Sitting of 3 April 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

    Recycling
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: What percentage of local councils she expects will reach the 2004 targets for the percentage of household rubbish recycled. [106682]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I cannot predict now what percentage of local authorities will reach their 2003–04 targets. Evidence up to 2001–02 suggests that good progress has been made. That will be augmented by schemes that have been or are being introduced to improve performance.
    Mrs. Campbell: I thank my right hon. Friend for the extra money received by Cambridgeshire waste partnership for the recycling strategy, particularly for the £3.5 million grant announced earlier this year. Will my right hon. Friend look again at the effectiveness of local councils' recycling strategies, particularly in view of some of the claims that are being made. The Liberal Democrats in my constituency sent out a leaflet claiming that 16 per cent. of household rubbish was being recycled, whereas Cambridgeshire waste partnership claimed that only 13 per cent. was recycled. Will my right hon. Friend look into that and—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Minister can answer the question now.
    Mr. Meacher: I am pleased that Cambridge succeeded in the challenge fund and that, as a result, it can increase its recycling rate from about 15 per cent. to, I hope, about 26 per cent. in the current year. On my hon. Friend's particular point, local authorities are under a statutory duty to provide accurate information for each best value performance indicator. That information is subject to audit, so any issue about the accuracy of the performance claimed against any indicator should be brought to the attention of the district auditor.
    Norman Baker: The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) has had an answer to her
    1050
    question from my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), and the hon. Lady is incorrect in the assertion that she makes.
    In respect of targets, if local authorities dramatically increase recycling, as both we and the Government want, is it not important to have a strong market for the goods collected, so that they are not sent to landfill? What are the Government doing to identify markets to deal with the large increase in recycled products that will occur?
    Mr. Meacher:We are aware that a successful recycling strategy must have three elements. One is stretching targets, which will increase recycling beyond what would otherwise be the case. We believe that setting statutory recycling targets for local authorities will achieve that. Secondly, adequate funding is necessary. I have repeatedly pointed to the increase in the revenue support grant through the £140 billion challenge fund, and the 60 per cent. increase in private finance initiative money. The third element is, of course, markets. We set up the waste and resources action programme, which is a business at arm's length from Government, to find innovative methods of recovery and reuse of recycled products. It has a £40 million budget and I am aware of several innovative examples, which I want to see multiplied across the economy.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, for all the good work that the Government have done in this sector, if we do not secure a faster rate of increase in the landfill tax in next week's Budget and if we do not set up a strategic waste authority to co-ordinate the different aspects, we will not make further progress and we will not hit the targets?
    Mr. Meacher: The Government are well aware of that. We have extremely tough landfill targets to reach. As I have said repeatedly, instead of doubling landfill under the "business as usual" scenario by 2020, we are seeking to reduce it by two thirds by that date, which is extremely demanding. There are two main measures to achieve that: one is the landfill tax escalator—my hon. Friend makes a fair point about the rate of increase, and Ministers have been paying considerable attention to that and will respond to the strategy report shortly—and the other is the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill, currently proceeding through the House. Indeed, I left its Committee proceedings five minutes ago. That Bill will set physical limits on the amounts that can be sent to landfill and progressively reduce them year by year.
    Mr. David Lidington: As the Minister will know, last weekend certain journalists had been briefed to the effect that the Government propose to change the law to allow householders to be charged for the collection of rubbish from their homes. I understand that the Secretary of State persuaded the Deputy Prime Minister of the need for that. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have decided to adopt that policy?
    Mr. Meacher: That is certainly news to us, but one often learns much from the press about what the Government are alleged to be about to do. I suggest that

    1051
    the hon. Gentleman awaits the Government's response to the strategy unit report, which will be published around Budget time. Such a change in the law was just one of the recommendations in that report. The Government are giving careful consideration to it and we shall make our response shortly.

    National Park Boundaries
    Mr. Colin Pickthall: What plans she has to extend the boundaries of national parks. [106683]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): I have no plans at present to extend the boundaries of any of the existing national parks in England, and I am advised that the Countryside Agency has no plans to undertake any reviews.
    Mr. Pickthall: I congratulate the Government on their wholly admirable handling of the national parks agenda thus far, but will my right hon. Friend examine the possibility that discrete areas just outside national park boundaries could be added to the national parks without going through a review of the entire parks boundaries? If that were possible, would not it be a good way to protect some of our most valuable landscapes, as it would give them the extra protection that national parks status guarantees? I am thinking particularly about the east and south of the lake district.
    Margaret Beckett:I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the Government's record. He is right that, at present, the procedures that must be followed for even a relatively small-scale and discrete area review are substantial, and much the same as those for a new national park. That is the position, and I am not able to change that at present. However, I take my hon. Friend's point that we must take such issues into account, not least because national parks are of great value to the nation. I cannot offer my hon. Friend a remedy in the short term, but I can undertake to give careful thought to the point that he makes.
    Mr. David Curry: When the Secretary of State considers the national parks, will she bear it in mind that, however important the quiet enjoyment of national parks is for visitors, it is also important that people can earn a living inside the national parks? The foot and mouth disease outbreak showed, among other things, how dependent most people living in national parks are on the tourism industry, which is often not high value, and on agriculture, which is going through a crisis. Will the right hon. Lady bear it in mind that we should look to the parks having an economic purpose, as well as an enjoyment purpose, so that the parks can live in their own right, and not be exclusively playgrounds for people who come in from outside?
    Margaret Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point, with which the whole House will agree and sympathise. It is precisely to take account of such matters that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life presided over a
    1052
    joint conference with the regional development agencies about a year ago. Some further work is being undertaken on the back of that conference, and we anticipate a further report, probably in June. I entirely take the right hon. Gentleman's point, which is valid and important.
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: I, too, congratulate the Government on their attitude to the national parks. Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), will my right hon. Friend look at the system employed in places such the parc d'Armorique in Brittany? Small areas worthy of protection that are not within the park's boundaries can be brought into the park quickly and easily.
    Margaret Beckett: Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an interesting point, and highlights an example of how others manage these things differently. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), I cannot undertake to make the changes that she suggests at the present time. However, I can certainly undertake to give consideration to the example that she gave, as we will to the proposals that may be put forward by others. I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be very happy to discuss the detail of these matters with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Secretary of State knows very well the peak district national park, which attracts more than 20 million visitors a year. Recently, the Government produced a report on the governance of national parks that proposed a reduction in the number of parish representatives involved in running a national park. The proposal may have been well meaning, but does the Secretary of State understand that it would be greatly resisted in the peak district? Will she give very careful consideration as to whether she should go forward with the proposal?
    Margaret Beckett: We always keep such matters under very careful consideration. I shall certainly agree to look again at the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. However, I assure him that the Government are trying, as everyone would wish, to get the right balance between the representation of the different interests, who all have the right to a voice.

    Sewage Works
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If she will make a statement on the consultation on proposals for the statutory control of odour and other nuisance from sewage works. [106684]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael): The consultation ended on 28 March and we have received more than 100 responses from local authorities, water companies, professional bodies, local groups and members of the public who have experienced odour problems from sewage

    1053
    treatment works. My officials are collating the responses and I hope to be able to make a further announcement to the House before the summer recess.
    Mr. Chapman: Constituents of mine in Bromborough, who have long suffered from the problems associated with a landfill site, are now plagued with foul smells emanating from a waste water treatment plant. As my right hon. Friend will know, the loss of a test case by Liverpool city council against United Utilities effectively rules out powers of enforcement against odour nuisance. Can he assure my long-suffering constituents, who are now also threatened with ammonium nitrate being dumped in the vicinity, that his Department will act with all possible speed to find a resolution to the problem?
    Alun Michael: Yes, indeed—we want to get a resolution as soon as possible. In many parts of the country, water companies and local authorities, together with local residents, can and do tackle such issues in a pragmatic and speedy way. They do not need to wait for the outcome of the consultation or, indeed, for new legislation in order to behave in a sensible and grown-up manner in trying to deal with a matter that is a nuisance to local constituents. I am not familiar with the case that my hon. Friend mentions, but I will he happy to discuss it with him if he would find that helpful.
    Bob Spink: Castle Point suffers from bad odours from sewage plants, but also from Pitsea landfill tip and from the Coryton oil refinery, where there have recently been terrible odours. Will the Government make available specific funds for the excellent Castle Point borough councillors to monitor those odours and to deal with them?
    Alun Michael: Those responsibilities lie with the Environment Agency as well as with the local authority, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks at what is available to both those bodies at the present time. The consultation deals specifically with the smells that emanate from sewage treatment works, so that is the issue to which I should respond.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a serious problem? I must declare an interest, because I live quite close to our local sewage works. The reality is that again we have a problem with United Utilities, which will not spend the money to provide a good sewage facility without any odour. Is it not right that we need legislation, and when will we get it?
    Alun Michael: I can understand my hon. Friend s concern if he is in close contact with the problem. Many hon. Members understand it through the experience of their constituents, but he has direct experience. These matters should be capable of being dealt with by a common-sense approach. We undertook the consultation because it was discovered that in some parts of the country—not many, but a significant number—problems were not being solved at a local level, and we want to deal with that as quickly as possible. I would encourage water companies, local
    1054
    authorities and local residents to get together to see whether such matters can be dealt with speedily and sympathetically at a local level.

    Bovine TB
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: What steps she is taking to reduce the incidence of bovine TB. [106685]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): We are working hard to reduce the incidence of bovine TB and are spending £35 million to £40 million a year on a programme of public health protection measures, which include cattle testing, cattle controls and research.
    Last autumn, in response to industry calls, we introduced a package of measures aimed at helping farmers under TB restriction and improving the diagnosis of the disease.
    Mr. Stunell: What assurance can the Minister give to the farmers of Hazel Grove, Mellor and Compstall that the insidious spread of bovine TB into Cheshire is being brought under control? Will he end the long delays in on-farm testing that seriously disrupt farmers, and will he intensify the testing of road kill so that the disease can be tracked properly on its spread through the country?
    Mr. Morley: On the first point, road traffic accidents are a very important way of examining badger carcases, and we have extended that practice as far as possible to give us more information.
    As regards Cheshire, we are keeping a close eye on the situation in relation to TB spread. I recently met a delegation of farmers from the National Farmers Union to discuss the matter, and they had some thoughtful ideas about controls on cattle movement, which are an important factor.
    We have made good progress in reducing the backlog that built up as a result of the foot and mouth epidemic, and we are trying to ensure a speedy turnaround of testing wherever possible.
    Mr. David Drew: The Minister will be aware that the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is about to produce a report. I will not predict what the report will say but, from the evidence that we heard, it is fair to say that we still have a scientific challenge to face up to. The different sides of the argument are hard to bring together. Is the Minister aware that the old Select Committee on Agriculture called for a plan B? That should in no way undermine the work of the independent scientific group, but we have to be aware that options may have to be kept open. Would the Minister care to comment on that?
    Mr. Morley: We will certainly have to consider a range of options to deal with bovine TB. We have already done that, for example, in the measures that we have put in place for on-farm movements and controls, for the extension of the gamma interferon test, and for research into the epidemiology of the disease. As my hon. Friend suggests, there is a polarisation of opinion on the causes of bovine TB. That is why we have the

    1055
    Krebs study, and that is why we have to approach this issue on the basis of science, to examine all the possible pathways of the disease and to help us to understand how it spreads and is transmitted.
    Mr. Robert Key: Is the Minister aware that, in south-west Wiltshire, the badger population has for a decade been out of control and out of balance, and that for five years bovine TB has been spreading rapidly? Only this week, my local branch of the National Farmers Union told me that farmers west of Salisbury are desperate about the slow progress of successive Governments in addressing the problem. Will the Minister treat this as a matter of urgency in a rural economy that is already in crisis?
    Mr. Morley: The Department regards this as a priority issue, and that is why we have committed so many funds to it and instigated so much scientific research.
    Badger populations have increased in some areas—although not all areas—and the link between badgers and bovine TB is an issue. However, it would be a mistake to focus entirely on that link. We understand and accept that the badger population is a reservoir for disease, but we do not understand the epidemiology or the way in which disease can spread between cattle and badgers. We are not sure that a programme of badger culling is the best use of resources or the most effective way of controlling the disease. The current study will look into that. I would not want to go back to a failed policy that did not stop the spread or increase of the disease.
    Mr. David Kidney: Will my hon. Friend confirm that this year's figures show a worrying increase in positive bovine TB tests in Staffordshire? Will he take a personal interest in whether the resources available are adequate to deal with the increasing challenge—especially the human resources? Will he confirm that a vaccine is still some way away?
    Mr. Morley: There has certainly been an increase in Staffordshire, which was the result of the halt in testing in 2001 and the backlog that came with it. Because of that loss of a year, I would caution people about evaluating the current figures until probably midsummer, when we will have a chance to see what the true spread and increase has been. At the moment, the figures are distorted by the backlog.
    Vaccine development is part of our approach in our research into both badgers and cattle. We have committed just about all the resources that we possibly can to that development but, at the moment, there is no sign of even a near-breakthrough in the development of a suitable vaccine.
    Mr. John Hayes: The Minister suggests that there is uncertainty, but one thing that is absolutely certain is that the disease is moving much faster than the Government. The profound concerns of farmers have, reportedly, been dismissed by the Minister as being based on folklore. I am sure that he will want to retract that or apologise for it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) suggests, the problem is rapidly getting out of
    1056
    control. The disease is spreading and is having a devastating effect. Will the Minister give specific answers to these questions? What steps are being taken and what timetable does he envisage for the development of a vaccine for the eradication of bovine TB in the whole wildlife reservoir population—not just badgers—and also in susceptible farmed animals?
    Mr. Morley: Independent scientific groups say that a vaccine is probably 10 years away—although even that is a difficult figure. However, I warn the hon. Gentleman against using phrases such as "out of control" to describe the spread of the disease, because of the current distortion of figures. We need to examine the figures carefully, in a proper analytical way, rather than throwing around such phrases.
    There have been calls from some farming organisations to restart badger culling outside the trial areas, but there is no evidence to suggest that that would have a positive effect on controlling the disease. We need to evaluate all methods of control—testing, movement control, biosecurity and vaccine development—as well as wildlife receptors. It would be a mistake to focus on one particular aspect and to think that by dealing with that we could solve the problem.

    Departmental Staff
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If she will make a statement on her plans to reduce the number of senior staff in her Department. [106686]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael): There are no plans to reduce the number of senior staff in the Department.
    Dr. Cable: In view of that slightly surprising reply, will the Minister explain public reports a few weeks ago that the Secretary of State's intention was to be the first member of the Cabinet to set an objective of reducing her Department's bureaucracy by 20 per cent? Why has she subsequently backtracked on that public commitment?
    Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman should not always believe everything that he reads in the papers. He was clearly determined to ask the question that he had prepared. I have given an answer that dismisses that rather facile approach.
    David Taylor: As the Minister said, the intention may be for there to be no such reduction, but the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, of which I am a member, was distinctly unimpressed by the Department's IT strategy, which envisages a selling-off

    1057
    of the information functions to the private sector. Will that not lead to a loss of experienced, committed and talented individuals that DEFRA, in its present position, cannot possibly afford? Surely, for a Department to sell off core resources, such as information, is like St. Thomas' hospital over the river selling off its surgery department to Sainsbury's butchers.
    Alun Michael: I could simply answer "no" and leave it at that. I am afraid that my hon. Friend gives a complete mischaracterisation of what is going on in DEFRA. The Office of Government Commerce review has just been completed, which demonstrated how DEFRA had lifted its game in improving IT. We try to use the best industry standards to provide high quality IT for the future, which is badly needed due to the desperate situation that we inherited. We have every intention of improving IT, as we intend to improve senior management. We have made great strides during the past 18 months and will continue to do so.
    Mr. James Gray: I am relieved to hear that the Minister has no intention of cutting senior staff in DEFRA by 20 per cent. In my experience, DEFRA civil servants are of the highest quality, so I am glad about that. In that case, however, what does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about the Select Committee's report? I remind him that it states that DEFRA
    "must undergo … structural and cultural change. We have doubts about the abilities of management to oversee such a period of change."
    Will the Minister answer some questions about staffing in that context? First, why are officials of the former Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions paid more than their equivalents in the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Secondly, how much money does he plan to save for the Treasury as a result of the senior staff review? Will it be more than the £20 million set aside for early retirements? Thirdly, if, as reported in the Financial Times on 13 January, "mandarins" are to undergo psychometric testing to assess their leadership abilities, would it not he reasonable for Ministers to undergo the same tests?
    Alun Michael: We are proposing to use those tests on the Opposition, as they need testing more than we do. Again, the hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the papers. We are seeking to narrow the gaps between the payment of staff and a lot of progress has been made, but he will appreciate that dealing with that issue is expensive. The purpose of the work that has come from the senior staff review is to lift the quality of staff, particularly senior staff, throughout the Department, and a great deal of progress is being made in that regard. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the high quality of the staff in DEFRA, and they are lifting their game throughout the Department as a result of the leadership that they are being offered.

    Fallen Stock
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: If she will make a statement on the disposal of fallen stock on farms. [106687]
    Sandra Gidley: What assessment she has made of the financial impact of the new fallen stock regulations. [106688]
    Mr. David Ruffley: What recent representations she has received regarding the disposal of fallen stock. [106690]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): I have received a number of representations expressing concerns about introducing the new rules on the disposal of fallen stock. That will clearly have a financial impact on farmers, and the Government continue our dialogue with the industry about introducing a national fallen stock collection and disposal scheme as the best way of addressing those concerns.
    Mr. Robathan: I should declare an interest as a farmer, although I own no stock. What has the Secretary of State got against farmers? This measure will mean that the disposal of a dead sheep may cost more the value of a live beast. It is unscientific and illogical. Will the Government now ban the burial of human corpses?
    Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman says that the measure is unscientific, but the basic regulations were put in place precisely as a result of a report from the EU Scientific Committee. They have been extensively discussed across the EU, and there is general agreement that they are desirable. I reject utterly the suggestion that the Government are in some way attempting to penalise farmers. After all, we are not required to put Government resources behind the scheme that we propose to adopt to try to form the basis of a national scheme, but we have done so.
    Sandra Gidley: Will the Minister confirm that, last year, DEFRA was given a report by an independent scientist, showing that biodigestion is a very useful alternative technology in dealing with fallen stock, as it is biosecure and environmentally friendly? What discussions has she had with the European Commission in respect of including that method of disposal among the approved options?
    Margaret Beckett: I am aware that the hon. Lady and, indeed, some of her colleagues have raised that issue, and I accept that it does sound interesting. Unfortunately, it is illegal at present, but I am conscious of the interest in the proposals to which she refers, and she will like to know that we have referred them to the scientific authorities in the EU for consideration. However, we cannot pursue that option at present.
    Mr. Ruffley: The Secretary of State may wish to be aware that many Suffolk livestock farmers in my constituency believe that information from her Department on the change to the fallen stock regime has

    1059
    been both unhelpful and unclear. In the light of that, has she worked out a mode of enforcement for the new regime, and, if so, will she publish it?
    Margaret Beckett: I shall begin where the hon. Gentleman ended. Enforcement is, of course, a matter for local authorities, which enforce regulations of that kind, but I am sorry to hear that individual farmers find the existing guidance less clear than they would wish. We will be writing shortly to all farmers about the new rules and what they need to do to meet them, and we intend to include proposals for a national helpline, as well as arrangements for a voluntary subscription scheme.
    Diana Organ: On-farm incineration is a legal alternative for the disposal of fallen stock. When does my right hon. Friend intend to issue the information and guidance for farmers about the use of on-farm incineration?
    Margaret Beckett: I believe that some information and guidance is already on the DEFRA website. We are certainly mindful of the fact that, as my hon. Friend will know, there is substantial availability of such incineration capacity, but it has to meet the required standards, and we will work with the industry to ensure that that is the case during the next few months.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware that many hon. Members feel that on-farm disposal is the most environmentally sound option? Will she say a little more about encouraging biodigestion or on-farm incineration, so that we do not see lorries travelling up and down the country collecting fallen farm stock at huge cost to individual farmers and with environmental costs to the whole country? Will she take this opportunity to rule out any further Government move to end woodland burials or the burial of pets in gardens?
    Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman's final point takes us down a slight sidetrack, so I shall return to the main point that he makes. It is valid to say that people will be concerned and that we should be concerned about the biosecurity implications of transport. Equally, as he raised the issue of costs, I say to him that the national collection and disposal Industry has come forward with proposals to the Government for what it believes will be a very sound operational scheme. It has identified the fact that it believes that there could be a substantial reduction in costs if such a scheme were fully utilised.
    Paddy Tipping: Will my right hon. Friend adopt a flexible and proportionate approach to this matter? It should be flexible in the sense that, if agreement cannot be reached but is in the offing, the deadline of 1 May should be extended. It should be proportionate when it comes to hill farmers, because there is a case for sheep carcases being allowed to remain on site for conservation and for wildlife purposes.
    Margaret Beckett: I certainly undertake to consider my hon. Friend's point. There has been extensive consultation on this issue for at least a year, and we are
    1060
    anxious to resolve the matter, not least because, if there is scope for agreement to some kind of national scheme, that will make an enormous difference to the way in which we can operate it.
    Andrew George: In view of the fact that the regulations need to be implemented on 1 May, this is not just a fiasco that is waiting to happen but a fiasco that is bound to happen. What efforts did the Government make to ensure that the country has the ability to have a sensible derogation for remote rural areas, as is now the case in Scotland? In view of the Secretary of State's answers, will she ensure that farmers have ample opportunity to be consulted? As will inevitably be the case, the implementation and enforcement of the regulations will be delayed if the farming community is properly consulted on the Government's proposals to deal with this issue.
    Margaret Beckett: I am afraid that I reject the notion that this is a fiasco. We have been consulting the farming community for, as I said, at least a year. The hon. Gentleman seems to believe that there will be a problem with implementation and that it will be a fiasco because, in some way, the capacity will not be there to deal with the stock. That is not the case. We are told by the collection and disposal industry that there is ample capacity. It is absolutely possible for the regulations to be implemented on the due date.
    Of course, we want a better, good national scheme that, as the industry advises us, could significantly reduce the costs that farmers are liable for now. That seems to be to everyone's benefit. That is what we shall write to individual farmers about in the very near future.
    Mr. David Lidington: On 28 February, officials from the Secretary of State's Department told the National Farmers Union that they would issue detailed guidance on on-farm incineration within the following two weeks. When is this guidance going to appear?
    Margaret Beckett: Detailed guidance is certainly under preparation and it was my impression that it was going out—
    Mr. Lidington: Within two weeks?
    Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman says within two weeks, but it was certainly my impression that it is going out in the next few days or week. Although there is detailed guidance about how on-farm incineration can be effected, I repeat the point that I made to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). The industry assures us that there is capacity and scope to deal with this problem now.
    Mr. Lidington: Does this not show yet again that the incompetence and confusion in the Secretary of State's Department is stopping effective and clear advice from getting to farmers and others who will have to cope with the regulations in about three weeks? We are told that the advice on incineration that was promised a fortnight from the end of February is still being drafted, and we are told that the Department is getting together its letter to send out to all farmers as soon as possible. Can she

    1061
    confirm that article 32 of the animal by-product regulations expressly allows for temporary derogations from those regulations and that the United Kingdom has, in fact, already sought and obtained delays on issues such as the use of used cooking oil in animal feed? Is not the sensible course of action now for the Secretary of State to apply urgently for a derogation from the fallen stock provisions of the regulations so that a proper, effective scheme can be put in place and so that farmers do not face the confusion that they face now and will face from the beginning of May?
    Margaret Beckett: Let me repeat that the industry is perfectly aware of the implications. The regulations are not something that has come out of the blue—we have been discussing them with the industry for a full year. There is capacity to deal now with the problem of disposal, and there is no practical need for a derogation. The hon. Gentleman may be losing sight of the key fact that the regulations were introduced in the first place on the basis of scientific advice that the present arrangement was undesirable and should be ended as soon as possible. That is what we are working towards. We very much regret that, unfortunately, it has not proved possible to persuade the representatives of farming organisations to agree to what the collection and disposal industry say is a perfectly practical and viable scheme.
    I remind the House that the industry believes that a national scheme in which people voluntarily participate would operate at substantially lower costs than the present arrangements. It estimates that it would cost about 40 per cent. less for adult cattle and 60 per cent. less for adult sheep. It is on that basis that we shall write to farmers, urging them to tell us whether they would comply with and join a voluntary national scheme.

