShane
  Apart from a small number of foreign correspondents, most media in Chechnya are state-owned. While they do report stories of Chechen civilian complaints against Russian troops, the main thrust of Russian news reporting tends to be supportive of the Government line.

  Diversity Courses
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civil servants in his Department have attended diversity courses. [105649]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The FCO has been running training courses on diversity issues for many years. In the years for which records are available, 1998–2003, a total of 3,155 members of staff have attended our Equal Opportunities and subsequently our Managing Inclusion course. We have just introduced a new Valuing Diversity programme, which will reach more than 600 members of staff per year for the three years of its contract.

  Guantanamo Bay
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 24 March 2003,Official Report, column 70W, on Guantanamo Bay, whether he has (a) requested formal consular access to Guantanamo Bay from the US authorities and (b) called for the status of the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay to be decided by a tribunal; and if he will make a statement. [105363]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Yes.

  (b) Although the Foreign Secretary has not called for a tribunal to decide the detainees status, he has raised the issue of the detainees with Colin Powell several times, most recently on 23 January. Officials are in frequent contact.

  Date

  Countries

  Subject

  31 July 1974

  USSR

  Situation in Cyprus

  30 October 1974

  France; UK; US

  Relationship between UN and South Africa

  6 June 1975

  France; UK; US

  Situation in Namibia

  11 August 1975

  US

  Application for membership for Republic of South Vietnam

  11 August 1975

  US

  Application for membership for Democratic Republic of Vietnam

  30 September 1975

  US

  Application for membership for Republic of South Vietnam

  30 September 1975

  US

  Application for membership for Democratic Republic of Vietnam

  8 December 1975

  US

  Situation in the Middle East

  26 January 1976

  US

  Middle East, including Palestine question

  6 February 1976

  France

  Situation in the Comoros

  25 March 1976

  US

  Situation arising from recent developments in occupied Arab territories

  23 June 1976

  US

  Application for membership for Angola

  29 June 1976

  US

  Question of the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people

  19 October 1976

  France; UK; US

  Situation in Namibia

  15 November 1976

  US

  Application for membership for Socialist republic of Vietnam

  31 October 1977

  France; UK; US

  Question of South Africa

  31 October 1977

  France; UK; US

  Question of South Africa

  742W
  We have made clear that whatever their status the detainees are entitled to humane treatment and, if prosecuted, a fair trial. We have been encouraging the US to move forward with the process of determining the future of the British detainees. We shall continue to do so.

  Independent Monitor
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will announce the name of the new Independent Monitor. [105648]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be recruiting a new Independent Monitor through open competition. We aim to place advertisements for this position in the press in the week commencing 7 April.

  Iraqi Ambassador
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason the Iraqi Ambassador to the United Kingdom was expelled. [105587]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Head of the Iraqi Interests Section in the Jordanian Embassy and his Administrative Attaché were given five working days to leave the UK on 24 March. Their presence is no longer appropriate in view of coalition military action in Iraq.

  Middle East
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Governments of(a) Oman and (b) Bahrain since the start of the Iraq War. [105646]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have regular discussions with these Governments.

  Security Council Veto
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions since 1974 when one or more permanent Members used a veto in the UN Security Council, broken down by the proposition under consideration and the vetoing countries. [105435]

  Mr. Rammell
  The following table includes the date of veto, country (or countries) vetoing, and the subject of the draft resolution that was vetoed:
  743W

  Date

  Countries

  Subject

  31 October 1977

  France; UK; US

  Question of South Africa

  15 January 1979

  USSR

  Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia

  16 March 1979

  USSR

  The situation in south-east Asia and its implications for international peace and security

  7 January 1980

  USSR

  Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

  13 January 1980

  USSR

  Call for sanctions against Iran because of the American hostages

  30 April 1980

  US

  Question of exercise by the Palestinian people of their inalienable rights

  30 April 1981

  France; UK; US

  Question of Namibia

  30 April 1981

  France; UK; US

  Question of Namibia

  30 April 1981

  France; UK; US

  Question of Namibia

  30 April 1981

  France; UK; US

  Question of Namibia

  31 August 1981

  US

  South African incursion in Angola

  20 January 1982

  US

  Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights

  2 April 1982

  US

  Nicaragua; US military exercises with Honduras

  2 April 1982

  US

  Situation in occupied Arab territories: Palestine

  20 April 1982

  US

  Situation in occupied Arab territories: Palestine

  4 June 1982

  UK; US

  Falklands Question

  8 June 1982

  US

  Israeli invasion of Lebanon

  26 June 1982

  US

  Israeli invasion of Lebanon

  6 August 1982

  US

  Israeli invasion of Lebanon

  2 August 1983

  US

  Situation in occupied Arab territories

  12 September 1983

  USSR

  The shooting down by the Soviet Union of a South Korean civil airliner

  27 October 1983

  US

  The US invasion of Grenada

  29 February 1984

  USSR

  United Nations role in Lebanon

  4 April 1984

  US

  The mining of Nicaraguan ports

  6 September 1984

  US

  Israeli occupation of Lebanon

  12 March 1985

  US

  Israeli occupation of Lebanon

  10 May 1985

  US

  Economic sanctions against Nicaragua

  10 May 1985

  US

  Economic sanctions against Nicaragua

  10 May 1985

  US

  Economic sanctions against Nicaragua

  26 July 1985

  UK; US

  The question of South Africa

  13 September 1985

  US

  Situation in occupies Arab territories: Palestine

  15 November 1985

  UK; US

  Question of Namibia

  17 January 1986

  US

  Israeli Occupation of Lebanon

  30 January 1986

  US

  Provocative acts in relation to Al Aqsa Mosque

  6 February 1986

  US

  Israeli interception and detention of Libyan civilian aircraft

  21 April 1986

  France; UK; US

  United States raid on Libya

  23 May 1986

  UK; US

  South African raids into Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe

  18 June 1986

  UK; US

  South African attacks on Angola

  31 July 1986

  US

  Nicaragua and the ICJ Judgments

  28 October 1986

  US

  Nicaragua and ICJ Judgment

  20 February 1987

  UK; US

  South Africa

  9 April 1987

  UK; US

  Question of Namibia

  18 January 1988

  US

  Israeli occupation of Lebanon

  1 February 1988

  US

  Situation in the occupied territories: Palestine

  8 March 1988

  UK; US

  Sanctions against South Africa

  15 April 1988

  US

  Situation in the occupied territories: Palestine

  10 May 1988

  US

  Israeli invasion of Southern Lebanon

  14 December 1988

  US

  Israeli raid on Lebanon

  11 January 1989

  France; UK; US

  Shooting down of Libyan aircraft

  17 February 1989

  US

  Situation in the occupied territories: Palestine

  9 June 1989

  US

  Situation in the occupied territories: Palestine

  7 November 1989

  US

  Situation in the occupied territories: Palestine

  23 December 1989

  US; UK; France

  The invasion of Panama

  17 January 1990

  US

  Violation of diplomatic privileges and immunities of the Nicaraguan Ambassador's residence in Panama

  31 May 1990

  US

  Situation in the occupied territories: Palestine

  11 May 1993

  Russia

  Situation in Cyprus

  2 December 1994

  Russia

  The situation in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina

  17 May 1995

  US

  The situation in the occupied Arab territories

  10 January 1997

  China

  Central America: efforts towards peace

  7 March 1997

  US

  The situation in the occupied Arab territories

  21 March 1997

  US

  The situation in the occupied Arab territories

  25 February 1999

  China

  The situation in Macedonia

  27 March 2001

  US

  Establishment of UN observer force to protect Palestinian civilians

  14 December 2001

  US

  Situation in the occupied territories: Palestine

  30 June 2002

  US

  UNMIBH and the ICC

  20 December 2002

  US

  Situation in the occupied territories: Palestine

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of whether(a) North Korea, (b) Iran and (c) Cuba possess weapons of mass destruction; and if he will make a statement. [105122]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have for some time had serious concerns about the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programmes of a number of countries. We are 744W
  particularly concerned by recent statements and actions by North Korea whom we believe to have ambitions to manufacture nuclear weapons.

  We have also noted information which has recently become available on the nature and scale of Iran's nuclear programme. It is a matter of concern that Iran did not make the information available to the International Atomic Energy Agency earlier. We note that the IAEA Director-General has said that some nuclear safeguards issues remain to be clarified.
  745W
  We have no clear evidence that Cuba is engaged in a programme to develop WMD, although we do have some concerns about the scale of their pharmaceutical production capacity. Cuba has recently signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a move which we have publicly welcomed.

  We consistently call upon all states that have not yet done so to sign, ratify and abide by the obligations of all the International Treaties and Conventions covering the development of weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contingency plans the High Commission in Harare is putting in place as a result of the recent increase in state-sponsored violence; and if he will make a statement on the situation in Zimbabwe. [105836]

  Mr. Straw
  The British High Commission in Harare keeps the political and security situation in Zimbabwe under close review. The High Commission's contingency plans are flexible and designed to cope with any likely eventualities in Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Zimbabwe's suspension from the Councils of the Commonwealth will be reviewed; and what discussions his Department has had with the South African Government concerning Zimbabwe's suspension. [105835]

  Mr. Straw
  The Commonwealth Secretary General has stated that Zimbabwe's suspension from the Councils of the Commonwealth will be reviewed at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Abuja in December.

  We have maintained regular contact with the South African Government on this issue. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Director for Africa addressed it with senior South African officials during a visit to Pretoria in the week of 17 March; and my noble Friend Baroness Amos, Minister for Africa, is in South Africa this week.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she will respond to the First Report from the International Development Select Committee Session 2002–03 on Afghanistan. [106677]

  Clare Short
  The Government response to the recommendations of the International Development Select Committee was sent to the Committee on 28 March.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to her Answer of 7 March 2003,Official Report, column 1252W, on Afghanistan, whether electricity is available 24 hours a day in Kabul. [106681]
  746W
  Clare Short
  As winter ends and spring starts in Kabul, there is now a 24 hour supply of electricity again in Kabul. However, the demand for electricity is greater than the supply. And for many people, the distribution network is unreliable. Availability is intermittent. The Transitional Administration has set a target of eliminating power outages progressively over the next three years by increasing generating and importing capacity.

  Ebola
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what level of aid is being given to combat the recent outbreak of Ebola in the Congo. [106139]

  Clare Short
  My Department has contributed £50,000 through the International Federation of the Red Cross. We continue to monitor the situation and are in close contact with the World Heath Organisation, Red Cross and Medecins Sans Frontieres.

  Food Shortages (Southern Africa)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on food shortages in southern Africa. [106006]

  Clare Short
  Six countries in southern Africa (Zimbabwe, Zambia, Lesotho, Swaziland, Malawi and Mozambique) have been suffering food shortages since late 2001. Food aid and other assistance has been provided to over 14 million people, half of these in Zimbabwe. This international effort has avoided a major catastrophe.

  Harvests are due across the region in April 2003. Early forecasts are for variable but generally improved crops. If these forecasts are accurate, then there should be a significant reduction in the scale of the crisis in the region. While further assistance will be needed in Mozambique, Lesotho and Swaziland, there should be little need for food aid in Malawi and Zambia.

  However, there continues to be a major crisis in Zimbabwe, where over seven million people are likely to continue to need assistance during the next 12 months. This is largely the result of disastrous economic management in the country.

  DFID has provided over £106 million in response to the crisis since September 2001, as well as over £21 million as the UK share of EU assistance.

  Iraq
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Defence concerning humanitarian contingency plans for Iraq. [105960]

  Clare Short
  I discuss humanitarian planning for Iraq regularly with the Secretary of State for Defence and other Ministers.

  My Department has been working closely with the Ministry of Defence to minimise the humanitarian impact of any conflict; both to limit the risks to the Iraqi population and the infrastructure on which they depend, and to ensure that UK forces meet their

  747W
  obligations under the Hague and Geneva Conventions governing armed conflict. DFID has seconded two humanitarian specialists to work with the UK's armed forces and to advise on relief activities.

  Market Research
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what expenditure has been incurred by her(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental bodies in 2002 on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; and if she will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each. [106266]

  Clare Short
  In 2002, my Department spent £43,395 on the commissioning of two studies of UK public attitudes. This is a long term exercise with regular surveys on an annual basis. The first, carried out by MORI, records attitudes amongst school children and cost £11,515. The other, undertaken by the ONS, monitored the UK adult population at a cost of £31,880. Both surveys monitor public attitudes towards and support for international development in the UK. The results of each public opinion poll are used to inform and monitor the impact of the public education work of the Department.

  None of our current non-departmental public bodies has incurred expenditure in relation to opinion bodies and/or focus groups.

  Travel Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the cost was of travel by train by staff in her Department in 2002. [106342]

  Clare Short
  The cost of rail travel by UK based DFID staff for 2002 was £346,000. This figure is provisional and subject to final audit. DFID staff are required to use the most efficient and economical means of travel.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Historic Buildings
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action she is able to take to make orders for spot listing of historic buildings where the owners refuse access or are otherwise not cooperative. [106660]

  Dr. Howells
  When some buildings are being considered for listing under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, English Heritage can advise without requiring access to the property. In cases where a closer survey is necessary, English Heritage will try to work with the owners to arrange a visit. Should this not be possible, however, as a last resort the Secretary of State has the power, under Section 88 of the above Act, to authorise entry.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many applications for the spot listing of historic buildings were(a) granted and (b) refused in the last 12 months. [106661]
  748W
  Dr. Howells
  During the 12-month period to 31 December 2002, 297 applications for the spot listing of historic buildings were granted. During the same period, around 700 applications were refused as the buildings were deemed by the Secretary of State not to meet the criteria for listing as set out in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic Environment.

  Historic Sites (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the sites of historic interest in Buckinghamshire which received grant aid in 2002. [105715]

  Dr. Howells
  Grants were allocated to the following sites of historic interest in Buckinghamshire in 2002.

  Grants awarded by English Heritage:

  St. Mary's Church, Hardwick

  All Saints' Church, Milton Keynes

  Church of Assumption of Blessed Virgin Mary, Wavendon

  All Saints' Church, Buckland

  Stowe House, Stowe

  Doric Arch, Stowe Landscape Gardens, Stowe

  Statue of King George I, Stowe Landscape Gardens, Stowe

  Gothic Temple, Hall Barn Estate, Beaconsfield

  Grants paid by the Heritage Lottery Fund for historic buildings:

  Stowe House, Stowe

  Old Schoolroom, Weedon

  Guildhall, High Wycombe

  Parish Church, Penn

  Lottery
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list those organisations which responded to the consultation on Lottery distribution policy(a) in favour of merging the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund and (b) opposed to a merger. [105019]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Review of Lottery Funding consultation paper asked whether there might be merit in merging some distributors. There was general support for streamlining the delivery of Lottery funding. Of the 425 responses received, 12 respondents raised the possibility of a merger between the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund. Six were broadly in favour, while six expressed reservations. The following table provides details.

  Broadly in favour:

  Chief Cultural and Leisure Officers Association

  Coalfields Regeneration Trust

  East Midlands Regional Assembly

  East Midlands Sport

  Institute of Leisure and Amenity Management

  London Borough of Camden

  749W
  Expressed reservations:

  Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations

  Contact a Family

  The Council of Museums in Wales

  Dacorum Council for Voluntary Service

  Family Planning Association

  National Association of Council for Voluntary Service

  Museums
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the museums based in Buckinghamshire which have received funding from the Designated Museums Challenge fund, indicating(a) the nature of the project, (b) the date of the award and (c) the amount of funding provided in each case. [106373]

  Dr. Howells
  There are no museums in Buckinghamshire included in the Designation Scheme and therefore they are not eligible to apply for funds from the Designation Challenge Fund.

  Travel Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost was of travel by train by staff in her Department in 2002. [106349]

  Dr. Howells
  DCMS expenditure for travelling and subsistence for 2001–02 was £752,860. The cost of travel by train by staff can be obtained only at disproportionate cost as travel costs are not analysed on the Department's finance system according to the modes of travel.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how her Department was consulted on the proposal to charge £95 for each work permit for entertainers playing engagements in the UK; and how she responded; [106473]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the impact upon live music venues of the decision to charge for work permits in the UK. [106458]

  Dr. Howells
  DCMS was sent details of the charging proposals as part of the formal consultation Work Permits United Kingdom (WPUK) conducted last year and made no comment. The findings of the consultation document were published on 30 September 2002 and are available on the WPUK website at www.workpermits.gov.uk.

  I have not assessed the impact of the charges on live music venues but WPUK's Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) states that the costs and impact on business will be reviewed annually, and that consideration will be given to evidence provided in relation to exemptions or discounts for certain types of employers or employment. Details of the RIA are on the Home Office website at www.homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Charities
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines are in place to determine which charities and charitable organisations will receive direct funding from central and local government. [105685]

  Beverley Hughes
  No central guidelines exist. Decisions on funding are the responsibility of each Government Department and local authority.

  It is common practice, however, for Departments to publish application criteria and guidance notes for each grant programme to which voluntary and community organisations, including charities and charitable organisations, may wish to apply.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which charities and charitable organisations provide public services(a) alongside and (b) additionally to those provided by (i) central and (ii) local government. [105686]

  Beverley Hughes
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Government's expenditure on charities and charitable trusts has been in each year since 1992. [105692]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information about funding from central gGovernment to voluntary and community groups, including charities and charitable trusts, is currently available in a publication funded by the Home Office, entitled "Central Government Funding of Voluntary and Community Organisations 1982/83 to 1999/2000: ISBN 1 84082 636–3".

  Copies of the report are available in Library.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many of the applicants granted section 4 NASS support received full board accommodation and(a) cash support and (b) no cash support in each month in the last two years; of those who received board and cash, how long each applicant was in receipt of full board; and how much cash support a week they received; and of the applicants who received full board accommodation and no cash, how long they were accommodated; [105958]

  (2) how many people have applied for hard cases section 4 NASS support, broken down by area, in each month for the last two years; what the average duration of time taken was to process an application to the point where a decision is made on the application; how many applications resulted in the applicant receiving section 4 NASS support; how many applications were refused, broken down by reasons for refusal; and how many applications were deferred pending further information. [105959]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 31 March 2003]: I am afraid the information is not available in the precise form requested. Section 4 provides for the

  751W
  provision of full board and accommodation only. There is no eligibility for cash support. It is the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) policy to use full board accommodation but in a limited number of cases vouchers may be provided by the contractor to enable the purchase of food to cover some meals. NASS does not have a central record of the number of requests for accommodation under section 4, the length of time taken to process them or the outcome. This information could only be obtained by interrogating individual records.

  Mr. Adrian Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long Wellington, Somerset has been included within the Taunton and Bridgwater cluster area for the housing of asylum seekers; and when(a) Taunton Deane Borough Council and (b) Somerset county council were notified. [106103]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 31 March 2003]: The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) conducted all its negotiations on potential dispersal areas through the regional consortia. NASS did not, as a matter of routine, correspond with individual borough councils and county councils. NASS wrote to the lead authority for each regional consortia on 25 January 2000 to inform them of the areasthey were proposing to designate as dispersal areas. Taunton and Bridgwater, including Wellington, was included in this list. At that time the lead authority for the south west region was the City of Bristol. Taunton and Bridgwater, including Wellington, was included in the list of designated areas for dispersal when NASS became operational on 3 April 2000.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with Wandsworth borough council on the borough's policy on paying benefits to people living in the borough and seeking asylum in the United Kingdom. [104636]

  Beverley Hughes
  The London borough of Wandsworth is responsible for providing support to eligible asylum seekers under the Asylum Support (Interim Provisions) Regulations 1999. The Regulations say that the support must be provided in a way which seems to the council to meet the person's essential living needs. There have been no discussions with Wandsworth on its policy in paying benefits to those living in the borough who are asylum seekers. The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) is holding discussions with local authority organisations on whether and, if so, how those asylum seekers currently supported by local authorities could be transferred to the NASS system of support.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of suspected asylum support fraud have been referred to NASS from(a) the Benefit Fraud Hotline and (b) the Targeting Fraud Website; how many investigations have been undertaken as a result; what the outcomes were; what action was taken; how many (i) successful and (ii) unsuccessful prosecutions have resulted; what penalties were imposed; and if he will make a statement. [102775]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 13 March 2003]: The management information records held by The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) do not
  752W
  specifically record referrals from the Benefit Fraud Hotline or the Targeting Fraud website. Referrals from these sources would be recorded as being received from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Since 2000 we have received five referrals from DWP. Information on individual investigations received as a result of a referral from DWP could only be obtained by searching individual records. There are also arrangements for joint working where there is overlapping interest.

  The number of referrals is low. The Benefit Fraud Hotline was established so that members of the public could give details of possible benefit fraud. The public may not readily identify NASS as being part of the benefits system. Staff at the Benefit Hotline are aware which cases would be of interest to The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) as a whole and there are processes for them to refer these to IND.

  The Targeting Fraud website was established to facilitate the reporting of benefit fraud relating to employers rather than individuals who are working. Any referrals from this would be of more interest to the Immigration Service. They are responsible for ensuring that only those foreign nationals eligible to take employment are in fact employed.

  Community Support Officers
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police areas have(a) agreed and (b) not agreed to introduce community support officers. [105823]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Twenty seven police forces have already introduced 1,281 community support officers (CSO) they are:Avon and Somerset, Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, Cleveland, Devon and Cornwall, Dorset, Dorset, Durham, Essex, Greater Manchester, Gwent, Hertfordshire, Kent, Lancashire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Metropolitan Police, Merseyside, Norfolk, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, South Yorkshire, Surrey, Sussex, Warwickshire, West Mercia, West Yorkshire, and Wiltshire.

  A second funding round for CSOs for 2003–04 is currently taking place but the bidding process is not yet complete. Whilst we are anticipating that more forces will recruit CSOs this year, it is not yet possible to say which forces.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter dated 19 February from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan regarding his constituent Mr. N. Stagg of Turriff. [105139]

  Beverley Hughes
  The reply to the hon. Member was sent by my noble Friend (Lord Filkin) on 27 March.

  Criminal Records Checks
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend Criminal Records Bureau checks to those who are associated with companies providing(a) services and (b) accommodation to vulnerable people. [105307]
  753W
  Hilary Benn
  All posts or positions which fall within the scope of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 are eligible for a Standard Disclosure from the Criminal Records Bureau. Those which are also within the terms of section 115 of the Police Act 1997 are eligible for an enhanced disclosure. Providers and managers of, for example, children's homes, adult care homes, domiciliary care agencies and nurses agencies are amongst those which are subject to such checks on a mandatory basis under relevant regulations.

  Employees of companies providing services or accommodation to vulnerable people who are not covered by the exceptions order will be eligible for a basic disclosure. Priority is being given to ensuring that the demand for standard and enhanced disclosures is fully met, but the aim is to introduce basic disclosures as soon as practicable.

  Departmental Telephone Directory
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the most recent internal telephone directory for the Department was published; how often it is updated; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [102029]

  Beverley Hughes
  The internal phone directory of the Home Department is only available electronically and is updated on a daily basis. It is not published and is for internal use within the Department.

  Financial Year

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Total (%)1

  24.4

  20.8

  18.3

  14.2

  12.4

  11.6

  Cannabis

  20.2

  17.2

  14.5

  10.4

  7.5

  6.8

  Opiates

  5.5

  4.3

  4.5

  4.4

  4.7

  4.6

  Cocaine

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  Benzodiazepines

  1.5

  1.3

  1.3

  1.1

  1.3

  1.2

  Methadone

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  Amphetamines

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  Barbiturates

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Buprenorphine2

  1.2

  1.2

  1 These figures reflect overall misuse—e.g. single positive test may comprise multiple drug positives reflecting poly drug use.

  2 Buprenorphine testing is conducted only in the North East and Yorkshire areas.

  English Civil War Pamphlets
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what cataloguing of his Department's collection of English Civil War pamphlets has taken place; and whether such a catalogue will be made available to the public. [106488]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 1 April 2003]: None of the English Civil War pamphlets in the Home Office Library's collection have been catalogued by the Library staff.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions have taken place in the last two years concerning the future of his Department's collection of Civil War pamphlets; and if he will make a statement. [106489]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 1 April 2003]: Staff in The Home Department's Library have held internal discussions relating to the future of the Department's collection of Civil War pamphlets. These

  Domestic Violence
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the report on the inter-personal violence module included in the 2001 British Crime Survey on domestic violence will be published. [106255]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 1 April 2003]: The 2001 British Crime Survey (BCS) contained an inter-personal violence self-completion module, designed to estimate the extent of domestic violence, sexual victimisation and stalking.

  Analysis of data from this module is under way, and we hope to publish the results this summer.

  Drug Dependency (Prisoners)
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his Answer to the honourable Member for Tunbridge Wells of 24 February,Official Report, column 110W, on drug dependency (prisoners), if he will list the drugs recorded by mandatory drugs testing in prisons over the time period referred to. [105675]

  Hilary Benn
  The percentage of positive random mandatory drug tests for prisons in England and Wales broken down by drug group over the time period requested are set out in the following table.

  discussions formed part of the Library's continual review of its collections and holdings and identified the need to investigate a more secure home for this collection where improved public access can be granted.

  Mr. Dominic Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements exist to permit public access to his Department's collection of English Civil War pamphlets. [106490]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 1 April 2003]: There is no general public access to the Home Office Library where this material is held. Bona fide researchers are permitted access by prior appointment only to refer to material not available elsewhere.

  Mr. Dominic Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what English Civil War pamphlets are held by his Department; and how many of these are unique. [106491]
  755W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 1 April 2003]: The collection of English Civil War pamphlets held in the Home Department's Library consists of over 900 items bound into 17 volumes. The Library has not compiled a catalogue of these individual items.

  It follows that it has not been possible to determine which items are unique. To do so would also require access to a range of specialist catalogues that the Library does not hold.

  Experience Corps
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inquiries he has received from residents of the Buckingham constituency about setting up Experience Corps in the last 12 months. [104690]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office is not aware of any enquiries from residents of the Buckingham constituency about setting up the Experience Corps. However, the Experience Corps operates on a regional basis and there have been 14,053 enquiries to their west region, which includes Buckingham, in the 12 months ending 24 March 2003.

  Helplines
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 11 February,Official Report columns 719–20, on telephone helplines, how many calls were made to those helplines charged at national and premium rates in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by each telephone number; and what the average duration of the calls was. [105889]

  Beverley Hughes
  This information is not kept and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Police Service
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues about the police services that exist separate to the police services of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. [106474]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Home Office does not have lead responsibility for the police services that exist separate to the regular police forces of England and Wales. However, wherever there are issues that impact either on the relationship between such non-Home Office police forces and the regular police forces in England and Wales, or on policing generally, the Home Office will discuss these issues with the relevant lead department to endeavour to deliver the best joined-up policing on the ground.

  The Home Office has had recent significant discussions with the Department for Transport on building on the already close operational integration between the British Transport Police (BTP) and the Metropolitan Police Service, in particular with regards to BTP's contribution to the Street Crime Initiative in London. The Home Office has also supported the Department for Transport's proposals to modernise the BTP in the current Railways and Transport Safety Bill,
  756W
  and the Department for Trade and Industry's similar proposals for the UK Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the(a) training, (b) ethical and (c) professional standards that apply to the police forces which exist outside the regular police service. [106475]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Home Department does not have lead responsibility for the police forces that exist outside of the regular police service. Lead responsibility resides with the relevant Government Department. I will continue to support and assist my ministerial colleagues with responsibility for forces which exist outside the regular police service, in all of their efforts to ensure that such forces meet the training, ethical and professional standards appropriate to their policing role.

  Post Room
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve the efficiency of the post room at the Home Office. [105638]

  Beverley Hughes
  Within the Home Office's Central London buildings post rooms are run by the Mail and Messenger service under the provisions of a service level agreement. The performance standards are regularly monitored, and the levels specified are being achieved.

  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) at Croydon have a separate post room, whose processes have been reviewed recently. All incoming and outgoing recorded delivery (RD) and special delivery (SD) mail is electronically logged and tracked. A new computer system is now being introduced to speed up the recording of RD and SD mail; this will also enable Call Centre staff to check whether the Integrated Casework Directorate (ICD) has received or despatched specific recorded or special delivery items. ICD are also working with Royal Mail to ensure that mail is not lost in transit.

  Prison Officer Vacancies
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vacancies there are for prison officers in each prison in England and Wales(a) in terms of the actual number of vacancies in each establishment and (b) as a percentage of the total number of prison officers employed in each establishment; and what the figures were in each of the last five years. [105762]

  Hilary Benn
  The level of stated vacancies within each grade is not available for each of the last five years. However, a return of planned posts (i.e. the anticipated staffing level) for each grade by establishment is collated. I have placed tables showing the recorded shortfall of staff in post compared to planned posts for officer grades in all public sector establishments on 31 March in each year in the Library. The figures include prison officers, senior officers and principal officers. Data on prison custody officers in private sector prisons is not included as this is commercial in confidence.

  Talgarth Hospital
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to use the former Mid-Wales Hospital at Talgarth as(a) an asylum centre and (b) a prison. [105612]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are currently no plans to use the former hospital at Talgarth as(a) accommodation for asylum seekers and (b) a prison.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about contingency planning for terrorist incidents in London. [105846]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 1 April 2003]: The UK has the necessary plans in place in the interests of national security and the protection of the public. The Government's preparations include a series of classified contingency plans for responding to a wide range of terrorist threats. These plans are regularly tested, reviewed and updated in the light of changing circumstances. The response to any terrorist incident relies upon a co-ordinated approach and the Government draws upon the resources of other Departments, the security and intelligence agencies, the police, the military, scientific and other specialist advice, local authorities and the emergency services. In addition to the national contingency plans, the London Resilience Forum under the chair of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) examines resilience and preparedness of London for major emergencies including those caused by terrorism.

  Unaccompanied Children (Entry Clearance)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unaccompanied children and young people up to the age of 16 years old have been refused entry into the UK in each of the last three years. [105267]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is not available. Published statistics of those people refused leave to enter the UK and subsequently removed include unaccompanied minors although they are not separately identifiable. The information would therefore only be available by examination of individual case-files at disproportionate cost.

  However, as a matter of policy, unaccompanied children are not removed under Immigration Act powers unless we aresatisfied that suitable arrangements have been made for their reception and care in the destination country.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what checks are made by immigration officials relating to unaccompanied children and young people, as to the reason why entry is being sought; and if he will make a statement. [105268]

  Beverley Hughes
  Anyone seeking entry to the United Kingdom who is not an EU/EEA national is subject to 758W
  immigration control and must therefore satisfy the immigration officer that they meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules.

  Unaccompanied children and young people under the age of 18 are no exception to this requirement, and will be seen by an immigration officer on arrival at United Kingdom ports and airports. Their age and the fact that they are travelling alone mean that special care is taken when they are interviewed. In seeking to establish whether entry is appropriate, the immigration officer may make checks with any relatives or sponsors in the United Kingdom, and against any address the child might have given as their intended residence whilst in the United Kingdom.

  Should the unaccompanied minor seek asylum on arrival in the United Kingdom then there are well established procedures in place to ensure that the child is dealt with where possible by immigration officers specially trained to interview children. Social services are notified so that adequate care can be arranged in the absence of any family in the United Kingdom and the Refugee Council's Children's Panel act as the independent advisor to the child during the processing of the asylum claim.

  Video Identity Parades
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implementation of video identity parades. [105824]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The National Video Identification System (NVIS), a system using video images of suspects and look-alike volunteers to crate identification parades, is in the process of being implemented.

  Video Identification Parade Electronic Recording (VIPER) is a system developed and operated, on a nonprofit basis, by west Yorkshire police. The Home Office subsequently funded the development of a new VIPER Bureau in west Yorkshire. The Home Office subsequently funded the development of a new VIPER to sites in each of the ten street crime forces and the British transport police. A total of 17,000 compilations have been completed since the system was introduced in April 2002. Plans are in place, subject to appropriate funding, to roll out VIPER to all forces by the end of March 2004.

  A national standard for video identification has been drawn up to ensure the NVIS—VIPER and other suitable commercial systems are capable of passing images to the national database. The NVIS aims to increase the number of parades held and the number of positive identifications made.

  Video identification has shown marked benefits in the street crime forces and there are numerous examples of this process playing a significant role in bringing perpetrators for serious forces to justice within timescales previously unthinkable. For example, while 51 per cent. of live ID parades may be cancelled before witnesses can eve attend, with video ID that cancellation rate can be as low as 5 per cent.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  EU Fisheries
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the extent is of the Hague

  Hague preference gains/losses 2003

  Tonnes

  Species/Area

  UK gain/loss

  Ireland gain/loss

  HP invoked by

  Other member states which lose quota as a result of invocations

  Cod Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  + 133

  + 183

  UK/Ireland

  Belgium, Germany, France

  Cod VIIa

  -270

  +374

  UK/Ireland

  Belgium, France, Netherlands

  Cod Vllb-k

  -18

  + 192

  Ireland

  Belgium, France, Netherlands

  Haddock Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  -538

  + 639

  Ireland

  Belgium, Germany, France

  Hake Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  -33

  + 188

  Ireland

  Belgium, Spain, France, Netherlands

  Plaice VIIa

  -428

  + 503

  Ireland

  Belgium, France, Netherlands

  Whiting Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  + 143

  -15

  UK

  Germany, France

  Whiting VIIa

  -71

  + 90

  UK/Ireland

  Belgium, France, Netherlands

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what compensatory swaps have been entered into following the December 2002 EU Fisheries Council by way of restitution to the UK of lost Hague Preference quota. [104732]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  Discussions with Ireland are continuing, but it has not to date proved possible to agree swaps which compensate UK fishermen for 2003 quota lost as a result of the operation of Hague Preference.

  Policing (North Belfast)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) full-time officers and (b) part-time officers there were in North Belfast on 1 July in each year since 1998. [105908]

  Jane Kennedy
  The following table shows the number of police officers serving in North Belfast on 1 July each year since 1998. CID Officers came under the control of respective District Commanders upon the establishment of District Command Units in 2001 therefore they are shown in addition to operational police officers.

  Regular

  F/T reserves

  P/T reserves

  1998

  358

  146

  121

  1999

  346

  142

  119

  2000

  342

  128

  108

  2001

  345 (+32 CID)

  124

  103

  2002

  317 (+28 CID)

  104

  98

  20031

  324 (+29 CID)

  85

  91

  1 Figure as at 14 March 2003

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Court of Protection
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department pursuant to her answer of 20 March,Official Report column 908W, on Court of Protection (portfolio holdings), what proportion of
  760W
  Preference gains and losses resulting from the December 2002 EU Fisheries Council, broken down by (a) species, (b) area, (c) loser and (d) gainer. [104731]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is as follows:

  funds are retained in the Special Account; what the average number of portfolio holdings held by the Public Guardianship Office was between February 1999 and February 2003; what the total value of portfolio holdings was at the end of February (a) 1999 and (b) 2003; and what scrutiny procedures are in place for the work of private fund managers under contract to the PGO. [105880]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The precise information requested is not available.

  As at 31 March 2002, holdings in the Special Account stood at approximately 65 per cent. of total funds, compared with 62 per cent. in March 2001 and 60 per cent. in March 2000.

  The total number of receivership cases handled by the Public Guardianship Office (PGO) was 37,000 in early 1999 and is now about 18,000. This reduction reflects the switch to the use of Enduring Powers of Attorney and the introduction of a higher capital threshold for receivership.

  Portfolios managed by external fund managers were as follows:

  £million

  March 2002

  December 2002

  Panel fund managers

  Securities

  415

  415

  Cash

  130

  260

  Non-panel fund managers

  60

  80

  Total

  605

  755

  Number of cases managed

  1,900

  2,700

  Both the panel and non-panel fund managers working for PGO clients are required to follow the investment directions given by the Court of Protection. Investment performance is calculated annually and the total outcome for a case is reported on a monthly basis. The panel fund managers are also required to attend meetings of the Lord Chancellor's Strategic Investment Board and answer questions about their performance and conduct of their clients' affairs.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Agricultural Support
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of public spending on agricultural support for each year from 1980–81 to 2004–05 in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms; and if she will make a statement. [105129]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 March 2003]: The following table provides estimates of public expenditure under the CAP and on national grants and subsidies from 1980–81 to 2002–03. No estimates are available for subsequent years.