    Endangered Species
    Joyce Quin: What recent representations she has received from local and regional wildlife trusts concerning the future of native endangered species. [106689]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): I regularly receive a number of representations from many sources including the wildlife trusts, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Mammal Society and English Nature.
    Joyce Quin: Many of my constituents are concerned about the survival of one of our best-loved species, the red squirrel. While I do not advocate the ruddy duck solution for grey squirrels, will my right hon. Friend te11 me what action the Government can take to create controlled zones for the greys so that their remorseless spread is halted? Will she look at ways of ensuring support for cross-regional co-operation in the areas most affected? In England, joint action is necessary in the north-east and Cumbria and, in Scotland, in the adjoining area of Dumfries and Galloway.
    Margaret Beckett: My right hon. Friend makes an important point—I entirely agree that that kind of co-operation is necessary. She will probably be aware that the Government's emphasis has been to seek to protect
    1062
    the red squirrel by protecting the habitat where it is most likely to survive rather than to interfere in the habitat of the grey squirrel. There is no doubt, sadly, that grey squirrels have a considerable advantage in, for example, broadleaf woodland.
    The Government continue to discuss with the relevant partnership of organisations a range of protective measures to try to enhance the survival capacity of the red squirrel. I share my right hon. Friend's view that red squirrels should be protected—they are charming creatures that we would like to preserve.
    Mr. Peter Luff: Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Worcestershire Wildlife Trust for its work in a partnership that is seeking to reopen the old Droitwich canals? The trust's intelligent, pragmatic and sensible approach to possible threats to endangered and rare species along the banks of those waterways has led to a successful grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund and Advantage West Midlands to secure the reopening of those canals. Does she agree that that proves that it is possible to protect endangered and rare species while achieving beneficial change in the countryside?
    Margaret Beckett: I am happy to endorse everything that the hon. Gentleman said. It is both noticeable and welcome that local partnerships are springing up across the country. The hon. Gentleman is right that the important thing is that, where possible, we act at the point of endangerment, or preferably before, rather than try to retrieve a situation that we have let go beyond repair.

    Dorset and East Devon World Heritage Site
    Jim Knight: What plans she has to visit the Dorset and east Devon world heritage site. [106691
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael): I had an excellent visit to the Dorset and east Devon coast world heritage site last year, and discussed its management and development with the local steering committee and with my hon. Friend. I am looking forward to a further visit next month as part of the south-west coast path silver jubilee celebrations.
    Jim Knight: I look forward to welcoming my right hon. Friend again to that important natural world heritage site, the only one in England and Wales. Does he agree that it is important that we improve the interpretation of such sites? To that end, what recent discussions has he had directly or through the Department for Culture, Media and Sport with the natural history museum to explore with the museum the possibility of investment in a major facility somewhere along the coast, ideally in south Dorset?
    Alun Michael: I am aware of those discussions, although I have not been involved directly with them. The Government office for the south-west, in which DEFRA is represented, is working closely with the jurassic coast steering group. I am impressed by the

    1063
    partnership working—the determination and teamwork—in my hon. Friend's constituency and in that part of the country.

    Coastal Erosion
    Norman Lamb: If she will make a statement on her policy on coastal erosion. [106692]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): The policy aim is to reduce the risks to people and the developed and natural environment from coastal erosion by encouraging the provision of technically, environmentally and economically sound and sustainable defence measures.
    Norman Lamb: I thank the Minister for that reply, which raises a concern about another part of the north Norfolk coast, in addition to the one about which I have already written to him, Happisburgh. I refer to Cley and Salthouse, where over a period of five years the Environment Agency developed a multi-objective scheme along the lines that the Minister described to benefit people, property and conservation. A massive sum was spent on developing the scheme. Last year, it seems that DEFRA suddenly pulled the rug from under the Environment Agency and determined that instead of a multi-objective scheme, only conservation would be covered, and people and property would be dealt with separately. Now we are back to square one, after a massive investment—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. That is turning into a speech. The Minister has probably got the drift.
    Mr. Morley: The Cley and Salthouse scheme is well known to me, although the hon. Gentleman's interpretation is not correct. The approach that we take in DEFRA is an integrated approach, whereby environmental factors are considered alongside issues of people and property, as they are in Cley and Salthouse. The delay there arose from the fact that there was one preferred option, which was a clay bank scheme. English Nature raised some reasonable objections to that, relating to the loss of fresh water, the balance between preserving freshwater lagoons and saline lagoons, and whether a scheme could involve the retreat of the shingle bank to a lower profile, which may overtop more but would nevertheless provide adequate levels of defence. It is that detail which is currently under discussion, and that is the reason for the delay.
    Lawrie Quinn: My hon. Friend is only too aware of the tremendous investment that the Government have made in the stabilisation of the Yorkshire heritage coast. Many people in our community welcome that. Has the additional request for support for that scheme been considered? In the light of his earlier answer, will my hon. Friend reaffirm the Government's commitment to all members of local communities being able to have their say in such schemes, which may sometimes be controversial?
    Mr. Morley: I confirm that. With any flood or coastal defence scheme, the Environment Agency or the local
    1064
    authority takes great steps to involve local people. We want to take their views into account. I am familiar with the details of the Scarborough scheme, which involves a major financial commitment on the part of the Government to protect the people of Scarborough. I know that there are issues of cost overrun. Cost overruns are not unique in any kind of major scheme, and we will of course examine the details of the overrun. I should make it clear that we do not automatically provide the additional cost, but if there is a valid reason for the additional expenditure, we will consider it carefully.

    Utility Regulators (Price Reviews)
    Mr. Edward Leigh: What steps (a) Ofgem, (b) Oftel and (c) Ofwat are taking following the 50th Report by the Committee of Public Accounts in Session 2001–02 on Pipes and Wires to simplify the information requirements they place on companies and to change the period over which price reviews are conducted. [106693]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): Neither energy nor telecommunications policy is the responsibility of my Department. The Office of Water Services advises me that it has taken account of the Committee's recommendations in its approach to the next periodic review of water price limits. Ofwat has streamlined the information required from companies into two main submissions and has shortened the length of the period over which the review is conducted from three to two years.
    Mr. Leigh: I am pleased to hear that reply. The Minister will he aware that regulated water companies complain that much of the information that they give Ofwat is not used. Is he keeping up the pressure on Ofwat to ensure that all the information that it requires from the companies is proper and valid, so that we avoid useless paper chases in Whitehall?
    Mr. Morley: I accept that, while regulation is important, as we are dealing with monopoly companies that must be regulated, bureaucracy should be kept to a minimum. As a matter of coincidence, I met Philip Fletcher, the regulator, yesterday in one of our regular meetings to discuss water issues. I know that his work and the information that he collects, some of which we discussed yesterday, are essential in the very complex task of price fixing and taking into account the needs of consumer protection, the environment and companies themselves. I believe that he is taking steps to be as efficient as possible and that the information that is collected is put to good use.
    Jon Trickett: Paragraph 4.4 of the report describes the often perverse effects that the regulator's pricing policies can have on water and sewerage companies. As a result, I believe that a problem has been created in my constituency, as Yorkshire Water tells me that an over-prescriptive policy regarding the capital programme is preventing it from replacing inadequate sewerage, which is causing

    1065
    sewage to spill into the houses of local residents. Can my hon. Friend offer me any help in this matter? Will he meet me and one or two others to discuss the problem?
    Mr. Morley: I am very happy to meet to discuss individual constituency cases and problems, so I offer my hon. Friend that assurance. I am not all together convinced about the claim to which he refers. I do not know all the details involved, but I can say that price fixing has an element relating to capital investment that is essential to meet the environmental and quality standards that consumers and the public want, many of which are important commitments in legislation and directives. Within that, there is provision for the sort of maintenance that we would expect from any water or sewerage company. I know that sewage flooding is an issue and that it is under discussion in relation to the next price-fixing round, but without knowing all the details, I am a bit sceptical about the suggestion that the capital programme is preventing action on such flooding.
    Mr. Michael Jack: In the context of the next round of discussions on water charges, one of the factors in which the Minister's Department will be closely involved is helping to quantify the costs of implementing the water framework directive. Will he tell the House what progress he is making to assist water companies in coming to conclusions on the costs of implementing that very important directive?
    Mr. Morley: It is an important directive and the biggest ever to have come out of the EU. It provides some major benefits, and we should not forget that. It is true that there are potential costs. Part of the problem is that some of those costs will be met by work that is currently under way, including, for example, on the waste water directive and work that we are implementing in nitrate vulnerable zones relating to diffuse pollution. I think that our figures on cost implications will become more accurate as time progresses. The implementation date is 2015, but I think that we will have a clearer idea of the costs and commitments in about 2005.

    Fluvial Strategy (River Trent)
    Mr. Mark Todd: If she will make a statement on the progress of the fluvial strategy for the River Trent. [106694]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I understand from the Environment Agency that its study leading to a flood management strategy for the fluvial Trent is proceeding well. The agency currently anticipates that it will be completed in March 2004.
    Mr. Todd: I thank the Minister for his answer. The communities of Willington, Barrow upon Trent and Shardlow in my constituency are waiting with anxiety for the outcome of the report, which they hope will give guidance about both the true nature of flood risk in their villages and the appropriate defence measures that can
    1066
    be devised. Can he give me some assurance that they will receive some interim guidance on the progress of this very important study?
    Mr. Morley: Yes, I can. I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in flood defence and I understand that the test options for flood management should be complete in July 2003. There should be an interim progress report in April 2003, which his constituents will be able to see. The Trent is a very complex river system in which I have to declare an interest, as it forms the western boundary of my constituency. Such a study offers a wide range of benefits for helping us to understand the whole management of water and the best options for protecting communities.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Presumably, the fluvial strategy that the Government are following for the River Trent will not be dissimilar to strategies for the rest of the country. Will the Minister confirm that the fluvial strategy encompasses dredging and that such rivers are dredged as frequently today as they were five or 10 years ago?
    Mr. Morley: I can confirm that if the strategy identifies that dredging should be an aspect of river management, it will be done. I caution that dredging often has limited benefits for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, it could have a role to play and if such a role is identified, dredging will form part of the strategy that we will implement.

    Radioactive Waste
    Joan Ruddock: If she will make a statement on the arrangements for the disposal of low-level solid radioactive waste in the UK. [106695]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): Solid radioactive low-level waste is safely disposed of at Drigg in Cumbria, apart from a small proportion, which is kept in store.
    Joan Ruddock: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, but what is his response to the claims of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee that the United Kingdom's radioactive waste inventory does not take account of low-activity waste, facility decommissioning or clean-up costs, including those for contaminated land, and that any perception that low-activity waste can be dealt with at Drigg is misplaced?
    Mr. Meacher: We are aware of the issue. Drigg has sufficient capacity until 2050 with regard to current arisings, but my hon. Friend asks about low-activity waste. We are reviewing the best way to deal with waste that is only likely to be contaminated: soil or building rubble from the decommissioning and clean-up of nuclear sites. That will be a significant issue for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. I am sure that it will give its view, as will the new Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, which will examine the delivery of our plans for the disposal of low-level waste.

    Sheep Identification and Traceability
    John Thurso: What discussions she has had with the European Commission about the EU proposal on sheep identification and traceability. [106697]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): Officials have held high-level discussions on these proposals with the European Commission and my noble Friend Lord Whitty contributed to a brief discussion on the proposals during the Agriculture Council on 27 and 28 January.
    John Thurso: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he agree with the National Farmers Union Scotland that the European Union proposals would effectively close the Scottish sheep industry? Will he do everything possible to bring the highly regarded Scottish flock identification system, which is supported by farmers, vets and the Government, to the attention of the Commission?
    Mr. Morley: We have raised our concerns with the Commission about its proposals several times and said that they are inappropriate given the size of our sheep flock and the fact that we have recording procedures, as the hon. Gentleman says. We must seriously address the traceability of sheep. We believe that electronic identification is ultimately the right way forward. Harmonisation rules on that are not yet in place, but the
    1068
    current proposals are not satisfactory. We shall continue to make representations to the Commission on the matter.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Andrew Dismore.

    Silkstream Flood Defence Scheme
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If she will make a statement on progress with the Silkstream flood defence scheme. [106701]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has approved the Environment Agency's proposed Silkstream flood defence scheme, subject to satisfactory resolution of negotiations with landowners. I understand that the agency is undertaking those negotiations and has commenced detailed design, with a view to starting construction in late summer 2004.
    Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, but can he do anything to speed up the scheme? It is already a year behind schedule, and summer 2004 is six months later than the date that was given in the previous answer at the beginning of the year. Will he ascertain whether anything can be done to make some progress on the scheme, which is long overdue and badly needed by my constituents?
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend has raised the issue for some time and I sympathise with his frustration about the progress that has been made. I understand that negotiations with landowners constitute one of the problems because land needs to be acquired. However, I believe that they are concluding and I hope that progress will be made quickly.

Iraq (Military Operations)
12.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a further statement about military action in Iraq.
We are now two weeks into the campaign. The coalition continues to make remarkable progress, following the main outlines of our military plan. Since my last statement on 26 March, coalition forces have established a presence in northern Iraq and are moving ever closer to Baghdad. Another important phase has been reached as the first troops engage Saddam Hussein's republican guard divisions on the approaches to the city.
At the same time, British forces are consolidating their position in the area in and around Basra. I do want to repeat the warning that I gave in my first statement to the House some two weeks ago: do not underestimate the task that still faces our forces or the length of time that it may take to complete. We are still very much in the second phase of steady progress that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set out.
On behalf of the Government, I want to extend our condolences to the families and friends of those servicemen who have lost their lives in recent days. I would also like to mention those who have been injured, some seriously, since the start of military operations, either in combat or in the usual course of their duties: 39 United Kingdom battle casualties are currently being treated in theatre and 35 have been evacuated. I know that the House will join me in sending our very best wishes for their speedy recovery.
In the conflict, we have been accused by commentators of underestimating the resistance of the Iraqi regime. We always knew that the regime would fight, but, as democratic states that observe the rule of law, we have been shocked by the extent of the Iraqi regime's capacity for brutality and killing its own people.
Every aspect of what we do is rightly and understandably held up for public scrutiny. In contrast, Saddam Hussein's murderous thugs go about their brutal work out of sight of the media. Some have been surprised by the caution with which the Iraqi people have greeted coalition forces, but that should not be surprising. The regime has deployed every horror in maintaining its stranglehold on power—torture, rape and execution.
In recent days, our forces on the ground around Basra have been appalled by the actions of the regime's thugs as they struggle to maintain their grip on the city. On 25 March, there were disturbances in Basra that irregular regime forces suppressed with mortar fire against their own people. On 28 March, when between 1,000 and 2,000 people were preparing to leave Basra, regime militia opened fire with heavy machine gun and mortar fire. Since then, irregulars have routinely been firing on civilians in the south-east of Basra. That is the sort of brutal suppression that has been going on in Iraq for very many years.
Despite its protestations to the contrary, the Iraqi regime shows no greater respect for the country's cultural wealth than for its people. The coalition is
1070
taking every precaution to avoid damage to the holy sites in Najaf and Karbala. By contrast, we know that Saddam Hussein has plans to damage the sites and blame the coalition. Indeed, his forces have used the site at Najaf as a defensive position, firing on United States forces, who commendably did not return fire.
The steady advance of the coalition continues. Our strategic grip on Iraq is tightening. In the south, British forces continue to operate in the al-Faw peninsula, the southern oilfields and the Basra area. The 7th Armoured Brigade is preventing Iraqi forces in Basra from hindering the main advance, while establishing corridors for the safe movement of civilians and humanitarian aid.
We have been striking key regime targets in the area. Those operations have included successful attacks from the air on the Ba'ath party headquarters in Basra, and by 7th Armoured Brigade on the intelligence and militia headquarters in Basra and the local state security organisation headquarters in Az Zubayr in the south of Basra.
In the area of Abu Al Khasib, in the south-east outskirts of Basra, 3 Commando Brigade have engaged substantial Iraqi forces, capturing significant numbers of enemy forces, including senior Iraqi officers. This daring raid resulted in the death of one Royal Marine. There were, in addition, a number of casualties. On the night of 31 March, 16 Air Assault Brigade, with artillery and air support, engaged Iraqi forces, destroying an estimated 17 tanks and five artillery pieces, as well as other Iraqi vehicles and infantry positions. We are now focused on building the confidence of the local people. We will continue to patrol aggressively, striking hard at the regime and its militias. Key suburbs of Basra have now been taken. We will go further into the city at a time of our own choosing.
Further north, elements of the United States army's Fifth Corps have now passed through Karbala and are moving towards Baghdad. US forces have been engaging with the Medina and Baghdad republican guard divisions, and have secured crossings over the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The lead elements of the US 3rd Infantry Division are now on the outskirts of Baghdad. More than 9,000 Iraqi prisoners of war have been taken by coalition forces. Royal Air Force aircraft have contributed to the close air support of these forces. They have also attacked Iraqi forces in the field, and have continued to degrade the regime's command and control facilities, and the combat capability of the security forces that support it.
Coalition forces have taken the utmost care over the targeting of the air campaign. Every effort has been made to minimise the risk of any civilian casualties or damage to the civilian infrastructure. The House will be aware of the explosions in market districts of Baghdad on 26 and 28 March, and of reports of significant numbers of fatalities and injuries. Neither of the marketplaces was targeted by the coalition, and we continue to investigate how these tragic events might have occurred. We have long been familiar with the false claims of civilian casualties made by Saddam's regime, and it would be foolish to accept these claims at face value without proper investigation. What we do know, however, is that the air defence commander in Baghdad