  Public expenditure under the CAP and on national grants and subsidies

  £million

  Current prices

  Real terms 2002–03 prices

  1980–81

  1,012

  384

  1981–82

  972

  413

  1982–83

  1,433

  660

  1983–84

  1,729

  834

  1984–85

  1,712

  867

  1985–86

  2,165

  1,162

  1986–87

  1,449

  804

  1987–88

  1,630

  943

  1988–89

  1,380

  837

  1989–90

  1,258

  822

  1990–91

  1,910

  1,367

  1991–92

  1,979

  1,499

  1992–93

  2,028

  1,594

  1993–94

  2,905

  2,320

  Net farm income for all farm types excluding horticulture—East and West Sussex

  Average net farm income per farm (£/farm)

  Farm type

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2002

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  At current prices

  1—

  2—

  All types (excluding horticulture)

  14,000

  16,000

  20,500

  22,000

  24,500

  14,000

  -6,000

  -2,500

  0

  -2,500

  N/a

  1 Excluding farms subjected to compulsory FMD cull

  2 Provisional

  Source:

  Farm Business Survey

  Results by sector for this period are readily available in continuous form only for England.

  Net farm income by type of farm—England

  Average net farm income per farm (£/farm)

  Farm type

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2002

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  At current prices

  1—

  2—

  Dairy

  36,900

  42,600

  36,300

  41,100

  33,600

  22,000

  13,500

  9,000

  10,800

  22,800

  17,000

  Cattle and sheep (LFA)

  13,000

  15,900

  13,100

  17,200

  17,400

  10,700

  5,700

  4,600

  6,700

  9,700

  25,00

  Cattle and sheep (lowland)

  10,000

  13,400

  10,400

  10,800

  9,500

  1,100

  900

  600

  -400

  -500

  8,000

  Cereals

  24,200

  24,000

  31,700

  49,600

  43,900

  16,800

  8,900

  13,500

  7,300

  4,100

  9,500

  General cropping

  35,900

  44,800

  72,200

  89,100

  47,600

  23,100

  36,000

  8,800

  18,400

  17,900

  17,500

  Pigs and poultry

  47,900

  14,700

  31,500

  67,300

  60,900

  20,400

  15,800

  -5,300

  37,900

  21,800

  30,000

  Mixed

  28,300

  26,900

  34,200

  51,800

  39,600

  8,900

  1,600

  9,400

  9,700

  5,500

  15,500

  All Types (excluding horticulture

  30,000

  32,800

  37,700

  49,800

  38,300

  17,200

  11,800

  8,600

  9,900

  10,600

  14,500

  1 Excluding farms subjected to compulsory FMD cull

  2 Provisional

  Source

  Farm Business Survey
  762W

  Public expenditure under the CAP and on national grants and subsidies

  £ million

  Current prices

  Real terms 2002–03 prices

  1994–95

  2,512

  2,054

  1995–96

  2,897

  2,451

  1996–97

  4,318

  3,742

  1997–98

  3,583

  3,203

  1998–99

  3,482

  3,219

  1999–00

  3,161

  2,967

  2000–2001

  3,042

  2,940

  2001–021

  4,664

  4,590

  2002–031,2

  3119

  3119

  1 From 2001–02 figures are based on accrual accounts and cannot be compared directly with historical figures.

  2 Forecast

  Source:

  Agriculture in the United Kingdom

  Farm Incomes
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average farm incomes, by sector, were in each year since 1992 for farms within the(a) Sussex Downs and (b) Sussex Weald. [99915]

  Mr. Morley
  Net farm income estimates are obtained from a sample survey. Results are not available for the Sussex Downs or the Sussex Weald. Figures are available for East and West Sussex as a whole but these cannot be provided for individual sectors because the sample size is too small.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the recorded(a) proportion and (b) tonnage was of fisheries discards in UK waters in each of the last five years. [103692]

  Mr. Morley
  UK fisheries laboratories send observers to sea to record the quantity of fish discarded and retained by fishing vessels. Systematic data over five years for a representative sample of the UK fleet is only available for some fisheries. The tables show estimates for the proportion of catch discarded of cod, haddock, and whiting and total discarding of these species by the UK fleet in the North Sea. These estimates are obtained by raising the observer data to the total number of recorded days-at-sea.

  (a) Percentage of catch discarded (by weight)

  Species

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  England

  Cod

  15

  17

  16

  13

  25

  Haddock

  21

  14

  41

  40

  9

  Whiting

  44

  61

  53

  63

  41

  Scotland

  Cod

  23

  12

  17

  23

  9

  Haddock

  38

  41

  52

  75

  46

  Whiting

  35

  48

  49

  46

  52

  (b) Discard estimates (in tonnes)

  Species

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  England

  Cod

  9,649

  4,464

  582

  1,451

  1,335

  Haddock

  1,867

  1,801

  3,448

  4,061

  1,112

  Whiting

  6,602

  9,204

  667

  7,867

  2,808

  Scotland

  Cod

  10,287

  2,991

  4,141

  4,440

  1,519

  Haddock

  35,134

  35,270

  39,745

  86,297

  32,196

  Whiting

  8,861

  15,563

  16,211

  8,869

  8,315

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the No. 10 Strategic Policy Unit Paper on a strategy for the fishing industry for the next 5–10 years which was commissioned in January will be published. [103958]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 March 2003]: On 27 March I announced that the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit had begun work to develop a strategy for a sustainable UK fishing industry over the next 5–10 years. Further information can be found on the Strategy Unit website http://www.strategy.gov.uk.

  A consultation document will be published in the next few months with the final report due for completion by the end of the year.

  Flood Reduction
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will permit local authorities and private companies to contribute to the costs of flood reduction work in tandem with the Environment Agency when the cost benefit analysis of the project by the Agency is less than one. [106057]
  764W
  Mr. Morley
  Private companies and local authorities can and do make contributions towards the cost of flood defence projects but it is often incorrect to deduct these contributions from the cost of the project. Generally these contributions only affect the distribution of funding of costs and not the total resources required for the project. Hence an uneconomic project will remain uneconomic no matter the source.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how often the property valuations used by the Environment Agency for their cost benefit analysis of flood reduction works are updated. [106058]

  Mr. Morley
  There are no hard and fast rules as to how often an operating authority should re-evaluate the benefits of a flood alleviation scheme. It is important, however, that in the preparation of a cost benefit analysis that the base year for evaluating cost and benefits should be the same.

  Food Security
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much her Department spent in the last three years on(a) food security measures, broken down by type and (b) research on priority threat agents against terrorist action. [105075]

  Mr. Morley
  In the last three years the Department has spent:On food security measures, £160,000 on a biennial Food Stocks Survey. This voluntary Survey provides locations and average stock figures by product group for much of the UK food industry. It allows Defra to make rapid assessments of the impact of a variety of disruptive challenges to food supplies.
  On public water supplies research against potential contamination has been on-going since 2000 and costs about £160,000 per year.
  On animal disease research, Defra is spending £16 million on areas such as exotic animal disease detection, diagnosis and control. Details of all the animal disease research programmes are available on the Defra website.

  All of this work is carried out to address all forms of threat and not just targeted at terrorist issues.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many tonnes of illegally imported meat have been seized at(a) Heathrow and (b) Gatwick airports since October 2002; from what countries of origin they arrived; and if she will make a statement. [106106]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 31 March 2003]: As at 27 March, Defra's ILAPS database has been notified since October 2002 of seizures containing meat and meat products totalling nearly 16 tonnes at Heathrow and nearly 3 tonnes at Gatwick. Some of these seizures are of products in which meat or meat products contribute only part of the total weight. In this period, seizures have been made from most areas of the world, with the majority coming from Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
  765W
  This picture is consistent with the results of the risk assessment report for the import of foot and mouth disease virus (FMDV) into the UK, published on 25 March. Copies have been placed in the House Libraries.

  Internal Drainage Boards
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total annual running cost of internal drainage boards is in the UK. [105508]

  Mr. Morley
  Total running costs for internal drainage boards in England for 2001–02 is as follows:

  Internal drainage boards

  £

  Total expenditure:

  43,469,418

  Of which:

  Maintenance of watercourses

  12,475,084

  Operating costs of pumping stations

  4,531,685

  Capital expenditure

  7,556,011

  Contributions to Environment Agency

  7,274,828

  Administration costs

  6,595,368

  Other

  5,036,442

  Note:

  The breakdown above excludes information on 8 boards for whom no information was submitted to DEFRA.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many internal drainage boards there are in the UK. [105516]

  Mr. Morley
  There are 223 internal drainage boards in England. There are no boards in Scotland.

  Information on boards in Wales is held by the National Assembly.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what criteria she uses to determine that an internal drainage board is a small board. [105517]

  Mr. Morley
  There are no definitive criteria for determining that an internal drainage board is a small board. There is a continuum with some boards covering a small area only and turning over a few thousand pounds each year to others covering much larger areas and turning over several million pounds annually.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the Government's conclusions on the Flood and Coastal Defence Funding Review on 12 March 2003, including the intention to address the present number of internal drainage boards. In considering such issues account will be taken of factors such as their efficiency and effectiveness, their area and turnover, as well as the proximity with other boards with which they might merge or form consortia.

  Landfill Tax Credit Scheme
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the statement made by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 3 February 2003,Official Report column 5WS, on the landfill tax credit scheme, who appointed, and when, the independent panel of assessors to review the operation of the transitional
  766W
  funding process in England; who these assessors are; what their remit is; what action was taken to ensure that the appointment of the assessors complied with the Nolan Principles; at what rate and by whom the assessors are remunerated; and whether the assessors include (a) representatives of the waste management industry and (b) persons who are employed by bodies which make decisions relating to spending on (i) Object C and (ii) CC projects under the landfill tax credit scheme. [103503]

  Mr. Meacher
  On 11 March I wrote to the three people listed as follows and asked them to serve as members of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme Sustainable Waste Management Legacy Fund Independent Assessment Panel. They have agreed to do so; the three members are:Dr. Jane Beasley from the Chartered Institute of Waste Management.
  Dr. Tariq Ali from the Imperial College Environment Office.
  Professor Chris Coggins an independent waste academic.

  The panel has been set up to approve eligible applications to the Legacy Fund to ensure that the process is transparent and cannot be criticised on propriety grounds or allegations of bias. Members of the panel should, therefore, have no direct link with any organisation that may benefit from the fund. In any instance where, contrary to intention this turns out not to be the case, the panel member concerned will declare an interest and not take part in any discussion/decision relating to the project in question.

  Panel members will be paid their out of pocket expenses and receive an honorarium of £350.

  Decisions on projects requiring continuing funding under the Legacy Scheme need to be taken very quickly. It was not possible therefore, to run an open competition for panel members. Their appointment has, however, conformed to Nolan Principles to the extent that they are independent of Government, are accepted leaders in their field and represent different elements in society.

  The possibility of having a representative of the waste management industry on the panel was considered, but was thought to be inappropriate given the role of the panel. Before appointing the panel members checks were made to ensure as far as possible that they were not connected to (i) Object C and (ii) CC projects that were likely to apply for Legacy Funding. However, as an additional protection the requirement to declare an interest and not take part in the decision was included in the operating procedures.

  Marketing Budgets
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the marketing budgets were in 2001–02 of(a) the Meat and Livestock Commission, (b) Food from Britain, (c) the Sea Fish Industry Authority, (d) the Home Grown Cereals Authority, (e) the Milk Development Council and (f) the British Potato Council; and if she will make a statement. [104432]

  Mr. Morley
  The marketing budgets for these NDPBs in 2001–02 were as follows.
  767W

  £million

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  17.034

  Food from Britain

  17.800

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  2.624

  Home Grown Cereals Authority

  0.623

  Milk Development Council

  20.433

  British Potato Council

  1.470

  1 This is Food from Britain's entire budget as all their spend is on marketing.

  2 The Milk Development Council's actual spend for 2001–02 was £288,756.

  Noise Mapping Project
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 13 March 2003,Official Report, column 376W, on the Noise Mapping Project, whether short-term noise events will be considered in later stages of the project; and if she will make a statement on best practice for resolving disputes caused by the sounding of train horns. [106501]

  Alun Michael
  Once the initial stage of the project has been completed, my officials will assess whether a more detailed account of short-term noise events such as the regular sounding of horns by trains should be taken.

  At present there is no best practice for resolving disputes caused by the sounding of train horns. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have put the issue of the sounding of train horns on the agenda of the forthcoming trilateral meeting with Railway Safety, the industry body that is responsible for Railway Group Standards and Network Rail, the infrastructure controller.

  However train horns are susceptible to statutory nuisance. Although the Railways Act 1993 Section 122 subsection 3, Part A exempts authorised railway undertakers from action at civil or criminal law for nuisance, it does not exempt them from the element of statutory nuisance that covers being prejudicial to health. For such a case to succeed, it would be necessary to prove, to the satisfaction of the court, that the nuisance was above and beyond what might be expected from the normal operation of a railway.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many organic farmers are registered in Buckinghamshire. [106370]

  Mr. Meacher
  According to our records 15 organic farmers.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what help she is giving to organic farming companies to advertise their produce. [105509]

  Mr. Meacher
  Direct funding is not available to individual companies to support advertising. However, the possibility of developing consumer information on organic food is being considered in the follow up to the action plan to develop organic food and farming in England. The marketing of quality agricultural products including organic produce is, in principle,768W
  eligible for pump priming assistance under the Rural Enterprise Scheme, which forms part of the England Rural Development Programme.

  Potato Packing Companies
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to change the level of support for potato packing companies. [105523]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department does not provide any support for potato packing.

  Poultry Imports
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) hatching eggs, (b) day old chicks, (c) poultry for breeding and production and (d) poultry for restocking supplies of game were imported into the United Kingdom in each year since 2000, broken down by country of origin. [105657]

  Mr. Morley
  Official Overseas Trade Statistics do not separately identify imports of (i) day old chicks, (ii) poultry for breeding and production and (iii) poultry for restocking supplies of game.

  The following tables show the UK imports of (a) hatching eggs, (b) chicks and (c) other live poultry, by country of export for the years 2000–02.

  UK imports of hatching eggs: 2000–02

  Tonnes

  Country

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Irish Republic

  1,351

  1,433

  830

  France

  250

  107

  341

  Germany

  251

  247

  185

  U.S.A.

  140

  170

  211

  Netherlands

  7

  13

  184

  Belgium

  24

  37

  41

  Denmark

  31

  —

  —

  Brazil

  —

  —

  28

  Spain

  10

  8

  —

  Canada

  8

  0

  —

  Italy

  —

  —

  0

  Grand total

  2,072

  2,015

  1,821

  UK imports of live chicks: 2000–02

  Thousand head

  Country

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Irish Republic

  1,961

  491

  365

  Germany

  78

  237

  1,237

  France

  33

  616

  53

  U.S.A.

  82

  51

  80

  Netherlands

  —

  1

  93

  Belgium

  4

  0

  —

  Denmark

  3

  —

  —

  Czech Republic

  2

  —

  —

  Canada

  —

  —

  0

  Grand total

  2,163

  1,397

  1,827

  769W

  PQ2288—UK imports of other live poultry: 2000–02

  Thousand head

  Description

  Country

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Turkeys (weight not exceeding 185g)

  France

  2,234

  4,241

  1,410

  Belgium

  201

  129

  —

  Irish Republic

  99

  77

  76

  U.S.A.

  41

  —

  1

  Italy

  —

  6

  2

  Turkeys total

  2,575

  4,452

  1,490

  Geese (weight not exceeding 185g)

  France

  1

  —

  —

  Geese total

  1

  Ducks and Guinea Fowl (weight not exceeding 185g)

  France

  2,834

  4,882

  1,419

  Netherlands

  —

  —

  241

  Denmark

  13

  164

  25

  Belgium

  —

  110

  —

  Ducks and Guinea Fowl total

  2,847

  5,157

  1,685

  Chicken (weight exceeding 2000g)

  Irish Republic

  5

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  —

  0

  —

  Chicken total

  5

  0

  —

  Guinea Fowls (weight exceeding 185g)

  France

  90

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  0

  —

  —

  Guinea Fowls total

  90

  —

  —

  Grand total

  5,519

  9,608

  3,175

  Note:

  2002 data are provisional and subject to amendment

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise

  Data prepared by Statistics (Commodities & Food) Accounts and Trade, ESD, DEFRA

  Fallen Stock
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the implications of the EU Animal By-Products Regulation for the disposal of fallen livestock. [106204]

  Mr. Morley
  A regulatory impact assessment has been prepared as part of the consultation procedures for implementation of the Animal By-products Regulation of which the ban on on-farm burial of fallen stock forms a part.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the difference is between the cost of(a) landfill and (b) incineration per tonne of waste; and what information she has collated on the costs in other European Union member states. [106455]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK disposal cost per tonne of landfill will depend upon a range of location factors, the cost per tonne of incineration will depend upon the technology used and the capacity of the plant. The disposal cost per tonne in each case will fall within a range and it might generally be expected that gate fees at a disposal facility will be:

  (a) Landfill (excluding landfill tax) = £13–£23 per tonne;

  (b) Energy from waste = £30–£55 per tonne.

  770W
  Landfill costs per tonne in some other EU states according to the Strategy Unit report, "Waste not want not" (November 2002) are:

  EU State

  1 Landfill price—£ per tonne

  Austria

  36–82

  Belgium

  43–51

  Denmark

  13–21

  Germany

  16–32

  Greece

  4–9

  Netherlands

  47

  Portugal

  4–9

  Spain

  9

  1 Excluding landfill tax where applicable

  Note:

  Figures are approximate due to rounding

HEALTH

  Agency Nurses
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2002,Official Report, column 1040W, on agency nurses, for what reason the costs of agency nursing in 2001–02 have not been published. [101951]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave him on 28 March 2003,Official Report column 443W.

  Arthritis
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to improve access to(a) treatments and (b) services for arthritis. [105602]

  Jacqui Smith
  Our policies to improve general hospital care, especially through the new single assessment process, will ensure that the health care needs of older people—who are the main sufferers from arthritis—will be properly targeted. This will ensure that the services that are provided are most appropriate to older people's needs, including people with arthritis.

  People with arthritis will benefit from the expert patients programme, which will see the national health service provide training in self-management skills for people with long-term chronic conditions. The first pilot phase has begun in selected primary care trust (PCT) sites, with activity to take place both on a generic and a disease-specific basis.

  In the past year, two new classes of drugs, Cox II inhibitors and anti-TNF therapy, have been made available to arthritis patients following reviews by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). In addition, NICE is reviewing the drug, Anakinra, for its clinical and cost-effectiveness in treating rheumatoid arthritis.

  We have issued directions obliging health authorities and PCTs to provide appropriate funding for recommended treatments. This is in line with our commitment to ensure that patients receive drugs and treatments recommended by NICE on the NHS if deemed appropriate by their clinicians.

  Care Home Beds
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds were available in Buckinghamshire in the care home sector in 2002. [105694]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the number of care home beds in Buckinghamshire in 2002 is not yet available. At 31 March 2001, there was a total of 5,380 residential and nursing care home places in the Buckinghamshire area: 3,430 residential care places in Buckinghamshire County and Milton Keynes Unitary authorities and 1,950 nursing care places in Buckinghamshire Health Authority.

  Children's Institutions
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many children's homes there are in England; how much funding is allocated to each per year; and what estimate he has made of the number of children living in institutions in each year since 1997; [105933]

  (2) what plans he has to improve the training of staff in children's institutions; [105935]

  (3) what measures are in place to ensure that children in institutions have access to healthcare and education and are given skills to live and work when they leave the institution; [105937]

  (4) what progress has been made in cooperating with community organisations to remove children from institutions by restoring family ties, placing them in foster families or making alternative arrangements. [105934]
  772W
  Jacqui Smith
  The table shows the number of children's homes and number of looked after children in children's homes at 31 March 2002. The National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) now collates data on children's homes. Figures for 2002–03 should be available later in the year.

  England

  All children's homes1

  Looked after children placed in homes2,3

  1997

  1,200

  6,600

  1998

  n/a

  6,700

  1999

  n/a

  6,600

  2000

  1,100

  7,000

  2001

  n/a

  6,800

  2002

  n/a

  6,800

  1Figures are available for 1997 and 2000 only.

  22 Some homes may include children who are not looked after

  3 Excludes children placed in homes under an agreed series of short term placements. Includes children in secure units, homes and hostels.

  In 2001–02, the gross expenditure by councils in England on children's homes was £716.7 million. In 2002, 89 per cent. of the 59,700 children looked after in England were in alternative placements to children's homes. The Children Act 1989 is based upon the belief that children are generally best looked after within the family, with both parents playing a full part and without resort to legal proceedings. When a child is being looked after by the local authority, the local authority is required to make arrangements for that child to live with a member of his family unless to do so would be impractical or inconsistent with the child's welfare. If they cannot live with their family, their placement should be best suited to their needs. The "choice protects" review focuses on the way in which placement options for looked after children are commissioned, and on support for fostering services.

  The "quality protects" programme has focused on ensuring children looked after gain the maximum life chance benefits from educational opportunities, health care and social care. The Department of Health recently announced a new public service agreement target for the education of children in care, to improve life chances for children by substantially narrowing the gap between the educational attainment and participation of children in care and that of their peers by 2006. Joint Department for Education and Skills/Department of Health Guidance on the Education of Young People in Public Care (May 2000) sets out clear steps for local authorities to take to improve attainment. The Department of Health also published new guidance in November 2002 on "Promoting the Health of Looked After Children".

  National Minimum Standards (NMS) for Children's Homes were published in April 2002. They set out standards covering provision of healthcare, education and life skills to children looked after as well as the training and qualifications of care staff and registered managers. A new grant, the National Training Strategy Grant, is to commence this year. A proportion of this grant (£17.9 million) will support the completion of National Vocational Qualifications required under the NMS.

  Delayed Discharge Data
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those NHS bodies found by the National Audit Office not to be adhering to his Department's definition of delayed discharge in data returns; and what in each case the cause of inaccuracy was. [105393]

  Jacqui Smith
  No. The national health service trusts identified by the National Audit Office survey as departing significantly from the Department's central definition for delayed transfers of care, have subsequently confirmed that they are now working within the central definition.

  Enuresis
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the drug therapies available to treat children with enuresis; and what proportion of children with enuresis are receiving drug treatment for the condition. [105808]

  Jacqui Smith
  Drug therapy is an option in the treatment of childhood enuresis. There are four drugs that can be used to treat children with enuresis listed in the British National Formulary (BNF 6.5.2 Desmopressin Acetate, 4.3.1 Amitriptyline Hydrochloride, Imipramine Hydrochloride and Nortriptyline).

  Information on the number of children with enuresis and on those who receive the drugs listed above is not collected centrally. However, it is estimated that around 180,000 prescription items for these drugs were dispensed in the community in England for children in 2001. This relates to prescription items rather than numbers of children. Also this does not take account of prescription items dispensed in hospitals or private prescriptions.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on including the treatment of enuresis in the Children's National Service Framework. [105810]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on 24 February 2003,Official Report, columns 33–34W and on 4 March 2003, Official Report, column 996W.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on how he ensures that children with enuresis are treated equally in each primary care trust; [105811]

  (2) how many children suffer from enuresis in (a) England and (b) each strategic health authority. [105812]

  Jacqui Smith
  Early development of the national service framework for children, young people and maternity services has shown that the standards set will be relevant to, although not specifically about, the management of enuresis. One key theme being developed is improving the management of common childhood illnesses and health concerns. The new standards will help to ensure that children and young people are able to access appropriate services at the right time and that they can take an active part in making decisions about their care.
  774W
  Information on the numbers of children with enuresis is not collected centrally.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many foundation hospitals are proposed; and where they will be located. [105947]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave my right hon. Friend, the member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on Thursday 6 March,Official Report, columns 1207–08W.

  An announcement about those invited to put forward second stage applications will be made shortly.

  Mental Health
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the registration and inspection requirements are for independent hospitals caring for young people detained under the Mental Health Acts. [105974]

  Jacqui Smith
  Independent hospitals caring for young people detained under the Mental Health Act are required to register as independent hospitals with the National Care Standards Commission under the Care Standards Act 2000, and are required to comply with the Private and Voluntary Health Care Regulations made under that Act.

  Inspections are carried out annually. In considering whether an independent hospital complies with the Regulations, inspectors take into account the extent to which it meets the National Minimum Standards. There are two types of standards: Core Standards, which apply to all establishments, and Service-specific standards, which apply to the particular services provided. There are service-specific standards for all mental health hospitals, additional ones for those hospitals that treat children and adolescents, and a further set of standards addressing hospitals that take people who are liable to be detained under the Mental Health Act.

  Copies of all the regulations and standards are available in the Library. They can also be seen on the website at: www.doh.gov.uk-ncsc-independenthealthcare.pdf

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to make widely available an account of the responses to the consultation on the draft Mental Health Bill. [106583]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 2 April 2003]: We received almost 2,000 responses to the consultation. Work on the Mental Health Bill continues carefully and the results of the consultation will be made public before the introduction of the Bill.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the average cost per child to mental health services of treating children with enuresis that are believed to suffer from psychological problems. [105793]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Neuroleptic Prescribing
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 24 February 2003,Official Report, column 371W, on neuroleptic prescribing, what research his Department is commissioning to discover the extent of overmedication in care homes; and how much research has been commissioned on overmedication in each of the last five years. [105882]

  Jacqui Smith
  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its funding from the Department of Trade and Industry via the Office of Science and Technology. The MRC is not currently funding any research on overmedication in care homes. The MRC always welcomes high quality applications for research into any aspect of human health, and these are considered in competition with other demands on funding.

  The Department funds research to support policy and delivery of effective practice in health and social care. The Department has not recently, and is not currently, funding any research on overmedication in care homes.

  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health, announced on 31 March 2003 that, as part of its eighth work programme, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence would be looking at the management of dementia, including the use of anti-psychotic medication in people with dementia.

  NHS University
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 13 March 2003,Official Report column 419W, on the NHS University (NHSU), when the NHSU working group last met; and if the NHSU working group have a date which they are working to, to submit the necessary paperwork to the Privy Council to grant the NHSU university status. [106549]

  Mr. Hutton
  The first meeting of the joint working group on university status for the National Health Service University will take place in early May. By autumn 2003 it will produce recommendations, including a timetable, on the appropriate processes and mechanisms for the NHSU to work towards a successful application for university status.

  Occupational Therapists/Physiotherapists
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to revise his Department's targets for recruiting(a) occupational therapists and (b) physiotherapists as a result of the recommendation of the National Audit Office in its report on hospital discharge. [105391]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan acknowledged that there was a shortage of staff in the national health service and set challenging targets for increasing the NHS work force. The Government are committed to increasing the numbers of therapists and other health professionals, including physiotherapists and occupational therapists, by 6,500 by 2004 over a 1999 baseline. By September 2001, there had been an increase of 3,400.
  776W
  Occupational therapy and physiotherapy are two of the fastest growing professions in the NHS, increasing by 2,030 or 20 per cent. and 1,970 or 14 per cent. respectively since 1997.

  Occupational therapy training places have increased by 605 and physiotherapy training places by 687 since 1997 and are set to rise further as part of the NHS Plan commitment to provide 4,450 more training places for therapists and other key professional staff by 2004.

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many councils have reviewed their eligibility for adult social care to ensure they do not discriminate on the basis of age as part of the milestones set out in the National Service Framework for Older People. [106223]

  Jacqui Smith
  Councils are asked to implement eligibility criteria in accordance with Department of Health guidance on 'Fair access to care services', by 7 April 2003. Through implementing the guidance, councils will fulfil the first stage requirement of standard one of the national service framework for older people with respect to rooting out age discrimination. This is because the eligibility framework focuses entirely on needs and risks and makes no reference to age. Implementation of the guidance will also assist councils to review wider policies for, and access to, adult social care in pursuit of standard one.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will answer the Question, reference 95866, tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. [101952]

  Mr. Hutton
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on Friday 28 March.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will receive replies to his questions(a) 103150, (b) 100709, (c) 100710, (d) 100712 and (e) 97271. [105292]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 27 March 2003]: I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave him on 25 March 2003, Official Report, column 200W, and on 26 March 2003, Official Report, column 266W. I also refer him to the reply given by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State (Jacqui Smith) on 24 March 2003, Official Report, column 77W, and to that given by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Mr. Lammy) on 25 March 2003, Official Report, column 192W. 1 answered the remaining question on 1 April.

  Pensions
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) funded and (b) unfunded public sector pension schemes for which his Department, its agencies and its non-departmental public bodies are 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. [104926]
  777W
  Mr. Hutton
  The Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies are not responsible for any public pension schemes but some do participate in the national health service pension schemes.

  The NHS Pension Scheme is unfunded and holds no assets. However, for the purpose of assessing the level of employer contributions a notional account is maintained.

  The last NHS Pension Scheme valuation report was published on 9 March 1999 and covered the period 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1994. However, the Government Actuary has since assessed the capitalised value of the scheme's liabilities for past service and assumed future service, including pension increases, as £109.3 billion as at 31 March 1999.

  Prison Health Care
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the(a) care programme approach and (b) section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 apply to prisoners. [105175]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government's policy, as set out in Changing the Outlook a Strategy for Developing and Modernising Mental Health Services in Prisons, December 2001, is that prisoners who were on the care programme approach (CPA) before coming into prison should be able to have their programmes of treatment continued as far as possible within the prison setting. Prisoners whose clinical profile would precipitate CPA in the community should commence on CPA in prison. The NHS Plan included firm commitments that, by 2004, all prisoners with severe mental illness will be in receipt of treatment and no prisoner with a serious mental illness will leave prison without a care plan and a care co-ordinator.

  Implementation of the prison mental health strategy will have the effect of applying the aftercare arrangements required under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to prisoners who, having been transferred to hospital for in-patient treatment, are subsequently returned to prison.

  Private Hire Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements his Department makes for the regulation and training of private hire vehicle 778W
  companies employed by local authorities to transport (a) adults and (b) children with (i) autism and (ii) other disabilities. [105207]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. friend the Parliamentary Undersecretary of State at the Department for Transport on Monday 31 March,Official Report, column. 517W.

  Public Dividend Capital
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was paid in dividends to the Consolidated Fund on public dividend capital by each NHS trust for each year since 1997; and what percentage of the public dividend capital held by each NHS trust these amounts represent. [105144]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the Personal Social Services Research Unit examination of demand and supply, by region, for residential care referred to in the National Audit Office report on hospital discharge. [105394]

  Jacqui Smith
  We commissioned this research from the Personal Social Services Research Unit in 2000. As a result, we published "The Residential Care and Nursing Home Sector for Older People: An Analysis of Past Trends, Current and Future Demand" on 8August 2002. Copies are available in the Library and on the Department's website at: www.doh.gov.uk/careanalysis.index.htm The research illustrated that the supply and demand for care homes is not in balance in each region.

  Rothbury Cottage Hospital
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects work to start on the new Rothbury cottage hospital; and if he will make a statement. [105380]

  Jacqui Smith
  Northumbria Healthcare National Health Service Trust will be meeting the Duke of Northumberland's agent on 3 April 2003 to try and resolve outstanding land issues over the Pipers Field site. Providing agreement can be reached, work would commence on building the hospital in late 2003 and completed by early summer 2004.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Forestry Commission
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley)
  Following last year's review of the administrative arrangements for forestry since devolution, I decided, with the Forestry Ministers in Scotland and Wales that the functions of Forest Enterprise, a Forestry Commission executive agency which operates across Great Britain, should be transferred to separate bodies in each country. Forest Enterprise ceased to operate on 31 March 2003 and a new agency called Forest Enterprise England, responsible for the management of the Forestry Commission estate in England, came into being on 1 April 2003. The agency will work to the targets set for Forest Enterprise in the Forestry Commission Corporate Plan for England.

  Following a separate review of the Commission's Forest Research agency, Ministers agreed that a single body, covering the whole of Britain, continued to be the best way forward. The agency's five-year review concluded that it enjoyed strong support from its stakeholders, particularly for the quality of its research, scientific services and development work. New framework documents for these 2 agencies will be published shortly.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Road Scheme Inquiries
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  With the agreement of the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Transport I wish to make an announcement concerning the Lord Chancellor's Panel of Independent Inspectors. This follows informal consultations with relevant parties. From today I have asked the Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency to take on full responsibility for arranging for suitable Inspectors to carry out public inquiries into proposed road schemes.

  The Lord Chancellor has nominated Inspectors for road scheme inquiries since acceptance of a recommendation in the 1978 White Paper on the handling of the 1970s roads programme. The Planning Inspectorate was established as an executive agency in 1992, bringing with it the high standards of impartiality, openness, and fairness that are a hallmark of the work of the Inspectors.
  60WS
  The Planning Inspectorate has established a deserved reputation for the independent and impartial way it conducts inquiries. That is rightly regarded as key to the process of public participation at inquiry stage which the Government recognise s and values. I therefore have every confidence in asking the Agency to take on the task of arranging for suitable Inspectors to carry out road inquiries. And that confidence will, I know, be shared by all holding an informed view of the process.

  The Planning Inspectorate places great importance on employing Inspectors with an appropriate range of technical skills. Over the last few years it has recruited as Inspectors a number of highly qualified and experienced men and women. Their expertise now covers a wide area including planning, the environment, architecture, engineering, housing and transport issues. Such high quality recruitment is a continuing feature of the Agency's profile.

  This change will provide greater flexibility for the Planning Inspectorate to manage resources more effectively, enabling it to deliver an enhanced service, whilst maintaining and improving quality.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Terrorism and Civil Resilience
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  On Tuesday 1 April, in a meeting held in Washington between myself and US Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, we reached agreement on key issues which will lead to unprecedented co-operation and sharing of intelligence between the UK and US Governments.

  Our two countries have agreed to set up a Joint Contact Group of senior officials who will drive a joint programme of work, including how best to share knowledge and resources. This will make a significant, practical contribution to the fight against international terrorism, building on the excellent co-operation we already have on security and intelligence issues.

  The new Joint Contact Group of senior officials will meet regularly to ensure that a joint programme of work is focused and on track. The work of the group will cover:

  Closer working on the development of biometric technology such as iris and facial recognition.

  Pooling of knowledge and resources, such as vaccines, to counter chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats.

  Strategies to prevent and deal with cyber/electronic attacks.

  Joint forward planning and exercise programmes to test out different scenarios.

  Greater protection for borders through visa and passenger intelligence sharing.

  Continued prior warning of changes in alert states.

  61WS
  Today's agreement between Tom Ridge and myself will significantly contribute to the steps which both the US and UK Governments are taking to combat international terrorism, and will allow real, practical preparations to be made against future threats, for the benefit of our citizens.

LORD CHANCELLOR

  Her Majesty's Land Registry Key Performance Indicators and Targets 2003–04*
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton)
  My right hon. and noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor has today set the following key performance targets for Her Majesty's Land Registry for 2003–04.

  CUSTOMER SERVICE

  Speed:
  Percentage of office copy and official search applications processed within two working days:98 per cent.
  Percentage of all registrations processed within 20 working days: 80 per cent.

  Accuracy:
  Percentage of registrations processed free of any error: 98.5 per cent.

  Overall Satisfaction:1
  Percentage of customers who,overall, are very satisfied/satisfied with the full range of services provided by Land Registry: Better than 94 per cent.

  FINANCIAL
  Percentage return on average capital employed:6 per cent.

  EFFICIENCY2
  Cost per unit in cash terms 3 (real terms)4: £29.08(£22.17)

  STRATEGIC

  Start pilot implementation for e-Discharges

  Make all key Land Registry information services available over the Internet

  Critical Action Points:

  Implement the Land Registration Act 2002

  Report to Ministers on proposals for e-conveyancing services and procurement strategy

  1 Results from YTD monthly mini satisfaction survey and Customer Service Survey 2002

  2 This is a milestone towards the HM Treasury-agreed cost per unit target for 2006–07 of £28.62 in cash terms (£20.27 in real terms).