1071
has been replaced, partly because of concerns that Iraqi surface-to-air missiles had been malfunctioning, failing to hit their targets and falling back on Baghdad.
Offensive operations are, however, only part of the picture. The expertise and flexibility of our forces are essential to the battle to win the confidence of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people have been terrified. More than half the population of Iraq have only known life under Saddam Hussein and his apparatus of fear. The older generation have an appreciation of his cruelty that is often borne out by bitter personal experience. That is why it is so important that, in a number of areas in which UK forces are operating, there is a growing sense of return to normal life. Some people are going back to work.
The United Nations has now declared Umm Qasr a permissive environment, allowing UN agencies to begin their work there. Essential services such as water and electricity are being restored and even improved, in part owing to the skill of the Royal Engineers with the help of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Umm Qasr water treatment plant, which can treat up to 3 million litres a day, is now operational. In addition, the water pipeline constructed by UK forces from Kuwait to Umm Qasr is complete, delivering up to 2 million litres of drinking water daily—enough for 160,000 people a day—and providing vital temporary relief.
Schools and markets are being reopened, and the 7th Armoured Brigade has removed Ba'ath party thugs from the Az Zubayr medical centre—where treatment was previously available only to those close to the regime—to enable access for ordinary Iraqis. Humanitarian aid is being distributed. The security situation in a growing number of areas is such that troops are patrolling on foot rather than in armoured cars, and have in some cases been able to exchange their combat helmets for berets.
The United Kingdom's armed forces are putting the full range of their expertise and experience to use, with striking effect. The Royal Marines have disabled the last remnants of the Iraqi navy, and the port of Umm Qasr is under coalition control and open to shipping. Royal Navy mine countermeasures vessels continue operations to expand the navigable width of the Khawr Abd Allah channel. They have discovered 105 mines so far—11 laid in the water, and a total of 94 intercepted on Iraqi tugs and patrol boats.
These operations are crucial to the humanitarian operation, bringing vital supplies to the Iraqi people. On 28 March, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel Sir Galahad unloaded its humanitarian cargo of around 300 tonnes of water, medical supplies, food and equipment for providing shelter. Water and perishable goods have already been distributed in the Umm Qasr area; other supplies are being stored until such time as they are required. Two Australian ships, each loaded with some 50,000 tonnes of grain, are expected in Umm Qasr shortly.
The United Nations oil-for-food programme was re-established by Security Council resolution 1472 on 28 March. That is an important milestone for the people of Iraq, but it will take time to take effect. Therefore, 1 (UK) Division has authority to spend up to £30 million
1072
for special humanitarian purposes within the first month and a further £10 million is available for "quick impact" projects such as restoring electricity and water supplies.
After two weeks of military operations against the Iraqi regime, the coalition continues to make progress. Every day, we are further weakening Saddam Hussein's control over Iraq and moving another day closer to the end of his appalling regime and the liberation of the Iraqi people.
We are engaged in an important and determined effort to convince the Iraqi people of our commitment to them, their political security and their economic welfare. Above all, we are committed to seeing through what we have begun—removing the regime that has terrified the Iraqi people and impoverished the nation for two decades. That will take time, but we have made an excellent start. There is still more to achieve, and our servicemen and servicewomen will continue to brave difficulties and dangers in the process. I know that the House will join me in wishing them well.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I certainly join the Secretary of State, as I am sure the whole House does, in wishing our armed forces well. May I also join him in paying tribute to those who have given their lives while carrying out their duties in Iraq? Although it has to be said that we have suffered remarkably few casualties, every loss is keenly felt and we extend our deepest sympathies to their families and loved ones.
I also join the Secretary of State in his tribute to the work of the British armed forces, who have shown and are showing not only that they can fight, but that they care and that they can feed, bring water to and tend the wounds of the Iraqi people. Will he endorse the view that there is now clear evidence that we can win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people? We can continue to take great pride in our armed forces' courage and achievements—and will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the unsung heroes, our special forces?
Can the Secretary of State say more about his expectations for Basra? May I endorse his view that we must let our commanders take Basra in their own time, which may yet take many days if we are to keep civilian and our own casualties to the absolute minimum and to build the confidence of the Iraqi people in our good intentions? As that is likely to take longer, may I again press him on the issue of reinforcements—that is, additional troops who would allow existing troops to take rest periods before continuing their duties?
The troops in Iraq have endured 15 days of continuous operations, day and night, and the Prime Minister told the House yesterday that
"contingency plans are indeed in place".
Please will the Secretary of State set out what those contingency plans are for reinforcement, not replacement, troops? What units are warned to deploy, even if, in the event, it emerges that they are not needed?
It is welcome that the Fire Brigades Union called off its recent threatened strikes, but the threat of strikes later this month remains. Surely if there is a choice between allowing strikes to go ahead or having reinforcements available, the law should be brought to bear on the FBU's threats, as we have been advocating for some time.

1073
May I also pay tribute to United States forces, who have fought many stiff and successful battles? Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating US forces who are showing such a clear understanding and sensitivity for the Shi'ite religious sites, mentioned in his statement, at Najaf and Karbala? He has confirmed that US forces have refused to return fire at Iraqi forces who have deliberately held themselves up there.
Can the Secretary of State also explain what expectations he has for Baghdad? US forces are still only fighting outside Baghdad. Does he agree that speculation in the press on the early fall of Baghdad is simply not realistic?
Turning to the discussions on post-conflict Iraq, which will continue to depend on the role played by our armed forces, will the Secretary of State clarify how the Government are approaching the key issues? Everyone agrees with the goal that the Prime Minister set out yesterday that Iraq
"should be run by Iraqi people on the basis of a broadly representative Government"—[Official Report, 2 April 2003; Vol. 402, c. 909–11.]
But what will happen between the end of the conflict and the establishment of such an Iraqi Government?
Clearly coalition forces will have de facto responsibility for overall security. What role do the Government propose for the United Nations? Will the initial transitional Government be led by the United States, and what will be the British involvement in that Government? Will there be a role for NATO, where Colin Powell is at this minute meeting representatives of European Governments?
What is the Secretary of State's opinion of the view expressed on Radio 4 this morning by the British major-general Albert Whitley, who I understand may be given a role in an initial transitional administration? Such an administration may have to last for many months. Is not a vital component the early involvement of the Iraqis themselves? Will the Government endorse the call made this morning by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for a conference of Iraqi leaders and anti-Saddam dissidents, including the Kurds—preferably in coalition-occupied Iraq—as soon as possible, to demonstrate the coalition's commitment to the Iraqi people at all stages of this process and to show that we come to enfranchise them, not to rule them?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments about our armed forces and indeed those of the United States—all who are engaged in difficult and sometimes very dangerous military operations.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to continue to win hearts and minds. I think the evidence I gave the House of what is occurring in southern Iraq is an indication of that, but, as I said, we must not underestimate the fear imposed on the people of Iraq over decades of control by a ruthless, brutal regime. It will take time to win those people's confidence, and our commitment to them above all else is crucial. I say that without qualification.
Coalition forces continue to tighten their grip on Basra. As I said, we will continue to patrol aggressively and continue to strike at the remaining elements of the regime who are in the city and still intimidating the local population. I repeat that we have no need of additional
1074
forces; there will be replacements as and when we need them. The need to replace British forces in the front line who are performing high-intensity tasks is not an issue, as commanding officers do that routinely. It is part of the way in which our forces are organised, to ensure that those in the front line are not allowed to become overtired owing to the operations in which they are engaged.
The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that we should not allow speculation about the timetable for the fall of Baghdad. As we have seen around Basra, it is much more sensible and appropriate for us to proceed at our own pace rather than that suggested by those who commentate on these events, not just to protect the lives of the civilian population but to have proper regard to the safety and security of our own forces.
I entirely agree that our ambition—our early ambition—for the post-conflict period is for Iraq to be run by the Iraqi people. Certainly coalition forces will be responsible for providing security in the period immediately after the end of any conflict, but I hope that period—once the regime has been removed—can be as short as possible, consistent, obviously, with the needs of security on the ground. I do not accept that it helps at this stage to make suggestions about the length of any transitional administration. We want an early involvement of the Iraqi people, and we want to work towards a representative Government as we have in Afghanistan.
Mr. Paul Keetch: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me an advance copy of his statement, and echo his comments, and those of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), about the British armed forces. The thoughts of the whole House will be with the families of those who have lost their lives, the missing, the injured and, of course, those who are still fighting. I echo particularly what the Secretary of State says about the defence of religious sites in Iraq, which is vitally important.
May I ask about the humanitarian efforts? I welcome the sight of British troops in berets and, indeed, Tam o' Shanters, patrolling the streets of Umm Qasr.
Are any more UK ships being loaded with humanitarian aid to take into Umm Qasr and will some of the problems affecting the distribution of that aid be dealt with?
This operation was initially intended to find, secure and destroy weapons of mass destruction. Will the Secretary of State tell us what progress has been made in that regard?
The Secretary of State mentioned that some 9,000 prisoners of war have been taken. Is it not imperative to winning the battles for the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq that all prisoners of war are treated under the terms of the Geneva convention? Will he assure the House that that is being done and that all Iraqi forces will be treated in the same way? Will he explain what is happening about the transfer of prisoners from US to UK control, which I understand is now happening?
The Secretary of State will be aware of reports this morning that British forces have used cluster bombs in Iraq. Does he not agree that the unintended consequences of using such weapons can have a terrible impact on the civilian population and, indeed, on our

1075
own forces? I am sure that we all remember the two Gurkhas who tragically lost their lives in Kosovo while clearing up unexploded bomblets. Will the Secretary of State confirm that if such bombs are used, he will notify the aid agencies and others in the area of their presence and give a commitment that UK forces will be involved in clearing unexploded ordnance?
Finally, I welcome what the Prime Minister said this week about parcels for our troops. Will the Secretary of State outline in more detail when this programme will begin? The well-being and security of servicemen and women in the area must be our first priority.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's observations. The humanitarian effort will certainly continue. The crucial contribution made by British forces is the widening of the channel and the extension of the berthing facilities in Umm Qasr, which will continue. As I said, we anticipate that further ships will contribute to that effort.
As yet, we have not made significant finds of weapons of mass destruction, but as I have told the House before, we have made discoveries of extensive protective clothing issued to Iraqi forces, which we believe could have been issued only in preparation for their own use of chemical weapons. No coalition forces have such weapons and we would certainly never use them.
I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he asked for about the observance of the Geneva convention in respect of prisoners of war. In practice, several prisoners of war have been transferred from US to UK control, particularly when the prisoners were taken in the course of the US forces' rapid progress north. Given the UK's consolidation in the south, it is sensible for the UK to be responsible for such prisoners.
I can confirm that British forces have used cluster bombs, which, as I have told the House before, are the most suitable weapons for dealing with wide-area targets. If we did not use such weapons on appropriate occasions, we would put our own and coalition forces at greater risk. I have had the privilege on several occasions of seeing British explosive ordnance disposal forces clearing up unexploded ordnance—not just our own, but often the devices left behind by other countries. I pay tribute to their courage and to the tremendous work that they carry out, often in difficult circumstances.
I am delighted that the Prime Minister announced the free parcel service. As he said, it should begin as soon as the operational situation in the Gulf allows—effectively when a degree of stability is achieved—but I emphasise that service personnel and their families can already send air letters and e-mails to each other free of charge, and we should not underestimate the importance of that effective means of communication.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although it is easy to criticise and attribute blame from cosy TV studios equipped with computer graphics that do not fight back, it is not so simple for our brave men and women in Iraq who have to face split-second life-and-death decisions about whether they are facing a civilian or a member of the Iraqi militia dressed as a civilian? Do our military top
1076
brass not have better things to do than answer well rehearsed questions from journalists who seem to have first-class honours degrees in hindsight, and most of whom would probably run a mile if a 40-watt bulb popped next to them?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend tempts me. It is fair to say that we have had some indications from commanding officers that some embedded journalists—who are doing a tremendous job of communicating the details of what is taking place in Iraq back to the UK and elsewhere—have perhaps occasionally exaggerated the nature of the conflict, particularly if they are unused to gunfire, when they have reported back to the UK. Commanding officers who have read reports have sometimes been surprised to discover that they were in heavy conflict when they thought that a few bullets were whizzing overhead.
My hon. Friend's presence, and my knowledge that his son is in the Gulf, reminds me that we should pay tribute to our reservists, who are doing an absolutely tremendous job not only in the Gulf, but back in the United Kingdom filling in for those who have gone to serve in the theatre. I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to praise not only his son, but many others who are serving their country in a way that is quite different from their ordinary everyday lives. I am particularly grateful to our reservists.
Mr. Edward Leigh: In reply to the report on friendly fire, issued by the Public Accounts Committee, the Government said:
"Recommendations will be made by April 2003"—
that is, now—
"on how the UK armed forces could most effectively collect and analyse information about incidents of misidentification in order to bring about overall improvements to combat ID."
What is the status of those recommendations: are they ready, are they implemented, and will they be published?
Mr. Hoon: As I indicated to the Committee, considerable work was done in preparation for this conflict and many technological improvements were made to our equipment. However, as tragic incidents have recently demonstrated, there is no simple technological solution to the problem of friendly fire. Sadly, in the heat of conflict, mistakes are made. Every incident will be thoroughly investigated and we will continue to learn lessons, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not hold me to a particular date at this stage.
Harry Cohen: May I say, first, that I believe that the use of cluster bombs is deplorable? Will the Secretary of State provide some clarification of the deaths of the two soldiers to which the Prime Minister referred last weekend in the United States? Were they executed, or were they, as the Army chiefs said, victims of war dying in action? Was it a war crime by Iraqi officialdom, or a failure of intelligence reporting to the Prime Minister, perhaps even a failure of spin? Some clarification would be welcome.
Mr. Hoon: No doubt right hon. and hon. Members will raise the issue of cluster bombs, but my hon. Friend

1077
really has to face up to the facts. Certainly there are risks with cluster bombs, as there are risks of all munitions failing. The percentage failure rate is small, but it leaves a continuing problem, which I accept and recognise. That is why the explosive ordnance disposal people bravely risk their lives to clear up such problems. Balanced against that, my hon. Friend must face the issue of whether he would allow coalition forces to be put at risk because we are not prepared to use that particular capability. Without cluster bombs, we would have to use far larger ordnance to deal with the same problem. We would have to use far larger weapons to deal with deployed tanks, for example, which is the sort of target against which cluster bombs are used. I do not think that there is a simple answer to this issue. As I have indicated to the House on many previous occasions, we use the weapon only when it is absolutely justified, but if it is, it is because it will make the battlefield safer for our armed forces—and I am not prepared to compromise on that.
As to the two soldiers, as the Prime Minister indicated, there is intelligence information about the cause of death, but I do not think it helps at this stage to go into it in any greater detail. There will certainly be a further investigation into the background, but I can tell my hon. Friend that we shall ensure that the relatives are properly communicated with in respect of the circumstances, and that we have clear evidence of war crimes having been committed by Iraqi forces.
Mr. Adrian Flook: A number of soldiers facing combat in Iraq will suffer from combat stress, post-traumatic stress and other mental health problems, sometimes for many years after they have left the forces. What planning and co-ordination is the Secretary of State and his Department pursuing with the NHS and strategic health authorities to provide the treatment that those mentally scarred soldiers may well deserve?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. We have spent a great deal of time identifying and dealing with the problem. For the forces that we have deployed, there are measures in place that will allow the symptoms of combat stress to be identified at an early stage. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence is medically qualified and has a particular interest in this area. He has followed through the arrangements that have been made and which are available, and will continue to do so.
Mr. Clive Betts: I want to ask my right hon. Friend about the post-conflict situation in Iraq. At the very least, there seems to be some difference of emphasis in what is coming from the State Department and the Pentagon about precisely what should happen in Iraq, post-conflict. Some of us are worried that the more extreme elements in the Pentagon are almost talking about a military colony being run from the US after the conflict is over. Will my right hon. Friend say what discussions he has had with his counterparts in the Pentagon, and whether he has had any success in tempering some of the more extreme views that have been expressed?
Mr. Hoon: Again, I would not always believe what I read in the Washington Post any more than I would
1078
always believe what I read in all of our admirable daily newspapers. I know full well that the ambition of my US counterpart is exactly the same as mine—to see Iraq restored to its own people, and British forces removed from Iraq as soon as possible.
Patrick Mercer: May I associate myself with the Secretary of State's comments about our brave dead and wounded, to whom I pay tribute? Given the rumours and reports that between 1,000 and 4,000 jihadists are flowing into the region, will the Secretary of State say how seriously the threat is being taken? Without going into details, will he say what techniques or practices will he used to protect our forces against them?
Mr. Hoon: There is a threat. It is something that we are extremely concerned about, not least because of the appalling incident when an apparent suicide bomber killed four US marines. As I indicated to the House—I believe it was on Monday—that has an impact not only on the safety and security of coalition forces, but on how they are able to deal with the local population. That emphasises once again how impressive is the behaviour of British forces in the south. They are trying to deal with the Iraqi population as they would deal with the British population. We must have regard to the risks involved when people are prepared to kill themselves in some fanatical attack on coalition forces, but efforts are being made to address the issue. It is a serious concern, and we will continue to deal with it.
Rosemary McKenna: May I join other hon. Members in welcoming the statement on the free postage for our armed forces? The issue has been raised with me on many occasions in my constituency. We all understand that it will take time to work out the details, but can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that all post offices will be given accurate information about the details of the scheme? One problem at the moment is that different post offices react in different ways.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The British Forces Post Office will coordinate the new scheme. Full details of the free packet service for families will be published in due course. However, my hon. Friend's question at least gives me an opportunity to urge right hon. and hon. Members to discourage their constituents, if they can, from seeking to use the new scheme before the details have been published. I know that there is a great deal of concern in the country, and that people want to help. We will have the details published as soon as we possibly can but, in the meantime, it would be helpful if right hon. and hon. Members could at least use their persuasive powers to ask people to delay sending packages just yet.
Angus Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for supplying me with an advance copy of his statement, and I associate myself, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru entirely with the thoughts that have been expressed about our service personnel and their families back home. As has been mentioned, the battle for hearts and minds is crucial for the peaceful future of Iraq. The Secretary of State will be aware of the

1079
major speculation in Washington today about post-conflict Iraq, the security situation there, Iraqi self-government and the management of oil resources. Why will the Government not announce their full support for a lead UN role, post-conflict, before Iraqi self-government is established? Is it perhaps because the US Administration are already handing out the jobs?
Mr. Hoon: Again, there is a good deal of speculation in US newspapers, as there is in UK newspapers. What is important is that we put in place the elements necessary to allow the Iraqi people to run their country. As I indicated in my statement, the first element has been decided at the UN—the re-establishment of the oil-for-food programme. Once the oil begins to flow, it will provide a considerable source of revenue that can be spent in Iraq properly, rather than on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, as was the case in the past. We also want there to be UN support for the situation in Iraq. The UN can support the rebuilding of a country in a variety of ways, and the model that we set out in Afghanistan was broadly welcomed by everyone involved. It seems to be working extremely well, and there is no reason why that process could not be the appropriate one.
Helen Jackson: There were graphic television images yesterday of the impact of a cluster bomb that was dropped, I believe, on the town of Hillah, south of Baghdad. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that cluster bombs will not be dropped on the streets and urban areas of Basra, especially as I applaud the Government's intention to win the hearts and minds of the local population?
Mr. Hoon: I also saw some graphic images, but I hope that my hon. Friend and others will suspend their belief—certainly when those graphic images are the product of Iraqi minders taking television crews to particular locations. No television crew in areas controlled by the Iraqi regime has freedom of movement. It is very important to recognise that, and to accept that crews will be taken to places where the Iraqi regime wants them to go. However, I do not doubt that there are occasions when cluster bombs and other munitions can cause civilian casualties. I regret those casualties: they are a consequence of conflict, and we try to minimise them, if at all possible. I can certainly tell the House that so far it has not been necessary to use cluster bombs in and around Basra.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Whatever our views were before the conflict, with a war under way it is essential for the morale of our troops that they understand that they have our unstinting support and concern for their welfare. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the coalition will not allow its actions to be determined by media pressure for quick results; and that, if taking longer means saving coalition and Iraqi lives, a few adverse headlines are a price well worth paying?
Mr. Hoon: I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is precisely the point that I set out in my first
1080
statement about military operations two weeks ago, when I warned that this would not necessarily be a rapid conflict. I said that it would take time and that there would be risks and dangers. That remains as much the case today, as coalition forces advance near Baghdad, as it did two weeks ago.
Mr. Shaun Woodward: May I join my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in paying tribute to our armed forces for getting humanitarian aid as quickly as possible into Umm Qasr? However, it might be worth reminding ourselves that the humanitarian catastrophe in Iraq was in play long before intervention began. There were 500,000 children dying of malnutrition and a quarter of the country was without clean water. None the less, will my right hon. Friend tell the House about the role that military personnel are playing now in Basra to supply food, water and medicines? Will it remain a priority of the coalition forces to bring humanitarian aid to a country that has long been without it?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right to emphasise the catastrophe caused to the people of Iraq by Saddam Hussein's regime. That is one of the reasons why I said that the ambition of our Royal Engineers in working with excellent international organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross is not simply to provide the same facilities as were available to the Iraqi people before, but to improve on them—to ensure that there is a regular, reliable supply of pure water and that people are properly fed, clothed and housed. Those are not unreasonable ambitions for a country of the size and wealth of Iraq. It is certainly how Iraq should be, and we want to play a part in allowing the Iraqi people to develop their own country for themselves.
Hugh Robertson: The Secretary of State will be aware of the very close links that existed before the conflict between elements of the Shi'as in southern Iraq and elements of the Iranian regime. What assessment has been made of the threat from that quarter, and what impact is that likely to have on British troops in the south of the country, who will clearly be affected?
Mr. Hoon: I do not believe that there is such a threat. We have been in close contact with the Iranian Government, and we have sought to allay any concerns about the potential for misunderstanding. That is a very good example—I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it—of the importance of the religious sites. The four key sites of the Shi'a are in Iraq. They are as important to the Iranian people as they are to the Shi'as in Iraq, and it is vital that they be protected and preserved.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I offer my concern and sympathies to the relatives of all the military who have been lost and of all the civilians who have been killed. May I, however, draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the high number of children who are being killed? We can look to International Red Cross reports and other sources on that, not to Iraqi thugs. The two market bombings killed a high number of children. If he wants

1081
information on the second bombing, he can go to yesterday's edition of The Independent, which gives the number of the missile.
Will my right hon. Friend also comment on the hospital report in Basra, where 250 have been reported killed and 1,000 injured by allied bombing, many of them children? Women and children were killed at the US checkpoint. Of the 11 dead at Hillah, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), nine were children. That has been verified by independent sources. Will we he keeping a toll of the number of civilians and children killed; and if we do get into urban warfare, have any projections been made concerning the number of civilians that might be killed?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is quite right to emphasise the risks of conflict, particularly to children, and I assure her that every effort is made to avoid those risks as much as we can. I would caution her, though, against relying on particular accounts—
Mrs. Mahon: It was the International Red Cross.
Mr. Hoon: If she will give me the opportunity, I will explain why I would caution her. First, if she read carefully the original account of the first marketplace bomb set out in graphic detail in The Independent newspaper, as I am sure she did, she will have seen that the source of the information suggesting that it was the responsibility of coalition forces was someone the journalist spoke to in the marketplace. That was the source of the allegation that it was a coalition responsibility.
As regards yesterday's piece, which I also read with some care, the allegation is that because a piece of a cruise missile was handed to the journalist, that somehow proved that what took place was caused by coalition forces. I have to tell my hon. Friend that a considerable number of cruise missiles have been targeted at Baghdad in the past two weeks. I can also tell her that we have very clear evidence that immediately after these two explosions representatives of the regime were clearing up in and around the marketplace. Why they should be doing that, other than perhaps to disguise their own responsibility, is an interesting question. What is important about this is that all of us should look very sceptically at such reports and rely only on known and agreed facts.
Sue Doughty: In welcoming the humanitarian aid that is now going into Iraq, is the Secretary of State aware of yesterday's report by UNICEF expressing concern that aid is delivered in packets of the same yellow colour as the bombs that are being dropped? There is a risk that children may come across unexploded bombs and think that they have found humanitarian aid. There was a similar problem in Afghanistan, where the colour of the packaging was changed from yellow to blue. Will changes be made in this case?
Mr. Hoon: I shall certainly look into that: it seems a very sensible suggestion.
Mr. Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend answered the question
1082
asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) about cluster bombs. He may have seen reports in the press regarding casualties in the Hillah hospital. Those reports have been endorsed by Human Rights Watch, which suggests that cluster bombs were dropped on residential areas. The indication therefore is that the battle for Baghdad may well cause very high casualty rates among civilians. Would he agree that the point at which Baghdad is surrounded should be the point at which we invite the United Nations to broker a peace deal?
Mr. Hoon: I set out clearly in relation to Basra, and by analogy in relation to Baghdad, that we are not going to be driven into action as a result of commentators or of pressure from outside. We will take our time and do the job properly, minimising civilian casualties, but also having proper regard to the safety and security of our forces. What I cannot understand about my hon. Friend's comments, though, is the idea that he could contemplate, after so much determined effort, the continuation of Saddam Hussein's regime. If he had accompanied his observation by saying that an absolute precondition was the removal of Saddam Hussein, I might have more sympathy with it.
Rev. Martin Smyth: My party, too, sympathises with the losses of our troops and the civilian casualties. We sympathise with the troops who have been involved in some of those civilian casualties, because we have seen it happen that people are not prepared to fight as soldiers, but are prepared to fight as terrorists.
May I ask for confirmation that the money for humanitarian aid to which the Secretary of State referred has been earmarked by the Ministry of Defence for that purpose and is distinct from the humanitarian aid that will be going through the Department for International Development?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in his observations about terrorism. He and his colleagues have had often bitter personal experience in representing areas that have been plagued by terrorism for far too long. There is little doubt that much of the expertise of British soldiers, which I rightly praise, derives from their experience of dealing with difficult situations in the north of Ireland.
As far as aid is concerned, we have found in previous situations of this kind that very early projects are necessary. I gave the examples of reconnecting electricity and ensuring that a pure water supply is immediately available. The people who are best able to achieve that in the early days after a conflict are British soldiers, who do the job extremely well with the range of skills that they have within their ranks. The money that I identified is money from the Government—it is not earmarked as being specifically from the Ministry of Defence, but is money that the Government are making available for the kinds of early projects that are so important in allowing people to get on with their ordinary lives after a conflict.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Is my right hon. Friend in a position to inform the House of the nature of the discussions between Secretary of State

1083
Powell and the Turkish Government about northern Iraq, and is he in a position to reassure the Kurds about Turkey's intentions?
Mr. Hoon: As I indicated to the House previously, a number of very clear messages have been sent to Turkey. Turkey is a NATO ally and we have regular conversations with it. Secretary Powell's visit to Turkey is part of that continuing process. I do not underestimate the political sensitivities in the north of Iraq, and we have regular regard to that both in discussions with Turkey and in discussions with representatives of the Kurdish community there.
Tony Baldry: Last week in New York, when members of the Select Committee on International Development met senior officers of the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, we were slightly surprised by their surprise that they were going to have to move considerable volumes of humanitarian food and non-food aid over lines into disputed territory. What prospect does the Secretary of State think that coalition forces have of being able to assist with such movements, especially if there is to be, for example, a long siege in areas such as Baghdad?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman raises a difficult issue. No one would pretend that our forces can easily move food into areas that the hon. Gentleman calls "disputed" but that are, in many cases, fairly bitterly fought over. I would have to be convinced that such arrangements could be carried through safely by our forces and, in addition, that the food aid would reach the people for whom it was intended. Unless and until the regime loosens its control over places such as Basra, it will be very difficult to satisfy either of those conditions.
Hugh Bayley: Will the Secretary of State provide a written statement, or ask the Secretary of State for International Development to do so, to address the questions that the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) has raised? The Secretary of State will be aware that 16 million Iraqi people—60 per cent. of the population—were wholly dependent on oil-for-food arrangements before the conflict began. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome a statement on how quickly the volume of food aid under the new oil-for-food arrangements will match the arrangements that were in place before the war. I appreciate the logistical problems that British and American troops will face, but we would like to have the best estimate of how quickly the volumes of food aid will increase.
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, which we will continue to look at. The safety, stability and security of the areas in which food aid is delivered are important and must be a prerequisite. I have spoken about the UN's assessment of the situation in Umm Qasr. We want more and more areas of Iraq to be liberated, made safe and made secure so that international organisations can deliver food and other assistance.
1084
Assessments that I have seen do not suggest that—at present, at any rate—there is an acute shortage of food in southern Iraq. There have been concerns about the lack of pure water supplies, which is why we are addressing that issue so swiftly. However, I am not being told that there is an immediate food crisis.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to those serving from RAF Leeming, RAF Linton-on-Ouse, Allenbrooke barracks and Dishforth airfield? They number some 445. Obviously, this is a very anxious time for the families and friends who are left behind. Especially worrying are the graphic pictures that are reaching them in what is virtually 24-hour coverage—particularly pictures from the front line. That must be having an impact on people's performance. This is not a television programme or a film; this is for real. Can the Government impose some parameters, or some limited controls, on media coverage in these circumstances?
Mr. Hoon: I join the hon. Lady in her tribute, not only to those who are serving but to the families who wait behind—often understandably anxious. I have had the privilege of visiting a number of families, as have other members of the Government and members of the royal family. A determined effort has been made to recognise the contributions that families make at this especially difficult time. That is why we have appealed to the broadcasters to display sensitivity and understanding in the images that they broadcast. I know that families are anxious and I know that the broadcasters do recognise their responsibility in this respect.
Ann Clwyd: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the accounts of the journalists who have just been released from the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad and their horrific accounts of other people in that prison who are subjected to daily beatings and torture? Will he give a clear message to the regime about prisoners of war? We do not expect our prisoners of war, under the Geneva conventions, to be treated in that way. Will he assure the families of those prisoners of war that he will make representations again on this point?
Mr. Hoon: I have read those accounts and they are truly appalling. I have read other equally disturbing accounts of the mistreatment of prisoners. Those accounts lead me to take the clear view that war crimes have been committed by elements of Saddam Hussein's regime.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Does the Secretary of State agree that false claims about civilian casualties have been given credence by the conduct of BI3C correspondents in Baghdad? Is it not an insult to BBC licence-fee payers that they are, in effect, being forced to subsidise Saddam's propaganda machine? If CNN and al-Jazeera are withdrawing their correspondents from Iraq, is it not time for the BBC to do likewise?
Mr. Hoon: That is obviously a matter for the BBC. All I would ask is that all who watch these programmes—and this applies equally well to the broadcasters and journalists who are there—consider carefully the

1085
material that is put in front of those broadcasters and journalists by their Iraqi minders. All the journalists have people who supervise their movements. In such circumstances, we are right to be suspicious that they are not able to pursue freely the kind of investigations that we would expect journalists to be able to pursue in a free society.
Alan Simpson: There have been some civilian casualties for which I am sure that even the Secretary of State would accept that there is a clear line of responsibility. They would include the seven women and children who were killed at a checkpoint and the 15 members of a single family who were killed when their lorry was attacked by an Apache helicopter. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether current UK rules of engagement allow for such attacks on civilians; whether the rules of engagement for UK troops differ from those of US troops; whether he will place in the House of Commons Library the details of the two sets of rules of engagement; and whether he will confirm that, as has happened previously, any UK troops who were involved in instances of unjustified killings of civilians would be likely to face criminal charges?
Mr. Hoon: We do not comment in detail on rules of engagement, and certainly not on those of the United States. I would be a lot more persuaded by my hon. Friend's observations if, at the same time as mentioning the tragic deaths of seven women and children, he had also mentioned the deaths of the four US marines who were killed in a deliberate car bomb attack, perpetrated by a fanatic. In such circumstances, it is perhaps perfectly understandable—although I am not excusing it in any sense at all—that soldiers who are having to deal with a difficult situation at a checkpoint and who know that four of their comrades have been killed in that way are perhaps reacting in a way that we might not want them to. That is not to say that the accounts that have been given, again, by particular journalists are necessarily the only version of events that we should all accept. An investigation is going on into what went on at the checkpoints, and it is important that we await the outcome of that before judging the facts quite so prejudicially.
Mr. Roy Beggs: I too would like to place on record my full support for the coalition forces, my sympathies to all who suffer because of this conflict, and my admiration for the efforts that are being made to get humanitarian aid to those who need it. I ask the Secretary of State to share my disappointment that the conflict has prevented a group of disabled athletes who were to be guests in my home town of Lame from coming to Ireland to compete in the Special Olympics. Will he reassure them that, in the event of the conflict being over before the games start in June, they will still be most warmly welcomed in the United Kingdom? Will he again affirm that our enemy is Saddam Hussein, that Saddam Hussein is the enemy of the Iraqi people, and that he has got to be got rid of?
Mr. Hoon: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's final observation. We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people and we believe that Iraq will be a much better place once Saddam Hussein's regime is removed.
1086
The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I am not familiar with the situation of the disabled athletes. However, if he writes to me, I will consider the matter as sympathetically as I possibly can.
Glenda Jackson: If it is right that every aspect of what we do is held up to public scrutiny, and as several reputable British journalists have already died in Iraq attempting to make that true for the public, perhaps the Secretary of State would care to amend his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), which seemed to support the calls for the censorship of British journalists that were emanating from around the House? If the Secretary of State is not prepared to accept what journalists are saying to us, will he please accord some validity to what the International Red Cross says about its perception that excessive force is being used on women and children? I am perfectly prepared to accept that the coalition is attempting to reduce civilian casualties, but surely it behoves the coalition to examine what is coming from the International Red Cross and to amend its procedures accordingly.
Mr. Hoon: What I was inviting the House to do was to contrast the situation in which journalists are accompanying coalition forces right on to the front line and are able to send their material back uncensored to our homes for us all to see in real time, and the public attention that goes with that and the public debate that often accompanies it, with the situation in those parts of Iraq controlled by Saddam Hussein's regime, where we simply cannot see the kind of brutality that we are aware takes place. I also made comments, which I stand by, about certain reports on particular incidents. I have read those reports extremely carefully and I am certainly prepared to consider criticism of the behaviour of coalition forces if it is warranted. What I am not prepared to do is to accept at face value an account of an incident given by a man in a marketplace in Baghdad, and it is simply absurd to suggest—
Glenda Jackson: It was the International Red Cross—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must listen to the answer. It may not be the answer that she is looking for, but she must listen.
Glenda Jackson: With respect, Mr. Speaker, that was not the question—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Sometimes, the question that has been asked is not always answered to the satisfaction of the Member.
Mr. Hoon: All I am saying—and I see no reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) should have any difficulty with it—is that before rushing to judgment we should allow a proper investigation to take place. The difference in a democratic society is that we allow such investigations. We face up to the issue and are prepared to recognise that we may have some responsibility, but at the same time we do not rush to judgment in

1087
blaming—in this case—coalition forces without a shred of corroborating evidence other than evidence supplied by Saddam Hussein's regime.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: Earlier on, the Secretary of State made two welcome comments. The first was about the contribution of the Territorials and the second was about the situation facing families. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that regular units have family officers and that Territorial units would have such officers if they were going into battle as regular units. Will he make sure that the families of all soldiers serving in the Gulf receive the same high standards of care as regular soldiers expect?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Reservists are pooled from a wide variety of places in the United Kingdom and they do not necessarily have the same facilities as are available to regular forces, which, for example, allow families to meet and information to be passed on. We are addressing that and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, who is responsible for reservist matters, is looking into the matter with some urgency in order to establish a proactive system, which means that we shall go out and contact the families of reservists to reassure them and give them the support and help that is available to families of our regular forces.

Business of the House
1.34 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 7 APRIL—Commons consideration of Lords Amendments, followed by remaining stages of the Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Bill, followed by motion to approve a money resolution on the High Hedges (No. 2) Bill.
TUESDAY 8 APRIL—Second Reading of the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill.
WEDNESDAY 9 APRIL—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
THURSDAY 10 APRIL—Continuation of the Budget debate.
FRIDAY 11 APRIL—Continuation of the Budget debate.
MONDAY 14 APRIL—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
The provisional business for the week after the Easter recess will include:
MONDAY 28 APRI—Commons consideration of Lords Amendments to the European Parliament (Representation) Bill, followed by remaining stages of the National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Bill [Lords], followed by Commons consideration of Lords Amendments.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the first two weeks in May will be:
THURSDAY 1 MAY—A debate on the report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on the Financing of Terrorism.
THURSDAY 8 MAY—A debate on the report from the Public Administration Committee on the former Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
Mr. Eric Forth: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that business statement.
Is it not about time that we had a debate on political donations? Would the Parliamentary Secretary confirm the recent story that Lord Sainsbury has apparently given £2.5 million to the Labour party? Is it any coincidence that a ministerial reshuffle is coming up? We know that, because the Parliamentary Secretary told us last week. Is it a coincidence that a Minister has given the Labour party £2.5 million just ahead of a reshuffle? Could it be anything to do with consolidating his position? In any case, does that mean that the Labour party is now the party of the rich? It would seem that such matters deserve immediate attention in the House and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us an urgent debate on them and related matters.
On 27 March, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
"I am sure that the Prime Minister will want to report back to the House at the earliest opportunity on his important discussions with President Bush and the Secretary-General of the United Nations."—[Official Report, 27 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 454.]

1089
By my calculations, four parliamentary days have passed since then, but we have not yet had a statement from the Prime Minister. So something is wrong there, not least because the Prime Minister told us yesterday:
"I intend to make a further statement on Iraq before the Easter recess."—[Official Report, 2 April 2003; Vol. 402, c. 908.]
There are seven parliamentary days until we rise for the Easter recess on 14 April. Has the Parliamentary Secretary had a chat with the Prime Minister about the meaning of "earliest opportunity"? Is the Parliamentary Secretary as let down and disappointed as I imagine he must be that the Prime Minister has failed to honour the commitment that the Parliamentary Secretary made to us on the Prime Minister's behalf only last week? Will he tell us when the Prime Minister will honour us with a statement on Iraq; or is the Prime Minister too busy organising his reshuffle to come to the House and tell us about Iraq? While we are on the subject of the reshuffle, where the devil is the new Leader of the House?
Mr. Bradshaw: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I should be delighted to have a debate on party political funding—although I think that we shall he unable to find time for it—because it would enable us to remind the House and the wider public that we have actually reformed the system of party political funding. The only reason that we know where political parties get their money is because of what the Government have done. We still have absolutely no idea where the Conservative party got any of its money during the 18 years when it was in power. Such a debate would also give me and others the opportunity to congratulate Lord Sainsbury on his public-spiritedness. I made an interesting calculation overnight: Lord Sainsbury has set the rest of us a good example but, if the reports are true, he is contributing a lower proportion of his wealth to the Labour party than I am. If the right hon. Gentleman is accusing me of trying to curry favour with my ministerial colleagues, he is barking up the wrong tree.
On the question about the Prime Minister, the shadow Leader of the House may be interested to know that during the six weeks of military action in the last Gulf war, under the then Conservative Government, seven oral statements were made to the House. In the first two weeks of the present campaign, there have already been six statements. Yesterday, the Prime Minister made it clear that he intends to make another statement before the Easter recess. The right hon. Gentleman may like to know that during the previous Gulf war, under his Government, the then Prime Minister made only two statements during the whole six-week duration of the conflict.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He constantly complains that there has been no reshuffle, and he now accuses the Prime Minister of spending too much time organising one. I do not know whether his speculation is true, but I draw his attention to the words of the Prime Minister's official spokesman, who, when asked yesterday when there would be a new Leader of the House, replied "Shortly."
Mr. Paul Tyler: I would welcome a debate on political party funding, because it would give the Minister an opportunity to repeat the information that he gave me the other day about the amount of state
1090
aid that has been given to the Conservative party since its defeat in 1997. If I recall the figure correctly, it is some £15 million. Now that the leader of the Conservative party is in the pay of the Government, the House should be given an opportunity to decide whether we are getting good value for public money.
May I endorse a point made by the Conservative spokesman? I am delighted to have his support, because two weeks ago, he and his colleagues seemed to pooh-pooh my suggestion that we needed a new Leader of the House.
Will the Minister please give us an indication of when he expects to receive the Wicks committee report on the politicisation of the civil service, with special reference to special advisers? Can we have a statement and debate? Has he seen the very interesting day-to-day chronicle in The Independent today, headed "How the deafening noise of war 'buried' Labour's bad news"? Does he agree that we do not have to accept the Jo Moore conspiracy theorists' approach to those matters to recognise that some very important decisions and announcements have been made in recent weeks and buried quietly—very low-key announcements.
Keith Hill: Such as?
Mr. Tyler: Such as a major U-turn by the Deputy Prime Minister on capping council tax rises and, not least, the issue that has just been raised about donations to the Labour party. Could we please have an opportunity to discuss the role of those responsible for communications in the civil service as soon as possible?
Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to the generous increases which the Government have ensured that both Opposition parties receive from the taxpayer to help fund their offices. I am glad that he would welcome a debate on party political funding, as would I.
I am afraid that I cannot answer his question on the Wicks committee, but I shall endeavour to find out and write to him.
I saw the report in The Independent today, and I found it a rather desperate piece of newspaper spinning. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that there has been lots of news that people have not paid very much attention to because of the conflict going on in Iraq, including a continued rise in employment, which is at record levels since records began, and a very big rise in the minimum wage, which has been criticised by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats—something which I am sure all my colleagues will wish to remind the electorate in the run-up to May's elections.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Does not the statement that we have just heard from the Secretary of State for Defence reveal the need to hold a debate on the reconstruction of Iraq after the war? For example, if the Iraqis are to run Iraq, will they determine the contracts for the reconstruction of their country? Will there be a role for the labour movement in Iraq? There is a big tradition of trade union activity in the docks in Basra and the oilfields, often suppressed by regimes, and 1 million people turned out in demonstrations on international labour day in Baghdad way back in 1959.