  3 Based on the GDP deflator issued by HM Treasury on 23 December 2002 (base year 1992–93)

  4 The real term unit cost in the base year of 1992–93 was £30.65

  *More information on these and other key targets is published in the Strategic and Business Plans.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Council of the European Union
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane):

  Date

  Location

  Event

  APRIL

  2

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  3–4

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  4

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs

  4–6

  Hania (Crete)

  Informal ECOFIN (Ministerial)

  5

  Lisbon

  Europe-Africa Summit

  10

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  14–15

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs & External Relations

  14

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries

  16

  Athens

  Signature Of The Accession Treaty

  17

  Athens

  European Conference

  23

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  24–25

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  MAY

  2–4

  Olympia

  Gymnich (Informal Foreign Ministers)

  3–4

  Athens

  Informal Environment (Ministerial Informal)

  5–6

  Brussels

  Education, Youth & Culture Council (To be confirmed)

  8

  Brussels Corfu

  Meeting of the Presidium Agriculture (ministerial Informal)

  12–13

  Brussels

  Competitiveness

  12

  Brussels

  EUROGROUP

  13

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  14

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  14

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  15–16

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  16

  Brussels

  EU-ACP Ministerial

  16–17

  Halkidiki

  Informal Regional Policy (Ministerial)

  16–18

  Cruise off Greece

  Informal Transport & Merchant Marine (Ministerial)

  17

  Brussels

  EU-W. Balkans (Zagreb Process)

  19

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations ( + Defence)

  20

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations

  22

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  24

  Thessaloniki

  Informal culture (Ministerial)

  26–27

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  26–27

  Crete

  EUROMED Conference (Mid Term Ministerial)

  27

  Brussels

  Environmental Council

  28

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  30–31

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  31

  St. Petersburg

  EU-Russia Summit

  JUNE

  2

  Brussels

  EUROGROUP

  2–3

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  3

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  4

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  5–6

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  5–6

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs Council

  5–6

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs Council

  6

  Rhodes

  Public Administration (Ministerial Informal)

  11

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  11–12

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  12–13

  Alexandroupoli

  Development-Co-operation (Ministerial Informal)

  Date

  Location

  Event

  12–13

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  13

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  17–18

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs & External

  20

  Halkidiki

  EUROPEAN COUNCIL

  21

  Halkidiki

  Zagreb II Summit

  22

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations

  24

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs Council

  JULY

  2–3

  Rome

  Research (Ministerial Informal)

  4–5

  Naples

  Transport Infrastructure (Ministerial Informal)

  6

  Brussels

  Trade (Ministerial Informal)

  10

  Varese Varese

  Informal Council/Troika Informal Council of Ministers of Labour and Social Affairs

  15–16

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  10

  Varese

  Informal Council/Troika

  11–12

  Varese

  Ministers of Labour & Social Affairs

  15–16

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  17–18

  Treviso

  EU Employment Committee (Informal)

  18–20

  Montecatini

  Energy & Environment (Ministerial Informal)

  22–23

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  22

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations

  Date

  Location

  Event

  24–25

  Milan

  European Conference on Discrimination

  25–26

  Verona

  Education (Ministerial Informal)

  AUGUST

  No Meetings Planned

  SEPTEMBER

  Viterbo

  Telecommunications (Ministerial Informal)

  Stresa

  ECOFIN (Informal Council)

  19–20

  Justice & Internal Affairs (Informal Council)

  22–23

  Competition (Internal Market, Industry & Research)

  29–30

  General Affairs & External Relations

  29–30

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  OCTOBER

  2–3

  Brussels

  Justice & Internal Affairs

  7

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  9–10

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  13–14

  Brussels

  General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC)

  13–14

  Brussels

  Agriculture& Fisheries Council

  16–17

  Brussels

  European Council

  20–21

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs

  27

  Brussels

  Environment Council

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.

Turkey: EU Membership
Lord Cobbold Lord Cobbold asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent they are committed to the accession of Turkey as a full member of the European Union.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the United Kingdom fully supports Turkey's EU candidature, as confirmed at the Helsinki European Council in December 1999. We welcome the agreement of the December 2002 Copenhagen Council that the EU will start accession negotiations without delay if the European Council agrees in December 2004 that Turkey fulfils the political criteria for membership. The criteria relate to democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the protection of minorities. The UK continues to support Turkey's EU accession both in the EU and bilaterally.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. Does she agree that the possible accession of Turkey to full membership of the Union raises some fundamental issues of geography, history, culture and religion?
I greatly respect Turkey and its achievements, in particular the contribution it has made to NATO over the past 50 years, but where does Europe stop? Who will be next? Is the Minister aware that Article 1 of the draft constitution for Europe, which we shall be discussing later today, states that the Union shall be open to all European states whose people share the same values, respect them and are committed to promoting them together? Does the Minister believe that the accession of Turkey is compatible with this article?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the fact is that there is no internationally agreed formal definition of Europe. The EU has accepted, from the time of the conclusion of its association agreement with Turkey in 1963, that Turkey is in principle eligible for membership. The Commission, in its 1989 opinion on Turkey's request for accession to the EU, recommended against accession negotiations because of Turkey's political and economic situation, not because of doubts about whether or not it was
1306
European. Those political questions are now being addressed and we hope that they will be addressed successfully.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as the attitude towards minorities is one of the relevant factors in this matter, what will be the effect of the Turkish attitude towards the Kurds?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the fact is that the Turkish Government have introduced a number of very important human rights reforms over the course of the past 18 months or so. There has been a great deal more emphasis on the human rights of minorities in relation to the minorities within the country. Furthermore, there are issues about the attitude of the Turks to the Kurds across their borders. For example, laws have been passed which allow the Kurdish minority within Turkey to have more access to, for instance, their own language in their schools and within their own communities.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister recall that both Morocco and Ukraine have expressed interest in future membership of the European Union? As she has stated that there is no agreed definition of Europe, do the Government have a settled view of how they might respond to them? In particular, have the Government yet formed a view on the Commission's communication of 11th March on a wider Europe and the way in which, after the current round of enlargement, the European Union should respond to these new neighbours, some of whom will wish to become members in due time?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am bound to say to the noble Lord that, as he knows and as I hope he would expect me to say, his question is absolutely way off the mark in being wide of the Question before us. As I have already explained in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, given the history of the discussions with Turkey, there have been historical reasons why we have gone ahead with Turkey. If the noble Lord wants to raise that question, his best means of getting an Answer out of me will be to do so on the Order Paper.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that statements today in so far as they affect the Kurds seem to be rather less robust? It has always been the stance of the United Kingdom in this that the position of the Kurds, who have hitherto been oppressed by the Turks, should be fully safeguarded before Turkey is admitted to the European Union.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I regret if anything I have said indicates in any way that I and Her Majesty's Government are not as concerned as we have been in the past about the way in which minorities are treated. I merely sought to point out to noble Lords that some of the concerns we have raised have now been addressed by changes to the Turkish laws dealing with these matters.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we agree with the positive approach of the noble Baroness and of the

1307
Government towards Turkish membership of the European Union. Does she accept that Turkey has developed good relations with the two Kurdish factions inside Iraq; that is, the KDP and the PUK, although not of course with the PKK, the terrorist organisation, which is quite different? Furthermore, can the noble Baroness reassure the House that no undue pressure has been put on Turkey by European Union institutions to withhold her full support from the Americans during the current war? If there has been that kind of blackmail, have the British Government completely dissociated themselves from it?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, let me be absolutely clear on this. In the Statement made on 21st March last, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that they agree with the European Council in what it has said on the issue. The council called on all countries in the region to refrain from actions that could lead to further instability in relation to Iraq. We have certainly made that point clear to Turkey, but I do not believe that any undue pressure has been brought to bear. I say that because the points that we have made to Turkey have been very similar to those made by our ally, the United States.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that Turkey has been a member state of the Council of Europe for over three decades, and that all member states involved in the council accept that Turkey is qualified? It is hardly sensible for Europe to stand on its head on the matter at this time.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree strongly with my noble friend Lord Hardy. As I have already indicated to noble Lords, for a long time the United Kingdom has been a firm supporter of Turkey's candidature. Turkey is an important partner for Britain as a NATO ally and, indeed, as a major market for UK exporters. A further reason for our support is that Turkey's EU candidature has acted as a spur to her attempts to reform, in particular in the field of human rights, which I know is an area of considerable interest to all noble Lords in the House.
Lord Hylton: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think that it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the minority languages that are spoken in Turkey. Can she confirm that the recent change, although welcome, extended only to fee-paying schools? Is not a great deal more progress needed in this area?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not know whether the change extended only to fee-paying schools, but I shall look into it and write to the noble Lord. However, I would say to him that Turkey
1308
is engaged in a process of change on these issues. Rather than only one set of reforms which came to an end, further reforms were brought forward in August of last year, and in January of this year another package was introduced. In that package the key emphasis was again placed on the prevention of torture and ill treatment. Incommunicado detention was to be abolished for both the ordinary and the security courts. Furthermore, important matters were addressed, such as if the police are accused of using torture, no longer will it be necessary to hold an administrative investigation to see whether there is a case to answer. Rather, the case will go straight to prosecution.
Much more emphasis has been placed on the effective implementation of human rights laws and we are engaged in an ongoing process. However, as I have said, I shall write to the noble Lord on the specific point that he has raised.

Iraq: International Aid
2.44 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that co-operation between the Department for International Development and international aid agencies is satisfactory in relation to the Iraqi war.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, DfID has been in discussion with representatives from UN agencies, the Red Cross/Red Crescent movement and NGOs for many months. As soon as the UN made public its contingency planning for conflict, we ensured that details of that planning were shared with NGOs. We have held weekly meetings with NGOs in London since 13th February, and are in discussion with the international agencies through our representatives in their headquarters. Members of DfID staff in the region are liaising with many humanitarian partners.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Does she agree that the problem at the moment is how to make the Iraqi people partners in their own liberation? Whatever the Department for International Development has done so far, could not much more be done—as the time for humanitarian aid becomes more pressing—to encourage it to work with international agencies in the effort to convince the Iraqi people that post-Saddam peace and reconstruction is possible, but that preferably it should be done under a United Nations flag rather than the Stars and Stripes?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that it is essential for UN agencies to return to Iraq as soon as possible and that we have a phased development of humanitarian operations there. While it is too soon to go into detail on reconstruction plans for Iraq, it is

1309
important to draw to the attention of noble Lords the fact that yesterday my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear that we shall work with the United Nations and others on the long-term redevelopment and rehabilitation of Iraq. We see that as an extremely important aim.
As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will know, a couple of weeks ago an agreement was reached in the Azores between the United States and the United Kingdom to seek the urgent adoption of a new United Nations Security Council resolution that would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure the rapid delivery of humanitarian relief and endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration in Iraq.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I believe that my right honourable friend Clare Short played a very active part in the successful renegotiation of the Oil for Food programme. Can my noble friend tell me how that is now working out in practice?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. The Oil for Food programme is a massive humanitarian operation. Noble Lords will know that the programme spends 10 billion dollars each year from the proceeds of the sale of Iraqi oil on the essential requirements and necessities of the Iraqi people. I refer not only to food, but also to water and medical supplies. Securing a unanimous United Nations resolution on the Oil for Food programme was a great achievement. As soon as it is safe for the NGOs to go into Iraq and for the UN agencies to return, we want to get the Oil for Food programme up and running again.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, have the aid agencies been able to offer any useful advice on how best to distribute the very limited amount of aid that is currently reaching Iraq, so that it is not simply the strongest who receive it? If such advice has been provided, what recommendations have been made?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that the Red Cross and the Red Crescent were extremely active during the early part of the conflict. DfID has been able to offer advice to the MoD and our forces. There are DfID advisers with the United Kingdom forces in Iraq. They are advising on how best to ensure that the most vulnerable members of the population are targeted so that it is not just the strong who receive the aid first. To that end, the Army is working closely with the MoD.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, although it is early days, can the Minister say what contingency plans have been made for the provision of humanitarian aid should there be a lengthy siege of Baghdad?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, there are a number of contingency plans. Decisions have been made in the past few days on the budget for humanitarian aid. A total DfID budget of £210 million is available for this crisis; a flash appeal has been made by the United
1310
Nations for 2.2 billion US dollars, to which we have contributed £65 million; and we have provided £30 million-worth of food and supplies, which the MoD is distributing through our forces.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I rise to speak wearing my hat as chair of' Christian Aid. We have a proper concern for the safety of our staff and the staff of our partners in the midst of conflict. Does the Minister accept the position unanimously adopted by the agencies that they can do their work only in complete independence of the military operation? The noble Baroness gave a helpful answer about the importance of the role of the United Nations. Can she confirm that the work of the agencies would be seriously compromised if that were compromised, as would the reputation of the British Government?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I agree absolutely with the right reverend Prelate. Our humanitarian strategy is to seek to provide support where there is the greatest need, not where certain occupying forces are.
Lord Chan: My Lords, does the Minister—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am afraid we are out of time.

European Union: Fraud
2.52 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether adequate progress is being made by the European Union Vice-President for Administration and Reform, Mr Neil Kinnock, and others to eradicate fraud and mismanagement in the European Union.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, since the publication of the reform White Paper in March 2000 there have been a series of major reforms of European Union governance and finance. The latest and most far reaching of these, the new financial regulation, came into force on 1st January this year. A major modernisation of the accounting framework and its supporting IT system is also being carried out. We expect that the bulk of these reforms, including a move to accruals accounting, will be implemented by 2005. This is an ambitious timetable and we strongly congratulate the EU Vice-President on the substantial reform programme that he has put in place.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply and for doing his best to justify the unjustifiable. Does the noble Lord agree that it is now four years since the Commission resigned in disgrace and that at least five of the senior officials who blew the whistle have been silenced? Although the Minister said that the new accounting system is on the way, my understanding is that it will not be in place until 2006. In the mean time, no normal auditor would

1311
sign off any of these accounts. In these circumstances, is it not time that Her Majesty's Government stopped pouring so much of our money down such a hopelessly corrupt drain?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is right in his first and plainly historical point about the amount of time since the Santer Commission resigned. He is wrong about everything else. For example, if he is talking about Mrs Marta Andreasen, she herself has said that she was not a whistle blower and that she was not dismissed for criticising the reforms introduced by Neil Kinnock. The most recent accounts—those for 2000—were granted discharge by the European Parliament in April last year and the final stage of that is fast approaching. No accounts have failed to be given discharge by the European Parliament. As to the European Court of Auditors, it has rejected all of the last eight accounts. But it has done so on a basis which is generally recognised to be outdated—that is, a 5 per cent sample without any systems accounting procedures.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, why did the EU pay out subsidies in Austria for 60 per cent more alpine pastures than exist? How did it manage to pay 2.5 billion euros to olive oil producers in Greece last year, despite the fact that there is no register of olive oil producers in that country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am disappointed in the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. He has forgotten about the import of bananas into southern Italy and tobacco subsidies in Greece. The newspapers are full of examples of fraud and irregularities. There is no doubt that there are both irregularities and fraud. Of course there are; there are in all systems. But the Question was about the reform programme—and the reform programme that Neil Kinnock is introducing is quite remarkable. The EU is moving over to accruals accounting, with a proper balance sheet, in a period of only four years. It took us seven years to do that and only three other European Union member states have succeeded in doing so.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we need a strong and effective Commission and that Vice-President Kinnock's work to reform its working and accounting practices is extremely important? Can he assure the House that the British Government have given the fullest possible support to Vice-President Kinnock in his work?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that I said so in my Answer. I said that we congratulate the European Union Vice-President on the substantial reform programme that he has put into place. That continues to be our position. Incidentally, we are also supportive of the Budget Commissioner, Michaele Schreyer, because she has been responsible for many of the reforms involved.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I can assure the Minister that I have not forgotten the subsidisation of tobacco. I cannot help drawing attention to the incongruity of banning tobacco advertising while subsidising awful tobacco in Greece and other countries of the European Union by some hundreds of millions of pounds. Is it not a fact that most of the fraud in the European Union—I almost said "the United States of Europe", but that comes later—is due to the operation of the common agricultural policy? Is it not time that our Government and other governments took real action to end this awful, corrupt regime?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, continues to fail to distinguish between those actions which are the responsibility of the European Commission and those which are the responsibility of member states. A very high proportion of the irregularities—which exist; the noble Lord is quite right about that—is the responsibility of member states and it is the responsibility of member states to eradicate them. The noble Lord's flight of fancy about the United States of Europe makes it very difficult to give serious answers to what ought to be serious questions.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, while on the subject of bolting the stable door after the horses have long escaped, does the noble Lord have any estimation of exactly how much taxpayers money—certainly of taxpayers in this country—has been lost since the inception of the European Community, and now the EU, in terms of fraud and definable waste?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was not on the subject of shutting the stable door after the horses have escaped. The noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, is entitled to her own agenda. I do not carry with me figures going back 40 years. All of the reports of the European Court of Auditors are publicly available. There has never been any concealment of the criticisms, both internally and externally, of the European Union's financial systems.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, on the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has the Minister made any calculations of how many British farmers would go bankrupt if the CAP were abolished and all CAP subsidies removed?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is a large, important and worthwhile subject, but it is not the subject of the Question on the Order Paper.

Iraq: Post-War Reconstruction
3 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton Lord Smith of Clifton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure British firms get a fair share of the contracts for the post-war reconstruction of Iraq.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are discussing a range of issues with the United States authorities, including the post-Saddam administration and reconstruction of Iraq, which should be endorsed by a UN Security Council resolution. United Kingdom companies have a great deal of experience in the Middle East, and we wish to see them play a substantial role in the redevelopment of Iraq's essential infrastructure. We will continue to discuss with British business how they can best contribute to the development of Iraq for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. May I take from that Answer that the Government support the view of General Colin Powell that the post-war reconstruction of Iraq should be under United Nations auspices, including the letting of commercial contracts?
Secondly, does the Minister regard it as unseemly, if not downright obscene, to observe privateers, literally "red in tooth and claw", scrabbling to make a quick buck out of the current carnage and conflagration? Will she assure your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government will discourage any such appalling behaviour on the part of British firms?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, let me say plainly and without equivocation that this conflict is emphatically not about business opportunities. Our aim remains the disarmament of Iraq and the liberation of the Iraqi people. But United Kingdom companies, perhaps as well as other companies, have a great deal of knowledge and expertise to offer regarding redevelopment issues. We would like to see them play a substantial role in the humanitarian effort and the redevelopment of Iraq's essential infrastructure and, where appropriate, we will support them in so doing.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, about post-war construction being part and parcel of a United Nations effort. I hope I made that clear in my initial Answer by saying that we very much hope that these efforts will be endorsed by a UN Security Council resolution.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Iraqi construction companies appear to have considerable skills, as all those enormous statues of Saddam Hussein indicate? More seriously, they have built extensive infrastructure in Iraq over the years. Does she also agree that the real kind of infrastructure that needs reconstructing is the detailed sort—in the courts, medical services, local government, and in a thousand and one areas of everyday life? That is where we must bring to bear all possible help to enable Iraq to recover from the dark night that it has been going through.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the skills needed by the Iraqi people are those that will bring them water, roads and the essential infrastructure to make their economy work again. The
1314
noble Lord is quite right that in addition there will be issues concerned with schooling and the reconstruction of civil society. We must not forget how much Iraq has slipped down the league of economically viable countries during the past 12 years and how the way in which it has been governed has acted to the detriment of its people. Of course I agree that there must be all sorts of ways in which the reconstruction is approached, through the civic as well as the physical infrastructure.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, following on from my noble friend's Question, I understand that it is desirable that companies in Britain should be able to play a part in the reconstruction of Iraq. But is it not also desirable that Iraqi companies should play a part in the reconstruction of their own country and not just see all the contracts go to countries outside?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, emphatically so. I hope that this will be approached not just by United States, British or other overseas companies but by companies operating in partnership with Iraqi companies in trying to build a better future for the people of Iraq. In doing so, it will be essential for the people of Iraq, with the skills to do so, to be heavily involved in that endeavour.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is not the issue not who owns the company but that the company employs local labour?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that may indeed be very important. These are early days, and we have already had some discussions with the United States of America about these issues. They have set up the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Aid to deal with this. Of course it is right that, in seeking to establish public services and civilian infrastructure, the local labour force is used and the skills to which other noble Lords have referred are utilised.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is there not a great danger that we are running ahead of ourselves, because Saddam has not yet been defeated and nor has an interim government been set up to succeed him?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is for that reason that I believe we have been very sensitive to this important issue. Your Lordships have on previous occasions raised not only humanitarian issues but those concerning the reconstruction of Iraq. My noble friend Lady Crawley answered questions on humanitarian issues but there is a point at which there is an interface between when an activity is humanitarian and when it becomes about reconstruction. So where humanitarian issues end and reconstruction issues begin is not an entirely clear-cut science. I cite the importance of building roads to get aid to the people who need such roads; however, those roads might be to do with the reconstruction of the future of the country.

1315
I do not believe we are running ahead of ourselves. We are trying to do this sensitively, but it is sensible to have proper contingency planning. When your Lordships ask questions about the future of Iraq, as you rightly do, we should not say that we cannot answer them because it is in the future. We should be able to say that contingency plans are in place.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, although Saddam Hussein is still there, is it not reasonable to suggest that EU member states or any other state which took a particularly careless view of UN sanctions over the past two or three years should not expect the lion's shares of the orders that may accrue once Iraq is satisfactorily liberated?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I think that the international community will approach this in a spirit of co-operation. It is enormously important that we get a United Nations Security Council resolution on this. That is being discussed not only in New York but also in capitals. However, as the British Minister for Trade, I am bound to say that I look to UK companies to play their part in this important work.

Secondary Schools: Performance Tables
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the reported views of the former Chief Inspector of Schools on the need for schools to co-operate in future over GCSE and sixth-form studies, secondary school league tables will become irrelevant.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, we believe it important for accountability to continue publishing data which reflect the performance of individual schools. We recognise that, as our 14 to 19 reforms are realised, a means must he found for ensuring performance measures properly reflect increased collaborative working. We are working on this now. But schools must remain accountable for the services they provide to their students, whether directly or in collaboration with other institutions.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she realise that teachers and inspectors are becoming increasingly unhappy with the degree to which the education system, like the health system, is driven by targets and performance indicators? First, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, Mr David Bell, has been attacking targets as distorting the primary curriculum. Now we have his predecessor, Mr Mike Tomlinson, arguing that performance indicators are unnecessary because
1316
schools ought to be co-operating. When will the Government learn the lessons of the Soviet system that performance indicators and targets serve no other purpose than to alienate the workforce and distort and frustrate the objectives they are seeking to obtain?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Well, my Lords, once again the noble Baroness equates what we are trying to do in schools with the Soviet system, which I find rather alarming from a Liberal Democrat policy perspective. I should like to quote Mr Bell from the Times on Monday, when he said:
"There is an entirely legitimate debate"—
which we accept—
"about how secondary tables properly reflect performance. But it would be extremely bad news for parents if less information were to be made public".
Referring specifically to the Question, it is very important that, as we develop the ability to be more creative and to reflect the performance of schools, we do so. However, it would be entirely wrong to see this as a mechanism to say that we should rid ourselves of such very important information for the standards-raising agenda.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not agree that it is Stalinist. I think it is more Maoist than Stalinist. The noble Baroness appears to be confused about government-led targets and government performance indicators and outcomes from schools. It is essential that we know how young children are progressing. It is certainly important to their parents and to the local community. It is also important to the way in which the country as a whole is progressing. However, government meddling and government performance targets on almost everything that professionals do in the health service and in education are stifling professionalism and progress.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords. I am not sure whether being called Maoist was a compliment in the context of having been called Stalinist, but I accept that it was probably not. I am not at all confused about targets and tables. The Question referred to tables, which is where I began. If the Government are serious about what we are trying to do for our children—and for our health service—it is important that we are clear about how we measure our own success. It is right and proper to have targets aimed at ensuring that as many as possible of our 11 year-olds are able to access the secondary school curriculum. It is also right and proper to say that we want as many of our young people as possible to get good GCSEs at grades A to C. I shall be proud to be measured on that, because it is terribly important.
It is also important that we celebrate what our schools are able to achieve with our young people and support those schools that need additional help. One way in which parents in particular get their information is through those tables.

1317
I accept that, as we develop the collaborative working that we want, especially around the 14 to 19 agenda, we must work out cleverer and better ways of ensuring that the tables reflect what is happening in schools. In his lecture, Mike Tomlinson was musing over the issues that need to be raised rather than making a point about what he believes should change.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the imposition of targets from outside a school often distorts what a school is trying to do to respond to the needs of its pupils? More than anything else, schools desperately need a period of continuity and calm to pursue the national curriculum and their own internally set examination targets without further interference from the Government.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, what the noble Baroness refers to as interference I see very much as part of the supportive mechanism that we have put in place to work with our schools. It is terribly important that we have high aspirations for every school. Noble Lords will know from their own familiarity with schools and from the work that has been done, not only by this Government, that we have achieved a step change in the ability of schools to deliver for their pupils a good, rounded curriculum that enables those young people to succeed. We should all be proud of that.
Part of looking across at the successes must be to define what we can do further. The work on key stage 3 for 11 to 14 year-olds and on the 14 to 19 strategy is all about what more we can do to support young people to be able to deliver. All these reforms are based on the best practice that we see in our schools and are generally welcomed and applauded by them.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I welcome the conversion of the Minister and the Government to league tables. Does she share my concern about the amount of time that youngsters, particularly those doing AS-levels, are spending working for examinations? Children are now being over-examined. That is distorting the curriculum in the sense that teachers have to spend all their time teaching children to pass examinations. Could we not have a little more balance in the system?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in a sense that is a further reflection beyond where the Question takes us. I accept that, as part of the 14 to 19 strategy, it is very important to consider the collaborative models that involve schools and further education and how exactly we ensure that we have the necessary breadth of curriculum, which is why we brought in AS-levels. Noble Lords will know that Mike Tomlinson and the 14 to 19 working group are beginning to examine how we get that breadth, how we ensure that young people are examined correctly and properly—that is important, not least to your Lordships—and how we make sure that, in doing so, we give them the rounded education that they desperately need.

Business
3.14 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with permission, I shall make a brief statement about business next Thursday, 10th April, which is the last day before the Easter Recess. The usual channels have agreed that the House should sit at 11 o'clock on that day, with Starred Questions as first business and with no break at lunch time. As your Lordships will be aware, this has frequently been the pattern that we adopt on the last day before a Recess. It has been indicated in Forthcoming Business since last Thursday.

Business of the House: Debate this Day
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Blackwell set down for today shall be limited to five hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be considered in the following order:

13 to 15,

52,

4 to 12,

16 to 21,

25 to 44,

22 to 24,

45 to 47,

53,

1 to 3,

48 to 51,

54 to 57.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Lord Renton: My Lords, I have been assured that there are good reasons for the rather strange sequence that the Motion proposes, but I hope that it will not be regarded as a precedent.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in that feeling. I was inclined to ask why. I am sure that there may be good reasons. Will people please bear in mind the life of the poor Chairman on the Woolsack when dealing with Commons amendments, quite apart from other Members of the House? There is a terrible danger that we will get ourselves into a confused state if we deal with Commons amendments in this way, based on a random method of determining numbers.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it will not be regarded as a precedent. We obviously approach these things on a case-by-case basis. I am always deeply sympathetic to the plight of the Chairman of Committees and the Deputy Chairmen, but they need not worry. This is not random; it is intellectually considered.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord give us the intellectual basis for it?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there are some deeply controversial amendments that need to be given full consideration. We attempted to put those on early in the business so that your Lordships could have a full opportunity to reflect, consider and vote on them if it came to that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Convention on the Future of Europe
3.17 p.m.
Lord Blackwell Lord Blackwell rose to call attention to the proceedings of the Convention on the Future of Europe and the case for a referendum on any consequent constitutional treaty; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank the House for finding time for the debate. I thank the Minister in advance for being here to respond.
The European convention was set up under the Laeken declaration following Nice, with the objective to consider the options for the future development of Europe in the wake of enlargement. From the start, its scope was ambitious. The Laeken text described Europe as being at a crossroads, a defining moment in its existence. It declared:
"The unification of Europe is near".
Others involved in the convention have compared it to the Philadelphia convention two centuries ago, which set out the constitution for the United States of America.
Today I would like to raise two questions. First, do the proposals now emerging amount to a major constitutional shift in the nature of the European Union and its relationship with nation states, or are they simply a minor but helpful codifying of the existing rules and conventions that may even help to contain the power of Europe by defining its limits? Secondly, if the implications have far-reaching constitutional implications, should they be adopted by the UK without the consent of the people in a referendum?
Before I develop my response to these questions, let me address the issue that I know some will raise on timing. The proposals we have today from the convention are still draft proposals and could be significantly changed before the convention reports, or
1320
subsequently in the negotiation between heads of government. Indeed, the Government can claim that a large number of possible amendments have been tabled, including some from the Government themselves. My response is that these are the proposals we have on the table today, and unless we debate and assess them now, we will miss our opportunity to influence any possible changes. By the time we are certain, we shall be presented with a fait accompli and told that a draft treaty cannot be reopened. The proposals have already emerged from working groups, where they gained the consent of the majority of nations. Therefore, it is unlikely that the drafting changes will alter the main thrust of what is intended. The Prime Minister, far from rejecting the intent of the proposals, committed the UK Government, in a speech made last November, to accepting many of the key propositions.
The proposals as drafted clearly set out a constitution for a new European entity, which for the first time would have its own international legal personality, rather than simply being a set of intergovernmental treaties. In other words, it creates the concept of European rather than national sovereignty. Under the constitution, the sovereign powers of the European Union would be vested in European institutions, which are given clear legal supremacy over the laws and sovereignty of the member states. We would all, for the first time, become legally bound as direct citizens of that legal entity. We would be legal citizens not only as an honorary title, in the manner of Maastricht, but with rights and obligations direct to the European institutions rather than through our national institutions. The European institutions would claim and exercise a direct democratic mandate from its citizens through both the existing European Parliament and a proposed new congress of the peoples of Europe.
That is not just some minor tidying up of the rules, nor is it a way of limiting the power of Europe. It crosses a major divide in creating a new legal entity, which is no longer in the power of the nation states but, as I shall explain, would have the power and means to extend its scope indefinitely. That is clearly what our Prime Minister understands and intends. In his Cardiff speech, he explained his support for the transfer of sovereignty to Europe as follows:
"We must end the nonsense of this far and no further".
He went on to say:
"The basic ideology should be described in this way. Europe is the voluntary coming together of sovereign nations. Their will is to combine together in the institutions of Europe in order to further their common interests. Insofar as it is necessary to achieve these interests, they therefore pool their sovereignty in Europe. There is no arbitrary or fixed limit as to what they do collectively; but whether they do it depends on their decision as a group of nations. So whilst the origin of European power is the will of the sovereign nations, European power nonetheless exists and has its own authority and capability to act".
I take that as a fairly clear statement of intent to create a sovereign European power that has no fixed limits to its powers.
Let me now turn to some of the specific draft clauses that are intended to give effect to these intentions. The central authority comes from Article 9, Clause 1, which states:
"The Constitution, and law adopted by the Union Institutions in exercising competences conferred on it by the Constitution shall have primacy over the law of the Member States".
To ensure there is no possible ambiguity, Clause 4 of the same article states:
"Member States shall take all appropriate measures, general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations flowing from the constitution or resulting from actions taken by the Union Institutions".
The following clause adds a principle of loyal co-operation to bind the member states, noting:
"Member States shall refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives set out in the Constitution".
Noble Lords will know that the objectives set out in the constitution are very broad indeed.
So what are the areas of competence conferred on the European Union by the constitution, in which it would have legal supremacy? How much comfort can we take from the words also included in the draft, which propose support for the principle of subsidiarity—in other words, that the Union should do only those things that member states agree it can do better than they can?
The draft constitution defines a number of different classes of competence. The first are those where the Union has exclusive competence. These are for the most part a direct translation of the existing treaty powers for EU action over trade negotiations, CAP and fisheries, and euro area monetary policy. More significant are the areas where the constitution gives the EU so-called shared competences under Article 12. These areas include transport, energy, social policy, economic and social cohesion, environment, public health, consumer protection and, significantly, the area of freedom, justice and security. In other words, this represents the collapse of the current second pillar from an intergovernmental arena to an area of EU competence.
So what does "shared competence" mean? Clause 2 of Article 10 spells it out thus:
"When the Constitution confers on the Union a competence shared with the Member States in a specific area, the Union and Member States shall have the power to legislate and adopt legally binding acts in this area. The Member States shall exercise their competence only if and to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence".
I emphasise—
"only if and to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence".
In other words, subsidiarity is turned on its head. Instead of the Union being limited to those things that nation states cannot or choose not to do on their own, the constitution gives European institutions the right to decide where they believe that they should act in support of the Union's broad economic and social objectives. It grants the nation states only residual powers to make their own laws in those areas that the Union decides are not significant. One does not have
1322
to devote too much study to the workings of the Commission and its bureaucracy to suspect that, in the course of time, the areas that are considered too unimportant for Brussels to legislate will become de minimis.
Furthermore, while the rules for decision making have yet to be drafted, it is unlikely that we would retain widespread powers of veto. The Treaty of Nice already provides for significant extensions of qualified majority voting to cope with enlargement. Working Group IX has addressed these issues and has recommended that QMV should be generalised to all legislative procedures that are subject to co-decision making between the Council and Parliament. In practice, that means all legislation except for a few categories specifically listed for exemption. QMV would become the norm.
Although the list of shared competences covers the vast majority of domestic law making currently undertaken by national parliaments, it does exclude a few areas, notably economic policies, employment, industry, education and sport. Just to make sure these are not excluded from the EU's competence, they are caught by a further category of areas for co-ordinating or supporting action. That term leaves plenty of scope for increasing intervention.
There is, I concede, a proposed new safeguard for subsidiarity in the draft protocol that proposes that national parliaments should have the right to monitor new legislative proposals. When at least one third of national parliaments lodge a reasoned opinion that they believe the principle of subsidiarity has been breached, the Commission is required to review its proposal. However, the proposal goes on to state:
"After such a review the Commission may decide to maintain, amend or withdraw its proposal".
In other words, the Commission is judge and jury on subsidiarity, and national parliaments would be rendered toothless. That is no safeguard.
Of course, I have not yet mentioned foreign and defence policy, on which events of recent weeks have focused particular attention. There can be little doubt that the intention of those drafting this constitution is that a fully-fledged united states of Europe should progressively move towards full control of foreign and defence policy, creating a European power block that could fulfil the ambition of some to create a rival to United States, or perhaps Anglo-American, dominance. Article 10 of the draft European constitution states in Clause 4:
"The Union shall have competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy".
Article 14 states:
"Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to undermine its effectiveness".
In other words, if the EU defined a foreign or defence posture with which we disagreed, we would be prohibited from taking independent action or even from stating a contrary case. In the Light of current divisions over Iraq, it is inconceivable that the British