1091
However, there might be a problem with President Bush, as the leaders of those activities, often at the cutting edge of the labour movement in Iraq, have always come from the Iraqi communist party.
Mr. Bradshaw: As I said, the Government have an unprecedented good record of coming to the House to make statements on that issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has already made such a statement and I expect that she will wish to return as time goes on to update the House and give hon. Members an opportunity to question her on that. I cannot promise to find time for such a debate on the Floor of the House before the Easter recess, but it is the sort of subject about which hon. Members may wish to apply for a debate in Westminster Hall. However, my hon. Friend's questions emphasise the importance of moving as quickly as we possibly can to ensure that post-Saddam Iraq is run by the Iraqi people for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
Tony Baldry: The Secretary of State for Defence has been very good in coming to the House to give statements; but, by contrast, the Secretary of State for International Development has been noticeable by her almost complete absence. One way in which the Opposition can usually address the failure of Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box is by using Opposition Supply days. We are now nearly halfway through the parliamentary year and, so far, we have been allocated only four out of the 17 Opposition Supply days. Would it not be fairer to have a more even allocation of Opposition Supply days throughout the year; otherwise, in May or June, or sometime later this year, we will have not Opposition Supply days but Opposition Supply weeks. That seems very unfair.
Mr. Bradshaw: I take on board the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am sure that he understands that there are sometimes periods of very heavy Government business, with the inevitable consequence that Opposition days sometimes get bunched up. That has happened in the past under all Governments. I appreciate his appreciation of the regularity with which the Secretary of State for Defence has come to the House. Today's statement was his fourth in just two weeks since hostilities began, and, as I said, there have already been as many statements in two weeks under this Government as there were in six weeks during the previous Gulf war under the Conservative Government.
Joan Ruddock: I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) said, but I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that he will know that there has been very heavy fighting in Najaf, Karbala and Nasiriyah. No one knows the humanitarian consequences of that fighting, and the International Red Cross is asking when it will get access. Will my hon. Friend discuss that with the Secretary of State for International Development and ensure that she comes to the House for a further discussion of the humanitarian situation?
Mr. Bradshaw: I will certainly pass on my hon. Friend's request and those of other hon. Members for
1092
the secretary of State for International Development to come to the House to make a further statement before the Easter recess. I would simply point out to my hon. Friend that the Red Cross and Red Crescent are already doing an excellent job in those parts of Iraq—
Joan Ruddock: Access?
Mr. Bradshaw: I know that they do not have access to everywhere, but I would point out to my hon. Friend that the Iraqi regime has given them no access to our prisoners of war, which is an absolute scandal, and she may like to draw attention to that as well.
Dr. Julian Lewis: When the acting Leader of the House receives representations, as he undoubtedly will, from the Liberal Democrats for greater shares in debate, more parliamentary time and so on, will he bear in mind that the Liberal Democrats' so-called effective opposition is represented here today at this important business statement by not a single Liberal Democrat Back Bencher and that, apparently, none is here either to take part in the important debate on the Adjournment, when hon. Members have the opportunity to raise matters of importance to their constituents?
Mr. Bradshaw: Perhaps Liberal Democrat Members are out in the country, worrying about their local council seats.
Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend will have received a letter from Mr. Speaker about the courtesies that Members of the House should extend to one another. Can we have a debate about ministerial courtesies to Members of Parliament? I was informed only yesterday that the Minister responsible for community and race relations would be visiting the city of Leicester. That gives hon. Members absolutely no time to make arrangements to greet Ministers warmly when they come into their constituencies or when they see constituents. I do not blame the Minister himself, but he has a vast number of civil servants who could perhaps drop a note to hon. Members to tell them well in advance that they are coming, so that we can be prepared for those important visits. Will my hon. Friend either provide time for a debate or write to Lord Filkin and remind him of those responsibilities?
Mr. Bradshaw: I will happily write to the noble Lord to remind him of the usual conventions of the House.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the political funding for the Conservative party be affected by the grave news that 12.5 per cent.—one eighth—of its entire parliamentary party in the Scottish Parliament has defected in the past two days to a new party of some kind?
Dr. Julian Lewis: How many is that?
Mr. Salmond: One eighth of 16 is two, but I am more concerned about the staff resources available to the Cabinet Secretary, who, despite having the entire home civil service at his disposal, has not managed to answer the letter of 14 March from my hon. Friend the Member

1093
for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), which demonstrated how holding a Budget in an election period broke the Government's own rules of guidance on political announcements. Will the acting Leader of the House arrange for a debate on that? Will he examine the staff resources available to Sir Andrew Turnbull, because we would not like the suspicion to be created that it is embarrassing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be trying to do that and fiddle an election campaign—a point that has already be deprecated this week by the Electoral Commission?
Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, because today's Financial Times reports that his party was making much about a letter that it had received from the Electoral Commission, which it has also written to me. It makes it quite clear that decisions on the Budget
"fall outside the remit of the Electoral Commission"
and that there was
"no reason … why a budget should not be presented during an election campaign".
Anne Picking: The single biggest issue that is raised in my constituency is the miners' pension surplus. Will my hon. Friend consider securing a debate on that matter, as it would be very welcome in mining communities such as mine?
Mr. Bradshaw: I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will be able to secure time on the Floor of the House for such a debate. I know that the issue that she raises is of great concern to her constituents, and it would make an excellent subject for a debate in Westminster Hall. As she knows, the share of surpluses taken by the Government is the contribution that schemes pay for a guarantee of pensions, which is looking increasingly valuable for the schemes' members given the current difficulties in the financial markets, particularly for pensions.
Mr. Mark Field: All of us in the House would accept the democratic right of people to protest. However, a number of impromptu protests have gone through the west end every weekend. They are causing great difficulties to traders, particularly in Oxford street, Regent street, Piccadilly and the Strand, all of which are in my constituency. Will the Minister ensure that the Home Secretary or another Home Office Minister comes to the House to make a statement to ensure that Government policy contains a fair balance between the interests of public protest and those of traders in central London? Will that statement place particular emphasis on the policy for weekend protests and the expected protest on 1 May?
Mr. Bradshaw: I am not sure that I will manage to persuade a Home Office Minister or my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make a statement on that issue. However, if the hon. Gentleman cares to provide me with the details of the disruption that has been caused, I will happily pass them on to my right hon. Friend for his consideration.
Jeremy Corbyn: Will the acting Leader of the House cast his mind forward? The House
1094
adjourns on 14 April for 13 days. The Government are pursuing a war against the people and the Government of Iraq, and there are large numbers of military and civilian casualties. Instead of having such an Adjournment, could the House not meet continuously through that period to receive reports and be able to debate this important and serious issue?
Mr. Bradshaw: I would have more sympathy for my hon. Friend's request if he had not said that we were pursuing a war against the people of Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are pursuing a war to disarm Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction and to liberate the people of Iraq so that they can get on and build a new country for themselves in their own interests.
My hon. Friend is right, however. There are no plans at the moment to recall Parliament during the Easter recess. The Government keep the situation under constant review and, as we have with statements and debates, we have an extremely good record of recalling Parliament when that is necessary.
Angela Watkinson: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the number of the petitions signed in my constituency and up and down the country by the customers of small high street pharmacies who are concerned about their closure? Could we have a debate on the Floor of the House to explore the way in which the range of services provided by high street pharmacies could be expanded to assist over-burdened GPs and accident and emergency departments, and to increase customer choice?
Mr. Bradshaw: I am sure that there will be a chance to debate these issues further before the Government come out with their final response to the report. Like the hon. Lady, I have received masses of signatures and petitions from my local pharmacies, and I know that it is an issue of great concern. I think that I am right in saying that she attended the recent cross-cutting debate in Westminster Hall that was supposed be about issues concerning elderly people. Because of the interest in community pharmacies, the debate was almost totally dominated by that subject.
Mr. John Battle: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 257 that is in my name and is entitled "Low Income Debtors and Poverty"?
[That this House notes the extent of debt amongst those on a low income with over three million people entering into debt on their doorstep through extortionate lending; believes tackling debt and financial exclusion must be given priority in the Government's anti-poverty strategy; and calls for coordination of the current fragmentary approach setting departmental policies and actions within complementary strategies to tackle financial exclusion and eradicate poverty, focusing on reforming the Social Fund, tackling extortionate lending and promoting affordable credit through credit unions.]

1095
The motion has received the support of 212 Members on both sides of the House, and highlights the plight of 3 million people in Britain on low incomes. Every day, unscrupulous and massively overcharging moneylenders on the doorstep draw them deeper and deeper into debt. Although I welcome the Government's efforts and actions to tackle poverty and social exclusion, a full debate in this Chamber—we have had one or two in Westminster Hall—would provide Ministers with an opportunity to give us a proper joined-up plan of action to end this rip-off, so that we get better financial support to the poorest in our society.
Mr. Bradshaw: My hon. Friend raises an important subject. I know from experience in my constituency that this problem causes misery to a great many people. I cannot promise him that we will be able to find time for a debate on this subject alone before the Easter recess, but he should be able to work the subject into a speech that he might like to make in the debates on the Budget. We will then be able to debate as a whole not just that issue, but all the other measures that the Government are taking to tackle poverty.
Mr. John Bercow: Following the highly pertinent inquiry from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), may I reiterate the call for an early debate on the subject of effective opposition and participation in elections? Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that such a debate would provide a first-class opportunity for the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats to explain why, as has been reported to me today, those two parties have failed to find candidates to contest no fewer than five seats on Aylesbury Vale district council against the excellent Conservative candidates who will be seeking election?
Mr. Bradshaw: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so disappointed that some of his local Conservative candidates will not face excellent opposition in the local elections. I am sure that that will come as a disappointment to all the Labour voters in that area. All parties do what they can to attract as many candidates as possible, and I know from my experience that there are plenty of places in the country where the Conservatives have difficulty finding enough candidates.
Ann Clwyd: My hon. Friend will have noticed that al-Jazeera, the Arabic channel, has been having some problems in Baghdad recently. I have several times over the past week made representations to the House authorities asking that at least one Arabic channel should be placed alongside the 24 channels at our disposal in the House. It is important to see the images that the Arabs are seeing, so that we can better judge the progress of the war and assess why certain people react in certain ways. Does he have any news on that?
Mr. Bradshaw: I have no news for my hon. Friend, because this matter is not within my responsibility; it is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms. I know that he is aware of my hon. Friend's request and, if other hon.
1096
Members feel the same as she does, I urge them to make a similar request. These decisions tend to be made on the basis of the strength of feeling among Members of the House.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will the acting Leader of the House consider the case of PowderJect and the possibility of a debate on that subject? Will he also consider the case of another Labour donor, Paul Drayson, who has just been put on the final shortlist for a contract for the latest batch of smallpox vaccines worth more than £50 million? Is he aware that PowderJect is currently being investigated by the National Audit Office for possible irregularities in a £32 million contract for the first batch of vaccines after the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), revealed to me in a written answer on 15 October 2002 that the Government could have gone straight to the ultimate manufacturers, the east German company, IDT, and probably saved the taxpayer £20 million? When will the NAO report be published? Can the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that it will not be published and therefore buried on Budget day?
Mr. Bradshaw: No, it will be published. If the implication of the hon. Gentleman's question is that a decision on something as important as the smallpox vaccine would be based on a party-political donation, that is a preposterous thing to suggest. His point would carry more credibility if his party had declared a single one of the donations that it received in the 18 years that it was in power.
Mr. Ernie Ross: Has my hon. Friend had a chance to study the press release that was put out by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury this morning, indicating the determination of the European Union to take action over the proof of origin of produce coming from the illegal settlements in the west bank? Will he arrange for a debate, in the Chamber or elsewhere, to allow us to consider that EU agreement, which was entered into in June 2000? We suspect that the Israelis have been breaking one part of it ever since.
Mr. Bradshaw: I am not aware of my hon. Friend's last point. However, as the Minister who used to be responsible for that part of the world, I am aware of the general issue and of the great work that he has done to raise these matters. I am pleased—I hope that he is as well—that we do at last seem to be making progress, thanks in part to the work that he has done and the lead taken by the British Government.
David Taylor: Did not last summer's crisis demonstrate that exam marking is a somewhat inexact science? Does not today's publication of A-level league tables perpetuate the myth that schools can readily be ranked by results? Will my hon. Friend try to find time for a debate in Westminster Hall to investigate these matters and perhaps to expose the rather sad but obvious truth that using league tables as performance indicators can be educationally erroneous, statistically specious and politically pointless?
Mr. Bradshaw: It is not in my power to allocate time in Westminster Hall. It is within my hon. Friend's rights

1097
to apply for a debate there, and I urge him to do so if he feels so strongly about this subject. It would have been nice if in his question he had reminded the House that last year's A-level results were the best ever.
Jon Trickett: I return to the question of former mining communities. My hon. Friend might be interested to learn that in Featherstone there is not one Tory candidate in the elections this year.
The largest compensation packages in history are being given to those miners suffering from industrial diseases caused by the negligence of the previous owners of the mines. Will my hon. Friend try to find time for a debate on the matter? In my constituency, more than 3,000 former miners have submitted claims, and well over £70 million in compensation has already been paid. However, a debate would allow us to congratulate the Government on this settlement. We could debate the way in which the scheme has been rolled out, and perhaps air the case of those few constituents who sadly, but increasingly frequently, find that they were offered an interim statement that turned out to be larger than the final settlement. That causes frustration and disappointment. A debate would provide a great opportunity for us to discuss those problems, which are important to the families. However, given the scale of things, it is still a fantastic and welcome scheme.
Mr. Bradshaw: I will take up the specific point of interim payments with the Ministers responsible and ask them to write to my hon. Friend. I am pleased that, overall, he is happy with the way that the scheme has worked. Perhaps one of the reasons why his part of the world is now a Tory-free zone is the disgraceful way in which the previous Tory Government treated the miners to whom he has referred.
David Cairns: Can my hon. Friend arrange for a statement from a Foreign Office Minister on protection and treatment of UK nationals living and working in the middle east? Two of my constituents—one is a relative working and living in the middle east—have been either the victims of harassment by members of the population of the countries that they are living in, or have witnessed it.
We understand that there is a great deal of anger in the Arab world about the action that is being taken. However, the citizens of Arab countries do not have the right to vent that anger on British citizens living and working in those countries, who have made a valuable contribution, both economically and socially, over many years. It would be good to hear what correspondence or dialogue the Foreign Office is having with other countries in the Arab world to ensure protection for British citizens during this difficult time.
Mr. Bradshaw: If my hon. Friend has not already given the Foreign Office details of those incidents, I am sure that it would be interested in receiving them. It is generally my experience, as a former Foreign Office Minister for that part of the world, that the Governments of those countries themselves are extremely sensitive to such stories coming out because it affects their reputations and impacts on tourism and so forth.
1098
I suspect that those incidents are still very isolated. I think that the experience of most Members and of ordinary members of the public when travelling in the Arab world is that the levels of hospitality and friendship, in spite of what is going on, are still extremely high. One is treated extremely well. If my hon. Friend can let me have the details, I will certainly look into the incidents to which he referred.
Jim Sheridan: My hon. Friend will be aware that the eyes of both the Arab and the Muslim worlds are on the House during these difficult times. Will he use his good offices to ensure that, in the event that our troops, as is hoped, are successful, magnanimity will be the order of the day and any unnecessary jingoism will be discouraged by the House?
Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, I think that, given the way in which our armed forces are already conducting themselves in Iraq, especially in those parts of southern Iraq which they are making safe, there is already proof in their behaviour that they are doing exactly that. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence mentioned earlier, despite our armed forces being fired at from holy shrines in some of the holy cities, they are not firing back. That is another example of the intense sensitivity—it is due partly to the experience that our forces have had in places such as Northern Ireland—with which our armed forces approach the difficult situation that they face in Iraq.
Glenda Jackson: May we please have a debate, not in Westminster Hall but on the Floor of the House, and in Government time, on the situation for a post-conflict Iraq and the transition to it? Grave concern is being expressed, not only within the House but in the country and the wider world, that the driving force should be the United States exclusively. Despite the statements of our Government, there is still deep disbelief that the United States will pay any attention to the United Nations.
If my hon. Friend is attempting to create a statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development on the potential humanitarian crisis now in Iraq, perhaps he could point out to her that the UN has called for corridors of peace, which UNICEF successfully established during the first Gulf war, both in Lebanon and Sudan, to ensure that as the aid comes in, it does not just sit on the dockside but is distributed to the people who need it most. This clearly requires agreement on behalf of the combatants, but it is not enough to wait until the conflict is over because a real humanitarian crisis is brewing.
Mr. Bradshaw: If shall certainly pass on that further request from my hon. Friend for a statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. I would point out that in the statement this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, in Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday and in Defence questions on Monday, a great deal was said and many questions were asked about a post-Saddam Iraq. It is important in that context that we do not get ahead of ourselves. Our armed forces are still involved in a dangerous military conflict, which, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of

1099
State for Defence said earlier, people should not assume is about to come to an end. Perhaps the moment of greatest danger is still ahead of us. I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunity in the House to debate the future of Iraq, which I hope my hon. Friend agrees will be much rosier when Saddam has gone.

Point of Order
2.7 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it possible for a Minister inadvertently, no doubt, to mislead the House by not completing a quotation? In business questions, the acting Leader of the House told us in a quotation that the Electoral Commission
"knows of no reason in law why a budget should not be presented during an election campaign".
The quote continues:
"although by well-established convention significant government announcements are avoided in the 'purdah' period running up to general elections. April 9th is within the formal period of campaign to elections to the Scottish Parliament…and it seems right that announcements relevant to those nations should be similarly avoided. As a general principle, the Commission would wish to see as level a playing field as our political system will allow and for that reason"
does not like the Government to
"use its position during an election campaign in a way which might be perceived as seeking electoral advantage."
The acting Leader of the House is a fair-minded man. He has the opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box to make it clear that he was not attempting to mislead the House as to the views of the Electoral Commission.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): That is not a point of order for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman's comments are none the less on the record.

Point of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    ROAD AND STREET WORKS (NOTICE AND COMPENSATION)
    Keith Vaz presented a Bill to require highway authorities, street authorities and statutory undertakers to give notice to residents and businesses of road and street works; to provide for compensation if a notice is not issued; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 87].
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 24th March, be approved.—[Dan Norris.]
    Question agreed to.

Adjournment (Easter)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dan Norris.]
2.10 pm
Ross Cranston: In this Adjournment debate, I wish to address three matters: first, the war in Iraq; secondly, a constituency interest which, in fact, has a wider national application; and thirdly, I want to say something about Parliament.
I want to say something about the laws of war or, as they are correctly called, the rules of humanitarian law. Humanitarian law applies to the conduct of war, and is different from the question whether a state may lawfully use armed force. I said in the House well before the conflict started that what we are doing in Iraq is perfectly lawful. However, the separate body of humanitarian law attempts to limit the effects of armed conflict, mainly by restricting the means and methods of warfare. It is contained in customary international law, and now most notably the Geneva conventions of 1949 and the additional protocols of 1977. Humanitarian law demands that the means and methods of warfare must discriminate between those taking part in the fighting and military objects on the one hand and civilians and civilian, cultural, religious, medical and similar objects on the other. There is also a prohibition on means and methods of warfare that cause severe or long-term damage to the environment. In addition, certain weapons, such as chemical and biological weapons and anti-personnel mines, are banned.
States have an obligation to ensure that their armed forces and citizens comply with the rules of humanitarian law, and must have a system to punish breaches of those rules. This country has created offences in our domestic law for breaches of the Geneva conventions and the protocols. My experience as a Law Officer during the Kosovo conflict was that we are scrupulous in complying with the rules of humanitarian law. That does not mean that mistakes do not occur, but I was impressed by how mightily our armed forces attempt to comply with their obligations under the Geneva conventions. We may discount media reports of the behaviour of some Iraqi combatants, but it is clear that there is no moral equivalence between the means and methods of the British armed forces and certain elements in the Iraqi forces.
As for combatants, the Geneva conventions require, first, that they be members of a state's armed forces. Secondly there is a principle of distinction—not only must combatants comply with the laws of war, as I have outlined, but they must distinguish themselves from civilians, not least by carrying their weapons openly. If combatants fail to comply with those requirements, they run the risk of losing protections accorded to prisoners of war by the conventions. At a basic level, those conventions demand respect for the lives and physical and mental integrity of POWs, but there are other advantages such as registration and visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross. In the last few days, the status of the Fedayeen militia has been at issue. The Ministry of Defence has said that there is no case for treating those paramilitary forces as unlawful combatants, whether or not they are wearing military uniforms. That is right—they are identifiable, are in a
1102
war zone, carry their weapons openly and hence are entitled to POW status. Even unlawful combatants must not be treated inhumanely—I shall discuss that issue in relation to the detentions at Guantanamo bay.
In my view, British troops are governed by the European convention on human rights. The United States is a signatory to the international convention on civil and political rights, so its troops are bound by similar standards. Both conventions include standards such as the right to life, the prohibition on torture and inhumane and degrading treatment, and the right to liberty or, to put it another way, the right not to be unlawfully detained. That last right is at issue in Guantanamo bay. I have raised that matter with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary by letter and in parliamentary questions. One of the detainees, Shafiq Rasul, lives just outside my constituency in Tipton, and his family is well known in Dudley. The United States uses various legal arguments to justify the detention Shafiq and others. First, it invokes the principle of distinction, which I have already mentioned. The argument is that the Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters were unlawful combatants because they were not members of the armed forces of a state. That is certainly the case with al-Qaeda, which is terrorist organisation, but the argument has less force in the case of the Taliban. The United States, however, argues that those combatants are not entitled to protections for POWs in the Geneva conventions.
Secondly, as foreign nationals not on US sovereign territory, those detainees do not enjoy the ordinary constitutional protections of Americans. That contention has been upheld by the federal United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. That decision is regrettable because it turns on an arcane point of property law—the 1903 lease of lands agreement between the US and Cuba established that Cuba had de jure sovereignty over Guantanamo bay. The reality is that Shafiq and other Britons are being held indefinitely. Our Court of Appeal considered the matter late last year in the Abassi case and said that the detainees are being held
"in apparent contravention of fundamental principles recognised by both English and American jurisdictions and by international law".
What is objectionable, as the Court of Appeal, said, is that Shafiq, Abassi and others are without any opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of their detention before the courts.
Rob Marris: My hon. and learned Friend mentioned the de jure jurisdiction of Cuba under the 1903 lease. Is he aware of what that lease says to give individuals rights that they have otherwise been denied?
Ross Cranston: The wording of the lease is such that Cuba has de jure sovereignty. Whatever the de facto position, the court held that, under the lease, Cuba still had de jure sovereignty. Of course, that does not accord with the realities of the situation, as the United States obviously has control of that base.
Once the war in Iraq is over, we would be perfectly entitled to press the United States to act in accordance with the rule of law in relation to Britons who are

1103
detained at Guantanamo bay. If they are guilty of offences, they must be punished but, by the same token, they must have the right to be accorded a hearing before a court or tribunal.
I now turn to a constituency interest. These are difficult times for manufacturing. There is a long-term structural decline, added to which there is a cyclical slowdown because of the world economic recession. There is a significant effect on jobs, and about 10,000 jobs a month are being lost in manufacturing. It still accounts for 20 per cent. of gross domestic product, and in my area of the black country and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), it accounts for 30 per cent. of GDP. A higher proportion of people are employed in manufacturing in our region than is the case nationally.
What do we have to do to move from low value added production to a more highly competitive economy, where good design, high technology and innovation will give us a competitive edge? What can Government do? The Government have established the Manufacturing Advisory Service. The figures issued in the past couple of days demonstrate that that is proving to be a popular service. It is responding to what manufacturers want. There have been about 8,500 inquiries, and 1,000 of those have led to further consultancies.
Mrs. Angela Browning: It is impressive that manufacturers have responded. I speak as someone who worked for a British manufacturer for eight years. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that many of those inquiries from manufacturers are prompted by their need for Government advice about how they should interpret, implement and apply the plethora of legislation that the Government have imposed on manufacturers since coming to office?
Ross Cranston: I do not accept that argument. I understand that the great majority of those inquiries are technical, with manufacturers asking how they can improve their performance so that they can move to higher value production. The Department of Trade and Industry claims that the in-depth consultancy work under the scheme has resulted in average productivity savings of £85,000. I am rather sceptical about that figure, but it may be true.
Government can do a great deal to improve skills. At a local level that can be done by colleges of education, such as Dudley college in my constituency. I have previously told the House of the virtues of Dudley college, which is the fourth biggest college in the country and offers traineeships and modern apprenticeships. It has a construction curriculum centre that has been recognised as a centre of excellence nationally. At national level Departments must work closely together, and in the past month or so I have been gratified that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has indicated that he will work much more closely with the DTI to improve skills levels in the economy.
Industry itself can do a great deal. It is in the driving seat. Recently some of my hon. Friends and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were at the launch of the
1104
Black Country chamber of commerce manufacturing support campaign. [Interruption.] It is a great pity that the shadow Leader of the House was not able to attend. The chamber of commerce says in its detailed statement that it wants to work with various partners, especially the educational establishments, it wants to change the perception of manufacturing, and more importantly, it wants to identify champions of the sector so as to stimulate the growth of high quality manufacturing establishments. It speaks of
"helping to identify niche segments, promoting higher value added activities, driving the way to fully exploit design and innovation, seeking to lead and inspire Businesses."
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, fully support that campaign. I invite the shadow Leader of the House to do likewise. I shall work with the chamber to advance that agenda.
Mr. John Bercow: The hon. and learned Gentleman breezily dismissed the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). Instead of speaking about what the Government can do, why does he not speak about what the Government should stop doing? Given that more than 99 per cent. of companies in this country employ fewer than 100 people, account for more than half of the private sector workforce and produce two fifths of our national output, why is he so complacent about the fact that those small businesses face a regulatory sea that is deeper and more hazardous than any that they have previously had to negotiate?
Ross Cranston: As I said to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), I do not accept the argument that red tape is an unaffordable burden on the economy. Most of the regulation is designed to improve the position of those working for or affected by the activities of manufacturing establishments and businesses generally. I welcome that regulation.
David Winnick: Does not the criticism that has just been levelled at my hon. and learned Friend resemble the argument a few years ago that the national minimum wage would be disastrous and cause a great deal of unemployment? The Opposition have changed their tune on that.
Ross Cranston: As they must on a number of other matters, as well. We heard predictions that tens of thousands of jobs would be lost. Of course, the number of jobs has gone up by 1.5 million since 1997.
Rob Marris: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his generosity. He may have, as I have and as you may have, Madam Deputy Speaker, visited the Manufacturing Advisory Service in the west midlands based in West Bromwich. When I spoke to the advisers there, they did not speak about lots of inquiries about how to deal with red tape. They spoke about innovation, information sharing and how they could access the substantial funds that the Government have provided to help the transition in manufacturing to the high tech innovation to which my hon. and learned Friend referred.
Ross Cranston: I agree. Our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has reduced

1105
the number of sources that businesses must access if they want assistance. The West Bromwich centre is a good example of that.
I come to the third aspect of my contribution. [Interruption.] I know that the shadow Leader of the House is looking forward to it. It relates to the nature of the House, which may interest him. We need to improve our procedures. Recently, I was part of a working party set up by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, with the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell). Under the chairmanship of Sir Alan Budd, the working party produced a report that was recently launched. It is entitled "Making Tax Law" and the argument of the working party paper was that fully to understand and enact tax legislation, we need entirely different procedures. It is an area where experts need to make a contribution much earlier in the process, so that we as legislators can fully appreciate what we are enacting.
After six years in the House, it seems to me that we spend far too long on some matters and not enough time on others. Recently, I raised an issue that other hon. Members, including the shadow Leader of the House, might consider trivial: legislation to implement the UN convention on contracts for the international sale of goods. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry says that there is no legislative time at present to deal with that, but it is important for our position as an international trading economy to sign up to that convention as soon as we can. It is not acceptable that we cannot find legislative time for that.
I want to say something about the House of Lords, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and his Committee are still considering. Let me set out my stall at the outset. I am not impressed by the case for an elected second Chamber. Much of that case proceeds on a false premise, which was starkly set out in the report of the Public Administration Committee, which states that Parliament's key task is
"holding the Government to account".
Elsewhere, the Committee's report refers to Britain's "uniquely powerful Executive". Although it may not be described as the key task, the argument is that reform of the House of Lords is necessary primarily to hold the Government to account. The royal commission adopted the same approach and even quoted Lord Hailsham's aphorism about an elected dictatorship, although it conceded that constraints on Executive Government were provided, for example, by the media. That premise leads to the notion of increasing confidence, enhancing scrutiny powers and boosting the legitimacy of Parliament by reforming the House of Lords.
In my view, once a party element is introduced into the equation, the key task of Parliament is not that of holding the Government to account. From the point of view of the governing party, it is to provide and sustain the Government. From the point of view of the main Opposition party, however, it is to undermine them. That does not mean that holding the Government to account goes out of the window, although from the point of view of members of the governing party, they will hold it to account as much through internal and informal party discussions as through parliamentary channels, if not more so. From the perspective of the main Opposition party or parties, that will happen as much through the media as through those channels.
1106
My first point is that, if one starts with what I believe is a more realistic assumption about Parliament's key task, one can reach different conclusions about reform of the House of Lords. If one is talking about enhancing Parliament's ability to enable the Government to meet their manifesto commitment, one will come to a different conclusion about the role of the House of Lords. Secondly, discussions about House of Lords reform tend to assume that the reformed body will not lead to constitutional deadlock. Neither the royal commission, the Select Committee on Public Administration nor the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform suggest any alteration to the Parliament Acts. It is said that they provide sufficient safeguards against such deadlock. Of course, there is consensus against the introduction of significant new powers for the second Chamber, although there are suggestions that there could be more effective control over statutory instruments and a role in relation to some constitutional Bills.
My concern is not deadlock, which I concede would be rare. I am concerned about what an enhanced, more confident and legitimate House of Lords might do without any change in its formal powers. First, it can obstruct. In 1993–96, the average number of defeats was about 12 a year; since 1997, there have been at least three times as many. In addition to defeats, Bills have been withdrawn or delayed because of the Lords' obstruction.
Without any change in the formal powers of the House of Lords, there is a danger that an enhanced, more confident and legitimate Chamber will strain at the practices and conventions on which our constitution is based. If there has been a constitutional practice that the Lords should not challenge the clearly expressed view of the Commons on major issues of public policy, it has been sorely tested in the past couple of years. At present, there is a power to veto statutory instruments. It was previously the convention that that power would not be used, but that has now been white ant-ed out. The convention that the Lords should not stand in the way of manifesto commitments would be even more severely tested than at present by an enhanced and more confident and legitimate House of Lords.
I voted for abolition of the Lords, as unicameralism has its attractions—we have it in Scotland and other parts of Europe—but I can see that it is not a practical solution and it is, frankly, not on the cards. The difficulty with a fully and directly elected House is that the constitutional conventions will be under very great strain. None the less, reform must continue and we must deal with the hereditary peers. In terms of appointments, we should also ensure that the Lords do not become either cronies or a self-perpetuating oligarchy through an appointments committee of the great and good. We must also explore the possibility of indirect elections from the nations and regions.
Those are my three main points and I ask that they be considered before the Easter Adjournment.
2.34 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: I should like to pick up on two points. I say to the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) that I am quickly coming to the view

1107
that either the House of Lords should be abolished or there should be an age limit on its membership, since my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), I and others led the Conservative party to victory in the parliamentary pancake race, only to find that we were not awarded the cup, which was awarded to the Lords on points because they were older than us. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Outrageous."] I am therefore taking a much more vigorous interest in reform of their lordships' House.
On a point of information, the record of the House will show very clearly that, in the 1992–97 Parliament, whenever both Front-Bench and Back-Bench Labour Members mentioned the minimum wage, they referred—this was more than six years ago—to a figure well in excess of £5 an hour. In fact, £5.75 was mentioned. It was on that basis that the Conservative party rightly warned against the impact in terms of job losses in certain sectors and about the differential effect on those who were higher up the scale.
I should like to make three points and I shall try to do so in slightly less time than the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North took to make his speech, as I know that many Conservative Members wish to make substantive contributions. First, it would be remiss of me not to share with the House the up-to-date news on the resurfacing of the noisiest road in the country, which is situated in the best county of Britain—we now know that officially—Devon. I refer to the A30 from Honiton to Exeter. I hope that it was not an omen that I received the information on All Fools' day, but the Department said that the concrete-surfaced section in question would be resurfaced, although the time scale is somewhat loose. It will happen in either 2004–05 or 2006–07.
Significantly, the roads listed for resurfacing are those where either 100 or more properties per kilometre are affected or the noise level is so high in terms of national comparisons that it is 3 dB greater than predicted. Clearly, the road is being resurfaced not because of the number of properties affected, but because of the noise level. Only four properties per kilometre are deemed to be affected, so the road must be very noisy indeed.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary, who represents Exeter, feels keenly about the road and will be delighted if I stop standing up and asking him to sort it out. On a more serious note, I say to him that, when the road was under construction, I received many representations from people who were very concerned about the surface that was being chosen and the effect of the noise on nearby residents. At the time, I exchanged a lot of correspondence with the contractors and the Government. The contractors were able to choose from a menu of different surfaces. Of course, the noise aspect was flagged up in the inspectors' report, as it had been the subject of a public inquiry.
I am now concerned about the fact that I had it in writing from the contractors that the concrete surface, which they euphemistically described as whisper concrete, would be no noisier than a blacktop or tarmac finish. If the evidence that we have seen this week about the decibel level of the road is correct, that information was wrong. The question that I now put to the Parliamentary Secretary, which I know that he will put
1108
to the appropriate Minister, is as follows. I have handed the written data to Ministers in the past, showing the nature of the commitment made on the part of the contractors in terms of noise level, and they are clearly in breach of contract. It was incumbent on them to choose from the menu of surfaces, especially as the issue had been highlighted in the public inquiry, a surface that would meet that commitment. If that is not the case, I want to know, as in any other commercial—[Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary is making a hand gesture that Hansard will not be able to record. He is running his thumb over four fingers, which I assume means money. He is right that the matter is about money, but as there was a written commitment about the choice of surface, it is incumbent on the Government to charge the contractor with breach of contract.
Mr. Paul Tyler: The hon. Lady knows that I have supported her plea before. I have used the road and I continue to be amazed by local residents' patience. Does she accept that money is not the only factor, because if contractors are liable in the way that she suggests, surely we could speed up the process rather than having to wait until 2006?
Mrs. Browning: That is exactly why I am raising the matter. We now have details of the work on noise levels. The situation is clearly not only about the Treasury making money available to the Highways Agency. The Department for Transport has a duty because public money and a public contract were issued, although the finished product was in breach of written commitments. I hope that the Department will pursue the contractors about the written promises because we should not have to wait so long for the work to be done. If the Department could get some money back, the work might take place a little earlier, otherwise we will have to wait three or perhaps four years, at best, which is a long time for my constituents.
Rob Marris: Whisper concrete sounds a bit like a chocolate bar. Will the hon. Lady tell us when the contract was signed and when the road was laid, because if that was more than six years ago, the Government will not be able to sue for breach of contract because of provisions in the Limitation Act 1980?
Mrs. Browning: I think that it is less than six years since the work was completed, and the issue was flagged up at the time. I shall check on that because I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's memory is better than mine. I register the point now, as I have before with Ministers responsible for transport.
The slow speed with which good and well-researched information about the safety of phone masts is identified is a matter of concern throughout the country and especially in parts of my constituency. I know that there is a separate debate about mobile phones themselves, but I wish to focus especially on the installation and use of masts. The Government often pray in aid the Stewart report, but much in that report and other European reports on the same subject suggests that we should err on the side of caution. It is all very well to do that, but that is done when there is insufficient properly researched information in the public domain. Such research has been based on the so-called heating effect of the emissions.

1109
I remain very concerned, especially because of ongoing research that I have commissioned to examine differentials in not only European countries, but countries further afield. Many countries set limits on acceptable emissions that are lower than ours. Although we are told that we err on the side of caution, I am not convinced that we have got it right. A mast in Crediton, in my constituency, complies with UK emission levels but would not have been allowed in other countries. Such disparities may be based on conflicting scientific information, so it is incumbent on us to access the best worldwide scientific research to try to plug the gaps in our knowledge.
Thermal emissions and the heating effect are not the only aspects of the impact of phone masts that cause concern. The Exeter Express and Echo—the Parliamentary Secretary will know it only too well—recently printed an article about a Devon doctor, Dr. Blackwell, who speaks regularly about the subject. Dr. Blackwell said:
"The tests they are carrying out regard thermal effects but we are looking at non-thermal effects. Heating from emissions is not the issue … Unfortunately, local authorities, when dealing with planning, are allowed only to refer to the guidelines on thermal effects".
The article went on to say that Dr. Blackwell
"claims emissions from masts weaken the blood-brain barrier and allow toxins to pass into brain cells. Evidence from countries such as Russia showed that pulsed radiation from masts could cause leukaemia, miscarriages, epilepsy and other ailments."
We need more open-minded investigation of research from throughout the world to identify and fill gaps in the research programme.
I am unhappy about the safety of mobile phone masts. I would not claim to be an expert on the technicalities, and I am sure that many hon. Members have more knowledge than I, but one of my constituents recently wrote to ask me:
"Could you tell me how many Microcell transmitters are exceeding the power output expected for a Microcell and in fact are emitting powers comparable to a Macrocell".
We all understand the demand for mobile phones and technology. Sometimes masts do not require planning permission if they are erected on land such as railway-owned land. Planning authorities work on what Government guidelines tell them, but the guidelines are based on an inexact science. That is not only dangerous but it makes the situation difficult for the planning authority.
I want to say only one thing about the war, because this is not the time for a detailed examination of the questions that must be answered when it is over. Before the war began, I asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether we had learned lessons from our experiences in Afghanistan. Our special forces went into Afghanistan to try to locate Osama bin Laden in the mountains along the border with Pakistan only to find that there was no one there. The map of where they were going had been printed in the British press the day before and I told the Secretary of State that it beggared belief that we were so daft as to allow that. Although he did not use the same language as me, he seemed to agree.
I have watched the news coming from Iraq, as everyone does. Although every reporter based in Iraq prefaces each report by saying, "I can't tell you where I
1110
am," in the end they do tell us. I do not know whether people have noticed this, but even if the reporters do not actually say where they are, a map is helpfully shown on the television screen to back up what they say. Consequently, information about troop movements and which bridges have been taken or are yet to be taken is broadcast on our screens. We are mad to put out such information in advance of sending our troops in to deal with the situation.
2.48 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said that this is not the time to consider Iraq in any depth, but I am afraid that my speech will be entirely about Iraq. At business questions, I called for a debate on the reconstruction of Iraq after the war, including discussion of how a democracy will be put together and how its society will be rebuilt. I shall not enter that debate now, although I might set out some of the problems with which we must deal. A debate on reconstruction will involve us all, irrespective of our position on whether the invasion should have started, because we should all be equally concerned about Iraq's future. Those of us who oppose the war must face the fact that it is progressing and unlikely to be abandoned. We must therefore consider the consequences and what should happen when we reach the end of the war.
I want to use a book by Dilip Hiro, entitled "Iraq: A Report from the Inside", which I recommend to hon. Members. It is currently available in bookshops; it has hit the market at the right time although it was written before the war started. Its points about the risks are relevant because they are now being experienced, and we should examine them.
Dilip Hiro has written about the middle east, India and racism. He has produced some 20 books, although this is the first that I have seen. I shall read more of his work, especially his background to the current position in the middle east, Iraq and more widely. I want to consider some of his points about the danger of engaging in the sort of invasion in which we are involved.
First, he states:
"Iraqis are known as staunch nationalists. They mounted a yearlong popular uprising against the British mandate in 1920."
We should be conscious that we are the old imperial power in Iraq. I shall speak about the problem of the United States of America being our partner later. Its involvement is perhaps even more problematic. The United Kingdom's involvement creates great problems. We drew Iraq's boundaries, and did so deliberately in our interest. We excluded Kuwait from the Basra area and added the Kurdish area to it to create an area that we believed we could run and control, and perhaps divide and rule. We gave it a limited port facility in the south of the country, which is its only access to the sea.
The League of Nations handed us a mandate to run Iraq. When it gained its independence in the 1930s, we retained Crown territory for 25 years or so under a treaty arrangement. It included the camps of Habbaniya, Shu'aiba and Basra. Basra was a movements unit, where I did my national service from 1954–56. There were Iraqi levies with British officers, who operated in the country. The agreement ended in

1111
1955, and Harold Macmillan, as Foreign Secretary, did a deal in the Baghdad pact, which allowed our troops to remain. They were there, for example, during the Suez crisis in the following year. The Crown territory was handed over, the Iraqi levies were disbanded and given the opportunity, which most of them took, to join the Iraqi army.
The Suez crisis in 1956 had a big impact on Iraq. In 1958, a revolution took place under Kassim. It was a free officers' movement, which enjoyed popular support. The Iraqi communist party was one of the major underground movements, which had been active in the docks and oilfields for a long time. It has often expressed the views of the Iraqi labour movement. For five years, there was great hope, until a coup took place. After coup and counter-coup, matters degenerated to the position under Saddam Hussein.
Iraqis are staunch nationalists, whether they are Shi'a, Sunni or from other groups. Perhaps it is less true of the Kurds, who are loyal to Kurdistan. The point is important because it makes it difficult for Britain to be accepted as the shaper of the future in Iraq.
Secondly, Dilip Hiro writes:
"Saddam is unlikely to repeat the blunder of exposing his armed men and material in the desert as he did in the Gulf War. Indeed, he is reported to have planned urban warfare".
We are clearly in that position and may have fallen into a trap in the gallop to Baghdad, which has left Basra and other areas under siege. We have not been able to tackle the problems there and will have to return to them later. It is a mistake to believe that taking over Baghdad means that the rest of the country will automatically fall into line with the so-called coalition—which in fact would be better described as a collusion between us and America, with a small involvement from Australia.
Thirdly, Dilip Hiro states:
"The key difference between now and the Gulf War is that in 1990–91, the Arab governments had a monopoly over the broadcasting channels and most of the print media."
There is a considerable extension of Arab media facilities, which matter tremendously because of the attitudes that subsequently develop in the Arab world, the middle east generally and further afield among Islamic groups throughout the world. They perceive a position that reinforces their views about what is occurring.
The book's fourth point is as follows:
"To imagine that a people who have suffered grievously at the hands of the United States for twelve years … would turn out in thousands to greet American soldiers and their Iraqi cohorts as liberators seems unrealistic."
America's position in Iraqi eyes is anti-Palestinian and linked to Israel. Whatever the details of those matters and however we would finesse them, that is the understanding of the Iraqi people. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein has often played that card. He once even cut off all oil exports from his country to western nations because of Israel's actions, stealing a march on the rest of the Arab world.
Fifthly, the book states:
"When a country is attacked, its citizens rally around the leader",
1112
and that is true however disagreeable the leader is. The Secretary of State for Defence pointed out that 50 per cent. of the Iraqi population had been born during the reign of Saddam Hussein. It is difficult to get a handle on different perceptions in such circumstances.
Dilip Hiro's sixth point is that
"Saddam would have no qualms about deploying chemical or biological agents if he possesses them".
Citing such weapons as a ground for taking action is dubious. Either there is not much there, thus making action unjustifiable, or there is something extremely dangerous there, which is liable to be used in the circumstances that now pertain.
Seventhly, the book states:
"The task of locating Saddam and/or his close associations and/ or renegade generals will be long and hazardous."
It will be long and hazardous even if we take over Baghdad because the mopping up in other areas will be a big job.
The eighth point is that the war will end up diluting and complicating our commitment to pursue our war against terrorism. I believe that any response to terrorism needs to be intelligence-led. We need to be able to draw on the intelligence in the wider world—in areas such as Pakistan, for example—to defend ourselves against potential terrorist activity, rather than giving it a field day as we have done by engaging in the actions that we are currently pursuing.
The ninth point is:
"In the economic field, the disruption of oil supplies from the region will hurt the economies of the United States, the European Union and Japan".
Saddam Hussein has used that weapon on a number of occasions in the past—to advance his position against the Clinton regime, for example.
The 10th point states:
"Politically, unlike in Afghanistan or Yugoslavia, there is no Iraqi leadership waiting in the wings to fill the vacuum left by Saddam's overthrow and initiate a democratization process.
This is something about which we need to have a debate. It is tremendously difficult to see what bits and pieces there are to place together. If Members look in "Europa", which gives information about different nations, they will see that the section on Iraq includes a list of 20 different political groupings that have formed together in six different alliances on different occasions. That probably just touches the surface in terms of what is around and who is attempting to work together. In the Kurdish area, the two main Kurdish groups have often been in battles with each other. Sometimes one will form an alliance against the other using Saddam Hussein; at other times they will use Iran or Turkey. It is not easy to place these elements together.
The 11th point is that there is a chance of anarchy and the break-up of Iraq. In a debate initiated by the Opposition on 30 January, the Secretary of State for International Development pointed to the potential humanitarian nightmare that could occur if the war took place. The first point that she made in relation to that was the danger of large-scale ethnic fighting breaking out in Iraq. There will be many scores to settle with the old regime and against different groups, and to keep the lid on all that will be quite difficult.