1323
Government could consent to a legal constitution that contained that clause, but I welcome the Minister's specific assurance on that point.
There are other points on which I could have dwelt, including the proposal in this draft to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights in the constitution, which the Government assured us following the Treaty of Nice would not happen, then said that they would oppose, but now seem to have conceded. There are other noble and learned Lords in this House better qualified than me to set out the ramifications that would follow, but my understanding is that it would open up a whole new area for the Union to expand its competence through legal interpretations that could go far beyond the defined areas of legislative competence. I should welcome the Minister setting out exactly what the Government's position is on that point.
Before I leave the draft clauses, I should draw attention to just one more—the innocently named flexibility clause under Article 16. Again I quote:
"If action by the Union should prove necessary within the framework of policies defined in Part Two to attain one of the objectives set by this constitution, and the constitution has not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall take the appropriate measures".
In other words, we would be granting the Union institutions carte blanche to extend their competence into any area they chose, whether or not specified in the initial constitution. While they require the consent of the Council of Ministers, there would be no requirement for further ratification by the UK Parliament.
Taking all the proposals together, I find it difficult to accept the Minister's previous reassurance that this constitution is not a once in a lifetime decision. It would directly concede power and sovereignty over vast new areas of public policy and over the legal and constitutional framework that guards our civil liberties and democratic rights. It would change our status from being a sovereign nation to being a subordinate state within a greater European power. We should be open about the fact that it would, for good or bad, mark the end of Britain as an independent sovereign nation.
I shall, if I may, return briefly to one point. Some will rightly say that what is currently drafted and what I have just quoted may not survive the redrafting or be agreed by the Council of Ministers. As I said, I accept that there will almost certainly be some changes and some compromises. But what is worth focusing on is how much the Prime Minister has already agreed and welcomed in his speech last year in Cardiff to which I referred. In particular, he described the objective of his own proposals as not just rewriting the rules but:
"The strengthening of Europe at every level: Council, Commission, Parliament and Court".
He went on to advocate all of the following steps—I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that they remain government policy—to achieve that. He
1324
advocated: the adoption of a "proper constitution" for Europe; more decisions by QMV with fewer national vetoes; home affairs and justice incorporated as part of the competency of the EU; a strengthening of European foreign policy, with a stronger role for an EU high representative to speak for Europe; a stronger Commission with more authority to enforce European rules and laws; a stronger European Court with more ability to enforce European laws through fines on national governments; more power for the European Parliament to vote on EU legislation and budgets, balanced by a greater role for National Parliaments to defend subsidiarity; and a stronger president chairing a strengthened Council of Ministers for a fixed term.
Those are not just proposals in the draft but proposals that the Prime Minister was advocating. As we have seen, all but the last of them are part and parcel of the draft and, we must assume, will form part of a core part of the agreement that emerges. I would suggest that, on their own—whatever else may be included and whatever other concessions the Government may claim—those proposals firmly deliver the Prime Minister's objective of a transfer of sovereignty to Europe and fully justify the label of major constitutional change.
Some in this House may welcome the proposals as building a true European state. Others may sympathise with the intent, but feel uneasy about the extent and nature of what is proposed. And others may reject them entirely as moving us further from the vision of a European alliance of free nations and taking an unacceptable step across the legal boundary that subjugates our sovereignty to a pan-European government.
What I do not accept is the argument that, like it or not, we have to go along with the best compromise that we can reach. The Government, and the people, have the opportunity—perhaps the last opportunity—simply to say no, to use our national veto. The initial consequence of that would be simply to preserve the status quo. In due course, however, it would almost certainly open up a healthy discussion about alternative futures for Europe—no doubt including what has previously been called "variable geometry" in which we might allow some countries to proceed on a course to closer integration in return for some looser arrangement which better served our interests, and in which I believe a number of other current and accession countries might want to join.
Whatever the outcome, and whatever view one takes about the best outcome, it is hard to believe that these are not fundamental proposals for our constitution. For that reason, whatever concessions the Government may achieve on defence or the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, I hope that many across the House will agree that the consequences of any treaty that reflects the intent of those proposals is likely to be so far reaching that no government should commit the country without a public debate and a referendum.
Of course I accept that the Government may wish to wait until they have completed the negotiations before making such a commitment. But I believe that this

1325
House would be within its rights to amend any ratification Bill to require a referendum if the constitutional issues that I have raised this afternoon are not addressed. I give notice to the Government that I would intend to table such an amendment in those circumstances.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he overlooked telling us how many amendments have been proposed to the draft constitution.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will be able to respond to that in due course. However, I believe that more than 1,000 amendments have been proposed. As I believe that many of them would work in opposite directions, I leave it to the noble Lord to imagine how many will be incorporated. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, for initiating this debate. He has chosen a very significant subject and it is a good moment to discuss it. I shall be brief because I speak in my capacity as the chairman of the European Union Select Committee. I shall accordingly confine myself in this debate to outlining some of the work that the Select Committee has undertaken on the convention which I hope will be of assistance to your Lordships' House. As chairman of the committee I obviously cannot engage in the more political aspects of this afternoon's debate—although the noble Lord's Motion in other circumstances would have tempted me to do so. Although that self-denying ordinance is almost physically painful, I shall stick to my role as chairman of the committee.
I start by recording my thanks to the members of our Select Committee, its sub-committees and our staff for the extraordinary effort that has been put into keeping the convention issues under review on behalf of your Lordships' House. I also take this opportunity to thank very warmly our two representatives on the convention, the noble Lords, Lord Tomlinson and Lord Maclennan of Rogart—who I am pleased to see in his place on the Front Bench. They have done an enormous amount of hard work on behalf of this House in the convention. I thank them also for the time that they have taken to report back to this House; it has been extremely important and valuable. They have reported to our Select Committee and to the joint committee of the two Houses, and they have also done so less formally. We had an excellent meeting last Monday in the Moses Room, open to all Peers, where our two representatives came and enlightened us on what was going on in the convention. Without that I think that our continuing review of the convention issues would have been far less well informed.
I take the opportunity also, if I may, to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, for her very able work in alternating for the Government's Minister on the convention, Peter Hain, who has also been working assiduously at the convention. I know
1326
that she has contributed with her usual high level of forensic skill in the convention as she does in other forums.
As I said, I intend only to summarise for your Lordships some of the work that your Select Committee has been undertaking. We published a short report back in July which was debated in your Lordships' Chamber in January. Our recommendations then included noting that this Parliament should have a full opportunity for debate on the convention's work after it was concluded but before the IGC in 2004—that is to say, during the period of reflection. In light of the continuing speculation over the timing of the completion of the convention's work, to which the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, referred, I hope that the Minister will confirm that that proposal will not be lost from view.
Our work since then has continued. There has been a recent spurt of activity as we published reports on the emerging draft treaty articles and on the reports of the working groups. I commend the commentaries on the treaty articles. In each case we have set out what the Praesidium has proposed and how it relates to the existing treaty. We then offer our own commentary, in some cases noting that what is proposed, however apparently controversial, is in fact already in the treaties—a fact that has often been overlooked—and in other cases we suggest changes to proposed articles or even their outright rejection. I give two illustrative examples: we suggest changes to the proposed extension of co-decision in place of the present legislative procedure; and we suggest deletion of the proposal for the creation of a European public prosecutor.
For the work on the draft treaty articles we are greatly indebted to the House's second counsel, Dr Chris Kerse, who is legal adviser to the Select Committee. He has performed a formidable task with both skill and speed.
We have also produced a short report on the protocols on national parliaments and subsidiarity. In it we have suggested strengthening the scrutiny role of national parliaments to bring it more into line with the proposals from the working groups than those in the Praesidium's own text. In addition to supporting the proposed "yellow card" on subsidiarity—by which a number of national parliaments could together force the Commission to reconsider a proposed piece of legislation on subsidiarity grounds—we have also supported the "red card" proposal put forward by Praesidium member Gisela Stuart of another place. We tackled head on the arguments that that would delay the legislative process or weaken the Commission's right of initiative. We concluded as follows:
"The successful marshalling of the necessary majority to activate the 'red card' will, in our view, be a very rare event. The fact that so many national parliaments were concerned about a proposal might well reveal a serious concern that would need addressing. Any effective early warning system would of course require an effective mechanism to allow national parliaments to exchange information".

1327
We also agree with the working group that it is important that national parliaments should have the possibility of challenging a measure in the Court of Justice on subsidiarity grounds. The proposed protocol accordingly needs strengthening, as Gisela Stuart proposed, to give national parliaments the right to bring proceedings for violation of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
In a separate Select Committee report entitled Review of Scrutiny of European Legislation which will be debated in the near future, we have also proposed that the powers of the European Parliament over comitology matters should be strengthened. I should be grateful for the Government's latest view on how that idea is running in the convention.
More generally, we have supported greater openness in the Council—that is an extraordinarily important issue—when legislating, and better provision of information to national parliaments (including by electronic means in the interest of speed and efficiency), although managing that information may well require the House to provide greater resources, and I hope that it will.
We have also continued to press the Government on the thorny question of the so-called "provisional agreements". This, however, is more properly a matter for our separate debate on the scrutiny review, so we shall return to it in due course.
More Select Committee reports on the convention were agreed in our committee last week: on a social Europe; on defence and external action; and on freedom, security and justice. There is more to come over the coming months as the convention's work unfolds.
It should therefore be clear that there is a great wealth of information now available to the House on convention issues. I therefore earnestly hope that the House can always debate these issues in an informed way. It would ill behove your Lordships' House, endowed as it is with Members of great expertise and justly proud of its role as an effective scrutinising Chamber, to discuss such significant issues with inadequate recourse to the facts. I believe that we need to set an example for public debate on matters which so profoundly affect our nation and our people. If we cannot, or will not, hold a truly informed debate here, how can we expect the country to do so?
I therefore hope that the House, and those outside it who share our concerns and our interest in these matters, will enjoy the fruits of our labours, both in this and in other debates and in the work of our committees, all of which, I emphasise, are freely available on our Parliament's website. I look forward eagerly to the rest of the debate.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I rise early in what will be a very interesting debate not just to congratulate my noble friend Lord Blackwell both on initiating the debate and on his excellent speech with which I very largely concur but also to congratulate the
1328
noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, on the superb work which the European Union Committee does in keeping us abreast of the unfolding stream of proposals from the convention praesidium on the European constitution and other matters.
I wish particularly to emphasise the extreme importance that we on this side of the House attach to this whole issue, which we believe to be one of national and constitutional significance. Frankly, I believe that issues of this kind at this level of constitutional importance should be debated in government time. I hope that they always will be in the future. As it is such a large issue we shall return to it again and again and there will be a lot more to discuss, and probably very soon too, but time is not with us. I hope that it will be useful if I try to set out the views of some of us on this side of the House about the whole matter.
First, we are told—my noble friend Lord Blackwell touched on this—that this is just another treaty in line with the various treaties amending the original Treaty of Rome, and therefore that it should be dealt with in the way that other treaties have been dealt with by normal procedures and decided by Royal prerogative and so on. That is not correct. The proposed constitutional treaty, however it is amended, will be a blockbuster. It will replace all previous European Union and EC treaties from the Treaty of Rome onwards. So, it is not just another treaty amending existing EU legislation. It will be much the most important and far-reaching piece of EU legislation ever to come before us, giving the EU institutions a new source of legitimacy—this goes beyond the Treaty of Rome—above the nation states.
My noble friend Lord Blackwell mentioned turning things upside down. The proposed constitutional treaty turns upside down the whole assumption that the democracy and legitimacy of the European Union institutions come from below and are ceded to them and gives a new legitimacy imposed from above. The draft constitution is a vastly comprehensive document—although we have not seen all of it yet—including a massive new charter of social rights—which we were told would not be grafted on to it, but will be—and just about everything else except God and space. Perhaps space has got into it now but I think that, so far, God has not.
The Government say not only that it is just another treaty but also that we need not worry ourselves because it is all yet to be decided. That is not correct either. As my noble friend Lord Blackwell rightly made clear, many of the key issues appear to have been agreed by the Government and are government policy. The Prime Minister called for a proper constitution in his Cardiff speech. The Foreign Secretary says that he wants one and even the noble Baroness, if I may say so, has confirmed that the Government want an EU constitutional treaty provided—I believe she said—that it is a clear text and a reference document for the public—something which I am afraid she will not get if we are to believe the excellent Gisela Stuart who has been trying to get such a thing but has concluded that what is coming will be more complex and more remote.

1329
In short, let us hear no more of the point about the future. This area of the EU constitution is already government policy and we should debate it as such. It is fast setting in concrete. We have only a few weeks left on the present timetable before the matter will be put to the intergovernmental council. As the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, mentioned, it could be postponed. It would be interesting to be told before the end of the debate whether there will be a postponement and what that will do, if the matter is postponed until the autumn or even until next year, to the whole enlargement timetable and to the interests of all the applicant states who are watching this matter very closely.
There is another argument; namely, that we are wrong to be concerned because the measure will clarify the roles of the nation states and entrench them and that, anyway, foreign and security policy, as very important national areas, will not be encroached upon by the Community structure. But the convention and the draft as they stand do just that. As David Heathcoat-Amory MP, who is on the convention, has pointed out again and again, they raise important new doubts about the national role in a range of shared competences, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, including security policy, transport, social policy, energy and many others. Far from decentralising power, clarifying the role of nation states and bringing Europe nearer to the citizen—all reasons that we were told as to why the convention had to go forward with the constitution—it appears that the draft at any rate is bringing massive new powers to the centre.
For instance, we were told in Article 13 that the Union shall co-ordinate economic policies. That goes far further than the previous commitment by the Union to taxation, budgets and so on. We are told that subsidiarity will save us. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, touched on that issue with great expertise. In fact, what has come up so far is not what Gisela Stuart and other Members of Parliament argued for with heroic vigour, which was the power of our national parliaments to reject the competences and demands of the Union when it is felt that they intrude on the national scene. Instead, there is simply a procedure for delaying the process and putting the whole matter back to the Commission for review, which when held can simply allow it to go on as before.
Then there are new categories that noble Lords will have to get their minds around in due course if they have not already, such as the proposed -non-legislative" Acts. What are they? How does one have a non-legislative Act? According to the draft constitution, those are apparently to be issued by the Council or the Commission in the exercise of their executive powers. There is not much decentralisation with that.
As has been mentioned, at the centre there is to be a single pillar for everything. Justice and home affairs—freedom, security and justice. as it is now called—foreign policy and defence policy will all be under a single pillar. All will presumably—we need clarification on the subject—be under the jurisdiction
1330
of the European Court of Justice. It is goodbye to a separate intergovernmental pillar. That is proposed to go, and has apparently been agreed to go. If there is any doubt about the centralising effects on the foreign policy side, we have the agreement and support of the Prime Minister for foreign policy unification, carried forward under a new euro-Minister of foreign affairs who would report to and be involved with both the Council and the Commission. That would bring the Commission into the heart of foreign affairs business.
There are many other aspects of centralisation including the commitment—again, this has been agreed all round; it is policy—for a single legal personality for the European Union. As the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, said, that makes the European Union "sovereign" and gives it a place or the right to a place in all international organisations, presumably including the United Nations. Before anyone says that that is a fantastic proposition, I shall quote in aid the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the European Parliament, Mr Watson, who tells us that Europe needs only one seat at the UN, so that,
"Europe's world view would prevail",
whatever that is.
There is to be a European Union justice and interior Ministry and a European Union attorney-general. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, had better look out for his job. Finally, although it is quite true—the noble Baroness reminded me of it the other day—that the superiority of Community laws is of course already established by treaty and court rulings, it will now be imposed from above by the new European Union constitution. That is a new and quite different proposition.
We on these Benches therefore believe that if the constitution idea in anything like its present form is backed by the Council of Ministers next June—it may be later; we do not know—the Government should indicate now that if necessary they would be prepared to use their veto. If they none the less let it all slip through, a referendum in the United Kingdom on the proposed constitution is absolutely essential. Indeed, a referendum will be available to several other members of the Community, so it should be available in this country as well.
As we know, the constitution is a core part of a predominantly French-influenced plan to make the European Union a counterweight to the United States of America. As we have seen in recent days, it is plainly inspired by feelings of rivalry and, I am afraid, anti Iraq war thinking on a very intense level. If it were in place today, the UK's position on Iraq could well be declared illegal under European law. It will certainly make the whole question of repairing the trans-Atlantic alliance infinitely harder. There will be no American alliance with a France-dominated old Europe of this kind. New bridges will have to be built. I believe that the Prime Minister himself recognises that.
Jack Straw implied this morning that we must forgive and forget the French and German antagonism of recent days. About the forgiving, I totally agree. Of course we should forgive. They are

1331
great nations and we should understand their fears. However, we should be much more cautious on forgetting. What we have here is a reassertion of centralised old-European thinking. In taking up the stance that they have, I believe that France and Germany, great nations as they are, have made a huge geo-political mistake which will damage not only them but us all. Indeed, it is already doing so.
The concept of a fixed, written constitution is anyway a fossilised and fossilising idea. It is trying to give fixity to what is fluid and ever-changing, more so than ever in the network age in which we now live, in the relationships between nations. As the great constitutionalist Sidney Low long ago pointed out, the essence of the British constitution has always been that it is in a constant state of development, which would be frozen by the kind of proposals now being aired at the convention. We should fight against this power-seeking, rigid, European construct and, in case we are accused of being negative, fight for a democratic Europe of nation states—nation states on which the entire international order, when it is restored more properly than at present, ultimately rests and always will.
We want a place at the table in Europe, but it must become a table where, instead of constantly trailing behind other big countries' conceptions and agendas and too often losing out, we make the running at last with our ideas and initiatives for the Union's further evolution, in very close concert with all the smaller and newer states— which incidentally have rightly refused to keep silent during the debate. That is the essence of the new Europe. Perhaps at last the time has come to make a reality of that far better vision.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, in expressing warm appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, for initiating such an important debate at an extremely appropriate time. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and the European Union Committee. I do so not only on my own behalf and that of my colleague in the convention, the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, but on behalf of the wider House and the wider Community.
In particular, I single out the work of the Select Committee's Sub-Committee E for the extraordinarily helpful analysis of the draft articles of the convention which is being brought forward with a speed that shows great dedication. It is widely appreciated inside the convention, before which the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, and I have placed the documents as they have appeared. The work of the Select Committee obviates the necessity for me to make a speech in explication of the draft articles of the proposed constitutional treaty. That has been done with an authority and sense that will commend itself to all Members, whatever their point of view.
1332
It is worth recalling at this stage the mood of the 15 member governments when the Convention on the Future of Europe was set up. In the Laeken declaration of December 2001, they said:
"The Union stands at a crossroads, a defining moment in its existence. The unification of Europe is near. The Union is about to expand to bring in more than ten new member states…thereby finally closing one of the darkest chapters in European history".
It may be difficult to keep a sense of that perspective as we survey the present disarray of the European Union in the face of the Iraq war. It is, however, the duty of those engaged in the work of the convention not to be blown off course by those events. I do not believe that we shall be.
The chairman of the convention has sensibly postponed until May the publication and discussion of the draft articles on the CFSP and defence. By then, the problems will not have gone away, but cooler calculation may be more possible than it is today. Yesterday, under the ESDP, the Union took over responsibility for the policing of Macedonia. Preparations for Bosnia next year are now in train. The work to which we have set our hand must go on.
Not much more than two months is left of the time allotted to the convention to complete its work. The chairman has expressed concern about slippage and time. In my judgment, it would be unwise for the convention to go beyond the summer break. The issues to be decided have been well opened up. Conclusions would not be assisted by the availability of more time for debate. The convention has acquired its own momentum which should not be dissipated.
Although today we are debating work in progress—and what is yet to be proposed is certainly as important as what is now on the table—the shape of what is to come is, I believe, already clear. What is most striking is how closely the convention has attempted to follow the Laeken lead given by member governments. The mandate set out there had four broad heads: to attempt a better division and definition of competence in the European Union; to simplify the Union's instruments; to strengthen democracy, transparency and efficiency in the European Union; and to consider the basic features which might be adopted as a constitutional text for the Union.
It would be premature to predict how each of those challenges will finally be met. We shall not know until May how the praesidium of the convention will respond to the many amendments—more than 2,000 now—proposed to its initial draft articles. But it is not too soon to point out some striking areas of agreement.
In the division of competences, the fundamental principle of conferral is adopted in draft Article 8.2. I quote:
"The Union shall act within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Constitution to attain the objectives the Constitution sets out. Competences not conferred upon the Union by the Constitution remain with the member states".
On the issue of the flexibility clause to which the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, sensibly drew our attention, I say in passing that there is already a flexibility clause

1333
in the existing treaty—Article 308—which, in many respects, is more defective than the one before the convention.
Simplification would be assisted by reducing the legal instruments used by the Union from 15 to five, dropping, for example, in the field of justice and home affairs the use of the "convention"—a clumsy and largely ineffective instrument.
We await the praesidium's draft articles for the reform of the Union's institutional architecture. But already there are pointers within the convention as to how the challenges of democracy, transparency and efficiency may be addressed. For example, the European Parliament's right to "call back" delegated legislation is likely to be secured. The requirement that when the Council is acting in a legislative capacity its proceedings should be in public, as called for frequently over the years, is likely to be strengthened. The efficiency of the Union's actions is likely to be enhanced by the more general use of co-decision with qualified majority voting.
The basic shape of the constitutional arrangements is more advanced than might have seemed possible a year ago. The charter of rights will be incorporated with safeguards. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, has played a significant part in that. The charter of rights is to be treated as a legal document. With a single legal personality, the Union will be empowered to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Citizenship of the Union will be provided for, and the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality will be properly constitutionalised. It is of course a matter of political debate as to whether the proposals go far enough. In my judgment, as they stand, they have much to commend them. The extent of the national parliaments' right to be informed, to be consulted and to warn will be spelled out.
Much of what is being done is not new, as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, pointed out. For example, whether or not the word "federal" is employed to describe what has been called "the community method"—or, more accurately, "methods"—the Union's mode of operation will remain as prescribed by the agreement of the member states, in some cases ratified under their national constitutional provisions by a referendum of their citizens.
In the United Kingdom, the use of the referendum in constitutional matters has a relatively short history. In the early 1970s, I was opposed to its use to settle the issue of Britain's membership of the European Communities. That referendum, however, did serve some purpose. It did not prevent opposition parties in the 1980s and 1990s striking attitudes remarkably at odds with their performance in government; nor did it end the bilious insularity of much British newspaper commentary on the European Union's progress. It did, however, allow us some time to put our own commitment to the test and to judge whether or not the Union in its economic purposes should be viewed positively or negatively. Today, few would quarrel with the positive verdict of successive governments.
1334
Should we repeat the referendum test at the end of the convention process? We are already committed to a referendum—long favoured by the Liberal Democrats—on the euro. It is our general view that significant constitutional change, which is intended to provide a settlement to outlast changes of government, should be the explicit consequence of either a general election mandate or a nation-wide referendum.
It might be possible to provide for a single referendum on the euro and on the proposed constitution for Europe to take place at the same time. Certainly, a positive vote in such a "double-hatted" referendum, to coin a phrase, might be a liberating—even an exhilarating—experience. It could free this country from the carping, backward-looking questioning of our European identity. It might enable British governments in future to get on with the job of working in true partnership to achieve the common purposes of which this rich, old and experienced continent of ours is capable.
There are, however, two unresolved questions, and they cannot be answered today. It is possible that the treaty agreed at the end of this process will come too late in time to be linked in the United Kingdom with the decision on the euro—or perhaps too early.
There is another possibility. The constitutional treaty may turn out not to be a new beginning despite its apparent form and the pulling together of commitments already entered into the four treaties which have preceded it. The subsequent IGC may experience a failure of nerve as much as a failure of judgment and reduce what is proposed to little better than a tidying-up exercise. Were that to be the outcome, it would scarcely require the arbitrament of a popular referendum. It is not too soon to raise the issue—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, for that—but it cannot be concluded today.
There is a risk of failure of nerve. If the Union simply wants to ensure that its continuing economic purposes are subserved by its way of reaching decisions, there is some need for change, but not for much. But the disarray over Iraq may change the goals. From very modest beginnings and over a 10-year period the European Union has dared to express a larger political goal for itself. At the July session of the convention it was widely expressed as the wish to exercise in the global community a political influence commensurate with our economic strength. Such a responsible role seemed to many like sense for a community of nations united in their attachment to democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Iraq has spectacularly demonstrated the shortcomings of the traditional diplomatic method as the way of delivering Europe's self-proclaimed goals. Too much of Metternich and not enough of Monnet, as Alain Lamassoure, one of the French MEPs, put it.
Political will is the key. If we do will the end of greater political influence, we should listen to the evidence of Europe's much-respected High Representative, Javier Solana, given to the convention in October. It is not an easy message. He said,
"It means working harder to achieve common EU positions, even when starting points may be divergent, and it means a greater readiness to mobilise national resources in the pursuit of EU aims".

1335
Ultimately, our effectiveness as a global actor will depend on the willingness of member states to share analysis and set joint priorities. It also depends on their commitment to act together and, above all, to share the burdens fairly. That is what Javier Solana called coherence and solidarity among member states.
Polls of public opinion in Europe, as in this country, have consistently shown that, in principle, Europe's citizens are supportive of such a role for the Union. To conduct such a role effectively and democratically would indeed require significant new European constitutional underpinnings from which Britain and some others may, however, choose to hang back.
But in this area, Europe will not necessarily proceed at the rate of the slowest. The debate in the convention may focus on enhanced co-operation and the use of constructive abstention to advance common decision making. Outside the convention it is reasonable to anticipate that others will not wait for us. The summit call by Belgium for 29th April has been heard. Schengen provides a precedent for a two-speed Europe. Like my colleagues in your Lordships' House who recently visited Washington DC with Sub-Committee C of the European Union Committee, I am not attracted by playing the role of "little Sir Echo" to the Pentagon policymakers. If we would be true transatlantic partners, whose voice is not merely heard but sometimes heeded, we had better not find ourselves left behind by Europe. Therein would lie the true threat to Britain's independence.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I remind noble Lords that this is a timed debate.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I join other speakers in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, for initiating this important debate. I also take the opportunity of thanking him for his quite splendid paper, A Defining Moment, published by CPS. His lucid account, clear even to a non-lawyer, helps me to withstand the daily outpouring of legalese from Brussels.
In return for that enlightenment and the enlightenment I hope to gain from other speakers, I should like to widen the discussion by offering some clues to the economic philosophic background to the deep-rooted disagreements that have repeatedly ruffled Anglo-French relations. In so far as I have an interest to declare, it is of strong links through family and friends scattered around Normandy, Paris and Provence. I visit those delightful places at least four or five times a year.
Starting as a liberal free trader, my early hopes for the original Common Market were already severely qualified by the illiberal elements, such as the common agricultural policy, the quotas on Commonwealth trade and, not least, the establishment of a powerful Commission in Brussels dominated from the start by
1336
French apparatchiks with the technocratic elitist mindset common to "enarques", the lofty graduates of l'Ecole Nationale d' Administration.
On this occasion I do not want to dwell on the long political and military rivalry between our two great countries. Rather, I want to emphasise the distinctive addiction of the French to dirigisme, étatisme, planification and all that kind of thing. The phrase laissez-faire, laissez-passer was known to every schoolboy before the days of comprehensive education. But it is not one much visible in French politics over a very long period going back into the last century and earlier.
More in character with French politics was Louis XIV's principal minister, Jean Baptiste Colbert, whose name became a byword in economic texts for protectionism and subsidy. Colbert's great idea was to favour manufacture at the expense of French agriculture. His successors' even better idea is to favour French agriculture at the expense of other countries' taxpayers and consumers.
Nevertheless, an awkward truth for me to face is that undoubtedly, although the French have not been much good at winning wars since 1066, they are very good indeed at making centralism and planning work in their own land. The classic case of French education is famed for its central direction and control from Paris.
French planning also played an important part in the recovery from the effects of war after 1945. Yet when we in Britain slavishly attempted to imitate planification francais, although we had in charge of our country a fully-fledged Oxford economist named Harold Wilson, even the creation of a brand new department of economic affairs could not conceal the abject failure of the whole operation within the space of one year. The truth seems to me that the close collaboration of government. business and unions which we call "corporatism", reinforced by the "enarque" system of ruling elites, succeeds better in France than in many other countries. The French, indeed, almost exult in concentrating power at the centre and using it purposefully. That has some unpleasant side-effects, such as raising the political stakes in a way that spawns an extensive industry of lobbying. It also tends to harbour a good deal of corruption, which is anyway more characteristic of the closed French political system than of our open British parliamentary democracy.
For proof positive of the fundamentally conflicting economic approaches of our two countries, we need look no further than the repeated, vehement French denunciation of the British and Americans over a long period—long before Iraq—for their "Anglo-Saxon economics", by which they mean the importance that we have attached since at least the 19th century to markets and competition. We might understand—if we cannot share—the proud French view that clings rather desperately to the EU as a rival global power to the dominance of the American language, culture and economy. From our more open station, we cannot be blamed for resisting the full embrace of the United

1337
States of Europe, which is at last openly proclaimed as the ambition of the Franco-German axis—or at least of its more thrusting leaders.
Unfortunately, Germany also lacks any deep-rooted tradition of liberalism—apart from a brief post-war surge under Ludwig Erhard. A vivid characterisation of the European project was as a marriage between a jealous wife and a guilty husband. More brutally, the partnership that has bestrode Europe for the past decade has been described as a scheme to achieve French ends by the use of German muscle. The Elysée treaty, signed in 1963 by de Gaulle and Adenauer, committed both countries specifically to agree a common position on every European issue in advance of meetings of the Council of Ministers, and so forth. At least until German reunification, the common position meant to have France plainly on top.
It was thus with the support of Germany that M Jacques Delors was appointed President of the Commission and promptly set about exploiting the Single European Act to bulldoze a so-called level playing field in place of competition, mutual recognition and subsidiarity. Such a total transformation was, alas, legitimised by the European Court of Justice, which is plainly a missionary court bound by the unlimited mantra of "ever closer union".
Dominant French influence was also shown by the absurd creation of a duplicate Parliament in Bonn and the rather shady deal over the governorship of the European Central Bank, requiring the successful candidate to give way at half time to the defeated French candidate, M Trichet.
It is not surprising that when France backed a commission on a new European constitution, its head should be a French pro-consul, enarque and former president, Giscard d'Estaing. Nor is it surprising that the commission immediately began to steer towards a more powerful, centralised, supra-national European state. The only question that seems to be left open is which Frenchman is being groomed for ultimate enthronement.
My objections to the European roller-coaster range from the costly bureaucracy of Brussels and its insatiable appetite for regulation, right down to the impertinent interference with such valued British freedoms as duty-free shopping for foreign travellers. I set aside the exaggerated pretensions of the European Parliament, but I still from time to time ponder the divided loyalty of respected Privy Councillors who if going to Brussels are compelled to recommit themselves to a primary allegiance to the European Union. A more personal regret—about which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, will know—is the division sown between long-standing friends on the overwhelming, towering issue of whether the relentless European process must end in the final extinction of our national sovereignty.
It was last Remembrance Sunday, in a Paris bistro, that one of my beautiful Anglo-French grand-daughters, now studying law in Paris, told me sadly: "Grandpa, it is more difficult for the French to feel
1338
equal pride in their country since 1940 than for the British". I understand and am truly sorry for that, because I wish France well. But for Britain I conclude that the best outcome of the proposed constitution, as a final leap too far, would be to provoke an open, honest, informed debate about our future relations with Europe. Of course we must have a referendum, and I have some confidence in the verdict of the still sovereign British people.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I rise with pleasure to follow for the first time the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. He rightly stated that on almost every other issue save this, we are hound by ties of friendship and even ideological agreement. I once even had the pleasure of representing him in a notable lawsuit in which we successfully challenged illegal "comprehensivisation" of the school attended by his children. So we have much in common, but nothing at all on this matter.
I join all the previous speakers in thanking the many people who have helped to keep the House so well informed—the noble Lords, Lord Maclennan and Lord Tomlinson, the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell and those who work on his committee, and many others. I agree with my noble friend Lord Howell that this issue should be being debated in Government time, and I hope that we can have an assurance that that will be more forthcoming in future, because the issue remains of huge importance.
Beyond that, I confess to a feeling of being somewhat remote from the up-to-date, comprehensive expertise of many other noble Lords who have spoken. I have been involved neither in the European committees of this House nor in detailed, day-by-day study of the immense volume of helpful documents that confront us. Far from being post-modern on the issues, my knowledge is almost neolithic, because it goes back not merely to the European Communities Act 1972 itself and the Single European Act but to an occasion that my noble friend Lord Howell may remember, when that distinguished journal, Crossbow, which he was then editing for the second issue after my editorship of it, carried one of the first comprehensive pamphlets entitled, "The Rome Treaty and the Law". That paved the way ahead of many others.
What was made clear was that at the heart of our accession to the European Community was the acceptance of the concept of directly enforceable Community law, adjudicated by the European Court of Justice and directly applicable to our citizens in many ways—ways defined by the treaties that followed. In that sense, we are now discussing that same law—in a different context, of course.
My neolithic past compelled me to look back at some of the earlier things that I had said and done about the European Community. I came across a long and tedious lecture that I gave in 1996, entitled, "What next for the European Union: a constitution or a foreign policy?" I then had no hesitation in answering that we needed a foreign policy much more than we

1339
needed a constitution. If that was true then, to an even larger extent is it true today. I am not suggesting that we should push President Giscard's activities off the agenda, but I think that that insight should determine our approach to these issues.
I should also point out that I am not in principle against referenda full stop, come what may. In company with the cousin of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, at a meeting of the Welsh Conservative Party in 1962, we put forward the proposal for local referenda on the opening of Welsh pubs on Sunday. That proposal was adopted by the then Home Secretary, Henry Brooke, and 35 years later the process of liberation of the Welsh drinking classes had been completed. So, in the right circumstances, referenda can achieve a good purpose. It would be nice to think that the Prime Minister could before long find the courage of his own convictions and decide to have a referendum on the euro.
Despite the importance of the issue, I find it surprising—to some extent for the reasons advanced by the noble Lord, Lord MacLennan—that my noble friend and others, in particular the noble Lord. Lord Blackwell, whose speech was a lucid presentation of the issues set out in his very clear pamphlet, so far ahead of the outcomes that will finally emerge, are arguing for a referendum on the issues still very much under discussion. The present reality, as many have pointed out, is that the convention is almost waterlogged by the volume of amendments now before us. Despite the intermittent arrival of Foreign Ministers into its deliberations, we are a very, very long way from arriving at or foreseeing the single agreed text that will emerge from the intergovernmental conference.
If one looks back over the history of these matters, a series of ambitious texts has been generated by the European Union—the Genscher/Colombo Act, which turned out to be no Act at all, and the Spinelli Treaty—each of which was an ambitious constitution—and the report of the Dooge committee, which preceded the intergovernmental conference on the Single European Act. All those bore very little relation to what finally emerged.
I have to say, particularly having read the pamphlet by my noble friend Lord Blackwell. that one must wonder whether calling now for a referendum does not foreshadow a rather different objective, perhaps only lurking in the back of my noble friend's mind. If one is determined now, ahead of the emergence of the treaty, to conclude that it will result in a quantum leap into a super-state, and if we say now that Britain is about to see its nationhood abolished, we risk backing the Conservative Party into a position where I would not like to see us. Effectively we would be backed into a commitment to withdraw from whatever emerged from this treaty. If we did that, or if we were to do it with a specific commitment now for a referendum, it would risk repeating on a much more serious scale the
1340
mistake of the Labour Party in 1974 under the less-than inspired leadership of the Oxford economist to whom the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, referred.
The House should be aware that many in the Conservative Party do not share that gloomy view of the implications of what is now taking place. I dare say that not many Members of your Lordships' House will be aware of the memorandum submitted at the beginning of September last year by a group of us under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Brittan of Spennithorne, including the noble Lords, Lord Garel-Jones, Lord Hayhoe, Lord Heseltine, Lord Hurd, Lord Inglewood and Lord Tugendhat, and a corresponding cast from another place. That memorandum suggested to President Giscard that we were expressing our,
"deeply held belief in the importance of Britain being fully committed to the European Union and playing a positive and constructive role in the development of the EU".
On that basis, and given that we are still far from the end of the negotiations, there is much to play for in the negotiations, the hard core of which still lies ahead.
I have two general observations to make about those. The first is that I think that the timetable under which the process is being conducted is unrealistic and reckless, particularly given the preoccupation with so many other events around the world. People engaged in the process can understand that much more clearly than I do. But there is a risk of the substance of the matter being swamped by ceremonial ambition—to have a treaty signed in Rome on the anniversary of an earlier treaty, for example. It is very important that the negotiations should not be unduly constrained by an artificial timetable of that kind.
If I may give a rather absurd parallel without immodesty, the tax law rewrite project in which I am engaged is doing nothing more harmful than simply rewriting existing English legislation—we all speak English—in simple language. We thought that we would cover the entire statute book in five years. It has taken us six years to produce two quite modest tranches. If one looks at that alongside the polyglot procedure of the convention, I think that festina lente must be the right motto for President Giscard and his colleagues.
The other danger is that the Government may be too ready to make concessions, almost subconsciously, as it were, to compensate for their non-membership of the eurozone and a feeling that, if we may be regarded as not fully paid-up members of the club, we cannot be quite as substantial as we would like to be in defending propositions that need to be defended. It is of the utmost importance—and I agree with both my noble friends who have spoken—that the Government should be pressed to sustain our case in ensuring that, where it is proper, the institutional balance of the existing European Union is maintained.
I support two examples that have already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell: the case for a robust attitude towards the right of national parliaments to oversee and enforce subsidiarity, as

1341
commended by the committee over which he presides, and to do so with the right of access by national parliaments to the European Court of Justice to enforce that, as Gisela Stuart has been arguing. I also support the case, which I think everyone can make, for more openness of the council procedures when acting as a law-making authority. I shall not weary the House by going into those areas any further at this stage.
Returning to the last point, I would put the common foreign and security policy, as I did in my address in 1996, at the very top of the agenda that concerns us alongside the convention. That may seem difficult and unrealistic in today's circumstances—much more difficult in the long run—but it is an area where we must succeed. It is interesting that that is recognised even by public opinion in this country now. In a YouGov poll a couple of days ago everyone agreed that relations between ourselves and the United States and Europe have been severely damaged by the present arguments—who could argue? One of the questions put was: if the result was to bring the United Kingdom closer to the United States than to Europe, would you be sorry or pleased? Forty per cent of people would be sorry at the idea of being drawn closer to the United States than to Europe, and 31 per cent would be pleased. There is a narrow majority, which is surprising in the present circumstances, that recognises that we need to adhere to that European relationship.
If one looks at the hazards that confront us, there could be no doubt about our concern if we faced a Rumsfeldian future based upon the proposition "might is right". But equally we should be concerned if we faced a Chirac-Putinesque future, trying to construct a multi-polar world on the basis of a competing superpower stretching from the French coast to the Urals embracing Russia and some parts of the European Union. Surely, nobody can doubt that the way to handle sensibly American unilateralism and the anxieties that that causes is not rivalry; it must be partnership. But it cannot be Anglo-American partnership, which is the alternative canvassed, at least by implication, in the pamphlet by my noble friend Lord Blackwell. He talks about our retaining our freedom to work in alliance with our American partners. I regard that as a fragile framework indeed—one small voice in the United States Administration, often carried along we know not where. We need to cement ourselves within a European framework to get the authority we need.
I understand entirely the point made by my noble friend Lord Howell. It cannot be a framework designed by old Europe as caricatured or as represented now. It needs to be a framework shaped as well by new Europe, including the newly acceding states as well as ourselves. If we can achieve that, and we have a stronger European voice in foreign policy, it will be more credible when we try, when we have to, to say "No". It is also less likely that we should have to say "No' if we worked together as strongly as that. For me, that is what the foreign policy of the European Union has always been about; it always has been and always will be. It was at the heart of the reasoning that
1342
persuaded Harold Macmillan in 1962 to join our partners in Europe then. It remains fundamental to the long-term projection of British foreign policy in the future.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, said. He reminded me that my late cousin and he had decided to hold a referendum on the opening of public houses in Wales. I am sure that my late cousin would never have accepted it as a general principle that one should be in favour of referendums. I do not think that we should go along with the idea of a referendum now.
What has been lacking in our approach to Europe, under successive governments, has been fine, determined leadership. We should have taken the lead. We complain when other countries take the lead in Europe, when we have given up the opportunity of being leaders in Europe. Looking back on many years in both Houses, I think that Sir Edward Heath was one of the most underestimated Prime Ministers. He was the one Prime Minister who provided true leadership on European issues.
I decided to take part in the debate because I believe that the Convention on the Future of Europe is of even greater historical significance now than when it was set up. I speak as one who believes that the achievement of a united Europe is the most important political goal for this country, as well as for the continent of Europe, and the greatest contribution that we in Europe can make to world stability. That is clear. The day of the independent sovereign state is virtually over.
The truth is that, over the years, we have surrendered our sovereignty by degrees, as has almost every other country. Speaking as a Welshman who is proud of his language and culture and a specific way of life, I think that it is possible to maintain all those things without being a sovereign state. It is, for example, obvious that English will become the everyday language of commerce all over the world, including Europe. That does not mean that we will see the death of French culture, German culture or anything else. It means that we have accommodated ourselves to a way of life.
Many of us were firm believers in the Atlantic alliance as a cornerstone of security for the West and of world peace. Nevertheless, we have become increasingly and uncomfortably aware of an obvious divergence of view and reaction to events and developments between the United States of America and Europe, particularly after the shocking events of 11th September, which illustrated to the strongest military and economic power on Earth with sickening drama the vulnerability of its citizens to attack from without, against which its massive defensive shield afforded no defence. That has had an enormous effect on world thinking. Mention was made of Mr Donald Rumsfeld, who is an old friend of mine. We were delegates to NATO Parliamentarians and went on military tours together. Mr Rumsfeld is what you see. He is no diplomat, but, in my experience, he always speaks the truth as he sees it.

1343
Reaction to those events has illustrated the different approach of a confident, powerful United States that regards the selected rogue states mentioned in the "axis of evil" speech as threats that must be tackled by military action. The military might of the United States enables it to do so. The military might of Europe would not enable it to do so, even if Europe had that intention. The attitude of the European populace, by and large, which has experience and recollections of the horror and suffering inflicted by war on ordinary people, has led to serious disagreement between European leaders. Those leaders have accentuated those differences by failing to make sufficiently meaningful progress in developing co-operation between themselves that would enable Europe to speak with an agreed voice, achieved by democratic means in a united Europe.
I mentioned the deep problems that beset the alliance. The transatlantic alliance is a supremely important relationship. All of us have a duty and a prime reason to appreciate that the Americans regard the "special relationship" as being with Europe, in particular. For example, Mr Donald Rumsfeld comes from a German background. Years ago, people were surprised when I referred in your Lordships' House to the number of people who claimed descent from various backgrounds. More people claimed descent from the Germans than from the whole of the British people. Few claim descent from the British; they claim descent from the English, the Scots, the Welsh or, as they would call them, the Scots-Irish—the Ulstermen.
It is important that we should be regarded as a pillar. The Americans regard Europe as a pillar of the Atlantic alliance. We always talked about the American pillar and the European pillar. The truth is that we have failed miserably to create a European pillar. We have not contributed to the bridge across the Atlantic as we should have done.
We should put out of our mind the outmoded nationalism that I heard about today. We are out of date, if we think that we are an independent sovereign state and that we must maintain that sovereignty at all times. We can regard sovereignty only as a series of spheres. There is a huge sphere—ineffective, in many regards—of world-wide sovereignty, which, we hoped, would be provided by the United Nations, which needs much reform, no doubt. Then, there is the European sphere, in which we have surrendered a certain amount of sovereignty. We have devolved sovereignty on certain matters within this country to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. We must learn to think of sovereignty in such spheres.
We have been subjected—particularly in recent times—to old, dredged-up stories about the infidels in France and about the unreliability of other European countries. Old stories are dragged out that are the leftovers of bygone imperial battles in war-torn Europe. We should remember that our forebears gradually replaced tribalism with the so-called nation state. It is high time that we replaced the nation states or placed them in an effective united Europe. Therefore, I hope that the work of the convention will
1344
continue apace and achieve what will be, effectively, a prospective constitution—call it what you like. The presidium will remain committed to the June 2003 deadline, if possible.
We must remember that in a democratic society allowance is always made for amendment of a constitution. We all know how important amendments, frequently introduced, have affected the United States. There must be liaison with the European Parliament, the national parliaments, the regional bodies, such as the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, and the proposed regional councils in this country. The relationship of all these institutions must be considered. Therefore, it is necessary to have an elastic constitution which will enable change to be made in the light of experience. The European Court of Justice should not be bound by rigid rules. We must allow for its development in the light of requirements.
I turn to legal personality. I agree with the concept of an ever closer Union provided that the doctrine of subsidiarity is involved as an essential principle; that is, subsidiarity in retention of agreed powers at certain levels below the European level. Thought must be given to what matters should be entrusted to the nation states as they are today and whether some powers should be given to local government, and so on. All those issues must be considered.
However, I agree with the view that there should be a merger of the treaties of the European Community and of the European Union. There is also the vital importance of a charter of fundamental rights spelt out in any constitution of a civilised state. As a matter of thought, should there be a requirement for every citizen of the European Union eventually to take an oath or declaration of loyalty to that Union? That could be a matter of vital importance.
Perhaps I may make one point concerning the euro. I have always regarded a coin—whether a dollar, a euro or sterling—as simply a means of exchange. It may be of some reassurance that, apparently, in the reign of Edward the Confessor an attempt was made by his government to impose a coinage for the whole of England. Thereby he greatly affronted people in Wessex, Northumbria and Kent, as well as other areas, who were all jealous of their own currency. They objected and rejected the proposition. A few years later, William the Conqueror imposed his own currency over the whole country overnight and abolished the existing coinage. I do not think that England was any the worse for that because it had a means of exchange, which is all that coinage really is.
I conclude by referring noble Lords to the book, entitled, Paradise and Power, about America and Europe in the new world order, by Robert Kagan. It was published about a fortnight ago and is well worth reading. It has only 100 pages, but it is a brilliant analysis by an American of how America views its role as a preserver of the peace, with a great military strength, and its perception of Europe. Kagan writes about the reaction that he hopes to see eventually building up in Europe, whereby the two pillars of the Atlantic assembly come together and we do not resort

1345
to a special relationship with the United States, because really, the United States is dying for a special relationship with Europe.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I, too, welcome the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Blackwell. As various speakers have said, we need more such debates. Possibly it is appropriate that I follow the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, in this debate because I think that his is the only speech so far with which I entirely disagree.
My starting point is that action was necessary to address the increasingly complex and chaotic structure of the European Union. Enlargement of the Union means that the existing arrangements are not likely to endure. However, I believe that in addressing the need for change, the methods and the approach adopted have not proved adequate. We are in danger of finding ourselves faced with an outcome that is undesirable but one that the Government are not prepared to reject.
I fear that some amendments along the way may be claimed as victories but with the overall result constituting a paradigm shift on a par with our initial membership of the European Community and more significant than the Single European Act. We are in danger of finding ourselves faced with a fundamental decision to accept or reject a package that could undermine, potentially even destroy, the concept of the nation state within the European Union.
I start with the problems of the process adopted. The convention is the wrong size and does not have the most appropriate membership for drawing up a draft constitution. It is too large to be a proper drafting body. It is too small to be a body that is representative of opinion throughout the European Union. As Dr Ann Robinson and my colleague at Hull University, Dr Paul Robinson, have written in their recent study entitled A Constitution for Europe?, the size of the convention means that it has had to rely on the presidium to guide its work and on the secretariat to organise it. That moves power out of the hands of individual delegates and into the hands of the presidium and secretariat. Leadership lies in the hands of the president and two vice-presidents who are not chosen by the convention.
Having analysed the membership and method of selection, the authors conclude that,
"The composition of the EU Convention is confusing, and its democratic mandate limited and obscure. Its members do not genuinely represent either the member states, or the people of Europe (via some direct selection procedure). They are in many cases divorced from the consequences of what they decide".
The convention is thus not the best body for engaging in the exercise mandated by the Laeken summit. Nor has it approached its task in the most appropriate manner.
There are two fundamental problems. First, there has been no full and proper debate derived from first principles as to the ultimate aim of the exercise. As my noble friend Lord Blackwell argues in his recent pamphlet entitled, A Defining Moment?, there is a
1346
debate to be had about Britain's future in Europe. There is a much wider debate to be had about the future of the European Union. However, rather than seeking to engage in such debate and to identify common values and a shared goal, the convention has charged ahead ignoring the very issue that needs resolving first.
The approach of some members of the convention to addressing this fundamental question appears to be the same as that of the Lord Chancellor to the West Lothian question; that is, do not ask it. One member of the presidium said:
"Federalism and a constitution means different things to each of us. There is no point in discussing them"
There is every point in discussing them.
Secondly, there is a failure to consult adequately with civil society. I appreciate that this has been attempted. In some countries, there has been far wider debate than has occurred in this country. I accept that we have not done as much as we could and should have done to engage debate on the issue. However, the extent of the debate with civil society throughout the European Union is, in my view, completely inadequate relative to the sheer significance of the issue.
There has been the Youth Convention. There has been the Forum. These are fine as far as they go, but they do not go far enough. After all, the latter is confined to self-selecting groups. There is very little evidence of engagement with the public. I know that my right honourable friend in another place, Michael Ancram, said that MPs are receiving letters about the convention—I suspect not very many.
Indeed, I am concerned as to what is defined as public opinion. Speaking in a Westminster Hall debate two weeks ago, the Welsh Secretary, Peter Hain, said that the Government did not accept the proposal for a European public prosecutor. Yet the day before he spoke, the European Commission claimed that "public consultation" confirmed the need for the convention to take action to establish a European public prosecutor. The public consultation on which this claim was made comprised 200 written and oral communications. For a Select Committee inquiry, that is a lot. For an EU-wide exercise, I do not think it can be deemed necessarily to reflect the opinions of civil society.
The convention is thus proceeding almost in a vacuum, detached from first principles and detached from civil society. It is producing a draft constitution that, so far as I can see, is not clearly the product of the remit given it by the Laeken summit. Perhaps at this stage I may pose a question to the Minister who is to reply. Let us take Articles 10 to 14 of the draft constitution. Can the Minister explain how these relate to the questions posed in the Laeken declaration'? One could ask the same question about many other articles, but Articles 10 to 14 are unquestionably among the most significant. So far as I can see, the convention is working well beyond its remit. In so doing, it is producing a document that fundamentally reshapes the EU and, as my noble friend Lord Howell argued, poses a threat to the role and independence of the nation state.

1347
We are at a stage where, if the convention proposals are to proceed, there should have been widespread consultation and discussion. Yet the "listening" stage of the convention ended last June. If there was a major engagement with civil society then, as I indicated, I am not aware of it. We thus face a dilemma. The recommendations of the convention go forward to the IGC next year. The Government are right to remind us that any changes have to be agreed by EU governments acting by unanimous agreement. But does anyone seriously doubt that the political pressure to agree to some change will be massive, that the IGC is unlikely to have the time and the political will to engage in a complete re-write of the convention's proposals, and that the Government will be unlikely to utilise the nuclear option of the veto?
Given that, what can be done if we find objectionable sections or even large parts of the draft constitution? My noble friend Lord Blackwell advocates a referendum once the IGC has agreed a new treaty. I have previously expressed my opposition in principle to referendums. I do not want today to pursue those arguments. They are on the record. It is clear from some of the speeches we have heard today that I shall have an opportunity later to return to them. In any event, I think that advancing the argument for a referendum on whatever the IGC may approve is premature. One of the purposes of a referendum is not only to enable citizens to express a preference but also to educate them on the issue. My view is that we need to be educating people now about what is proposed rather than leaving it until there is a referendum.
The relationship between the nation state and the EU is fundamental to how we are governed. That relationship is likely to, indeed will, undergo dramatic change if the draft constitution becomes a reality. We need to be thinking about that now. It is appropriate, as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said, that Parliament itself spends more time on it. It is appropriate that we consider how we ensure that people are more aware of the implications of what is proposed. The more extensive the debate, the more likely it is that the Government will have to pay heed to the concerns that are expressed. Government need to be listening now and acting upon what they hear ahead of and in preparation for the IGC. As my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon indicated, there is still time to influence the convention. I do not want to leave it until the IGC itself or until a referendum debate—a debate that may or may not take place.
That brings me to my second question to the Minister. What do the Government propose to do, and how soon, to disseminate information to citizens about what is emanating from the convention? We need to ensure that information is made available and in a form that people can grasp. There is a divide between the political elite and the people in the EU—it has existed for some time—and we need to ensure that it is reduced or eliminated in the United Kingdom.
There is a very real danger of paradigmatic constitutional change taking place without our really noticing, certainly without our fully appreciating, what
1348
has happened. That was the case with the Single European Act. In many respects, certainly in constitutional terms, it was true of our initial membership of the European Community. We must ensure that this time we are fully aware of what the implications are. The sooner we turn our attention to what we see as the future for the European Union the better. We have in many respects left it too late—far too late. We need to make up for lost time.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, is right: we have almost—perhaps certainly—left it too late to understand exactly where we are going in the European Union. I want to join other noble Lords who have spoken in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, for introducing the Motion and for the way in which he did so. It was lucid and dealt with the problem very firmly indeed. He was right in saying that if the proposals in the convention were adopted, they would mark the end of Britain as a sovereign and independent nation. I believe that to be absolutely true.
I suppose that I am one of those people who the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, describes as having a carping, backward-looking attitude to the European Union. I would not describe it quite like that. My attitude has always been that when we were told we were joining a Common Market, we were joining nothing of the sort. We were in fact joining an organisation which had as its final objective a United States of Europe—and so it has proved. Unfortunately, the road has been gradual and built on a number of treaties and misleading information, to say the least, if not downright lies about where we were heading. It is therefore right that we have people in this country who query what is being done by government and in the name of the British people.
I heard for the first time today what is almost a seditious speech from the noble Lord. Lord Hooson. He goes further than anyone I have ever heard on the subject in that he wants us all to swear an oath of allegiance to the European Union. When I came here, I affirmed an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. How many oaths of allegiance do I have to swear in order to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Hooson? I am satisfied with one. Indeed, our system of government over many hundreds of years has proved to be superior to many whom the noble Lord so admires.
Since the debate on 7th January—I said pretty much of what I want to say then, but perhaps I had better say a few more words at this stage—the convention has been grinding on, wallowing in an ocean of paper, to produce a constitution and a system of European government which will be more powerful, more centralised and less democratic than ever before. Indeed, as the noble Lord. Lord Howell of Guildford, said in his excellent speech, it gives the European Union a new legitimacy, imposed from above. We are not talking about building a federal state; we are talking about building a unitary state, and we should remember that. This is not a federalist convention; it is a unitary convention.

1349
What is taking place is being done ostensibly to accommodate a United States of Europe of 25 countries and is precisely the opposite of what many of those favouring enlargement sought to achieve. They believed that the more countries that joined, the greater would be the push for decentralisation and the return to the nation states of powers lost to them. My own view has always been the opposite. The more countries that join the European Union—or the United States of Europe—the more centralised it would have to become, and so it has proved. The convention is working towards just that. The final building blocks of the European super-state are being put into place, aided and abetted by the Tower of Babel that the convention has become, in an attempt to hoodwink people into believing that there is a democratic element in putting the final touches to the United States of Europe.
Incidentally, the term "United States of Europe" is not mine. It was coined by Giscard d'Estaing. In his first draft he proposed that one of the names might be the "United States of Europe". Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who at Question Time today accused me of fantasising, ought to read that draft and apologise for his remarks.
What is even worse is that this huge project, further to deprive nation states of their sovereignty, is being driven forward to accommodate an unrealistic timetable. An attempt is being made by the Italian Prime Minister to speed it up even further in order to meet his silly, vain and arrogant ambition to have the new treaty, constitution or whatever it is called, signed during his country's presidency. When we are dealing with something like this, we need all the time it takes. It is too serious to rush and we should make sure that we have all the time it takes, irrespective of the wishes of the Italian Prime Minister.
As we know, the new constitution will involve ceding more powers to the Union, increasing the competences and influence of its institutions and enabling it to intervene in and make decisions about virtually every aspect of policy, from foreign affairs, defence, economic policy, taxation to social and environment matters—and even the electoral arrangements and financial assistance for political parties. It will interfere in every nook and cranny of our national life. What is more, as the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, pointed out in his opening remarks, it will be able to alter things as it goes along. Under Article 16, it will be possible for the Union to put right things which perhaps it got wrong at the beginning. Even Gisela Stuart, one of Parliament's representatives at the convention, is very concerned about that and, it is to be hoped, will be able to do something about it.
What is not understood is that, due to the qualified majority voting system, which the Prime Minister wishes to extend—he said so in his Cardiff speech—great decisions will be made not by Her Majesty's Government or our Parliament, but by a gaggle of 25 countries whose interests are so often inimical to those of our own. But the Prime Minister, who claimed to be a British patriot in an article in the Sun, in March 1997, believes in more integration—again, in his Cardiff speech he said that he wanted to see more integration; that is, a stronger Commission and the President of the Council to be
1350
elected for four years, who would co-ordinate the European Union, speaking and acting for it not only on the home stage, but on the world stage as well.
Of course our friend Mr Prodi, the President of the Commission, and, since last week, Mr Solana, have agreed that we should go even further. They are demanding a single European Union voice in the United Nations and other international bodies. Let us face it, they are simply taking a common foreign policy, which Mr Blair supports, to its logical conclusion; that is, if we have a common foreign policy, it cannot be effective unless it has a seat and a voice in the councils of the world.
There is yet another serious aspect to what is being proposed in the draft constitution: the requirement for loyalty to the institutions and decisions of the new order. Even the proposers do not suggest that an oath of allegiance should be taken, but nevertheless they are demanding that loyalty should be given to the decisions that are taken. That will apply not only to governments, it will extend to individual citizens, who will also owe that loyalty. Although it might appear at present to be somewhat innocuous, the long-term aim is to transfer loyalty to one's country to loyalty to the European Union. We know now that some Members of this House believe that that would be a good thing.
In the face of all that, it is difficult to understand the policy of the Official Opposition and the Conservative Party, which is to be in Europe but not governed by Europe. They must surely now recognise that that position is untenable and that you cannot remain in Europe if you do not agree to be governed by it. If they stick to that policy, it will be hung around their necks, as was their policy on the pound; that is, their commitment to retain the pound only for one Parliament instead of insisting that the pound was a symbol of our independence and sovereignty and would never be relinquished. If they have any sense, the Opposition and the Conservative Party will say that they will resist the convention proposals and that, if they are returned to power, they will repeal them, even if that means leaving the European Union, or whatever it may then be called.
If the Conservatives really want to hold a referendum—and I am not at all sure that I agree about that because it needs to be thought through—unless they are prepared to take that kind of policy to a referendum, I think that they will not win it.
Finally, I have to say that the Prime Minister seems to be suffering from a diplomatic and political close of schizophrenia. At the same time as wanting to be at the heart of Europe, he is also desperate to be a junior partner in the new world construct of the United States of America. Recent events must surely have convinced him that he cannot have both and that the cure for his schizophrenia is to become a real British patriot, which demands that Britain's position as a free and democratic nation is to be safeguarded at all costs. That cannot be achieved by even further European integration, but only by disengagement from the process of creating a United States of Europe.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Blackwell on introducing the debate and on gathering together so many distinguished Members of your Lordships' House to speak on this important and urgent subject. Those of us privileged to serve under my noble friend's chairmanship in the Centre for Policy Studies are particularly proud of his pamphlet, which my noble and learned friend Lord Howe and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, both described, quite rightly, as extremely lucid and helpful.
Is it a coincidence that the publication of draft Articles 1 to 16 of the new constitution coincides with the worst breakdown in relations between Europe and America in our generation? Is it possible that this chilling document and that distressing breakdown can both be traced to the same root cause—an issue touched on by my noble friend Lord Howell and my noble and learned friend Lord Howe—that is, a profound rivalry with America and envy of it?
When considering the rightness or wrongness of an action, English law advises us to consider the motive behind it. I accept that this is only a first draft and I am aware, as my noble and learned friend Lord Howe said, that there have been many, many amendments to it; no doubt there will be many redrafts. I also accept that the Minister will shortly say that some Members of your Lordships' House are afflicted with paranoid delusions; that if only we put our faith in the Minister and her Government then all will be well. However, the first draft of any document is often the most revealing of the motives and the mind of its author.
It is understandable that America would be envied by poor people and poor countries. But would it not be ironic if the power of America had now created envy among the so-called rich countries of the world, the authors of this document? Envy twists the mind so that envious people despise, and yet wish to ape, the object of their envy. Freud's law of ambivalence describes this mental process by which the envious ones come to love and hate the same object at the same time.
So, as the first draft reveals, those same Europeans who display such palpable distaste for American capitalism appear to have belatedly fallen in love with the American concept of globalisation. Is it not a supreme irony that Europe, which probably contains more critics of globalisation than any other area, where people routinely link hands under the unlikely banner of "Join the world-wide movement against globalisation", should have so enthusiastically embraced that American doctrine in this first draft document? Size is all.E pluribus unum. Unity is strength. If mergers of companies are good, so too must be the merger of countries.
So they want Europe to become one big country like America. Is that not why they drafted Articles 10 to 14, which, as my noble friend Lord Norton said, contain by far the most telling provisions of the draft constitution? For example, Article 13, which concerns
1352
the co-ordination of economic policies—my noble friend Lord Howell referred to its striking use of language—states that,
"The Union shall co-ordinate the economic policies of the member states".
It continues for emphasis:
"The member states shall conduct their economic policies so as to contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the Union".
Do not the authors want that because they believe America has too much economic power? Have we not heard, for example, the French complain that while America accounts for seven of the top 10 investment banks and eight of the top 10 companies, and so on, France is dismissed by Americans as a "tourist destination"? For example, is it not right that Jean-Claude Trichet, the governor of the Bank of France, likes to tease audiences by pointing out that America accounts for only 30 per cent of world trade and then asking them, "But what does the dollar account for in the total of world transactions?"? He enjoys surprising people by telling them that the answer is "70 per cent". He points out the obvious injustice and says that the euro was created to put right that injustice—as, perhaps, was Article 13.
Is it America's military power that gave birth to Article 14? Perhaps it is painful for the authors to contemplate that America's military expenditure is greater than the next nine countries in the world put together: or to observe that this year's increase in the US defence budget is greater than the entire defence budget of the whole of the eurozone. Hence former French Foreign Minister Vedrine's expression "Hyperpuissance"—beyond superpower—to describe the so-called "hectoring hegemon" America.
Article 14 will provide the antidote to what Le Monde called the "cretinization" of American foreign policy. Not only does it lay down what we will do, but the manner in which we will do it. As my noble friend Lord Blackwell pointed out, Article 14 concerns the common foreign and security policy. Its language is striking. It states:
"Member states shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests".
Who will decide whether an action is "contrary to the Union's interests"; whether we have provided our support "actively and unreservedly"; whether our loyalty has been shown to have the exact right degree of "spirit"? Never has so much been given away by so many for so few.
Everyone now knows how offended European diplomats are by America's unilateralism; by its reluctance to commit itself to what Kofi Annan calls "multilateral solutions", whether in matters of war, justice or the environment. Maddeningly for them, "Stupid GI Joe"—as they dub America— is so dim that he persists in his gunslinging ways, failing to appreciate post-modern transnational due process, negotiation and co-operation to adjudicate disputes. Is that why they drafted Article 9, which concerns the

1353
application of fundamental principles, as my noble friend Lord Blackwell also pointed out? Its opening phrase states that,
"The constitution shall have primacy over the law of the member states. Member states shall facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives set out in the constitution".
Or was it the basis of Article 10, which introduces us to one of the more unusual uses of the English word "competence"—to mean not "ability" but "jurisdiction"—and, as my noble friend said, helpfully sets out who will have jurisdiction over what?
My noble friend Lord Blackwell drew the attention of the House to this sentence:
"The member states shall exercise their competence only if and to the extent that the Union has not exercised its".
What would drive someone to draft such language? Are the authors among those who so resent American cultural imperialism that they complain that precious national identities are being homogenised and paved over by a US version of life—people for whom anti-Americanism is a branch of anti-philistinism? As Ken Tynan memorably put it, "We mustn't sell our souls for a pot of message". And so it goes on—the list of possible reasons for envy is endless.
The authors of the draft document want regime change. The regime they want to change is the one in which America is dominant. But the Ten Commandments condemn covetousness. Envy is one of the deadly sins. The original sin of envy arose from resentment of God's monopoly of the tree of knowledge. In the same way as now, envy and resentment have risen up in Europe, never more clearly expressed than in this first draft document, against America's monopoly of financial, military and cultural success.
We remember what happened to those who succumbed to the sin of envy. The serpent's life would be to crawl on its stomach; the woman would for ever suffer pain in childbirth. And the man? He would bear worry and anxiety on his head for the rest of his days. I personally would not wish such a fate on the authors of this draft constitution, but to avoid it, I advise them to gather up all the copies of the first draft and tear them up before my noble friend Lord Norton gets his way and more members of the public notice what is in it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether he intended explicitly to compare America to God?
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, that was not my intention, but I am glad that the point has been made.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Stevens of Ludgate: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Saatchi. If I may say so, the dearth of speakers on the Benches opposite is more than made up for by the quality of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I agree with practically everything he said. I cannot hope to match his oratory, but I may be able to match some of his views.
1354
In 1956, the Economist Intelligence Unit was approached to report on what the effects would be on the UK or Britain, as the unit called us, should we enter a European free trade area. Entitled "A study on the effects on British Manufacturing Industry of a free trade area and the Common Market", it was published in 1957.I have a copy from my Cambridge days—it was the guide to Europe for Economics undergraduates. It stated, among other things:
"If moreover the decision is taken to join it is no less important that we should make our preparations with a full knowledge of the likely course of events".
It said later on:
"It is the avowed intention of the authors of the Common Market treaty to complete their work by establishing a political federation of the Six. Supposing that they succeed what then would be Britain's position it World Affairs? A third great power would be added to the USA and the USSR less formidable than either but with a much greater claim to consideration than the UK. To put it at the very lowest Britain would probably cease to be America's ally number one in Europe".
Well, my Lords, how right and yet how wrong.
The train has been coming down the tunnel for a long time now and yet our Governments—yes, I include my party—seem to think that once drafts are agreed they can be negotiated away. Once the draft is published, you can either reject it in totality—veto it—or try to change it, an almost hopeless task. The only way to get a good draft on the future of Europe is for us to draft it.
The UK cannot dictate its own terms for joining the euro. We will have to negotiate with the other members, now made even more difficult by recent events.
The Prime Minister has conceded that he would accept that future Presidents of the European Commission should be elected by the European Parliament, even if there is a President of the European Council. This gives even greater power to the bureaucrats in Brussels.
The Prime Minister has stated that the UK belongs in Europe. The founders of the EEC had as their objective the ever-closer union of Europe. This has been repeated many times in the past 40 years and is still being repeated. In speech after speech, Mr Prodi, President of the European Commission, Chancellors Kohl and Schröder, former French premier Jospin and President Chirac have been laying down the principles on which a new Europe will be established.
The EU is to be expanded as soon as possible from 15 countries to 28. This increase means that there will be no right of veto in future. To quote Mr. Prodi,
"for the veto to remain is like a soldier trying to march with a ball and chain around one leg".
Tax rates must be harmonised. Highly taxed countries like France and Germany will force those with lower rates to increase taxes. Sadly, the UK is rapidly becoming one of the highly taxed. The EU must have its own foreign policy and its own armed force, independent of NATO. I shall say more on this later. It was agreed in December 1999 in Helsinki to set up a joint 60,000-strong rapid reaction force as a first step

1355
in this process. It was agreed, also in Finland, to have a single EU judicial system with a European prosecutor and staff to operate throughout the EU.
Let us pause for a moment on the proposed pan-European army, particularly in the light of recent events. Its creation was sparked off by the EU's failure to react firmly to events in Bosnia and Kosovo, but there was in fact another agenda. It is a further attempt by some major powers in Europe to create a common security system which might eventually exclude the USA.
The UK's contribution was proposed to be a quarter of this force, or 15,000 troops. It would absorb a quarter of our front-line aircraft, half the Navy's operational warships. Do we really want to be subservient to Brussels in deploying this force? What would the US think of this when we are, I believe, the only country allowed to purchase US cruise missiles?
Let us return to Helsinki for a moment. Mr Prodi received a document drawn up by a committee appointed by himself. Among other things, the UK was to lose its power of veto in leading policy areas including tax, and Brussels institutions were to be reorganised in a way that was to be more similar to a parliament and a national government. Downing Street distanced itself from this report, stating that,
"we would not be in favour of such sweeping reforms. What we need is limited reform".
The document also proposed that the power of the large member states should be curbed to cope with the future enlargement of the EU. Mr Prodi is clearly, as he has stated many times, going for a centralised, federalist system.
However, on a different note, in October 1999, we signed up to a European commitment on merging European asylum policies. Look at what has happened to that.
Why should the UK which, for centuries, has never been occupied by a foreign power and has fought for democracy in mainland Europe now join an integrated Europe when we have resisted the major European powers of the day which attempted to absorb or conquer us? We should not agree to any further attempt at European integration.
The United States was our ally in two world wars. Without the United States, I doubt whether we would have succeeded in Kosovo. It is our largest country trading partner. It has loyally stood by us. Why should we allow the anti-Americanism of some European countries to determine our future? The EU is consciously seeking to build itself up as a third world economy to the USA. It resents American influences. Do we really want to surrender our sovereignty to an EU like that?
So we arrive at the Convention on the Future of Europe. I congratulate the parliamentary resources unit on its briefing paper. It says:
"The Convention has three distinct phases—the first was of listening which ended in June 2002".
1356
I quote again from Welsh Secretary Mr Hain:
"A lot of representatives are wondering whether the people who drew up this document have been going to a different convention".
Mr Heathcoat-Amory said:
"I tabled 100 amendments. We were each given two minutes to speak to our amendments".
The convention is not listening. It is on transmit. The Economist 1957 forecast is all too true. The agenda is a federal Europe.
Lastly, we have an alternative from the convention:
"A procedure for voluntary withdrawal from the Union".
There is nothing wrong with a free trade area. World tariffs are much lower now than before. We normally have a trade deficit with Europe. They need us just as much as, if not more than, we need them. By all means have a referendum, but not on the convention. The referendum should be on staying in or leaving the EU, as it will exist—static, ageing, with declining populations and pensions not funded. We really do not need European influence or interference on pensions. The pension assets held in the UK are still among the highest in Europe—15 times the level of France and eight times the level of Germany. Who will finance their deficits, to give just one example? Europe also has restrictive practices, state interference galore, crippling tax rates and, above all, huge differences among the members. They even ignore their own stability pact. We are innocents in dealing with European machinations. One size does not fit all, even in the existing EU.
That is how I was proposing to finish until I read the Daily Telegraph this morning. A proposed tough secession clause in the new European constitution would make it illegal for Britain to leave the EU without the permission of two-thirds of the members. We must leave while we can. It is broke and cannot be fixed.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, with the war in Iraq dominating our thoughts, it is difficult to concentrate on issues nearer home. But the Convention on the Future of Europe and the subsequent intergovernmental conference are of great importance and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject today. He will not be surprised that I do not agree with him on everything. None the less, he may find a few gold nuggets in what I have to say. I do not agree with quite a lot of the speeches that have been made already, starting with the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to the American language. Having spent many years defending the English language, I was really hurt by that phrase. Generally, I do not share the attitude of many noble Lords, who seem to take on a little bit the attitude of Cassandra on the one hand and Savonarola on the other.
I shall concentrate on the value or otherwise of the treaty texts that have already been presented to the convention by its presidium. These are the crux of the matter. When the convention has finished with

1357
them, they will provide the material for the discussion, possible amendment and acceptance or rejection by the heads of state and government in the next stage, the intergovernmental conference, where, as we know, unanimity is required. Subsequently, the draft treaty must come to the process of ratification in each member state. Like others, we will have to decide how we do that. There is obviously the parliamentary method or a referendum method. The pilgrim's progress is under way and it is far from finished.
The appearance of the draft articles of a new constitutional treaty, which may replace the treaties of Rome, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice, as well as the Single European Act, is a staging point where careful examination and reflection are called for. In this, we have had excellent information from the parliamentary members of the convention and the active alternate members, the noble Lords, Lord Tomlinson and Lord Maclennan of Rogart. In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, mentioned, the Select Committee has been active and has produced good reports, most recently the 11th, 12th and 16th reports on Articles 24 to 33, on Article 31—about freedom, security and justice—and on national parliaments and subsidiarity.
Before I turn to the proposed articles and protocols, I shall make some important preliminary comments. First, the system being used for the preparation of the constitutional treaty is better than that used for the preparation of earlier treaties. I speak with some experience of earlier treaties—so much so that I have suggested to my wife that my tombstone should read:
"He led a happy life, except for the time spent on the preparation of EU treaties".
However, we should not exaggerate the difference between the convention and earlier treaty preparation. It is evident that in any case the views of the representatives of the sovereign states are vital, as they have to arrive at consensus in the next stage or abandon the proposal. The convention has for the first time allowed some input from national parliaments and at least some limited—I know it is limited—input from civic society in general.
Secondly, I am surprised at the large measure of agreement that has been reached in the working groups of the convention and which seems likely to be reached at the level of the convention itself, despite the large number of amendments that have been put down to the treaty articles. I am one of those who believe that we are at a point when we can clearly see what the articles that will go to the intergovernmental conference look like. That is why I think it is important. The fact that there is a large measure of agreement indicates some cohesion in the European Union.
Thirdly, it is important to recognise that the convention is dealing with two different types of European responsibilities and actions. On the one hand there are the traditional community competencies, whether exclusive or shared. On the other hand there are the so-called intergovernmental pillars, covering common foreign and security policy and questions of justice and home affairs. I am not sure that the United Kingdom has fully come to terms with the differences. In the traditional community competencies, where
1358
decisions on substantive legislation and policies are taken by the member states in the Council of Ministers, often in co-decision with the European Parliament, there is always an important role for the Commission, the Parliament and, potentially, the Court of Justice.
I do not see any significant wish from the people of' Europe to extend those competencies or to make significant changes in the balance between the institutions. There is nothing wrong with being at cruising speed. Most legislation in coming years will probably relate mainly to the accession of new countries. We do not have to want continually to do something new. We just have to manage our existing policies as well as possible.
That is an important point for me. It means that the task of the convention is primarily to clarify and perhaps improve—but not extend—the treaty provisions. Because of the concerns expressed in some member states, particularly the United Kingdom, it is wise to make clearer the application of subsidiarity and proportionality and the increased role of national parliaments. That is broadly the approach that the convention has taken. We have to judge whether the convention has got it right.
On the other hand, we have the intergovernmental structure, which is not community competence, although it falls within the general structure of the EU. In that structure the role of the Commission is supportive, not central, and the role of the Parliament and the Court of Justice is marginal or non-existent. Generally, the result is an EU law that applies throughout the Union. My plea to Europhiles and Eurosceptics alike is that the convention proposals on what are now the second and third pillars deserve the closest attention. Some have pointed out the possible effects of changes from unanimity to qualified majority in these sectors. That is important, but it is also possible to foresee some surrender of sovereignty where unanimity remains. If the Government agree to some changes of structure—for example, a command structure for defence or the creation of a European public prosecutor—the water will have flowed over the dam and it will not flow back.
A large percentage of the important documents that currently come to the Select Committee relate to the common foreign and security policy and to justice and home affairs. It is therefore important that the new articles in the constitutional treaty on these matters should be satisfactory and acceptable.
I conclude that, broadly speaking, the limited number of treaty articles we have seen confirm the situation on community competence, improve the situation on subsidiarity and the role of national parliaments and expand the Union role on questions of security and justice—that is Article 31.
The Select Committee examined Articles 1 to 16 in its ninth report. In due course those articles will surely add to the United Kingdom's book mountain on European affairs. However, they are simple and clear, which is a great virtue in a constitutional treaty.
For me, the key points are the continued assertion of respect for the identity of the member states. I note