1113
The 12th point is the danger of the destabilisation of the post-Saddam regime from Iran and Syria, which is presumably why we have already heard threats from the United States in terms of its extending its redevelopment of the middle east by attacking those nations.
The 13th point involves the problem of Iraqi Kurdistan. The great difficulty is that the Kurds want a nation to be put together that includes the southern sections of Turkey, bits of Syria and areas in Iran, as well as northern Iraq. That is their objective and it could produce great destabilisation in the area.
The final point is this:
"If democracy is delivered to Iraqis by the Americans arriving in tanks and helicopter gunships, then the local people and other Arabs will perceive it as a consequence of a defeat inflicted on them by their nemesis, the Israeli-American nexus."
That is the perception that will exist in the area.
Those are the massive difficulties and problems that there will be. We need to try to handle them in some way, and to overcome them. We also need to draw these matters together in terms of talking about how on earth we can achieve something democratic in these circumstances in Iraq, and how on earth we can achieve reconstruction and bring decent standards of life to a people who have suffered grievously over many years from the actions of Saddam Hussein and from our reactions to him.
3.4 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I always enjoy participating in these debates, and I can honestly say that I usually go away from them feeling that I have learned a great deal. That is not a familiar experience in all debates in the House, as other Members will testify. Today has been no exception, and I look forward to hearing further contributions from colleagues on both sides of the House.
I should like to return in a few minutes to the issue of the war and how it is being perceived, and to the issues that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has just touched on about the post-conflict situation, because they are obviously at the top of our minds. I am sure that we shall have other opportunities to think about them before we go into the Easter recess, but this is a particularly good opportunity to consider in more general terms and over a longer time scale the lessons that we need to learn. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman not only for giving us a guide to the contents of the book "Iraq: a Report from the Inside", but for giving us some very clear guidance about the issues that we need to address.
I was particularly struck by the hon. Gentleman's reference to the need for our response to terrorism to be intelligence led. That is a much wider issue than that of what happens in Iraq over the next few weeks, because it will affect the next few years. Indeed, colleagues might have heard a discussion on the "Today" programme this morning about the difficulties not only of peacemaking but of peacekeeping after hostilities, in which comparisons were made with the Balkans.
I was also struck by the erudite contribution by the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) about the Geneva conventions and, indeed, the other international conventions. I hope that he is right in saying that, as soon as the hostilities are over,
1114
the United States Government will be faced with a challenge that what would seem to many of us to involve double standards, in terms of those who are imprisoned in Cuba with very limited rights. I fear, however, that I do not entirely follow him in terms of the problems facing manufacturing industry, not because I do not agree with him that such problems exist—clearly, they do—but because I find it extraordinary that he could deal with them without any reference to the difficulties that manufacturing industry faces in terms of exporting to euroland. Those difficulties have been reduced somewhat by the reduced discrepancy between the currency valuations, but they are still there, and manufacturers in Cornwall are facing a considerable uphill struggle, in common with agriculture, fishing and the tourist industry.
I share the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern about the way in which we deal with very detailed issues of tax law. I served on the Standing Committee for a Finance Bill one year and, frankly it was a terrible experience for me—not just because I was so ignorant but because I felt no wiser by the end of it. I did not feel that, collectively, we had done a good job, and I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is right to have concerns about those matters.
I take issue with the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments about the reform of the House of Lords, which I thought were extraordinarily timid. I assume that he was a member of the party that signed up to a manifesto that wished to make the second Chamber more effective and democratic. Frankly, it is not going to go that way if the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister are allowed to dominate the further discussion. I do not think that I would be breaking any confidences of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform if I said that, so far as I am aware, the hon. and learned Gentleman's view is not accepted or endorsed by anybody on that Committee from either House or any party. We must move on, for the very good reason that was often articulated here on a Thursday afternoon by the former Leader of the House, which is that good government depends on good parliamentary scrutiny. We are clearly not getting that, collectively, from the two Houses of Parliament working together. It is not a question of one House challenging the other. It is a question of both Houses working together to make Parliament more effective. I was particularly disappointed that a former Minister and a thoughtful Member of the House should take such a pessimistic, defeatist view.
I intervened on the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) about the surfacing of the A30 and I entirely agree with her. Of course, that is not the only section of the A30 that suffers from so-called whisper concrete. We also have it to the west of Exeter, around Oakhampton. I use that road twice a week on my way to and from Exeter station when I come to the House. I entirely endorse her view that, collectively, we should—I was going to say blackmail, but that would be an improper word to use—at least persuade the contractors to bring forward the dates for the improvement of that service. I am sure that she is right.

1115
I return to the hon. Lady's point about the lessons of Afghanistan and, in particular, the role of the media. Recently, we have heard many quotations, some of them misquotations, from Aeschylus, who, I gather, wrote in the 5th century BC. He said:
"In war, Truth is the first casualty".
That, apparently, is the proper way to render that statement. This morning, I heard—frankly, with incredulity and dismay—the Home Secretary's comments on media coverage of the Iraq hostilities, which, significantly, were made in the United States rather than here. There seems to be an implication in what he said that western journalists, particularly in Baghdad, are the stooges of Saddam's media managers; that was echoed a couple of hours ago when a Conservative Member attacked the BBC on similar grounds following the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence.
Members may also have heard on this morning's "Today" programme a robust and persuasive defence of the integrity of those journalists by Robert Graham of the Daily Mail and the Evening Standard. Those journalists are incredibly courageous—they are taking their lives in their hands in Baghdad, and they are managing to report the situation as they see it in the most dangerous and difficult conditions.
Long ago, in one of my many failed previous careers, I was a journalist. I would not have dreamt of accepting an assignment to Baghdad in the current circumstances. We should be saluting the courage of those journalists, not in any way decrying their commitment to good journalism. Indeed, several highly respected journalists have already lost their lives in Iraq, so I find it difficult to accept the criticisms that have been made.
What did the Home Secretary say? He said:
"For the first time in our history we not only have thousands of journalists with our troops but we have broadcast media behind what we would describe as enemy lines, reporting blow-by-blow what is happening."
In fact, as the BBC has noted, there are not thousands of journalists involved, but hundreds, as well as an estimated 250 press officers with coalition forces, so that is a bit of a worry to start with. Of course, there were also reporters in Baghdad in the 1991 conflict, giving blow-by-blow accounts.
It does not help that the Home Secretary, while complaining about spin, appears to be spinning himself. None of us can trust anything that the Saddam regime tells us. We know that, and most of the Arab world knows it. It also knows that his media machine is very suspect. Perhaps even more significant than the Home Secretary's comments on the messengers and their message is the fact that the al-Jazeera network has suspended broadcasts from Iraq today. Why? Because its editor refused to continue to broadcast after the Saddam regime expelled two of his journalists. We should recognise that, rather than simply make attacks.
As our troops are putting their lives on the line to create a more open, more democratic and free Iraq, I believe that they are entitled to expect higher standards from western politicians than the world has seen from Saddam. Our public are entitled to that as well. For example, we still do not know whether there was a
1116
substantial public uprising in Basra. The media teams on our side suggested at the time that there was and that it had been ruthlessly put down. Surely we should know by now. If we do know, we and the public are entitled to hear about it. Similarly, we were told by the US and UK authorities that a chemical warfare factory had been discovered, but everything then went quiet. Was there one or was there not? Have the media been told to shut up or was the claim, by any chance, an overexcited bit of spin—a false report?
We should bear it mind that our own Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have repeatedly emphasised disarmament and the so-called weapons of mass destruction as the rationale for our participation in the war, and that Ministers here have refused to accept the Bush doctrine of regime change as sufficient justification. The media have yet to tell us whether stocks of any such weapons have been found. Given the proportion of the Iraqi land mass that has been liberated, one would expect some evidence to have been discovered.
Of course, I accept that even very small amounts of biological or chemical ingredients could be absolutely devastating, although I accept also that those would not be easy to find, but one would have expected some disclosure or some hints by now. If the US intelligence services knew where they were stored, surely they would have tipped off the UN inspectorate years ago.
Reference was made to that issue during the exchanges earlier between the Secretary of State for Defence and my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch). There is at least a mystery here. I do not think it sufficient just to refer to protective equipment, because that in itself does not prove the existence of an horrendous arsenal, which is what the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers told us was there. Is something being kept from us? The media have a role to play in trying to establish that, and we should not simply accept assurances from our own press and spin doctors.
There was also the curious incident, which, as I saw it, went largely unreported, of the camp found in northern Iraq that belonged to a group linked to al-Qaeda. That group, however, was specifically anti-Saddam, which suggests that it and its links to al-Qaeda were not sufficient justification for the war. If anything, they were to the contrary.
By contrast with the complaints made by the Home Secretary in the US last night, my main complaint about the media involves excessive intrusion and excessive coverage. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton: there have been too many obsessively close-up and graphic reports of action and fatalities for my taste. Certainly, there have been unpleasant examples of "doorstepping" of the wives, parents or families of those who have lost their lives on our behalf, almost as soon as they have been officially informed of the loss of life. I find that very difficult to take.
Also, I find it hard to believe that the extraordinary scale and tone of the coverage is necessary, desirable or helpful to the families who are directly involved. In the first few days of the hostilities, taking a cue from the American media, there was a tendency to make it all look like a computer game—a casualty-free, remote,

1117
electronic playground—which could keep everybody cheerfully gung-ho for a few days before normality was restored. Tragically, we have all learned that no wars are like that, and certainly this war is not like that. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred to another aspect of what has been happening: so much detail is given that assistance could be given to the enemy forces and their intelligence services.
I also find the falsification of photographs difficult to take. An example of that was given in the media this morning after a photographer had clearly falsified a photograph, obviously with the intention of making it more dramatic. Even now, the paper mills are struggling to produce enough newsprint to supply the apparently insatiable and ghoulish appetite of the editors. I wonder who reads and watches all this. Who manages to watch the interminable TV punditry?
What about the compulsory spin? It is surely significant that every single one of Rupert Murdoch's more than 100 newspaper editors all over the world vigorously supported the American justification for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, whether the local population were doubtful, enthusiastic or antagonistic to hostilities. What an amazing coincidence.
I have been a working journalist, and I know many print and broadcast journalists who share those concerns, but their anxieties seem to have been overruled by the decision makers at the top. It is as if the media moguls had invested so much in the operation that they were determined to legitimise it and then to extract their full money's worth from it. I consider both aims deplorable.
We need not subscribe to the suspicion of conspiracy, so dreadfully fuelled by the notorious Jo Moore e-mail of 11 September, to worry about what is happening behind the scenes. The fog of war lies low over domestic politics too, as was revealed this morning by the results of an excellent survey reported in The Independent.
The Minister may laugh, but I do not think this is funny, and I do not think viewers and readers find it funny. They expect high standards of journalism from Britain. That is one reason, no doubt, why the Minister would accept that we must defeat the dictatorial attitude of the Saddam regime.
Rob Marris: I too read the survey results in The Independent, which is my newspaper of choice. I reflected deeply, and it struck me that we have two options. I invite the hon. Gentleman to agree or disagree. In my opinion, either we suspend the domestic agenda or we continue it, taking due note of the fact that the most important item on it is the fact that our troops are fighting overseas. Does the hon. Gentleman think we should suspend the domestic agenda or not? If he thinks we should not suspend it, let me say that I suspect that some of his hon. Friends would criticise the Government if announcements were delayed, for instance, and would suggest that the Government were burying information by not releasing it.
Mr. Tyler: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I do not think he was listening very carefully to what I was saying. My criticism is this: we seem to have lost the balance in the media, and I think the Government have taken advantage of it. That is not just a criticism of the Government; I am criticising editorial balance. I think the distinction is important.
1118
For everyone's sake—for the sake of our troops, the people of Iraq, those in the wider middle east and indeed the international community—we must simply hope and pray that the war is over soon. But that is also a good reason for trying to be sure that we return to a world in which the media take responsibility for balance—a balance that I believe is desperately needed at the moment.
3.22 pm
David Winnick: I apologise for the fact that I must leave relatively early. I hope I shall be forgiven. Normally I would be present for most of the debate, but I am attending a meeting of the Select Committee on Home Affairs.
I agree with what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) about manufacturing industry. He and I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), know only too well what happened in the 1980s and early 1990s, when two major recessions caused so much harm to the black country manufacturing industry. We still experience many problems, but I believe that the situation has greatly improved.
I want to concentrate on the military conflict. I agreed with some of what was said by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) about journalists. It is important to recognise their right to report. I do not agree with some of what they say—I am thinking particularly of one or two who have reported from Baghdad—but they have every right to put their views in a free and democratic country. I refer, of course, to the country to which they report.
As the hon. Gentleman said, a number of journalists have already died in the last fortnight. We recognise their courage in reporting the war, and note that we are better informed as a result of their journalism. I certainly do not agree with those who engage in journalist-baiting.
As was mentioned during questions on the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence, today's newspapers contain interviews with a group of western journalists who had been held in a Baghdad prison on suspicion of spying. When released, they gave information about what had happened in the prison. One, a British journalist employed by the American newspaper Newsday, said
"There were beatings and torture going on outside our cells, in the corridor".
According to this report, the journalist
"described hearing the screams of other prisoners"
—not journalists; Iraqis, obviously—
"being tortured and saw some with eyes and faces bloodied and swollen."
He said:
"Other inmates hobbled round, apparently because the soles of their feet had been burned or otherwise injured."
That illustrates what has been going on in the country under Saddam's tyranny. We should have no illusions on that score.
I shall deal with the subject of post-Saddam Iraq shortly. Let me say first, however, that there would have been no discussion about what would happen in a post-

1119
Saddam Iraq if military action had not been taken. If we had listened to the critics—if we had heeded their advice that action should not be taken, however strongly we believed that the regime was holding weapons of mass destruction—Saddam's rule would have continued indefinitely. Even if he had gone in time, presumably one of his sons, no less a murderous thug, would have taken over. Critics argue, rightly in my view, that a major United Nations role will be needed once the fighting has ceased. Fine; but that would not be part of the scenario, or part of our discussion, had the United States and Britain not taken this action.
I believe that virtually every Member—I wish I could say "every Member"—wishes the coalition every possible success: wishes it victory. Yes, it would be nice to say "everyone", but I think everyone present understands why I cannot quite say that. I shall make no further comment about that; I think that the point has been taken. However, it is important to convey to people in Iraq—this is really why I am making this speech—that a permanent foreign occupation is not intended.
It is true that the Iraqi people have not so far come out to greet the soldiers, and why should they? They do not know the outcome, and they have lived for so long under terror and tyranny. As I said before the war began, though, I believe that the vast majority want to get rid of Saddam. What they do not want in any circumstances is permanent occupation of their country, particularly—this may seem derogatory in religious terms—by infidels. We would, I think, make a huge blunder if having achieved the military victory that is so essential, we proceeded to a long period of occupation. That would undermine what we are doing, to some extent. It would not, of course, undermine the freeing of the country from tyranny, but it would confirm the suspicion of people in many countries—not least those in the Islamic world—who do not accept our integrity, and do not believe that we are doing what we are doing for the reason we have given.
We need to clarify our position and, to a large extent, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did so at yesterday's Question Time. It is disturbing, as I said to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, to read reports that the United States intends to put in a retired general as governor and that the role of the UN will be minimised or confined simply to humanitarian aid. I make the point as strongly as I can that before elections take place—we all agree that there must be an interim period—the governance of the country should be through the United Nations. That is absolutely essential and it must involve those from Muslim countries.
If there is suspicion, concern and anxiety—not among extremists of the Muslim world who have their own agenda, but among other people who are far from extremists—it is because the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has poisoned the atmosphere. As I said in a previous debate, virtually every hon. Member accepts the existence of Israel for reasons that we understand, but it should be an Israel with the 1967 borders. We must also accept the fact that for 55 years the Palestinians have had a raw deal. They have not been accorded dignity or experienced the economic possibilities that they should have had, and so many of them live in wretched refugee camps. The leadership of the western countries must
1120
have an understanding of the plight of the Palestinians, of what they have suffered and of why they feel so bitter and humiliated.
All the faults should not be attributed to Israeli action in 1967. I do not accept that. I was a Member of Parliament in 1967 and I said then that Israel had a perfect right to defend itself and not be destroyed. Since then, however, the Israelis have behaved in a manner that is totally wrong: it cannot be justified; it is inexcusable. Unfortunately, Israel has the likes of Sharon and others who are political and religious fundamentalists. Religious fundamentalism is not confined to the Muslim world: there are Christian fundamentalists and there are certainly religious fundamentalists in Israel who argue that because of what God is said to have promised in the Bible, they have the right to all the occupied territories. Of course they do not describe it as such: they talk of Judaea and Samaria.
I welcome the fact that, at long last, a United States President has said that he is in favour, in principle, of a Palestinian state, but he has to demonstrate more than Britain does—that he will put sufficient pressure on Israel to accept that a sovereign and viable Palestinian state should come into existence alongside Israel. If that happens in the next few years, it would be a great blessing not only for the Palestinians, but for Israelis and the whole international community. The absolute poison of that continued conflict would finally have come to an end.
3.32 pm
Bob Spink: I am sorry to see that so many of the usual suspects are not in their places today. I wonder why not. Perhaps they are a little afraid, have lost their nerve and do not want to turn up to face the music. We should remember Labour's battle cry that things can only get better—a discordant tune that now rings hollow to all my constituents.
Public services are much worse under Labour. Let us examine the facts. The hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick) is laughing, but my constituents, who have to pay massive council tax bills this year, are not laughing. Local and national taxes have increased massively, whereas street crime, congestion, public transport and hospital waiting lists are all worse than ever. Our local post offices, chemists and the police stations in Castle Point are all under threat from Government policies. Our roads are grinding to a halt and our rail services have become much worse than they ever were. The Government have clearly lost their way.
We must make the Government start to listen to the people again, and the best way to do that is through the local poll booths on 1 May, in about four weeks' time. Our policies are much more relevant to people's needs because we have listened to the people. We learned our lesson—it was tough, but we learned. I am a good example of the Conservative party bouncing back and
taking seats from Labour—and we shall take many council seats on 1 May.
Let me go through one or two Tory policies that are relevant to people's needs just now. For instance, we shall deliver more police patrols: 40,000 extra police will patrol our streets to make our communities safer and to

1121
deliver the streets back to the people who pay for them and deserve them. We shall pay for that by stopping the massive asylum payouts. I think that our constituents would welcome that.
The Tories will deliver better local services. The people in Castle Point quite rightly compare Southend's Tory-controlled council with their own Labour-controlled council. The Tory-controlled council delivers far better services, at an average cost to people of £400 per year less than Labour-controlled Castle Point. Is it any wonder that this Labour Government branded Labour-controlled Castle Point borough council as failing? Let us see what the people in Castle Point have to say about that on 1 May.
I shall read part of a letter from two of my constituents, Pat and Ken, whom I shall call Mr. and Mrs. W. On 23 March, they wrote:
"Commencing April, my pension, and that of my wife Pat, will increase by £13 per month for the two of us. Our Council Tax will increase by £18 a month from the same period. We will, therefore, be £5 a month worse off because of these totally unjustified increases. So much for the 'caring' Gordon Brown."
My correspondents go on to wonder whether the Chancellor would like to tell them why they should be grateful that he is looking after them so well.
Clearly, my constituents understand what Labour is about. They know that the council tax is yet another Government stealth tax. They know that the council tax increase has very little to do with Essex county council or the local borough council, but that it is to do with the shift of Government grants from the south-east up to the Labour heartlands. My constituents will not be putting up with that for very much longer.
Mr. Bercow: The truth of what my hon. Friend has just said about the redistribution of resources is powerfully underlined in my own area. Is he aware that in Buckinghamshire, 7.5 per cent. of the projected 14.8 per cent. rise in council tax is exclusively attributable to Government theft from our area to prop up and subsidise their profligate friends in the north?
Bob Spink: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting my argument and driving it forward. People up and down the country will be able to make their views known to the Government on 1 May.
Local pharmacies are part of the primary health care service. They are not just retailers; they are professional health care deliverers, and part of the very fabric of our society and communities. They take a great burden off GPs and, if regulations were relaxed just a little further, they could do even more—and they should be able to. We should celebrate and support them, rather than threatening them, which is what the Office of Fair Trading is doing with its control of entry regulation recommendation. I call on the Government to reject that recommendation, as it would damage pharmacies and set back the pharmacy service by 10 years.
The OFT recommendation would damage most the more vulnerable people in society. I am talking about people with mobility difficulties, young mothers with children and pushchairs, elderly people, people who do not have two cars, and disabled people—it is they who would suffer most. I therefore call on the Government to think carefully about the matter and introduce policies
1122
that would use pharmacies more, not put them under greater threat. I congratulate The Evening Echo, Yellow Advertiser and Island Times in Essex on backing local petitioners and chemists by drawing public attention to this important matter.
Last week, the Home Office Minister with responsibility for prisons visited Castle Point to look at the ongoing problems of youth nuisance. He walked around the Roseberry walk area, where traders regularly suffer from the antics of vandals and hooligans. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have raised that matter on the Floor of the House many times, and you will be surprised to learn that the Minister was discourteous to me: he did not even bother to drop me a note to let me know that he was going to my constituency—I had to read about it afterwards. That is a flagrant breach of the conventions of the House. It shows the Government's contempt and arrogance in stopping listening and in not treating this House with the respect that it rightly deserves by giving us the power properly to hold the Government to account and to represent our constituents' interests.
I have news for the Home Office Minister. It is his Government who are the architects of the burgeoning street crime, because, in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, they took away from the police the power to remove from young people on the streets and in public places unopened cans and bottles of alcohol. It means that, if a police officer finds a group of nine or 13-yearolds on the street with a six-pack of extra-strength lager, of which they have drunk three quarters of the contents of one can and not opened the other five, the police will remove the quarter-full open can and say, "Now go away and drink those other five cans somewhere else." What total nonsense. The Government have now made a humiliating U-turn and a complete climbdown by reinstating in the Licensing Bill—they could not even do it in a proper criminal justice Bill—the police's power to remove the unopened cans that my private Member's Bill gave them in 1997. I am glad that I have been able to put that matter on the record again.
The Government said in their manifesto that they would support the post office network, yet they recently announced that they expect 3,000 more post offices to close over the next few years. That is not supporting the post office network, but damaging the fabric of our community. They have also changed, in a disagreeable way, the method by which benefits and pensions are paid. That causes distress and harm to people, especially disabled people who cannot go to the post office themselves to draw their pension. Such people may use different people each week to do it for them, and cannot be spreading their PIN numbers around liberally. I ask the Government to consider that problem.
I also ask the Government to consider the universal bank account, which is very user-unfriendly. People with universal bank accounts are often the poorer people in our society, who could best take advantage of the significant discounts that utilities offer for setting up direct debits and standing orders, yet the universal bank account denies them the right to have a standing order or a direct debit. What utter nonsense. The universal bank account should be improved so that people can use it properly and benefit from it.