1359
that the reference to an ever closer union of the peoples of Europe no longer appears. The phrase "European values" replaces "European principles", which is an improvement. More controversial is the statement that certain competences are administered on a federal basis. That may be accurate, but an alternative text would be less challenging.
Article 4 would give the Union legal personality. Other noble Lords have referred to that matter. It was recommended by the Working Group, and is supported by the Select Committee of this House. It is important to avoid one misunderstanding: the Community already has legal personality and has exercised it for many years as a party to numerous international agreements and as a member of various international organisations. What is at issue now is whether a legal personality should apply to the Union, thus being extended into the so-called intergovernmental areas of foreign and security policy, justice and immigration. Will the Minister comment on that point?
In Titles II and III, there are three important issues. First, should the Charter of Fundamental Rights be in the treaty, and thus legally enforceable? Secondly, how do we express Union competences in the treaty? Thirdly, should there be a flexibility clause allowing an extension of Union action by unanimity but without treaty amendment?
First, on the charter, I was content with the position that we took recently—that it is a good charter, but not legally enforceable. I am somewhat surprised that we have begun to move beyond that position. Will the Minister comment on that point?
Secondly, on competences, the convention has decided to treat the question in the simplest and most straight-forward manner, by simply listing the areas of exclusive and shared competence and the areas in which the Union can take supporting action, although competence remains fully with the member states. For me, the list of competences contains no surprises—perhaps I was too long in Brussels—although I suspect that many in the United Kingdom will be surprised at the extremely short list of exclusive competences of the Union. For me, those articles show a much clearer picture for the citizen.
My third point relates to the flexibility clause. I am always suspicious of such clauses. We have had them in a lot of treaties and they have never led to much joy. This clause replaces the well known, not to say notorious, Article 308 of the current treaty, giving the power to act at Union level beyond the competences set out in earlier articles. Do we really need that flexibility clause? A disadvantage is that it makes it more difficult to say to the British citizen when he looks at the new treaty, "What you see is what you get". The clause means that we may get more than we see in the list of competences.
The second set of articles deals with the structure of European law, primary legislation, framework primary legislation and subsidiary legislation. There is a proposal for some changes and better definition. That subject is known, in Euro-jargon, as the "hierarchy of
1360
norms". I am quite used to it, as for many years for breakfast I would have a soft-boiled egg and a large hierarchy of norms. At one stage, it ran comitology close as a specialist science.
Some colleagues see difficulties, but I see advantages in greater simplification and clarity of European Union legislative acts. It would be more sensible if they consisted of primary legislation, generally adopted by the Council and the European Parliament, described as a European law or a European framework law. The term "regulations" might be more appropriately applied to subsidiary legislation, adopted by the Council and Commission under their treaty authority or by the Commission under delegated powers. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that the phrase "non-legislative actions" should be ditched very soon.
Article 31 and related articles deal with justice, immigration and asylum. Here we move into pillar three, which is not part of the main competences. Many noble Lords will see points where the Select Committee welcomes proposals under that heading. However, there are also some completely new provisions. For example, the European Union may adopt laws covering the rights of victims of crime. That may be desirable, but should it be a Union responsibility? I doubt it.
Article 19 extends the role of Eurojust. Many noble Lords will be irritated by that, principally because, rather than referring to a specific list of offences, it now covers all serious crime affecting two or more member states and requiring a joint prosecution. That is a substantial increase. Article 20 would establish the European public prosecutors office, which would act as prosecutor in the competent courts of the member states in relation to serious crimes affecting several member states and European Union financial interest.
On those three articles, it would be helpful if the Minister could give us a government view, or at least a provisional view. In this area, the convention seems to have "stepped into touch", to use a rugby phrase. It would be a good idea for us to consider those articles closely and, possibly, to remove them from the convention.
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wish that I could be as optimistic as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton. I listened this morning to the right honourable Peter Hain answering some fairly penetrating questions from a Select Committee about the Convention on the Future of Europe. I cannot say that my fears were allayed or that I was much the wiser about the Government's position.
The same cannot be said about my noble friend Lord Blackwell, who provided this opportunity to debate this important constitutional issue. I thank him warmly for initiating the debate and for what he has written in an excellent pamphlet on the subject. I must also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Howell, who holds Front Bench responsibilities for these issues for the Official Opposition. He has been assiduous in studying all the papers on the convention to date, and

1361
the knowledge and foreboding that he expressed during his excellent speech requires us all to take heed of such expert opinion.
It was only in October and December of 2001 that it was agreed to establish a Convention on the Future of Europe involving all member states. The plan is that the convention will precede the next intergovernmental conference in 2004. A root and branch review of the Treaty of Rome and all subsequent amending treaties would be undertaken. Although many papers have been produced and much has been said by participating representatives, especially by our Prime Minister and other Ministers, who have indicated the shape and form of the outcome of this work, we will see the definitive proposals only in June this year. They will go before the IGC in 2004.
My noble and learned friend Lord Howe, who is not in his place at the moment, referred to the fact that the constitution was flooded with amendments and said that there was still time to influence change. However, we have seen the Prime Minister commit himself publicly to agreement to aspects of the convention. When he visited Spain and spoke to José Maria Aznar, there was definitely a good hint of how he viewed the constitution in its present form.
As for the so-called democratic process, why was my right honourable friend Mr. Heathcoat-Amory given a mere two minutes to speak to nearly 100 amendments to the first 16 articles of the draft constitution? That hardly bodes well for progress on modifying the articles of the constitution. What did Mr. Hain mean when, seeing a draft of the articles, he said:
"A lot of representatives are wondering whether the people who drew up this document have been going to a different convention"?
So much for his influence. Is there no control over the drawing-up of these proposals, if they are so out of kilter with the meetings attended by Mr. Hain?
The timetable allowed for this momentous constitutional change is very tight. Such is the nature of the changes envisaged, that it is unthinkable that there is not to be a referendum. This Government have proposed a referendum for regional assemblies in eight parts of England, but set their face against allowing the people to vote on the future of the United Kingdom. However, this Government have so devalued the integrity of the United Kingdom as a whole that that is not surprising.
Although Giscard d'Estaing, chairman of the convention, has warned of a possible delay in its work, some countries are pressing for the IGC not to be delayed. On 19th March, on BBC Online, Giscard d'Estaing warned that,
"we cannot have the debate on foreign policy until things have been clarified a little"—
in Iraq. However, with breathtaking arrogance, the Italian Government have argued—as reported in the Financial Times on 25th March this year—that,
"the risk of developing things too much is that we could have a stalemate with a new set of actors and no consensus".
1362
In plain language, that means, "Let's settle this before the accession countries enter the EU because they may not agree with our proposals". Apart from that view throwing light on why they do not want to widen the democratic debate, it also gives a broad hint of why our Government have set their face against a referendum. The new accession countries just may disagree, and the people of the UK may also reject the proposals.
I cannot believe that the eastern European countries who won their freedom from the USSR will want to enter into another superstate without first having a determining role in its formation. If the Government are confident that it is such a good package and that it will be in the British interest, then why not just put it to the test? Any comparison with Maastricht—which will no doubt be the Government's retort—will not do. Maastricht was an amendment treaty; what we have here is a rewriting of the primary Treaty of Rome and all subsequent amendment treaties.
Iraq has changed everything. The behaviour of France, the indecision of member countries, the damaged relationship with NATO and the USA—all mitigate against the convention's proposals on foreign and security policy. On 19th March, referring to post-war Iraq, one UK diplomat was reported on BBC Online as saying that,
"no one on the British side will seek to belittle or dismiss the difficulties that exist—it will not be business as usual".
Yet, measure those words against the EU draft constitution, which states:
"The EU shall have competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy … member states shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to undermine its effectiveness".
I agree with my right honourable friend David Heathcoat-Amory, who said:
"democracies should not be corralled into actions against their gut instinct".
That is why I ask for two things: first, to delay this work until the accession countries can play their full part in shaping the future of their Europe; secondly, if it is to go ahead, that there must be a referendum of the people in the United Kingdom.
The Liberal Democrat leader in the European Parliament wishes to remove individual sovereign country membership of the United Nations committees and replace them with a single European vote representing all EU countries. As I said, he argued that,
"it would constrain the unfettered exercise of American power, and Germany, France, Britain and Spain would have to agree to speak with one voice—Europe's world would prevail".
After the recent debacle over Iraq—and if that is what a legal personality actually means—God help the UK if his view were to prevail.
We need a clear indication from the Minister as to what will not be agreed in the draft as it presently stands. That would give us at least some idea of what we should not be worrying about. The Government cannot argue that the EU as a single legal entity—with

1363
a common foreign, security and defence policy, an entrenched Charter of Fundamental Rights, and common principles of law—would not create a shift in self-determination or sovereignty. Such a change, if it is to happen, should be endorsed by the people of our country.
Since 1997 the Government have engaged in nothing short of constitutional vandalism: ill-thought-through devolution to Scotland and Wales; changes to the House of Lords without considering fundamental powers and functions first; the creation of town mayors voted in by a fraction of the popular vote; London government; and now the complete carving up of England into pro-European regions. Scotland and Wales at least still enjoy the status of whole countries, whereas England will be completely fragmented. That combination destroys the integrity of the United Kingdom as a whole. The contempt shown for our Parliament and its democratic processes is there for all to see.
It is therefore no surprise that the Government are prepared to take the next step—to subordinate the whole of the United Kingdom in fundamental areas of policy to the European Union. As my noble friend Lord Howell said, it is a fossilised and centralised idea. It does not protect nation states, and it will involve huge new European powers. Should that be refuted by the Minister and her colleagues, then we should allow the people of this country to make their judgment on what they think of the proposition.
In a sentence, the executive is strengthening; parliament is weakening; and the axis for decision making is moving to Europe. My plea is to invite people to rise up, take an interest and not to sleepwalk into this single state called Europe. What is left of UK sovereignty is too precious to be given away by Mr Blair and Mr Hain at the next IGC. We must fight for a referendum.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether she realises that, although she made a most brilliant speech, only five Members of the Labour Party were listening to it—two on the Front Bench and three on the Back Benches.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I should like to add my name to those who thanked the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, for initiating this important debate. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and the Select Committee for their excellent reports and comments on the draft constitution.
The idea of a constitution for the European Union is a dream. As with most dreams, the problem lies in waking up to the real world. As we have heard this afternoon, even among those who have long believed and continue to believe in the building of the European Union, there remains a fundamental schism between those favouring a loose Union of like-minded national states and those seeking a more unified superstate. The
1364
challenge for the convention is to produce a constitution that satisfies both viewpoints—a seemingly impossible task.
Nevertheless, I believe, with some other noble Lords who have spoken, that the effort is worth while and has updated and improved many of the provisions in the existing treaties, as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, that more time and more public consultation is needed and that it should start as soon as possible both in Parliament and in the country at large so that all are aware of the momentous decisions involved. After a final text is agreed, I think that there should be a referendum to give the people of this country and of the whole Union the ultimate choice. But if we are beholden to the reckless timetable referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, I should like to take this opportunity to raise three specific issues and to express the hope that the Government and the Select Committee will think about them and, if in agreement, might feed them into the convention.
First, I should like to return to the issue I raised today at Question Time. I believe that the constitution must be more specific about the long-term boundaries of the Union and of what it means by "Europe". That issue has been brought to a head by the prospect of bringing Turkey into the Union and the consequent debate as to whether Turkey is a European state. Whether or not it is, I believe that the rationale should be made clearer in the constitution than it is at present.
A possible way out of this difficulty could be for the constitution to allow for a category of associate membership which would be available to neighbouring countries, "whose people"—according to Article 1 of the draft—
"share the same values, respect them and are committed to promoting them together".
Such a category would also allow the extension of the single market and other economic provisions, but would avoid the difficulties of integrating a wider group of non-European countries into the already highly complex administrative mechanisms of the Union. Such a proposal is akin to the variable geometry option referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, and could be used by member states within Europe which were not prepared to accept the full commitment to the Union.
Secondly, I turn to a more specific point. Articles 11 and 12 deal with exclusive competences and shared competences. Among several exclusive competences in Article 11 are included the "free movement of capital" and "a common commercial policy", whereas "the internal market" is listed as one of the shared competences in Article 12.
I find these definitions rather vague and am concerned that there is no specific reference to financial markets, which I believe are of fundamental importance to the development of the Union. By financial markets I mean a common stock and bond market, common take-over rules, a unified retail banking and savings market and a Union-wide retail

1365
payment system. I believe that financial markets are a shared competence but are worthy of a specific mention.
Lastly, I should like to support the comments of the Select Committee on the use of the phrase "sustainable development" in Articles 3(2) and 3(4) of the draft constitution. I believe that that phrase is a piece of meaningless modern bureaucratic jargon which should not be allowed to creep into a document of this importance.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank my noble friend Lord Blackwell for initiating the debate. I should like to thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and his team—his committee, sub-committees and all his staff—for the very valuable reports that they have produced and are continuing to produce, I am glad to say. I shall refer to several points raised in those reports during my speech.
It is clear that the proceedings of the convention began very much along the lines promulgated in the Laeken declaration. We have had six months of "listening phase" followed by working groups producing a large number of proposals. But the real test lies with the praesidium. Meeting in private—13 strong—it is now drafting specific treaty articles for subsequent debate and the proposed date of submission of the final draft is rapidly approaching. How far those articles will reflect the proposals put forward by the working committees and others remains to be seen. But if they are to reflect those proposals, I suspect they will need close and time-consuming examination and debate. The danger must be that that will not happen. Already pressure is being brought to bear to present the convention's conclusions to the Council on 20th June, in which case the praesidium's proposals will be put forward with far too little examination.
There is a further reason why it is important that the final conclusions should not be arrived at prematurely. The candidate countries have demanded that the start of the IGC be postponed until they have formally joined the Union in May 2004 so that they can take part in what they term an "appropriate reflection period". I am greatly sympathetic to their request. I have never forgotten the damage that was done to our fishing industry—and in particular to the fleets in Scarborough and Whitby in my former constituency—by our being forced, as a prior condition of our entry into the Community, to accept an ECC future fishing policy, a policy which, although drafted, had not been enacted at the date of our entry. Had we been allowed to debate that policy after we had entered, that policy would never have been enacted, certainly not in the form that it was, and the North Sea would still be full of fish.
After all, one of the main purposes of the convention is to prepare the ground for the entry of the candidate countries. While it has been established that they are approved candidates for membership, it is none the less clear that when they do enter the European Union
1366
the variety of economies and social conditions within the enlarged Union will be much greater than that which exists among the present membership. I believe that such a greater variety of conditions emphasises the need for changes, some of which have already been identified and discussed, particularly in the important reports that have been produced by our Select Committee on the European Union.
The first change that I believe has to be made is in the relationship between the Council and the Commission. The Council must become more effective, certainly than it has been in the past. It has not provided the leadership that it should have done. Consequently, and not unnaturally, the Commission has become too strong. In practical terms what should be done? The size of the Commission must be restricted. The more commissioners that are appointed, the more responsibilities have to be acquired to build up the departmental empires. The number of commissioners must be related much more to identified responsibilities.
The whole subject of subsidiarity must be looked at afresh. In June 1999 we debated an excellent report from the European Communities Committee on the subject of comitology. In that debate I pointed out, for example, that there are about 250 committees all beavering away in Brussels on secondary legislation of one sort or another. Yet their efforts very often result in legislation that does not happily fit in with the procedures and circumstances of national governments.
Jacques Delors in 1992 offered a prize for anyone who could define subsidiarity. I wonder whether anyone has ever claimed that prize. He claimed that the principle was still a matter of interpretation. So far, interpretation has always been for an ever-widening scope of responsibility For the Commission and its committees. One of the consequences has been, of course, that when a regulation is challenged the excuse is made that nothing can be done because the regulation was made in Brussels. That problem has been taken on board by the convention and it has been studied by a working group. It has also been studied by our Select Committee.
There is overall general agreement on the need for greater involvement of national parliaments in the monitoring of the application of subsidiarity. As the committee states:
"An opportunity has to be provided for such monitoring at the earliest possible stage of the legislative process".
The Protocol on Subsidiarity attached to the 1999 Amsterdam Treaty also stressed, among other things, that,
"forms of legislation that leave the member states the greatest room for manoeuvre are to be preferred to more restrictive forms of action".
That is stated in paragraph 6.
So far as the early warning system is concerned, as described in the committee's report, I entirely agree with the committee's support of the proposal put forward by Gisela Stuart whereby, if the Commission received reasoned opinions from two-thirds of national parliaments, the Commission would be required to

1367
withdraw its proposal. I also strongly agree with her suggestion that during the rest of the legislative process national parliaments should be kept informed of any amendments to the text so that they can monitor changes. There is an objection, of course, to her proposal, which is that it would slow down European legislation. Frankly, I do not regard that as an objection. But the implementation of any such changes makes even more imperative the need for a much improved system of dealing with European legislation in our own Parliament. When Bills go through the full parliamentary procedure they arouse an interest and discussion in Parliament and in the country that is essential to their satisfactory enactment.
European legislation that is to be applied and monitored in this country must be subjected to much more of those processes than it has been in the past. Even at present we are finding that the European legislation is at times being interpreted by government regulation in a way that would not have passed the full scrutiny of parliamentary process.
Finally, I have always believed that the long-term success of the European Union must be based on a sound and respected financial regime. Many changes have been made over the years. The Court of Auditors was set up in 1977. In order to give it more clout, at Maastricht it was made a Community institution. Although it has become more effective, it has still come in for a lot of criticism.
On 8th January 2002, the House debated a very valuable report on the Court of Auditors by the European Union Committee. Its report and the evidence given to it were first class, and are both deserving of serious consideration by the convention. The report noted that:
"The need for the Court to be independent and to be seen as independent was accepted by all of the witnesses questioned about this".
It went on to stress the need for a highly qualified chief executive, supported by a large team of audit staff who were mainly qualified.
In the light of experience, and particularly in view of the future enlargement, I feel that the convention should review the constitution and working of the Court of Auditors. Our European Union Committee's report provides a sound basis for any such review.
6.21 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Blackwell for bringing this important matter before us today.
Perhaps one of the most unwise things that I ever did was to not take too much notice of the Treaty of Rome until it was on the statute book. In my innocence, I was excited by this brave new world that would emerge, bringing peace and prosperity to a Europe that had spent hundreds of years tearing itself apart. I loved the thought of free trade, easier travel, and the pulling together that I was certain would benefit us all.
1368
Thirty years ago, I was one of many who campaigned for a "Yes" vote on the crest of a wave. With the new flag flying and "Ode to Joy" playing, I was inspired to knock on doors day after day, whatever the weather. I remember the atmosphere at the count, which was euphoric as the "Yes" vote succeeded. However, what I did not realise was that the EEC was destined to become the EU, with the ultimate goal of ever-closer political union.
A quarter of a century on, I observe with sadness and even anger our nation being slowly strangled by all the regulation, bureaucracy and interference in our daily lives. Over the past few weeks, the sham that is the European Union has been exposed for all to see. Personally, I found French arrogance in the attitude to United Nations resolutions an absolute disgrace. However, all that may be a blessing, as surely now the idea of a European army and common defence policy is ludicrous. That is confirmed by the YouGov poll in the Sunday Times on 29th March. It would appear that public opinion has shifted since the outburst from France, hardening against further integration into a Europe of the regions.
I am angry that the Government are attempting to tear England apart in the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, currently passing through the House, simply because that suits the EU better. It is appalling that this country should be treated in that cavalier fashion, with the Government casually bringing about the abolition of the county councils—councils which have served us well for centuries.
I will not discuss the finer points of the convention debate, as others are much more qualified to do so than I am, and nor do I know all the detail. However, what I gather to be under consideration fills me with horror and foreboding.
The convention is now in the process of finalising proposals for a new treaty of Rome. I believe that it is the duty of this Parliament to ensure that the British people are made aware of the detail of the treaty in good, plain English, as my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth said. Phrases such as "community competence" and "legal personality" will not do. I am sure that no one would understand what they meant unless it was spelt out very clearly. It must also be explained how any treaty would impinge on every facet of our lives. Then the question must be put to the British people in a referendum. For surely the treaty would have a more far-reaching impact than acceptance of the euro.
In another place, the right honourable Peter Hain said:
"We have not gone down the referendum route, except in the case of the original decision to join and—if we indeed decide to hold a referendum—in the case of the fundamental decision of joining the single currency … we shall proceed as we have done in the past, by ratifying treaties through Parliament, because, frankly, that is the best way". [Official Report, Commons, 20/3/03; col. 305WH.]
That may be so in his opinion, but what could be more fundamental than the proposed treaty? Surely the Government must recognise that the proposals are so far-reaching that it is essential that the people are consulted and their views taken into account. As the shadow Foreign Secretary, Michael Ancram MP, said:

1369
"It would be totally wrong to accept a further transfer or surrender of sovereignty, and a diminishing of our constitutional rights, contained within a European Constitution without a referendum".
My noble friend Lady Blatch pointed out that many of our established institutions have undergone major surgery during the past five years. Taken together that constitutes a revolution, with many lives being turned upside down. We must not allow the British people to be led blind into a future where our sovereignty and rights are lost.
I well remember the Second World War song "There'll Always be an England" and what it meant to everyone. It could not be sung today with confidence. I just cannot understand the Government's determination to decimate our country and hand it over to the European Union. It would in my view be a catastrophe if that were allowed to happen.
As I have said before, the European Union has for me been a shattered dream, but I have said today 'what many people have told me are their thoughts. I do not wish to become an oath-taking citizen of the federal states of the European Union. I simply want to be British and English in a loose association of European member states. I can only hope and pray that we do not be become so submerged in the United States of Europe that we drown in its regulation. If we do, I am certain that our children and grandchildren will never forgive us.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned that Mr Hain said that there was a referendum before we went into the Common Market. If he said that, he was completely in error. There was no referendum before we went in, but there was one in 1975 as to whether we should remain in.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making that very important point.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the acquis communautaire; comitologie; COREPER; competence; Corpus Juris; collapsing the pillars; concentric circles and variable geometry; the democratic deficit; directives, regulations, common positions, framework decisions and derogations; enhanced co-operation; flexibility; tax harmonisation; the hierarchy of norms; inter-governmentalism; legal personality; qualified majority voting; the Petersburg tasks; Schengen; the Social Chapter; sovereignty; the treaty-making power of the royal prerogative; Protocol 30 and subsidiarity—no wonder people find the subject of Europe very confusing and boring.
And what do we mean by "Europe"? Do we mean the continent of different nations which we know, respect and even love? Or do we mean the European Union, that corrupt octopus in Brussels, which many of us fear and dislike intensely?
The trouble is that one cannot really participate in the debate about our relationship with the European Union unless one has a pretty good idea about all the expressions I have mentioned, and a good many more.
1370
For example, a normal human being might think that if Brussels has "competence" to do something, then Brussels should be capable of doing it and even do it competently. But in Eurospeak, of course, "competence" does not mean that at all. It means that Brussels has power over us in that regard, and normally uses that power incompetently, dishonestly and always in a way that we could do much better by ourselves or in friendly collaboration with other countries of Europe, without the filter of the European Union at all.
The common agricultural and fisheries policies come to mind, of course, as other noble Lords have mentioned. But it is hard to think of any policy to which it does not apply or of any benefit that we have actually enjoyed from our membership of the European Union which we could not have had without it.
So I have to say that I and other Euro-realists are really very grateful to M. Giscard d'Estaing and his collaborators for producing such a sparklingly clear constitution for the future EU. A normal human being can now read and understand exactly what is proposed and can also see, perhaps for the first time, just how much of our sovereignty we have already given away.
It is one of the oldest tricks of the Europhile's trade to claim that if something which we did not notice at the time is already in the treaties, it must be all right. "This is not new", they say, "so there's nothing to worry about". I am afraid that the noble Lords, Lord Grenfell and Lord Maclennan, gave us an example of that today.
Let us take, for example, legal personality. Article 4 of the draft constitution simply says:
"The Union shall have legal personality".
The Europhiles say that that is harmless because the EU already has legal personality, which, indeed, de facto, it does. It can conclude international trade agreements on behalf of the whole EU. But the convention proposes to extend the powers which go with the new explicit legal personality massively, as my noble friend Lord Blackwell and other noble Lords have revealed.
I would add that with the new legal personality, the EU flag, which at the moment is mere advertisement and requires a local authority licence before you can display it, will presumably achieve the status of a national flag. Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" will presumably be promoted to the status of the EU's national anthem.
More worryingly, could I ask the Minister—she has not been asked many things—a question which I have asked before but to which I have never had a satisfactory answer? Can Her Majesty's Government give a clear assurance that when the EU has legal personality, and after Parliament has rubber-stamped the outrageous EU arrest warrant, as, according to the treaties, we must, one will not be committing the crime of xenophobia when one speaks against the European Union? Could calling it the "corrupt octopus in

1371
Brussels", or worse, then lay one open to prosecution? I should be most grateful if the noble Baroness could answer that this time.
I have little doubt that the Minister will reply that that question is entirely fanciful. If that is her intention, could I take her back to our debates on the Maastricht Treaty in 1992? I know that she was not with us at the time, but at Maastricht an amendment was made to the treaty establishing the European Community—the treaty which was there before Maastricht—to introduce the concept of citizenship of the European Union. Every person holding the nationality of a member state became a citizen of the new Union, whether they liked it or not. Article 8.2 of the TEC went as follows:
"Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty, and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby".
Some of us who did not like it put down amendments to discover what those rights might be. We were even more worried by what our new duties might be. I fear it is a matter of record that the Lord Chancellor of the day tried to dismiss our fears—several times—by saying that the new rights, whatever they might have been, did not carry with them any duties. There were no duties; it was just Eurospeak, and so we could all relax.
Well, now we see the emerging duties which we always feared. The proposed European constitution will found a new Union, separate from the member states, with its own legal personality, laws and supreme court. The primacy of Union law and the constitution becomes explicit, together with the proposed harmonisation of criminal laws and procedures, new legal instruments, some of which are delegated to the Commission, and the wholesale switch to qualified majority voting. Oh yes, my Lords, we shall have duties all right, and we shall owe them to the corrupt octopus in Brussels and not to Her Majesty the Queen in Parliament.
So we must not be fooled into accepting even the status quo just because it has been cleverly hidden in the intolerable verbiage of the treaty wordings and the Commission has decided that the time has come to bring it into the open and perhaps to embellish it.
As to the detail of the proposed new constitution, I suppose that we may dare to hope, as other noble Lords have suggested, that the new common foreign and security policy, or EU army, as the President of the Commission more accurately describes it, is a deadish duck. If so, we must be grateful to M. Chirac, who so admirably reflects France's deep psychotic need to bite the hands that freed her in two world wars.
But, apart from that, it looks as though the eventual treaty will contain most, if not all, of the frightening features of the present drafts. I am aware that the Government, like all British governments before them, are about to enter the usual "we shall negotiate to get what we want" phase. That is what happened, after all, at Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice, to no real effect.
But, as my noble friend Lord Howell and others have pointed out, the Prime Minister appears to have already agreed most of it in his Cardiff speech last
1372
November. I would also draw your Lordships' attention to his Madrid communiqué with Mr Aznar last 28th February, as did my noble friend Lady Blatch, but perhaps I could give your Lordships three very brief extracts:
"The UK and Spain support a strong and independent Commission. We want to extend its power of initiative, particularly, in the area of Justice and Home Affairs".
Then:
"We should explore the scope for recognising in the Treaty a category of 'delegated acts' for implementing framework laws…Lastly we must strengthen the role of the Commission President, preserving his/her independence and democratic accountability".
I suppose that that may be because the Prime Minister is rumoured to want the job himself. I do not know.
The next quote is:
"The European Parliament, as the body which is directly elected by the citizens of Europe, must be developed further. Its powers have been successively expanded coinciding with each reform of the Treaties. The future Constitutional Treaty cannot and shall not be an exception in this respect".
Whatever the Prime Minister's position, and one can only hope that Iraq may change it, the Government's negotiators have clearly been already swept along on the tide of their Europhilia and in the wake of the convention's incestuous and inward-looking determination. However, I have to agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, if it does not cause him too much inconvenience. It is clear that the Government have given in far more than they should have done in the convention because they are unable to play with the toy of the euro in the European nursery.
If I am wrong and unanimity is not reached on the new treaty, can the Minister tell the House what happens about Clause 48 of the TEU, which requires unanimity for any treaty change? Could the "enhanced co-operation" procedures of the Nice Treaty come into play, allowing those that want to go ahead with the new constitution to do so? But, if so, what happens to those countries which do not go forward with it? Will they be stuck with the existing treaties, or will they be offered some new form of associate status, as M Giscard d'Estaing has suggested?
Clearly, some of your more Europhile Lordships would regard associate status, perhaps along the lines of a free trade arrangement, as being cast into outer darkness. But that is what the British people thought they voted for in 1975, and a substantial proportion of them want to go back to it. We Euro-realists do not regard leaving the European Union as a retrograde step, looking backwards, as the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, suggests. We regard it as liberating, refreshing, new, forward-looking and enriching in every way. So, roll on associate status as far as we are concerned.
But my worst fear is that, given the requirement for unanimity and the controversy of these proposals—the 1,000 amendments which have been tabled and so on—we shall not end up with a new treaty at all. Instead, we may go into yet another renegotiation of the present treaties, with all the usual obfuscation and deceit in the new drafting, and with all the doors left unlocked through which the Eurocrats later wish to

1373
walk, which hardly anyone will spot and virtually no one will understand. In other words, more of the same. That to me would be the worst possible outcome and I hope we shall be on our guard if it happens.
If, on the other hand, anything similar to the present draft comes before us for ratification, I join other noble Lords in saying that it should be unthinkable for the Government to use the treaty-making power of the royal prerogative and steamroller it through Parliament. Yet that is what the Government have said they intend to do, and I find it very hard to believe.
The proposals now before us quite simply spell the end of British democracy; the extinction of the right of the British people to elect and dismiss those who make their laws and levy their taxes. The proposals before us would therefore herald a change as great as that brought about by the Norman conquest, or which we faced in the last war. If the Government think they can get away with imposing such fundamental change without a full and clear national debate in language which the people can understand, and if they think they can do so without a referendum, they must be mad.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I am glad that at last we have the opportunity to debate some aspects of the convention. I much regret that we have been unable to do so in government time long before now. I have been looking again at the excellent reports which the EU Committee published for our attention. I note that they were published for information but, indeed, that the report of the national parliaments states it is hoped that it will contribute to the debate to which the committee looks forward to having in government time. Unfortunately, it has been held in Conservative debate time and I regret that it has been dominated by such a Eurosceptic tone.
The noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, is right to draw attention to the significance of the convention and the importance of having an informed and open public debate on this subject. This is an important exercise. It was intended to involve national parliaments in a wider process of debate. Our four parliamentary representatives have worked extremely hard to report back to both Houses and to their respective committees. The two committees have worked extremely hard. There have been some excellent reports. The Joint Standing Committee has met to discuss the monthly reports which our representatives have given us on successive occasions. I regret there has been very little encouragement from the Whips of any of our parties to attend the Joint Standing Committee. There has been no government-led debate and no Green Paper or White Paper. Despite urges from many noble Lords that there should be some government leadership in this, sadly there have been few ministerial speeches.
So, we are left to a Conservative-led debate linked to a call for a referendum and, as has been made clear, to calls for Britain to opt out of the wickedness of continental integration, even to leave, as the noble
1374
Lord, Lord Stevens, bids us to do now, or to look forward to some limited opted-out associate status, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. That is not where we should be.
The purpose and the progress of the convention, after all, has been relatively clear. As the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, said, it is an improvement on the four intergovernmental conferences which national governments within the European Union have dragged through since 1985. Noble Lords will remember the Single European Act, which Mrs Thatcher famously signed and on which she did not ask for a referendum, and which, indeed, in many ways was the biggest single revision of the original treaties that we have so far been engaged in.
The question of whether we need a referendum now and the suggestion that somehow Britain still remains an independent and sovereign nation to this day but that we would lose it catastrophically if we were to move a step further forward is a great deal different from where we are now.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, referred to an obscure lecture he gave in 1996. I remember an obscure lecture given by the noble and learned Lord in 1985 in which he talked of "pooled sovereignty". I believe it was published as an article the following year in International Affairs. In that lecture he argued, I believe to his own Government as much as to anyone else, that we had great advantages in recognising that one could not have either full sovereignty or no sovereignty, but that we were in an international process in which it was to our advantage to share sovereignty with other governments on an increasing range of issues.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, clearly bitterly regrets, we have now also begun to share some of our sovereignty with Scotland and Wales and will perhaps, in time also, to a limited extent share it with the English regions. We are now the most centralised state in Europe. The French have begun to decentralise. We are now the country in which at a given time each week one could almost tell what the Secretary of State has insisted should be taught in every English school. It would be rather better if we were willing to be a little more decentralised. I felt that I was hearing, particularly in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, the authentic old-fashioned voice of unionism, of the Conservative and Unionist party resisting Home Rule for Ireland, insisting that the imperial parliament and monolithic sovereignty is the only thing we can have. When I was extremely young I used to hear people make wonderful speeches on that, when the Empire still existed.
We have moved a little way beyond that. Some of the speeches I heard today reminded me immensely of things I heard when I was very young. Indeed, I have the distant memory that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who has just returned to his place, make almost exactly the same speech at the time of the 1975 referendum. I do not think much has changed in the content since then.

1375
The convention was intended to promote a wider debate. It is not totally unrepresentative. There are national government representatives, almost all of whom are Cabinet Ministers. We have the Secretary of State for Wales. A number of other governments have their foreign Ministers. It is not decisive; it is consultative. There is an intergovernmental conference to follow, which may or may not take as long as the previous intergovernmental conferences. The style is better than the last four intergovernmental conferences, most of which were guided by Conservative governments, although with the Treaty of Amsterdam everyone else became so fed up with the inability of the Conservative Government to come to any decision that they waited until the British general election before they completed the intergovernmental conference.
What is the aim? To some extent it is primarily about simplification and clarification. It is true that there are those within the convention, particularly those from the European Parliament, who are still pursuing a substantial expansion of powers. They have unusual weight in the praesidium and to some extent are attempting to push their agenda against the overall weight of the convention. If national parliaments were more fully engaged in that we would be countering those who still want to pursue a more centralist agenda. However, the confusion and technical complexity of the last four revisions of the treaty justifies simplification and clarification.
I remember one of the permanent representatives who negotiated the Maastricht Treaty of the European Union saying that if he had understood during negotiations that at the end of it this document would be distributed to every household in Denmark, they would have understood that they were conducting a slightly different exercise. Indeed, it was the distribution of that immensely complex document to every household in Denmark that had much to do with losing the Danish referendum. After all, it was immensely difficult to understand.
If there is a major extension of powers at the outcome not of this convention but of the following intergovernmental conference, clearly there will be a case for a referendum. If it is a matter much more of simplification and clarification, what is needed above all is informed public debate led by a government. Referendums catch public attention. Those of us who were engaged in the 1975 referendum will remember how much that focused a public debate on the European issue. Public opinion shifted quite radically over the course of the referendum debate splitting eventually 2:1 in favour of remaining inside.
The case against referendums;—as in Ireland and Denmark now—is that after a while, if there are too many on issues that are not so central, public exhaustion and inattention creep in because the public do not share the sense of urgency. The Irish referendum on the Nice Treaty, without an immense effort from political leaders, led to an extremely low turnout and an initial "No" vote.
1376
The mistaken style of successive Governments—Conservative and now Labour—is part of our problem in Britain. Governments have always tended to present European commitments as things that are not new—saying that we have already accepted them 10 years before—rather than accepting where we are and how we are changing. I am sorry to say that the present Government are following the same path as their predecessors.
What issues are involved in the convention? I hope that we all accept the tremendous advantages of the current enlargement to an EU of 25 and want the successful introduction of those former socialist countries to an area of peace, security and prosperity, which is what an EU of 25 will be about. However, that will have costs.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, briefly, the noble Lord knows that we do not all agree that enlargement is a good thing. We think that it is a bad thing for the emerging economies of Eastern Europe; they cannot possibly afford it and they are far better off on their own, retaining their democracies under NATO.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I apologise; I had not accounted for the eccentricity of the views of the noble Lord. The representatives of 28 states are present in the convention; it is not a convention in which the views of the candidates are being taken for granted. But we clearly need more effective decision-making. I want a European Union that is able to do less a great deal better, with a smaller Commission and a stronger Council leadership. The rotating council presidency must clearly change. Perhaps we need a much more effective Council presidency or a team presidency.
However, the question of subsidiarity and national parliaments is an important issue to which we have not yet paid sufficient attention and on which the convention, the praesidium, is going in the wrong direction. We want a strengthened role for national parliaments, to resist the tendency for those in Brussels to believe that when things are done in Brussels, they are necessarily done better and to strengthen democratic checks.
I welcome the ideas that Gisela Stuart advanced for not just a yellow card when a sufficient number of national parliaments question Commission proposals, but for a red card, whereby if two-thirds of national parliaments object to proposals, the Council should have to vote on the basis of unanimity. All of that needs to be advanced. I should also like national parliaments to have much closer links with their national Members of the European Parliament.
I regret that so much of the debate has been at a different level, with many old arguments repeated and with the linking of the defence of an absolutist view of British sovereignty with support for Anglo-Saxon solidarity—indeed, following the United States. It is always a great oddity about anti-Europeanism in this country that those who think that any further cooperation with France, Germany, the Netherlands and

1377
Belgium is an invasion of British sovereignty seem to assume that when we follow what Washington tells us, that is not in any sense a derogation of British sovereignty. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, captured that well in his comparison of America to God the Father—something that we therefore have to follow—with the European Union as the serpent tempting Eve.
There is a real divide here. It is a divide between the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, about whether we are "America Firsters" or Europeans—"Europe Firsters". As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, Iraq presents a real difference in that debate. That is our biggest divide. I strongly agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, that common foreign policy and a more effective basis for European co-operation in foreign policy is the priority. On the question of how we rebuild European collaboration to balance the United States—not to oppose the United States but to answer the call made by President Kennedy in 1962 that the United States would be better off with a European pillar to balance it—I stand on one side of the divide and some noble Lords who have spoken stand on the other.
In this House, we suffer from Gresham's law in European debates. Euro-scepticism drives out reasoned debate on other Benches. I apologise for the fact that my Benches have been rather empty this afternoon; I note that the Labour Benches have been emptier than usual. We need an informed debate on the preferred outcomes and on the details of reform. Britain has now been in the European Union for 30 years. The world has changed around us. We have had the end of the Cold War and surges of asylum-seekers, people smugglers and trans-national crime—a whole set of changes of circumstance to which our Government and others must react.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, suggested that what we really need is a flexible structure for European co-operation. If it is to be flexible, it must react to changes in the international environment. The convention is addressing some of those issues—not as well as it should, but at least it provides the opportunity and focus for debate. I wish that the Government were leading the British response rather more and encouraging the British Parliament to pay more attention to what is under discussion.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he has had a very good deal of fun at my expense and at that of others who have spoken in the debate. Does he regard loyalty to country and sovereignty and a concern for the integrity of the United Kingdom as a country as a sin?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I was brought up on the novels of JA Henty. I used to believe that Britain—or England—was a wonderful empire different from the rest. I have moderated my views on that. Patriotism and pride in one's country is fine, but pride in one's country does not have to involve hatred of all other countries except the United States.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, might not the noble Lord be confusing patriotism with nationalism?
6.57 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, will not respond on his outrageous accusation.
I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Blackwell for introducing today's debate—an issue to which, as my noble friend Lord Howell said, we attach great importance. I agree with my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth that we should have more debates on the subject—and in Government time. It is disappointing that there are no speakers from the Government Benches on this vital subject, apart from the Minister.
I have not been disappointed by the quality of speeches from all sides of the House. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said, it has been a sensible and reasoned debate. I was especially pleased to listen to my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon. I compliment him on the excellent work that he and others performed in producing their memorandum to the convention. It contained much solid good sense and practical reforms, not vainglorious ambitions.
We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, Chairman of the European Union Committee, for the knowledge and expertise that he brings to the House. I welcome the Select Committee's request for greater openness in the Council when they are legislating. I was also glad to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan. The whole House will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, about the hard work that the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, has performed at the convention and in keeping the House Informed.
I was not surprised at the widely divergent opinions—from those noble Lords who welcomed the constitutional shift presented by the convention's draft proposals to those who fear subjugation of Britain's sovereignty and the creation of a more powerful but less accountable central bureaucracy. My noble friend Lord Blackwell set out the two vital questions: first, do the proposals amount to a major constitutional shift in the nature of the European Union and its relations with nation states, or are they simply a minor codifying of the rules, and, secondly, should the Government hold a referendum? By my count, today the response by the majority of speakers to both questions has been "Yes".
My noble friend Lord Blackwell pointed out that the proposed constitutional treaty should be seen as a once-in-a-lifetime constitutional change. My noble friend Lord Howell, in a very powerful speech, described it as a "blockbuster" and the most important and far-reaching piece of EU legislation ever to come before us, giving the EU institutions a new source of legitimacy above the nation states. Both believe that the Prime Minister should reject the constitution idea. The House has heard some very strong speeches following on from the theme of my two noble friends. A healthy majority has supported the call for a referendum.

1379
No one can doubt that this country's relationship with the EU is vital for our future. The shared cultural heritage and attachment to democracy is far greater than any differences, and the EU forms part of the bedrock of western alliances. We always have been, and, I hope, always will be, intimately connected to the European mainland. I myself have worked in France, and my children have had part of their education there. No matter how often our governments may quarrel—and they will—our affairs will be entwined with those of our European neighbours.
Indeed, the EU has accomplished much to advance the European family of nations. It has increased our prosperity through the single market, which some of my noble friends here did so much to establish. The freedoms that it creates allow thousands of Britons, from students to businessmen, to travel, live and work in the EU. Moreover, the European Union has brought stability to young democracies. We have seen that in Portugal, Spain and Greece, and we very much hope that that will be the case in the new democracies of eastern Europe. I was privileged to visit Estonia last year, and I know how much they look forward to the challenges of EU membership.
The EU, then, has accomplished much, and there is still much to do. The single market must be completed, and enlargement must be made a success. But for the EU to be a success in the 21st century, it needs radical reform and a change of attitude among its leaders. I feel that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was far removed from the views of most noble Lords, particularly on the EU loyalty issue.
While the world's attention is, naturally, focused on the war in Iraq, the outcome of the Convention on the Future of Europe has not diminished in importance. It remains the case that any constitutional treaty emerging from the convention is meant to provide the EU's framework for many, many years to come.
I agree entirely with my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that the convention should not be constrained by an artificial timetable, and particularly in a rush to have a new Treaty of Rome.
The convention was set a vital task. The Laeken declaration rightly stated that,
"the European Union must become closer to its citizens".
The EU faces a crisis of democratic accountability and connection with its peoples. Turnout for European elections has fallen below an average of 50 per cent across Europe. My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch is right to point out that many electors find the subject of Europe very boring. We on these Benches want this grave predicament for the EU solved. We want an EU fit for the 21st century and a membership of 25 or more. We want an EU able to deliver its core tasks, the job its people want it to do, the job it was set up to do: helping provide prosperity and stability in Europe.
1380
During this debate, many noble Lords were not confident that the convention would meet that challenge. Their fears are shared by our representatives in the European Parliament and, as several noble Lords pointed out, the honourable member for Edgbaston, Gisela Stuart, the only British parliamentarian on the praesidium. She warned, in an interview with the Independent, that the constitution could make the EU more bureaucratic, complicated and remote from its voters.
When the first draft articles of the constitution were published there was, she said, "fairly serious disquiet" from governments. She added:
"I was taken aback by the strength of the reaction. If they find it difficult to accept this, how do you think the public feels?"
She said that, although many voters appeared unhappy with the status quo, the convention was,
"embarking on a process of expanding that. Unless that is what people really want, you get a huge gap developing between the people who make the decisions & the electorate. That is when you get the Le Pens and the far right".
For the honourable Member, who is seen as one of the main architects of the draft constitution, that was quite an admission. We, on these Benches, have warned for a long time that there is a huge gap developing between the people who make the decisions and the electorate.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Blatch, Lord Saatchi, Lord Stevens of Ludgate and Lady Seccombe, mentioned Article 14 and the implementation of a common foreign and security policy. The effect of the war in Iraq will shift the post-war debate in ways that we would be foolish to underestimate. As my noble friend Lord Blackwell said, it seems inconceivable that the Government would consent to a constitution that contained this clause. Like him and a number of other noble Lords, I would welcome the Minister's specific assurance on that point. It is no surprise that the convention has postponed discussion of the place of the CFSP in any new treaty until the situation has settled.
A number of noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lord Shaw of Northstead, mentioned national parliaments. I agree with the honourable Member for Edgbaston that they are too weak. I detected the same thought from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. The consensus of the convention appears unable to recognise that national parliaments, for all their faults, are the political bodies that the peoples of Europe understand best and to which they feel closest. They must have real power over European legislation. It is pleasing that they should be able to warn of breaches of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. National parliaments must be allowed to halt legislation if it breaches those principles.
The important Articles 26 and 27 have not been mentioned. Does the Minister agree that the draft constitution provides far too little legislative oversight on what the document calls "non-legislative acts"? After all, many of the envisaged "non-legislative acts" are, in fact, legislative in character. Will those non-legislative acts not affect what the draft constitution calls "framework laws", at present known as directives, which are

1381
supposed to leave more discretion to national parliaments on their implementation? Article 249 of the current EC Treaty states:
"A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods."
Will the proposed non-legislative acts diminish that national discretion? The draft constitution provides for no national parliamentary oversight. That is yet another example of how the draft constitution has all the wrong priorities, centralising—not devolving—decision making.
That measure even manages to diminish democratic accountability, which is already in inadequate supply in the EU. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point in her winding-up speech and tell the House what the Government propose to do to remedy the situation. Does the Minister agree with the Conservative members of the convention that the competencies given to the EU by the constitution are excessive and should he reduced?
Until its final report is published and agreement is reached in the Council of Ministers, it is uncertain whether the convention will signal the final steps towards putting in place a fully fledged European political union or mark the high tide of the integrationists by reinforcing national sovereignty. Many people would disagree with the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, about the speech made by my noble friend Lady Blatch. Many people, myself included, are proud of this country and of the Union.
It should come as no surprise that the draft constitution is so ambitious. That is the nature of constitutions; they are not like golf club rules. They redistribute the balance of power. Whatever the content, any constitution would represent one of the greatest changes in the balance of power that our country has ever experienced. I find it disappointing that the Government that set up referendums for a variety of purposes in Scotland, Wales, London and Hartlepool refuse to allow the British people a say on a European constitution.
The convention's final text should not be a constitution for a federal European state. The Government have tabled many amendments to the draft constitution. I hope that they will now devote all their energies to fighting for a Europe of nations, not a nation of Europe.
7.12 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I begin by adding my voice to those of many noble Lords who congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, on introducing the debate today. The Convention on the Future of Europe is considering many important issues in an effort to mould a Union that will serve us well in the years to come. It is right that the House should have sufficient opportunity to debate those matters.
As always, the subject of Europe has brought out some fine speeches and some of the strongest convictions that we hear expressed in your Lordships'
1382
House. There has been a wide-ranging and fascinating discussion of many—though by no means all—of the key issues raised by the convention. I echo the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, concerning the two Members of the House who are alternates on the convention: the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogan, who is in his place, and my noble friend Lord Tomlinson, who is in Brussels on convention business this afternoon. I also commend the valiant efforts of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal and the enormously hard work that she has undertaken on our behalf on the matter.
As the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Maclennan of Rogan, implied, the convention has moved into its most crucial phase, with the consideration of the draft treaty articles produced by the presidium. I am delighted that the Select Committee on the European Union, under the wise leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, has been so active and so swift in its consideration of the draft treaty articles. I thank the noble Lord and his committee for all their hard work. Like the noble Lords, Lord Astor of Hever and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, I commend the papers that they have produced to your Lordships.
Despite what some of your Lordships evidently believe—I enjoyed the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross—the fact is that, we have made considerable progress in the convention discussions so far. For example, we have secured a substantial new and formal role for national parliaments to ensure that action is taken at the appropriate level, national or European. That is the early-warning mechanism for enforcing the subsidiarity principle to which the noble Lords, Lord Blackwell, Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Grenfell, referred. As we heard in some detail during the debate, at the beginning of the year my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal worked very hard to ensure that the European Charter of Fundamental Rights did not change the competences in those crucial respects of the EU. We resisted pressure to make further moves towards qualified majority voting in social policy. We argued that the provisions introduced by the Treaty of Nice needed to be tested first. That does not mean that we are, in any sense, complacent.
I agreed with many noble Lords that there is still a great deal of work to be done. That point was made forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. Work needs to be done to protect the United Kingdom's key interests and to ensure that the progress made on the working groups is not undone in the draft articles prepared by the preasidium. It is always important to remember that there will be others who wish to see some adjustments to what has come out of the convention so far. Not all those adjustments will necessarily be welcome to us.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, said in his well crafted contribution, it is important to remember how much hard work lies ahead. I assure the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord. Lord Cobbold, that there is no fixed agenda for the intergovernmental conference. As your

1383
Lordships will know, the date is set for 2004, but there is some argument about when it should be. Some argue for it to happen sooner, towards the end of this year. The key point for Her Majesty's Government is that the IGC must allow full participation by the accession states so that they can debate the form of the European Union that they will join. We also believe that it is important that there is space between the end of the convention and the beginning of the IGC for national parliaments to consider the issues fully. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, will be comforted by that. Again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth—I hope that he is not too embarrassed by the degree of agreement between us—that it is important that the public be informed and the information disseminated on all the key issues.
I turn to the draft treaty articles, starting with Articles 1 to 16. As many of your Lordships have said, the first set of draft treaty articles—on the values and aims of the EU—created a stir, and rightly so. They cover issues that go to the heart of the debate about Europe. They tell us about the genesis of the Union, its objectives and the values to which, we hope, we all subscribe. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, implied, there are some odd elements—it might be appropriate to describe them as surprises—in the draft articles before us that do not reflect the conclusions and recommendations of the convention's working groups or the plenary session discussions.
At the same time, we should remember that the draft articles contain some good ideas, such as the new subsidiary mechanism, to which many of your Lordships referred, and set out more clearly the competences of the Union and of member states, although, as we all know, we do not agree fully with those lists. We have also prepared for supporting action that confirms that, in certain areas—education, for example—the Union cannot harmonise legislation. If we do not support proposals, we have submitted amendments to the convention. Your Lordships will recall that the Secretary of State for Wales, the Government's representative at the convention, spoke out strongly on several issues as soon as we saw the draft. Both Peter Hain and my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal raised concerns about the "federal" reference, as many of your Lordships have done today. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, pointed out, the term "federal" means different things to different people in different countries. I agree with the noble Lord that the constitutional treaty should simply say what we mean: that is, that certain policies are co-ordinated at European level to achieve goals that member states cannot achieve for themselves.
I must make it clear that, like several of your Lordships, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi—I am sorry to see that he is not in his place—we were especially unhappy with the language on economic governance and foreign policy. We shall not accept these becoming full Community competences. The proposals do not reflect the discussion in the working groups. The economic governance group, for example,
1384
was split and did not come to a conclusion. The external relations group agreed that there should be no communitisation of foreign policy. We also emphasised the need to preserve distinct arrangements for the common and foreign security policy and some aspects of justice and home affairs, to which I shall return later.
The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, took issue with the way the draft treaty articles deal with who has responsibility, or what, indeed, are the competences. I agree with some of his points. The Government have raised concerns on some of these issues. We have made it clear that what we want is what the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, said; namely, a scheme of competences that is clear, flexible and simple. There is also a need for accuracy and legal certainty. The scheme must allow us to protect and safeguard our own national interests. The convention president has publicly accepted the need for a constitutional treaty to clearly state that the power of the Union comes from the member states and not the other way around.
I turn to the draft treaty Articles 20 to 33, which are the second set. I think that it is right that these are much more technical than the first set which we received. But that does not make the second set any less important. Much of this set is related to simplifying the Union to make the processes less complex and, it is to be hoped, easier for people to understand. That is a good thing.
We want more people to understand how the European Union works. Again, I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, that we are all for simplifying and reducing the number of instruments and terms used. Introducing words such as law and framework law will make it easier to follow what is going on in Brussels compared to the current mix of terms recited by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
While we naturally support greater clarity and simplicity for the instruments, we must maintain a distinct range of instruments for CFSP in the new treaty. After all, most of CFSP is not based on legislation and the various institutions really do have very different roles. While we support co-decision and QMV as the general rule for legislation, there will be exceptions. Therefore, we must examine each case on its merits. There will be instances that are simply not appropriate for all the articles.
Part 2 of the treaty contains the detail of the Union's policy and instruments. What we have seen so far is the result of a technical exercise to prepare the ground for merging the current treaties. The legal experts group responsible seems to have done a good job. We are content that those responsible have fulfilled and have stuck to their mandate—a very important point. But this does not mean that we agree with all the changes.
The legal experts group mandate was based on the conclusions of the simplification working group. We fully support that simplification, as I have clearly stated. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, was right in saying that we were looking at some extension of QMV on co-decision. But I assure him that we are doing that on a case-by-case basis. We

1385
would not, for example, accept QMV on taxation. We made that very clear when the simplification working group reported and we shall continue to make it clear.
Many of your Lordships, including the noble Lords, Lord Blackwell and Lord Maclennan of Rogart, mentioned the charter of fundamental rights. The United Kingdom's position has always been—we are not alone in this—that the charter, although welcome as a political declaration, was not drafted in a form suitable for incorporation in the treaties. That remains the case. The charter is not clear about what citizens may expect or from whom they may expect it. Such ambiguity and uncertainty is unsatisfactory for the law. The charter was not intended to change the competences of the Union. We must ensure that an incorporated charter is faithful to that.
However, we need not be afraid to look at ideas of how to give the charter some legal status. The challenge has been to find ways to give our citizens legal security and to give them certainty in relation to the charter's ambiguous or conflicting text. The working group came forward with some amendments to the so-called horizontal articles in the charter, plus the prospect of satisfactory official legal explanations to accompany it. That was endorsed by the plenary. It makes sense to decide how the charter might be recognised in the constitutional theory after work on the commentary has been completed.
My noble friend Lord Grenfell concentrated on the role of national parliaments. Indeed, many of your Lordships were very concerned on those points; notably, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and the noble Lords, Lord Shaw of Northstead and Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I remind noble Lords that at the moment national parliaments have no formal role in the EU. Given the abundance of knowledge that is present certainly in this House, that is clearly a flaw in the system. I am pleased, therefore, that the convention has recognised that national parliaments should be more involved in EU business. I welcome the wide endorsement of the UK's proposal to introduce an early-warning mechanism which would see national parliaments enforcing action being taken at an appropriate level.
I was rather sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, did not discuss this matter because I know how much he has concentrated on it in the past. Perhaps he did not believe that the new mechanism amounted to very much. I can imagine that, given his position, maybe he did not. But I would disagree if that is the basis of his not having made any mention of the matter. It is important because the Lacken declaration draws attention to the need for national parliaments to play a greater role in EU affairs.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for giving way. I would have mentioned it but, of course, we were limited to 14 minutes. I mentioned most things but I could not mention everything. I am pleased that national parliaments are at least mentioned in the convention.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, thank you very much. I regard it as something of a success to have obtained that admission from the noble Lord. But I believe that it is groundbreaking because it signals for the first time in the history of European Union co-operation that national parliaments, such as ours, have a formal role at EU level. That is very important; it is a significant achievement. I hope that your Lordships take the opportunity that the new mechanism will provide to demonstrate your extensive knowledge and. indeed, interest in European affairs.
The noble Lords, Lord Blackwell and Lord Shaw of Northstead, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, spoke extensively about subsidiarity. As I indicated, we have made good ground in obtaining support for the principle of subsidiarity to be more vigorously enforced. However, it is disappointing that there is not as much Interest in the partner principle of proportionality, a point many of your Lordships did not mention. This refers to how detailed and intrusive legislation may be, and, like subsidiarity, it was introduced by the Maastricht Treaty.
Of course, both principles—that of subsidiarity and proportionality—are essentially political. They certainly do not raise technical issues on which a court could be asked to rule. Given that natural linkage between the two, we are trying to generate support for proportionality to be considered by national parliamentarians in the same way as was envisaged for subsidiarity.
I turn to the question that exercised many of your Lordships about CFSP. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and the noble Lords, Lord Maclennan, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Astor of Hever, concentrated much of their remarks on this matter. Let us be clear: we said from the start of the convention that we must focus on making CFSP and EU external action more coherent and more effective. Inevitably, that involves some discussion of institutional issues. But it is not just about institutions. Much of the discussion in the External Action Working Group was about practical ways to improve the effectiveness of CFSP.
I say emphatically to your Lordships that communitisation is not the answer for CFSP. I am sure that we can agree on that. We, and many other member states, such as France, Spain and. Sweden, would not be prepared to accept communitisation of the CFSP. The intergovernmental nature of CFSP is the key to its success. ESDP is an integral part of CFSP. We, and many colleagues, firmly believe that only national governments can take the decision to pledge national troops to an ESDP operation. I believe that all your Lordships who spoke on that today could agree with that principle.
We should like to see better co-ordination between the high representative and the external relations commissioner. We have said that before. Our overriding objective is to improve the effectiveness of

1387
CFSP so that we would have to be satisfied that double-hatting would achieve that. It cannot be a way through the back door of communitising CFSP.
I know that there are concerns about extending QMV in CFSP. But, of course, we should note that although it is hardly ever used we already have QMV for any decision which implements joint actions or common positions and any decisions on the basis of common strategy. We would accept nothing that would threaten our national interests. That includes any challenge to a British seat as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister has not mentioned the fact that CFSP, like everything else, is to be brought within a single treaty. Does that mean that it will fall within the jurisdiction of the ECJ, or will we somehow devise a treaty that is partly governed by the ECJ?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in these respects, we would be looking at some extension of the European Court of Justice. I know what is worrying the noble Lord: it is the way in which the ECJ might then impinge on the ways in which our own troops operate. We have discussed these issues previously.
I still believe that we have a good deal of work to do on these issues, but I assure the noble Lord that we will not agree to anything we do not believe to be in the interests of this country, nor indeed of the commitment we have made that the disposition of British troops is a matter for the British Government, accountable to the British Parliament. I hope that that is a clear statement of where we stand at the moment on this issue, but I am sure that there will be much more to discuss on it.
Concern about the granting of legal personality was expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I believe that I responded to the point when I answered a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, on 20th March this year. I said that,
"the explicit grant of legal personality to the Union would have the advantage of clarity and simplicity. But if the European Union were to have its legal personality recognised in the European treaties, it could only be on the basis that the distinct arrangements for the common foreign and security policy and aspects of justice and home affairs were fully safeguarded. along with the existing arrangements for representation at international bodies".—[Official Report, 20/3/03; col 375.]
I repeat that assurance to your Lordships and remind them that that stance was endorsed by our own Select Committee. I believe that your Lordships will find it at paragraph 27 of its initial report.
I turn to justice and home affairs. Organised crime and migration are international issues which require international solutions. We need to co-operate with our European partners to ensure our security in the UK and the security of our citizens abroad. The draft treaty articles need to spell out clearly which JHA issues are for Europe and which are not. Europe can help the fight against cross-border crime, but it is not
1388
for Europe to tell us how we should be policing our streets, for example, or what our domestic criminal justice system should look like.
Where the proposed new treaty achieves that clarity, we will support it. Where it gets the balance wrong, we will argue hard for changes. In this, as in other matters, we are not in the business of signing up to anything which is against our national interest—a point I thought was implicit in the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, on the JHA aspects.
I am not persuaded of the need to create a European public prosecutor, for example. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, will again be pleased on that point. And we are not alone. Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Austria are also very firmly opposed. Her Majesty's Government believe that there are better ways to fight fraud. Prosecution should essentially be a national responsibility. Our national prosecutors are accountable to our courts and ultimately to our national parliaments and a European public prosecutor simply would not be.
In response to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, the proposals on criminal procedures do not respect the diversity of our legal system. We believe that they are too far-ranging and not sufficiently focused on cross-border crime. Our concern is that the proposals will potentially allow Europe to get into the workings of our national criminal justice system and we simply do not want that to happen.
Perhaps I may tell the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that he will be able to continue to speak with his customary gusto on all matters European, without any hint of sedition or treachery, and that we would all wish to protect his rights to free speech, which he enjoys with such colourful enthusiasm in your Lordships' House. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, that the proposals on police and co-operation are directed at fighting cross-border crime. There would be no question of the EU deciding how we police our own streets, as I have already indicated.
I agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, about welcoming a Union of 25. In a Union of 25, it makes sense that some things should be decided by majority voting if we are to co-operate effectively. We support majority voting for asylum and illegal immigration, for mutual recognition and for most substantive criminal issues. However, there are some areas where unanimity remains essential to us; for example, on criminal procedural law. We do not agree to anything which would allow new EU institutions or bodies to be set up without our agreement.
I wanted to make some points to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, about regional issues because some of his concerns ranged around them. However, as he was the only noble Lord who raised those points, I shall write to him about them.

1389
The noble Lord, Lord Shaw of Northstead, made some telling points about the relationship between the Council and the Commission. Our proposals for a full-time chair of the European Council are designed to give greater continuity and strategic coherence to the EU. In a Union of 25, a Council with a constantly changing chairman cannot be an effective partner for the Commission and Parliament. Just like those institutions, the European Council needs the continuity of the strategic drive of a long-term chairman if it is to play its full role in the dynamic new enlarged EU.
But let me be clear with the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Ludgate: this is not about creating a president of Europe, as he implied. We do not want that. The creation of a full-time Council chair would not involve giving the Council extra powers or creating an new institution. But we need a chair of the Council working in partnership with the president of the Commission. The chair could, for example, be responsible for getting sectoral councils to deliver on the EU strategic agenda and would report jointly, with the Commission president, on progress. In our view, that would lead to better co-operation between the EU institutions and the kind of balance which I thought the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, was supporting.
I want to say a couple of words on the question of the European Court of Justice because of the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. Our key aim here with reforming the ECJ is to improve its effectiveness. There were discussions in the convention on how best to improve the enforcement of EC law and to facilitate the Court's work. My noble friend Lady Scotland and the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, have been active members on the discussion group that was set up to look at the ECJ in more depth. The final report supports more effective appointment of judges and QMV for procedural matters, including the set-up of judicial panels. We warmly welcome that. We also support the moves afoot to improve the systems of penalties.
The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, spoke about extending access to justice. I understand from my noble friend Lady Scotland that in the discussion group on the issue there was a vigorous exchange of views hut, sadly, no agreement on that point. The Government are not convinced of the change needed to the current system; nor is the president of the ECJ.
I cannot close the debate without commenting on the referendum, as so many of your Lordships have raised it. The noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Seccombe, spoke at length on the referendum. As your Lordships know, the final recommendations to the convention will form the basis of discussions by leaders at the intergovernmental conference. It is at the IGC where the decisions will really be taken; not here, not now and not on these proposals in front of us. They will be taken at the IGC and on the basis of unanimity. So, in a sense, the noble Lords, Lord Blackwell and Lord Pearson of Rannoch, were right when they said that I
1390
would point out that these were only drafts and proposals and that we have negotiations ahead of us. I point it out because it is true.
The final decisions of the IGC will most likely take the form of the new treaty, as we all know. As is the norm for ratifying treaties, the Government intend to ensure that this Parliament scrutinises the treaty properly. This was the way in which we dealt with the Treaty of Nice; it was the way in which we dealt with the Treaty of Amsterdam; and, if I may say so, it was the way in which the Conservative government dealt with the Treaty of Maastricht and the Single European Act. The constitutional treaty for the EU would embed and clarify what already exists; that is, it would deal with a great deal of what has already been agreed, as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, pointed out.
There would of course be some new elements—that is self-evident—such as the early warning mechanism for national parliaments which reflects consensus in the convention and across member states. But that does not amount to the significant change in the crucial area of the relationship between the EU and its citizens, nor does it alter the position of EU member states as the fundamental basis for the Union.
Some of your Lordships have sought to draw comparisons with issues where referenda do or may take place. The convention's outcome will not create a new tier of government, as would the introduction of the regional assemblies in England, nor does the convention offer a once-in-a-lifetime choice such as whether or not to go into the euro. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that she should go back and look carefully at the Maastricht Treaty because, quite honestly, the changes in it are more far-reaching than those proposed in this treaty. It is slightly quirky to argue that—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. The point I sought to make is that this particular IGC will review the Treaty of Rome and every single amending treats that has since been created.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the IGC will be looking at them for the purposes of clarification, not for the purposes of changing what has been set out. When making comparisons between the treaties, I should stress in particular the point I made about the Treaty of Maastricht. That treaty laid down the stages for progress towards economic and monetary union. It created the citizenship of the European Union. Those changes were every bit as fundamental, if not more so, than those now being anticipated. But I see that noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite are supporting the noble Baroness by shaking their heads. This is an issue to which no doubt we shall return.
I am bound to say to noble Lords that we should listen closely to the wise words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. He asked the House to look carefully at how noble Lords on the Benches

1391
opposite are proceeding. What he said was enormously important. Again, I hope that I do not embarrass him by returning to that point.
The United Kingdom team; that is, the United Kingdom Government, Parliament and European parliamentary representatives, are fully engaged on the issue of the convention. We are proposing ideas, we are trying to persuade others, and we are listening closely to what is being said to us. Our efforts are focused on delivering the Europe that we believe British citizens want: a Europe that is safer, stronger and, indeed, a Europe that will be richer for the future. There can be no question of our not pursuing those aims. We have made some promising gains in devising a new political architecture for a Europe of 25 nations or more. There will be new responsibilities for this House as national parliaments take on an enhanced role in European Union affairs. A great deal remains to be done in continuing to protect our national interests, but we are confident that not only the Government, but also those noble Lords who take such an active interest in these debates, will be well capable of rising to the challenge.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. With other noble Lords, I should like to thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, for his contribution as chairman of the Select Committee and to thank him and his colleagues for the work they do on our behalf. I hope that he feels, as I do, that the speeches which followed his contribution, including a number from noble Lords with great experience in this area—I refer in particular to my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon and the noble Lords, Lord Williamson of Horton and Lord Maclennan of Rogart—lived up to his exhortation for an informed debate.
I am conscious that there would be some way to go before our five hours were all used. I do not intend to take up much of that time, but perhaps I may take a few minutes to make one or two comments and observations in the time we have available. I shall begin with the response of the Minister, for which I was very grateful. I thought that it was a reasonable and reasoned response which gave detailed answers to a number of specific questions raised in the debate. The problem for many noble Lords concerns the gap between the Minister's words of reassurance and the reality of the draft treaty before us. As she herself admitted, it includes a number of odd elements and surprises, along with areas that she spelt out where the Government would want to oppose the draft as it currently stands. I think that the jury is out and many noble Lords will want to study her words with care and compare them with what emerges over the coming weeks and months.
I shall return briefly to the two questions I raised at the start of the debate and the responses that have been drawn out of our discussion. The first question asked how important is the constitutional convention. It would be fair to say that a variety of views were
1392
expressed across the House about the changes that are likely to be effected. Some were hopeful and some were fearful of what was likely to emerge.
On the one hand, my noble friend Lord Norton described it as a paradigm shift in line with our initial membership. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said that he thought that the constitutional convention would have even greater significance than he had thought when it was initially set up. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, reminded noble Lords of the new era that the convention intends to usher in and that only a failure of nerve would lead to it turning into a treaty that was merely tidying up. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, made the point that it would mark the end of Britain as an independent nation state, while my noble friend Lord Stevens of Ludgate said that now the draft has been published, in practice it is very difficult to effect substantial changes.
On the other hand, my noble and learned friend Lord Howe thought that much discussion still has to take place and that the convention was waterlogged, so that it was not yet possible to see what is likely to emerge. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, saw the treaty as a document more concerned with clarifying rather than extending powers, but unlike my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, he remarked that he was surprised by the large areas of agreement already reached on what has been put forward. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said that the treaty was more concerned with simplification than extension.
In my view, the brunt of the argument, based on the draft before us, is that if it was enacted, we would see very significant changes. Furthermore, the fact that so many amendments have been tabled is not a source of reassurance. I suspect that it will be easier for those amendments to be ignored. As we have heard, there will be little time for each of them to be considered. However, time will tell. A more important point is one that I notice the Minister did not address: the Prime Minister has already agreed many of the key changes which, as they stand, many noble Lords would judge to be important.
My second question asked whether this is a matter on which we should hold a referendum. While a number of noble Lords said that they would not be opposed to a referendum in principle, others said that they wanted to wait to see what emerged. That follows on from the points that I have just made and here I indicate most notably the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, and my noble and learned friend Lord Howe. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, too, would fit into that category. The majority of noble Lords on all sides of the House have expressed support for the principle that if what emerges from the constitutional convention does have the kind of significance that has been suggested, they would support a referendum. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, for clarifying the Liberal Democrat position; namely, that a significant constitutional change should be either the explicit subject of a general election or the subject of a referendum. I agree with that view.

1393
For my own part, I am quite willing to accept that, while we must have debate along the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Norton and other noble Lords, the Government may want to wait until after the text is clear before reaching a judgment on whether this would be a matter for a referendum. I would be happy if ways could be found to minimise the concerns that have been expressed because that would mean that there would be no need for a referendum, a point made by several noble Lords. However, I judge that to be unlikely and I should say now that I would not be prepared to accept a prejudgment from the Government that a referendum would not be needed. It would be wrong to take such a decision at this stage.
In conclusion, I shall repeat what I said at the beginning of my remarks. If necessary, I would seek to table an amendment at the ratification stage when the Bill came before the House to enable noble Lords to make a judgment at that point on whether a referendum was appropriate and, if so, to require a referendum to be held before ratification took place. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Harbours Bill [H.L.]
7.48 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Berkeley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Boston of Faversham) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Amendment of procedure for dealing with applications for harbour orders]:
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out from "unless" to end of line 4 on page 2 and insert—

(a) he decides that the application shall not proceed further,

(b) he considers the objection is frivolous or trivial,

(c) the objection does not specify the grounds on which it is made, or

(d) the objection was not made within the period allowed for making it.

(1A) Before making his decision under paragraph 19, the Secretary of State may—

(a) cause an inquiry to be held, or

(b) give to the person who made the objection referred to in sub-paragraph (1) an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State.

(1B) Where—

(a) the objection referred to in sub-paragraph (1) is made by a person within sub-paragraph (1D), and

(b) that person informs the Secretary of State in writing that he wishes the objection to be referred to an inquiry or dealt with in accordance with sub-paragraph (1A)(b),
1394
the Secretary of State shall, before making his decision under paragraph 19, either cause an inquiry to be held or, if lie so determines, cause the objection to be dealt with in accordance with sub-paragraph (1A)(b)."

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 and, for the convenience of the Committee, to speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 5 to 11 inclusive, as well as to Amendment No. 13, also standing in my name.
Before going into the detail of the amendments, I should once more like to thank my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey for expressing at Second Reading the Government's support for the Bill and for the prompt publication of the regulators impact assessment.
The noble Lord, Lord Luke, asked at Second Reading which organisations had been consulted. I responded that organisations would be consulted after the regulatory impact assessment had been published. I can now state that the Environment Agency, English Nature, the RSPB and the British Marine Federation are generally supportive of the Bill.
The amendments have been prepared by Parliamentary Counsel. They do not make any difference to the substance of the Bill; they are technical drafting amendments. The Bill as introduced seeks to amend Schedule 3 to the Harbours Act 1964. The substantive clauses of the Bill—that is, Clauses 1 and 2—make amendments mainly to paragraphs 18 and 28 of Schedule 3. One deals with orders made on application to the Secretary of State—the most usual orders—and the other deals with orders made on the initiative of the Secretary of State.
The provisions of the Bill would make the minimum changes to Schedule 3 required to achieve the change in the law proposed by the Bill, while leaving the drafting of Schedule 3 as little changed as possible. The amendments improve and clarify the drafting of paragraphs 18 and 28 of Schedule 3 to the 1964 Act, as amended by the Bill. These provisions would be more complex if left unchanged. The improvements made by the amendments incorporate the changes to the law proposed by the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I reiterate the support the Government gave to the Bill at Second Reading. We are content with the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, leave out lines 11 and 12.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 12 and 14. Amendments Nos. 2 and 14 have been grouped with Amendment No. 4. Amendment No. 14 is the principal amendment in the group.
During Second Reading I mentioned that the Bill appeared to extend to Scotland. I explained that after the passing of the Scotland Act 1998, harbour matters in Scotland—such as the subject matter of the Bill—no longer fall within the competence of the Westminster Parliament but must be dealt with in the Scottish Parliament. As I indicated then, I am bringing forward

1395
Amendment No. 14, the effect of which is to make clear that the provisions in the Bill do not extend to Scotland. Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 are consequential on Amendment No. 14.
The Bill as introduced applied to its provisions the definition of "local authority" contained in paragraph 12 of Schedule 3 to the Harbours Act 1964. However, that definition includes references to Scottish local authorities which will not be needed because the Bill will not extend to Scotland. Amendment No. 2 seeks to leave out the application of the definition of "local authority" contained in paragraph 12 of Schedule 3, while Amendment No. 4 seeks to insert a new definition of "local authority" which is confined to local authorities in England and Wales.
The amendments in this group also have the benefit of being drafted by Parliamentary Counsel. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendments Nos. 3 and 4:
Page 2, line 14, leave out "(1B)" and insert "(1A)(b)".
Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
"( ) In sub-paragraph (3), paragraph (a) is repealed.
( ) After that sub-paragraph, there shall be inserted—
"(4) In this paragraph "local authority" means—

(a) in England, a county council, a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London, the Council of the Isles of Scilly, a parish council and a parish meeting of a parish not having a separate parish council, and

(b) in Wales, a county council, a county borough council and a community council.""

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Amendment of procedure where harbour revision orders are made by the Secretary of State of his own motion]:
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendments Nos. 5 to 13:
Page 2, line 21, leave out "or"
Page 2, line 23, at end insert ", or

(d) the objection was not made within the period allowed for making it."

Page 2, line 24, at beginning insert "Before making his decision under paragraph 29,"
Page 2. line 24, leave out ", if he so decides"
Page 2, line 26, leave out from "to" to "an" in line 27 and insert "the person who made the objection referred to in subparagraph (1)"
Page 2, line 31, leave out from beginning to "by" in line 33 and insert "the objection referred to in sub-paragraph (1) is made"
Page 2, line 38, after "shall" insert ", before making his decision under paragraph 29,"
Page 2, line 45, leave out "12" and insert "18(4)"
Page 2, line 45, at end insert—
"( ) In paragraph 29 of that Schedule (decision on harbour revision order proposed by Secretary of State), in sub-paragraph (1)(b), after "inquiry" there shall be inserted "and of any person appointed for the purpose of hearing an objector"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Short title, commencement, transitional provision and extent]:
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 14, after "to" insert "Scotland or"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Public Interest Immunity
7.56 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will review the law, practice and procedure of public interest immunity in criminal cases.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question I pose today has been sparked off by the answer that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General gave to the Starred Question of my noble friend Lord Goodhart on 6th November last year. The Question concerned reviewing the circumstances surrounding the prosecution of Paul Burrell.
In reply to my noble friend's supplementary question, which inquired about the public interest immunity issue, the noble and learned Lord said:
"No Minister was asked to give a public interest immunity certificate or to sign one; a draft certificate was not ever prepared; and nor was any consideration given by anyone to preparing such a certificate to place before the judge".—[Official Report, 6/11/02; col. 715.]
That is not an issue.
My first question to the Attorney-General is whether, following the Scott inquiry and report, it is the Government's intention ever to rely upon public interest immunity certificates again. In such instances, Ministers claim the immunity; the courts will not interfere and so they are effectively deciding the matter in their own cause. I had understood that the practice—at least so far as criminal proceedings were concerned—would fall into desuetude and the question of public interest immunity would be pursued in the ordinary way, allowing the court, the judge, to make the decision as to whether such immunity is properly claimed.
But that was not the Question my noble friend Lord Goodhart posed. The issue was why there were three days in the Paul Burrell trial on which the court did not sit and during which there were discussions between the prosecutor, on his own, and the judge. The prosecutor explained to my noble friend Lord Carlile at the time that a public interest immunity application was taking place. My noble friend contemporaneously noted it in his notebook, and I have seen his notes.
When pressed on the matter by myself, the Attorney-General said that the discussions with the judge were technically a PII application but were not

1397
what most of us would think of as a PII application; it was not an attempt to keep back evidence but to continue with the trial. But if the decision to withdraw the prosecution had already been taken, there was no need for three days' delay before that fact was communicated to the defence. If it had not been taken, then the possibility was still alive that the prosecution would continue with the case if the court was prepared to order non-disclosure of the sensitive material.
We now know that this material was, essentially, the recollection of Her Majesty with regard to some of the facts in issue. That was not sensitive in any of the senses set out in the code of practice under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, which covers national security, intelligence information, confidential information, identity of informants, police methods and so on.
Our concerns were immediately raised that matters, the disclosure of which were merely slightly embarrassing because of their very late discovery, were being withheld on the grounds of public interest immunity. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will give an assurance that it was not the intention to extend the boundaries of nondisclosure to matters which are merely embarrassing. I am not concerned so much with the facts of the particular case or the way in which it might have been embarrassing to certain people, but I am concerned that such applications should not be made where there is merely material that is embarrassing, particularly to political figures who might have the power to suppress information that the court should know about. Well, it is all water under the bridge now.
A date was fixed in January for this Question, rather closer to the time, but it was postponed. I do not think that either the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General or I understood why. Perhaps it was just coincidence that another case against another royal butler was withdrawn the day after the Question was due to be heard. However, I take this opportunity to discuss the efficacy of the current law, practice and procedure relating to public interest immunity applications. Those applications are now an industry involving many people in a considerable amount of work and labour which is, in my view, costly and not of great advantage.
The fundamental grievance of the present procedure from the point of view of the defendant is that applications are made to the judge in not only his absence but the absence of his legal advisers. So the judge hears an application in his chambers without any representation for the defendant, who naturally asks what on earth is going on.
The history of public interest immunity in criminal cases is not very long. There was in the past Crown privilege, a concept with which we were all very familiar. It covered informers and matters of that sort. That was rather different from the sort of concepts that have now emerged. The Attorney-General's guidelines in 1981, which had no force of law, set out exceptions to the common law duty to disclose to the defence evidence of potential assistance to it. Sensitive
1398
material, in particular, was defined in very similar terms to those in the current code of practice. The guidelines included,
"details of private delicacy to the maker…might create the risk of domestic strife".
That type of sensitive material no longer appears in the current guidelines.
In practice, such material was frequently disclosed by the prosecutor to defence counsel on a counsel-to-counsel basis. The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of—
Noble Lords: Bucklow.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords. I am sorry. The noble Lord gets confused with my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew, and I am doing the same.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, and I are very familiar with the counsel-to-counsel disclosures that used to take place without causing any problems at all. Then in the case of the R. v Governor of Brixton Prison, ex parte Osman in 1991, the Secretary of State at the Foreign Office sought public interest immunity for papers which had been handed to me, as I was involved in the case. They were protected by a public interest immunity certificate. For the first time, there was a firm declaration by the Court of Appeal. Lord Justice Mann said:
"The seminal cases in regard to public interest immunity do not refer to criminal proceedings at all. The principles are expressed in quite general terms. Asking myself why those general expositions should not apply to criminal proceedings, I can see no answer but that they do. It seems correct in principle that they should apply. The reasons for the development of the doctrine seem equally applicable to criminal as to civil proceedings".
Whereas Crown privilege was something claimed by a prosecutor in respect of documents in the hands of the police, we have now introduced the concept of a. third party—a government department—issuing public interest immunity certificates to protect disclosure in criminal proceedings.
In the case of Ward in 1993, it was stressed that it was for the court and not the prosecutor to decide where public interest immunity should be allowed. In that case, the Court of Appeal said:
"A judge is balancing on the one hand the desirability of preserving the public interest in the absence of disclosure against, on the other hand, the interests of justice. Where the interests of justice arise in a criminal case touching and concerning liberty or conceivably on occasions, life, the weight to be attached to the interests of justice is very great indeed".
In the case of Douglas shortly afterwards, the Court of Appeal stressed that the court itself must view the material in order to carry out an effective balancing exercise between the interests of justice and the interests of those claiming that the documents should not be disclosed.
In the case of Davis, Johnson and Rowe, three different procedures were then outlined. The prosecution could apply to the court and tell the defence, indicating the nature of the material, and the defence would have the opportunity to make representations without knowing the detail of the material to the judge, indicating what his defence was,

1399
and asking the judge to use his judicial capacity in coming to a decision when considering in private the material the prosecution were showing to him.
In the second procedure, where the material was more sensitive, the prosecution could notify the defence of the application but apply ex parte without revealing the nature of the material. Thirdly, there are in exceptional cases the secret applications, where the prosecution goes to the judge without telling the defence at all. The defence knows nothing about the application or the material that is put before the judge.
In the case of Keane in 1994, the practice that had then occurred, which involved the prosecution dumping all the material it had on the judge and asking him to sort out what was material and what was not, was said to be an abdication of the prosecutor's duty. It was put on the prosecutor that he had to carry out a preliminary sorting of the material documents. The prosecutor choosing what is and is not relevant without the defence knowing what he is talking about came into the system in 1994.
There have been later cases. The matter went to the European Court for a decision in the case of Jasper v the United Kingdom. On the facts of that case, it was held by nine to eight that the procedures of Rowe and Johnson were compliant with Article 6 of the convention. However, in a different situation from the facts of that case the result might very well have been different.
The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 set up a statutory scheme covering disclosure by the prosecution: primary disclosure, followed by the defence statement, followed by secondary disclosure. The code of practice that I have referred to came into force and the Attorney-General's guidelines were issued in November 2000. They said:
"The scheme of the Act…should also ensure that material is not disclosed which overburdens the participants in the trial process, diverts attention from the relevant issues, leads to unjustifiable delay, and is wasteful of resources".
In my view and experience, the operation of the Act does not fulfil those criteria. The first issue is practicability. The whole paraphernalia of investigators and disclosure officers listing everything is unnecessary, as is the provision of reams of bundles of unused material in almost every case. Straightforward inspection of all the disclosable material at a suitable police station by a defence team—by a solicitor or junior counsel—is all that is required.
Secondly, I find that applications are made in the most trivial of cases for the ruling of the judge on obvious things—names of informants, observation posts, police methods, makes of cars and so on—when a word to the defence would suffice. The procedure is over-used.
1400
Thirdly, an atmosphere of secrecy is created. The matters that are ultimately disclosed from these lengthy PII applications tend to be highly disappointing to the defence and rather trivial. As a prosecutor—a position that I hold from time to time—I find myself making applications that in my view are unnecessary.
The counsel-to-counsel systems are described in the Attorney-General's guidelines as,
"inconsistent with the requirement of transparency in the prosecution process".
Professionals ought to be able to exchange information on a confidential basis. The present situation—that the defence counsel does not know and cannot object to documents because there is a suggestion that he has an overriding duty to tell his client everything—could easily be overridden by an appropriate code of professional procedure that would allow us to return to the sensible counsel-to-counsel disclosures that we had in the past.
Finally, on principle, where there are serious issues in a serious case, there should be another route. PII applications should be limited to serious cases. I can see that the right to full disclosure is not absolute and can, in pursuit of a legitimate aim such as the protection of national security or of vulnerable witnesses—for example, medical records in a sexual abuse case or sources of information—be subject to limitations. But the accused's interests are not adequately protected under the present proceedings. A special counsel should be appointed to assist the court, as we have special counsel under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999—your Lordships will recall the issue of cross-examination when a defendant wishes to represent himself.
The special counsel is not responsible to the person whose interests he is appointed to represent and he is therefore entitled and obliged to keep confidential any information that cannot be disclosed. However, he can obtain instructions from the defence team. He can represent the defendant's interests and argue whether the criteria for withholding a specific form of information have been met. Rule 7 of the procedure rules under the SIAC Act is relevant. Obviously, such a procedure would be used only in the most serious of cases. I would welcome confirmation from the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General that at least the current problems, difficulties, extra expense and wasted time in our courts will be looked at.
8.14 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am unashamedly being an opportunist, and I intervene in the debate to speak on one aspect of public interest immunity alone, about which I have concerns. That aspect is the enforcement of sustaining the confidentiality of information subject to public interest immunity, when it has been determined by the courts.

1401
The context of my remarks is an incident when a policeman called Christopher Sherwood fired a weapon in the course of his duties, in what he believed was self-defence. A person called James Ashley died. I must declare an interest as a friend of the policeman's family. I am prompted to speak in the debate out of a deep sense of frustration about how the case was dealt with and the effect on Christopher Sherwood and his family of mishandling documents that were the subject of public interest immunity.
The background is as follows. On a day in January 1998, at four in the morning, 25 armed policemen 'were sent to raid a number of flats in a building in Hastings, in search of members of a group of people who 'were believed to be involved in drug dealing and were expected to put up considerable resistance against arrest. As the raid was under way, a crashing noise was heard that subsequently turned out to be an ironing board falling on a bare floor. A dog barked and, quite reasonably, Christopher Sherwood checked that they were to continue with the raid. The reply from a senior officer was. "Yes". Christopher Sherwood, together with a colleague, entered a flat and in the darkened room saw a person coming towards him with hands moving upwards and outwards as though he was about to shoot. In what must have been a split second, Mr Sherwood fired a single shot. Mr Ashley fell to the floor; Mr Sherwood tried to stem the wound; an ambulance was called and, sadly, Mr Ashley died as a result of the shooting.
A number of policemen, including Christopher Sherwood, were suspended. Two inquiries were put in hand. One dealt with Mr Sherwood and the shooting incident and the other with the role of senior officers in the planning of the incident.
It is almost beyond belief that an incident of which most of the facts were known should have taken four years to come to court. The venue, the date and time of the incident, who was there and why they were there, who shot who and the weapon used—all was known to the police and to everybody, including the lawyers and courts. All that was left to determine was the motive for the killing. Was it wilful, careless, incompetent or genuinely controlled in self-defence? It was also necessary to investigate the soundness of the planning that led to the raid in the first place.
This is not the debate to go into more detail, although such is my concern that I intend to initiate a debate when time allows. There is much to be discussed about what I believe amounted to abuse of procedure.
Suffice it to say in this debate that, after four years of waiting and having been charged with murder, Mr Sherwood was acquitted. The case fell because the prosecution did not and, I would argue, could not provide the evidence to underpin its case—because that evidence did not exist. All charges against the other policemen involved in the incident were also unfounded. That process took over five years to be completed—indeed, I do not believe that it has been completed yet.
1402
The Hoddinot and Wilding reports were both made subject to public interest immunity certificates determined by the court. Those reports were knowingly leaked to the press. Indeed, the reports and associated documents were stated to be subject to PII in a letter from the Crown Prosecutor to the then defendants' solicitors when he warned against leaking on pain of prosecution under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996—an Act that I took through this House.
When such a leak happens, surely there is an obligation on the part of the state to investigate whether a leak has occurred, and thereby the interests of the state in maintaining PII are undermined. Am I correct in my view? I do not enjoin the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who made a powerful case for his particular aspect of the matter. He spoke about whether a PII certificate should have been given in the first place. I am talking about when the certificates have been determined by the courts, and their treatment thereafter.
The Home Office, Sussex Police—who own the documents—the then Attorney-General and others refused to investigate that breach of law. Kent Police Authority, which was involved in overseeing the Sussex shooting, unilaterally decided to hold an investigation following much pressure from myself and others. However, the Chief Constable ruled out any question of criminality or illegality from the outset, before knowing who leaked or how the leak occurred.
The investigation was solely directed at the civilians, not the uniformed members of the Kent Police Authority. No reason was given for such a narrow remit. The person responsible for leaking the documents was established, and he is to be dealt 'with as a purely internal disciplinary matter. That is not the first time that the Kent Police Authority has been found wanting in that respect.
The police reports on internal and criminal investigations are generally regarded as attracting public interest immunity. That is, I believe, because they contain the reporting officer's opinions which may or may not withstand legal challenge. No evidence was produced to support the content of the report. Therefore, to release those reports or leak them as statements of public interest when there has been no challenge whatever to their content is wrong and, I believe, against the law. Again, am I correct in my understanding of the law in this respect? I must ask the noble and learned Lord about the status of such documents. While subject to PII, is it unlawful to leak them to the media?
The press, especially the tabloids, exploited the case and the information in the reports, much of which was inaccurate in a lurid and extremely biased fashion. Apart from the distress caused to all concerned, especially Christopher Sherwood's family, the character of Christopher Sherwood and other

1403
policemen involved in the incident has been badly defamed. I believe that that is extremely serious. What remedy is there in law for such wilful and damaging actions, which have been admitted by the Kent police?
PII should be established only for good and defensible reasons. However, when a certificate is signed, immunity from public interest should be enforced. If any review is to be undertaken as a result of the request that initiated this debate, I would ask that this aspect of PII is taken into account.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I cannot but reflect on the fact that it is more than 21 years since I last spoke at the Dispatch Box in another place. I briefly do so tonight in place of my noble friend Lord Kingsland. I know that he would have wished to be present for this debate and to take part in it. Sadly, he is unable to do so. I am sure that all noble Lords in the Chamber will join me in wishing him a speedy return to full health, to his active participation in the functions of this House, and above all to his ever effective and succinct interventions.
The operation of public interest immunity in criminal cases is not a matter of party politics, but it is a matter of great of importance. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has chosen an appropriate time to raise the issue. He has called for a review of the overall working of the system. Whether such a review is justified and necessary is of course a matter for the Attorney-General. What I think is indisputable is that, as the noble Lord said, the public interest immunity procedure is a matter of continuing and considerable controversy at the Bar. It is certainly an aspect of the working of the criminal law that continues to attract widespread public interest.
As has been mentioned, there was an enormous amount of speculation following the end of the Burrell trial as to whether public interest immunity had played a part. As I am following the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and have seen his notebook, I should perhaps mention that the Lord Carlile to whom he referred in that case was the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and not myself.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, asked whether public interest immunity played any part in that decision. I am bound to say in fairness that I had thought that the Government had fully answered that in another place. The Prime Minister himself said:
"There was no application for a public interest immunity certificate. Obviously, when such a case arises there are all sorts of wild theories about what might or might not have happened, but that is not why the case collapsed. I assure my hon Friend that the issue of public interest immunity certificates is not relevant to either the case or why it folded".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/11/02; col. 282.]
1404
I accept that explanation but I should be grateful to hear confirmation from the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General that that is an accurate assessment of what happened.
It is clear that as well as being an area of concern this is certainly an area of the law which requires continual careful scrutiny, as was pointed out in a recent article, which the Attorney-General may have seen, by, I believe, Mr Richard Glover in the bulletin of the JSB. In that article Mr Glover mentions the danger of the procedure being in conflict, and being found to be in conflict, with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The practice and procedure surrounding PII applications in criminal cases have grown enormously. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, stated in a letter to The Times in the latter part of last year, the first case involving such a certificate was in 1989. Yet over the past 15 years matters of disclosure and non-disclosure of evidence in criminal cases often relating to PII have constituted a great growth area—the applications are becoming an industry in themselves—and seem to take up more and more of the time of the courts in criminal trials. If what one hears from current members of the judiciary is true, they are often a cause of substantial delay in serious cases.
I start from the proposition in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 that in a criminal case there is clearly a fundamental duty on the prosecution to disclose to the defence anything that they consider to be relevant or which in any way could be seen to undermine the case for the prosecution or to assist the defence. That disclosure is necessary for the bringing of a fair trial. And yet at the same time they have an interest and responsibility to protect their sources of information which, if not protected, may lead either to a drying up of vital channels of information to the police—which are so important for the protection of this country as a whole—or, indeed, to the disclosure of the identity of an informant which leads to genuine fear on that man's part for his life or at least to fear of physical assault. That interest—the general public interest—is one which the prosecution share as it relates to the volume of future crime and to the degree of information which the police will be able to secure in their intelligence work.
We must never forget that we are dealing in these cases with serious crime and that, whether in the fields of terrorism or of dangerous drugs, the stakes are high and those involved are very dangerous people. This is the conflict of interest inherent in many criminal cases that has to be faced. At present it is resolved by the trial judge. He does so on the basis of the matters which are put before him. It is his duty to decide where the balance is to be struck.
The judge has the onerous responsibility of deciding on an ex parte application whether the evidence is such that its non-disclosure will negate the defendant's right

1405
to a fair trial and could lead to his wrongful conviction. If he considers that it does, he will refuse to gram the immunity and direct its disclosure despite the submissions of the prosecution. The prosecution will then be left to decide whether it should disclose the evidence and proceed, or choose to abandon the case.
We have to ask ourselves whether that is the best way to resolve that conflict. Is there, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, too great an atmosphere of secrecy surrounding the whole proceedings? Is too great a role given to the trial judge, who inevitably will come to see evidence which otherwise he would not have seen and which in some ways may affect his own outlook, certainly on matters of sentence?
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, suggested that too much had been placed before the judge, taking up unnecessary time, and that the prosecution should be prepared and trusted to decide such issues for itself. It should decide those cases where it considers that public interest is clearly overruled by the need to disclose, and should place something before the judge only when it might reasonably consider that the evidence is clearly capable of undermining the prosecution or assisting the defence, but that the public interest for immunity is such that it is unwilling to disclose it.
In such decisions, the prosecution clearly has the responsibility to disclose material that it does not consider undermines the case for the prosecution or assists the defence. If it does so, it has an ongoing duty to review that decision in the light of the defence statement and any further evidence that may emerge during the course of the trial.
Like the noble Lord, I have absolutely no doubt that in past years more decisions were finally taken by the prosecution on such matters, subject always to judicial review or appeal. One has to ask whether it would be acceptable if that burden was put back on the prosecution and taken away from the court today. I cannot answer that, other than to say that it was criticism by the Court of Appeal and others about the failure of the prosecution to disclose evidence, which itself led to a wrongful conviction, that has led to the present proceedings.
If the decision is to rest on the shoulders of counsel, it is essential that counsel themselves should have before them all the necessary evidence held by the police. That should be handed to them in full by the CPS.
As the noble Lord asked, is there a role for a special advocate who can review the evidence intended to be put before the court in the light of the case for the defence, and yet without contact with the defendant? He can make submissions to the judge on the defendant's behalf, as to both the relevance of that evidence to the defence case and the vital importance of that disclosure.
1406
At the moment, of course, the judge has only one side of the evidence and submissions on which to proceed, with also the defendant's statement of the case. As the noble Lord said, one of the fundamental grievances is that the defence often does not even know what is going on. The suggestion of a special advocate would be one way to deal with what appears on the face of it to be a system that could be said to be unfair to the defendant. Certainly, that may well be worth looking at, although whether it would add greatly to an enhanced role of the prosecution counsel, I am not sure.
Finally, should the defence at least be told whenever a PII application is to be made to the judge so that, even if it was unaware of its nature and the evidence involved, it would at least have some idea of what was going on and be given the opportunity to make any submission in writing which it might wish the judge to take into account when coming to his decision?
This is a difficult area with no easy solution. Some would argue that PII has no place whatever in a criminal trial and that, despite the strength of public interest in its immunity, everything must be disclosed, with the prosecution's only recourse being to abandon the trial. The trouble is that that might lead to a considerable increase in the number of trials that are already abandoned.
Clearly, as I said, this remains an area to be kept under review, remembering that, while the public rightly has an interest in the conviction of the guilty, it is even more important to protect the acquittal of the innocent.
8.36 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, this has been an interesting, if short, debate on an area of law and practice which all who have spoken recognise to be important and of interest to the public. Therefore, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for having initiated the debate and I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, for their contributions.
If I may, I shall welcome the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, back to the Dispatch Box after 21 years. On the last occasion that we discussed public interest immunity in this House in the context of the Burrell case, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, suggested that he might be getting a second career as a result of the confusion with another Lord Carlile. If this is a second career at the Dispatch Box, all noble Lords will be pleased to see him, while entirely endorsing the best wishes that he sends to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and the comments that he made about him.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his historical survey of the law relating to PII. However, given that we are now in a particular place in relation to PII, it may be helpful if I sketch that out because much has happened since the old days of so-called "Crown privilege"—itself a term which is no longer used.

1407
The starting point is, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said, the following proposition. The prosecution has a legal duty to disclose any material not already disclosed that might undermine its case against the accused or might reasonably assist the case for the accused. That is a very important proposition which is necessary in order to avoid miscarriages of justice and is in the interests of justice.
The law and practice on that is now found in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act, taken through this House by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, the accompanying code of practice, statutory rules and regulations, and the Attorney-General's guidelines on disclosure for the year 2000. In addition—I shall return to this point—joint operational instructions have been agreed between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.
Some might say that if any industry has grown up, it is not the industry of PII but the industry of disclosure, which is necessary in order that the interests of justice are met. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to disclosure schedules, lists of documents which are produced and a volume of unused material. It is in order to meet that, in my view, necessary requirement of disclosure in the interests of the defence that those procedures have grown up, and rightly so.
But, against that, there will be cases where material is of such a sensitive nature that there will be a public interest in it not being disclosed. It is in that context that public interest immunity arises. Here, the basic system now is that it is for a judge to consider whether the public interest in non-disclosure outweighs the undoubted public interest that in the administration of justice the court should have the fullest possible access to all relevant material.
During the course of this short debate examples have been given of where public interest will indicate that certain pieces of information should be kept confidential. Typical examples are, as has been said, to preserve the anonymity of informers. It is well established that the police need informers, or "covert human intelligence sources", as we now call them, to assist them in the detection and prevention of crime in the interests of the public. But the courts also recognise the need to protect the identity of informers for their own safety and to ensure that sources of information do not dry up. Equally, the courts are well aware that criminals will often have a considerable interest in finding out the identity of informers for reasons that have nothing to do with establishing their innocence. Sometimes it may be to attempt to force the prosecution to drop the case. Sometimes the identity of an informer may be very relevant to a defence; sometimes it may not.
Other examples would be where householders have allowed their premises to be used for surveillance or where organisations such as social services have been keeping confidential candid records in relation to particular people, which may have some relevance to a criminal case, but again where the disclosure would create serious problems.
1408
As I have said, the exercise which the court has to do is to balance on the one hand the public interest in the absence of disclosure against the interests of justice in disclosure. In practice, that balancing exercise requires the judge to consider the degree to which the material in question assists the defence. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, the then Lord Chief Justice, said in the important case of Keane decided in 1996, if the disputed material may prove the defendant's innocence or avoid a miscarriage of justice, then the balance comes down resoundingly in favour of disclosing it. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, stated, the consequence of that on some occasions is that the prosecution takes the view that it cannot disclose that information and therefore the prosecution has to be abandoned. That is something which happens and gives rise inevitably to the concerns to which the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, referred. The public has an interest in seeing criminality brought to justice and determined and not abandoned unnecessarily.
The question then is how does one deal with the assessment of that balance. The system that we now operate is one which has been developed by the common law through statutory and extra-statutory rules and in my view contains sufficient safeguards to counterbalance any prejudice. Perhaps I may identify certain features of the basic system.
As I have said, public interest immunity procedures were developed independently by the courts considering what was the best way to preserve the interests of the public and the very important interest of the administration of justice in ensuring that miscarriages of justice did not take place and that material information was disclosed. It has been formalised in rules of court. It has been upheld as a system by the European Court of Human Rights.
I have not had the benefit of reading the article of Mr Glover, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, referred, but these are matters which it is always possible for courts to review. If the courts at any stage in Strasbourg were to take the view, having once decided that the system was satisfactory that they saw a need for change, that is something that the Government would carefully and immediately consider. However, in the cases of Jasper and Fitt particularly, the European Court of Human Rights upheld the system as giving rise still to a fair trial. That is the fundamental point.
The system works on this basis: first, disclosure is to be withheld only where it is strictly necessary in the public interest. That means—this is what was established and stated as policy by the Government after the Scott inquiry in 1996–97—where there would be "real harm" from disclosing particular documents. I can certainly assure the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that that is based not on concern about embarrassment to any figure, however important or eminent, but on real harm of disclosing particular documents.
Secondly, even so, the document will be ordered to be disclosed if disclosure might prove innocence or avoid miscarriages of justice—or, as I said, the case may have

1409
to be dropped. Thirdly, it is clearly stated in the guidance given to prosecutors and the Attorney-General's guidelines that the maximum information should be given to defendants and their advisers and the maximum opportunity to make submissions to the court—without jeopardising the important confidentiality, which it is necessary to maintain.
So there are three types of PII application, as rules of court recognise. There is the first category, under which it is possible, having regard to the nature of the material, to notify the defence of the application and the general category of material in respect of which immunity is sought. The defence is then entitled to attend the application and to be heard inter partes. So the defence there take a full part in the application.
The second type is private applications where the defence is notified of an application but is told nothing about the nature of the material. That is justified only where even to reveal to the defence the category of material that the court is being asked to consider would reveal that which it is not in the public interest to disclose.
The third and most exceptional category is the secret application where the defence is not even notified of the fact of the application. That would be justified, for example, in a case where there is material relating to an informer that where even to inform the defence that an application is being made would alert it to the likely means of the suspect's arrest and enable that person or others to infer the existence and identity of the source.
But in each of those cases, it is for the judge hearing the application to be satisfied that it is appropriate for the matter to be dealt with in that way. Prosecutors are also informed of the importance of providing as much information as possible by redacting documents and summarising material.
The question of present practice on PH has been carefully considered—and recently. As I want to deal with one or two other matters, I shall summarise what has taken place. First, the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate conducted a thematic review of disclosure in 2000. That identified certain procedural failures or absences of good practice by the inspectors on which the Crown Prosecution Service and its counsel could improve. In December 2001, a Home Office report identified other issues about how the system operated across the criminal justice system as a whole.
Those two reports led to a joint project between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service considering the procedures in detail that will cover how the documents are identified, how they are scheduled, what logs are kept and how close is the examination of the documents. The proposed solutions are reflected in a new set of joint operational instructions on the disclosure of unused material, known as a JOPI. It contains extensive revisions from the previous version and will be published later this year. There will be a comprehensive programme of training which will support those new instructions. I very much hope and believe that that will enable us to put in place an effective PII system based upon the propositions that I have identified.
1410
Noble Lords raised additional matters. The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, raised the question of the application made in the Burrell case. I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he thought that the issue had been resolved—so did I. I had the benefit of a meeting with Mr Simon Hughes and Mr John Burnett of the noble Lord's party, at which we discussed the matter in detail. I understood that perhaps they had passed it on to him that they saw no further problem in that regard. I refer to the answer that I gave in this House on the occasion of a Question on the issue. Given what the noble Lord has said, I shall emphasise the point:
"The judge agreed to postpone the disclosure of information until further inquiries had been carried out and a fuller picture obtained so as to enable properly informed decisions to be made, in particular, as to the future conduct of the trial".—[Official Report, 6/11/02; col. 715.]
As I said then, there was never any question in my mind of withholding disclosure of the information yet continuing with the prosecution, and no attempt was made to do so.
In response to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who sits patiently waiting for what I shall say, sadly I am not able to give her very much information. I do not say this as criticism but merely to explain what I say: the noble Baroness did not give me notice of the particular case to which she was going to refer. I shall happily write to her with what I can say on that case. Of course I know something about the case.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I would not expect the noble and learned Lord even to write to me about the particular case. I raise the general question of whether a leak of information and documents subject to PII constitutes a criminal offence.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I believe that there is no law that derives from the PII status that makes it of itself an offence to disclose PII material. There may be other reasons in law why that material should not be disclosed. It may be a breach of confidence or even a breach of copyright. But the fact that it is subject to PII is a statement by the judge that the nature of the material is such that it need not be disclosed, even though the prosecution otherwise would disclose it as relevant to the case in front of it. If I can add to that answer, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
I shall make my final point, if noble Lords will permit me to do so. A question was raised about special advocates which I wish briefly to answer. As I said, the European Court accepted that the present procedures are fair and provide sufficient safeguards. We believe that the Criminal Justice Bill will improve the procedures further—that is a matter that the House will see in due course. There have been suggestions, including by Lord Justice Auld, to use special advocates in those applications. Stakeholders gave a mixed response to that. That gives rise to real practical problems in the context of criminal applications, which are different from those that apply in immigration cases. For example, in immigration cases where that arises the person involved

1411
knows that there is a question of secret information that cannot be shown to him. That is not always so in criminal cases, as I indicated.
The Government, having carefully considered the matter, have the view that the objections to the use of special advocates in criminal procedure indicate that it is not a road that we should go down. I agree entirely
1412
with noble Lords who asked whether overall we should keep the area closely under review. Plainly, we should. The whole topic of public interest immunity is important. I am, therefore, grateful for the opportunity to set out in short what we have been doing on it in recent months and years.
House adjourned at five minutes before nine o'clock.

  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency
  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency
  Young People who Sexually Abuse
  Young People who Sexually Abuse
  GPs: Patients from Other Practices
  GPs: Patients from Other Practices
  NHS: Beds and Administrators
  NHS: Beds and Administrators
  Northern Ireland: Protestant and Roman Catholic Employment Statistics
  Northern Ireland: Protestant and Roman Catholic Employment Statistics
  North/South Ministerial Secretariat
  North/South Ministerial Secretariat
  Waterways Ireland
  Waterways Ireland
  North/South Implementation Bodies: Budgets
  North/South Implementation Bodies: Budgets
  Sexual Offences Bill: Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Sexual Offences Bill: Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Belfast Arms Find
  Belfast Arms Find
  Self-contained Air Cartridge System Air Guns
  Self-contained Air Cartridge System Air Guns
  HM Land Registry Performance Targets
  HM Land Registry Performance Targets
  HER MAJESTY'S LAND REGISTRY KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND TARGETS 2003–04¹
  HER MAJESTY'S LAND REGISTRY KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND TARGETS 2003–04¹
  Game Licences
  Game Licences
  British Tourist Authority Offices Abroad
  British Tourist Authority Offices Abroad
  United Nations Population Fund: China's Population Policy
  United Nations Population Fund: China's Population Policy
  Highway Schemes: Public Inquiries
  Highway Schemes: Public Inquiries
  Highways Agency Budget
  Highways Agency Budget
  Home Zones and Quiet Lanes
  Home Zones and Quiet Lanes
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
  Transport Council, 27–28 March
  Transport Council, 27–28 March