1123
The Government are presiding over a progressive attack on our local village centres and community shopping centres in rural and urban areas. They are ripping out the heart of our community.
I turn to the war in Iraq. Some of my constituents support the Government's action and some are very much against it. I do not know which judgment will prevail, but I do know that, in a democracy, we must listen to all views carefully and take them into account. I believe that if, by taking action, we can on balance save lives, we should support a leadership that has the moral courage to take that action. That is why I support the Prime Minister and support our troops in Iraq.
Humanitarian aid is very important. The oil-for-food programme under United Nations resolution 986 has not worked terribly well and a lot of money is bottled up in it. Once the conflict is over, we shall have to release that money for real projects, such as hospitals and schools in Iraq. We shall also have to ensure that aid—especially food aid and medical aid—flows freely during and immediately after the conflict, We must never underestimate Saddam Hussein's ability to deceive and manipulate. His trickery is boundless and the depth of his evil and depravity is without parallel, as my constituent Jock Hall keeps telling me. He has, and will again in future if he gets—
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Jock Hall?
Bob Spink: Jock Hall is an engineer who has worked in the region and who knows the depths to which Saddam will go and how he manipulates situations. He is deeply concerned that Saddam might remove the chlorine plants that make the water safe, thus poisoning his own people; or even put lures on hospitals, schools or religious monuments to try to make our attacking forces mistakenly destroy those institutions so that he can drive a wedge between the coalition forces and the other Arab nations. I am sure that our forces are well aware of that kind of trickery—I know that the Minister is. We must be very careful about Saddam Hussein.
We must also be careful to resist a Turkish incursion in the north of Iraq, which would be very destabilising and damaging. I congratulate the Kurds on setting up what is in fact a parliamentary democracy with power sharing between the two main groups. That has removed the traditional conflict between those groups. The Parliament has been able to be set up because of the no-fly zone. It is a wonderful institution and I spoke in it myself about four weeks ago. It was a great opportunity to witness a democracy growing and getting stronger in that region. It could be a model for the rest of the middle east, if we can feed, fertilise and nurture it. For instance, that Parliament has proportionately many more women than ours. Some of them are feisty women and very eloquent speakers, who were doing a tremendous job.
I welcome what the Kurds have achieved. In a postwar Iraq, the new administration should flow from the Iraqi people themselves. We cannot impose it on them, but we must facilitate, encourage, advise and help them in developing good plans—the Iraqi opposition forces already have well-developed structures. In December,
1124
there was a conference on the issue in London, and about a month ago there was another conference at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies. The opposition parties are co-operating. Of course, there will be a single federal state of Iraq, which will look after foreign affairs and defence. It will take all the oil revenues from the whole country, whatever the region, and then redistribute them equitably in a way that I am sure they will be able to agree on. The state will be based on a parliamentary representative democracy. Within the state there will be regional governments, one of which should be a Kurdish regional government. The Kurds accept that they will not get a separate state now, and that they will not be able to interfere with Kurdish minorities in Syria, Iran or Turkey. They are happy to accept a regional Kurdish government in Iraq as part of the federal Iraqi state. That is what they are unanimously asking for, and I welcome that very much. None the less, we must not take our eye off the Israel-Palestine problem; we must address that with great energy as soon as possible.
God speed and protect all our forces who are fighting out there. They have shown great courage, dignity and determination, and tremendous, characteristically British professionalism in executing their duties as servicemen and women.
Finally, I turn to questions about the federal state of Europe into which the Labour Administration are attempting to lead us. I invite the Minister to kill any last hope that Labour may have entertained that there will be a common European foreign and defence structure. Iraq has shown what nonsense that would be and how dangerous it would be.
Will the Minister give a commitment that we will withdraw from the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, both of which have been expensive failures, increasingly so during the past decade? I have called for such a commitment on other occasions, so the Minister should not look so incredulous.
Will the Minister denounce further tax harmonisation, which would destroy our competitiveness? That is why Europe wants tax harmonisation. Will he stop the ever-burgeoning burden of EU regulations that swamp us? Will he set up a serious programme to remove those unnecessary and inappropriate regulations?
Rob Marris: May I take the hon. Gentleman back a few sentences? He seemed to be taking a position that surprises me, although it would not be surprising if it came from the Labour Benches. He said that the EU wanted to destroy the United Kingdom's tax system because it was competitive. Is his position that we have a competitive tax system?
Bob Spink: It certainly is not. Our tax system could be much better—but it could also be much worse, and Europe would make it much worse. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has allowed me to clarify that point.
I was about to draw the attention of the House to one of the stupid regulations or directives that Europe comes up with. The EU wants to reclassify Canvey Island, which clearly is—as it has always been—an island, as

1125
mainland. The people who live on Canvey Island think that is complete nonsense and wonder what it has to do with Europe. That directive must come from the same drawer as those on straight bananas and lawnmower noise, but I shall move rapidly on.
Does the Minister accept that, for the foreseeable future, the single currency would be economically damaging and constitutionally and democratically disastrous for the UK? There is no question about that. Furthermore, will he get Mr. Kinnock removed as the EU's corruption tsar? Will the Government consider withholding Britain's contributions until corruption and waste are tackled seriously? That is clearly not happening at present.
My constituents are sick of having to pay the European Union a net contribution of £30 billion a year for membership of a club whose only beneficiary is the Prime Minister—as he believes. The right hon. Gentleman has designs for himself in Europe in the future.
Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case against European federalism in front of a prominent federast member of the Government. Given that there is to be an emerging constitution for the continent, under the terms of the Convention on the Future of Europe, does my hon. Friend agree that it is an urgent priority for Britain to make representations for a dramatic improvement in the principle of subsidiarity? Under the present protocol of the treaty of Amsterdam on the subject, no European directive or regulation that is damaging to this country has been repealed.
Bob Spink: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point about the European constitution. I was about to move on to that. The House should hold a full-day debate on that matter, which is just as serious for this country as the single currency. It will be just as dangerous for us to take that route and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point so eloquently.
On the net contribution that we have to make to Europe, let me set out some of the figures so that there can be no confusion. In 2000, Britain's contribution to the EU was £10.719 billion and the abatement was £2.084 billion, so our gross contribution to the EU was £8.635 billion. Britain's receipts from the EU included £2.916 billion in agricultural support, and regional and social support amounting to £ 1.865 billion, so Britain's net contribution to the EU in 2000 was £3.854 billion.
I further believe that we would be better placed to protect and create jobs without the common agricultural policy, common fisheries policy, single currency, tax harmonisation and those regulations, so this is a plea for Britain to return to the simple and effective single market trading relationship and sensible co-operation, which we all thought we were supporting and voting for in 1972, 1974 and at other times.
3.56 pm
Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Easter recess, I should like to raise a number of issues on behalf of my constituents, the first of which concerns my constituent, Mr. Maajid Nawaz That gentleman has been awaiting trial in Egypt since April 2002. 1 and others attended a peaceful vigil on 1
1126
April, this week, to mark the anniversary of the fact that Maajid Nawaz, Ian Malcolm Nisbett, Reza Pankhurst and 23 other people are waiting for their trials to continue in Egypt. Those people have been accused of offences relating to the membership of the Islamic Liberation party.
The Minister will probably recall that I have raised the case involving that gentleman before, but the reason why I am raising it again is that I am working very closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness, the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) because we are all affected, with our constituents, by this issue.
I am particularly concerned about the Egyptian ambassador's response to our request to meet him, which I would have thought perfectly proper, following the meeting that we had with Baroness Amos. He wrote back just two weeks ago, saying:
"Reference to the letter … co-signed by a number of Members of Parliament, including yourself, regarding the case of the British men detained in Egypt on charges of affiliation to the banned Liberation party, and further to our previous correspondence in that matter:
I would like to underline the fact that the case currently lies in the hands of the relevant judicial authorities in Egypt, and that there is no possible way the Embassy, or any other entity, could interfere to influence its development or outcome.
Let me reassure you that the case will be handled with the fairness and impartiality our judicial system is renowned for.
I will be happy to continue sharing with you any relevant information we receive from the authorities in Egypt regarding the development of the case."
But of course, in a cleverly drafted letter, the ambassador did not agree to meet four Members of Parliament, one of whom happens to be a Minister. We have protested about that sorry state of affairs, and I understand that Baroness Amos will shortly have a meeting with the ambassador, after which, I hope, he will rethink his inability to be more forthcoming and have a meeting with us. Clearly, we are not going to discuss the flower arrangements in his office or the state of the wallpaper. We will discuss our concerns about the issue. It would be very regrettable for the ambassador to refuse to meet us.
The situation has continued for more than a year. The trial was due to continue yesterday but, yet again, was adjourned, until 19 April. Many of the relatives and loved ones take the view that the judicial process in Egypt is, in itself, designed to be a punishment. Given that the Parliamentary Secretary was a Foreign Office Minister, I ask him to use his best endeavours to ensure that the meeting takes place.
I was going to dwell on the council tax, but my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) did that for me by saying what a wonderful council Southend was. He highlighted the financial arrangements there and compared them with those in the Labour authority in his constituency. I shall miss out that part of my speech.
I want to share with the House the position concerning Southend airport and, in particular, St. Lawrence church. It is another issue that the Parliamentary Secretary has heard me mention, but he will understand its importance. Last night, the council

1127
considered the airport's planning application. I am delighted to tell the House that the council unanimously rejected the application.
I say "unanimously", but I notice that one Liberal Democrat Member is present. This point is not directed at the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), but perhaps he will pass it on to his colleagues. The leader of the Liberal group on Southend council was unfortunately excluded from the meeting because he was considered to have predetermined the application in his public statements. He had talked about the issue even though the new Government requirements for planning applications mean that one is not supposed to talk about such issues publicly. It has been suggested that he spoke about the issue for the purpose of electoral gain on 1 May. However, he was unable to take part in the debate and to represent the people who voted for him.
The council has nevertheless rejected the application. St. Lawrence church is 1,000 years old and we were first told that it would be moved. It would be a complicated and expensive process to put a 1,000-year-old church on to wheels and move it a few hundred yards. A little later the word "demolished" was said to be among the issues that the council was considering, but we were eventually told that the church would be rebuilt. Whatever the circumstances, the council has decided that the church will not be moved. I salute the council, and I have been inundated with thousands of representations from not just local residents but from people throughout the country. People have loved ones buried by the church and others have moved to Southend for various reasons. They were very upset by the application.
I do not know, at this early stage, whether the airport owner intends to appeal against the council's decision. If an appeal is made, it will go before the Deputy Prime Minister. No one in Southend wants the airport to close. The problem started because the safety organisation that is responsible for airports in this country decided that the church was too near the take-off point for aeroplanes. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will pass the issue on quietly to the Deputy Prime Minister. As I said, local residents do not want the airport to close.
Mr. Adrian Flook: I have been listening closely to my hon. Friend's contribution. He has mentioned the Liberal Democrats in Southend, and particularly the leader of the Liberal Democrats. Will he tell the House which way the Liberal Democrat leader might have been inclined to vote had he been at the committee meeting where he was not allowed to be?
Mr. Amess: I suspect that he had not been anticipating that the matter would come before the council before the local elections. I anticipate that because all the other councils were keeping their mouths shut, there would have been a whisper during the election campaign that the Conservatives were in favour of St. Lawrence church being demolished. Of course, he has been caught out.
Mr. Bercow: Far be it from me to diminish or trivialise the significance of the important point that my hon. Friend has just made. May I put it to my hon. Friend
1128
through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that serious though it is if a Liberal Democrat councillor gets caught out, the House should be conscious that in some areas, including the Aylesbury Vale district council area, the Liberals appear to have failed even to find candidates to contest seats in a matter of a week's time?
Mr. Amess: I am being tempted in this season of good will as we move to the Easter recess to go in for Liberal bashing. Much as my hon. Friends tempt me, I am content for Hansard to be the true record of the points that we have shared. I hope that the Minister, in spite of what he has heard already, with which I entirely agree, will have a word with the Civil Aviation Authority to reconsider its decision in as much as St. Lawrence church will stay where it is. At the same time, we still want Southend airport to operate.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point pinched my speech, but he mentioned pharmacists. My next two points are about pharmacists and post offices. Almost every Member is now rising at the end of our proceedings to present petitions on these two issues, and I am no exception in that. The petition that I have presented talks about the Office of Fair Trading having recommended the Government proposals that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions. It tells its customers that these proposals, if accepted, would mean that many local pharmacists would struggle to survive and that the services that pharmacies currently offer would be at risk. Worse still, they might go out of business.
Pharmacists point out also that instead of prescriptions being a walk away as they may be now, often local residents would have to get their prescriptions dispensed at a supermarket pharmacy at an out-of-town shopping centre.
I am a member of the Health Select Committee. I suppose that this is a jibe at the Minister, but the new arrangements for the times that we sit and conduct ourselves in the House are clearly not working. They are an absolute disaster. I know that the Minister is one of the greatest enthusiasts of the new arrangements, but I must tell him that many of his hon. Friends who called themselves modernisers are quietly saying, "What a disaster this is. Can we do something about it?" By stealth, we are already doing something about it on Wednesdays because we certainly no longer sit until 7 pm. However, we need to do something about sitting times on Tuesdays.
This morning, I was chairing a Standing Committee. At the same time, I wanted to be present at the Health Select Committee, which was taking evidence on the Office of Fair Trading report into the control of entry regulations and retail pharmacy services in the United Kingdom. To me, that was an important matter. There were expert witnesses from the OFT and independent pharmacists. There was even a representative of ASDA. Given the new sitting arrangements, it is impossible for me to chair a Standing Committee and attend a meeting of the Health Select Committee to do the job that I very much want to do. I enjoy being on the Health Select Committee.
There are many other examples of modernisation not working. It is not a case of Members of Parliament being lazy—it is simply that the new arrangements mean,

1129
particularly for the Opposition, who are depleted in numbers, that we are unable to fulfil our duties, serve on Committee or attend meetings. I hope that in his winding-up speech the Minister will tell us whether there are any plans for the House to have another vote on the matter. I know that the issue is sensitive because the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who was keen on the proposals, is no longer Leader of the House. However, I assure the Minister that many of his colleagues believe that the changes have been a disaster.
Bob Spink: Does my hon. Friend think that the Minister should consider bringing forward the review of our hours from the end of the Parliament to the end of this Session because many Members are starting to demand that?
Mr. Amess: I am told that the only way that we can get the Government to have a rethink is to get an early-day motion signed by Members of Parliament who were in favour of the changes but are not any more. I do not know how brave and bold these modernising Members of Parliament are, but I hope that the Minister will take seriously the examples that I have just shared with the House which demonstrate that there is a frequent clash in our duties.
As for local pharmacists, the Government, we are told, intend to respond or give us an idea of what they will do in July, but the issue is causing great upset, particularly to my constituents. Out of 659 constituencies, my constituency ranks 30th in the number of senior citizens. I go to 100th birthday celebrations practically every day, and one lady in my constituency who is nearly 110 lives in her bungalow on her own. If you want a long life come and live in Southend. The local pharmacist is fundamental to my senior citizens' way of life. In the same breath, I want to express concern about what is happening to our post offices. Hon. Members will have been invited to a reception this afternoon organised by the Communication Workers Union, who have told us:
"the Government has taken the decision to pay pension and benefit payments directly into bank accounts rather than recipients collecting cash at the Post Office. The consequences of the public moving over to the Banking system and transacting their business elsewhere could result in up to 40 per cent. of Post Office business"—
a huge amount—
"being lost. This in turn could have serious consequences for our members' jobs and livelihoods. However it is still possible for benefit and pension recipients to collect their cash at the Post Office via the Post Office Card Account."
The union therefore launched its "Banking on You" campaign today.
I represent an urban area and am disturbed by what is happening to our post offices. According to the House of Commons Library, there are 19 urban post offices in my constituency. I have already received letters telling me that three of them are going to close. I know that this is a modernising Government, but I am sick to death of the term "modernising". I represent an awful lot of senior citizens, and they do not really want to be modernised—they like toddling down to the post office, having a conversation and collecting their money. The Government may say, "For goodness' sake, the last thing that you want to do is carry cash around with
1130
you," but that is a condemnation of their policies on law and order. There is no doubt that the closure of urban post offices is worrying a huge number of our constituents, and I hope that the Government will rethink the issue.
My next point relates to single-handed GPs. I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to present a petition on the matter. Our local newspaper, the Leigh Times, recently published a comment column headed, "GP vacancies is dismal news for Southend". It stated that
"a recent British Medical Association (BMA) survey showed that 10.42 per cent. of the GP vacancies in Southend had been vacant for three months … In only five other areas was the vacancy rates higher."
I have already shared with the House the fact that I represent a huge number of senior citizens. The newspaper comment continued:
"The survey showed, though, that vacancy rates among British GPs are rapidly increasing—which means that the remaining GPs are struggling to cope with the needs of well over a million extra patients."
Whether the Government like it or not, there is a huge issue concerning the recruitment of general practitioners.
I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) had an exchange with the Prime Minister on 3 July last year, in which the Prime Minister said:
"There has been a move over time away from single-handed practices so as to improve the quality of care that people receive."—[Official Report, 3 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 219.]
That was deeply insulting to single-handed GPs, many of whom are doing a magnificent job on behalf of our constituents. But what a crazy thing to have done, when more than 10 per cent. of the GP vacancies in Southend have been vacant for more than three months. Again, I hope the Minister will pass that on.
The House will be relieved to know that I have only two final points to gabble through. I have been inundated recently with letters from constituents about their financial affairs. They are not writing to tell me that they have so much money that they would like to give me some of it. They are writing to tell me that their investments are not giving them a wonderful return. A couple who invested with Aberdeen Asset Managers Ltd., said that when the company claimed that the returns were so high, they would normally have been suspicious and not touched the organisation with a barge pole. They go on to say:
"However, at the time Aberdeen were considered to be one of the most reputable of the Investment Management Companies."
I will not tell the House how much money was involved, but they have lost the lot through bad advice.
Then there is the dreadful situation of Equitable Life, which so many hon. Members have mentioned in the House. I have one pensioner who writes:
"I am an Equitable Life pensioner and am horrified at the way the affairs of this society have been handled over the years, with the result that my pension is continually decreasing."
The very helpful Treasury Minister wrote back to me immediately—I was pleased with the advice—telling me that Lord Penrose was conducting an inquiry into the matter. However, that is taking too long. It seems to be

1131
kicked into the long grass. All my constituents, like myself, are on life's journey. They are getting older and they need the support now.
Bob Spink: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene again. Does he agree that the Government could give tremendous help to all his constituents and old people around the country if they withdrew their pernicious advance corporation tax burden on pensions, which is costing pensions £5 billion a year every year? That is a major factor in the problem that he describes.
Mr. Amess: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
My final point relates to the death of one of my relatives. I do not remember whether the Minister had his present job when I raised the matter before. Members of Parliament continually—although, we hope, not too often—receive complaints from constituents when a relative or a loved one dies. Their reaction may be that perhaps it was not the fault of the doctors or the hospital, as the care was wonderful. They have to go through the grieving process, and we have to give them reassurance and go through the Government's requirements for dealing with complaints. I am not making any complaints about the way in which such matters are dealt with in Southend.
The issue that I wish to raise concerns an aunt, Miss Kitty Martin. Although she has been dead for what must be almost three years, I am still trying to get some justice. I speak as a Member of Parliament who was involved in her health care from start to finish, via the hospital in Redbridge. The treatment was completely inadequate and the situation was disgraceful. She was in a mixed ward and was given electric shock treatment and prescribed drugs without permission. When I saw at a conference one of the consultants involved, he said "Just wait until tomorrow, because the final test is going to be done and we'll hopefully know what is wrong." I found out later that the tests had already been done and that he had not even been briefed. The situation was a complete shambles.
I want to share with the Parliamentary Secretary—I have to say that airing the issue publicly has not got me anywhere so far—the fact that I am now dealing with people who are new to their jobs, as others have left, so it continually seems that I am starting again. I am always sent back to the starting point, which is that I must have a round robin discussion with people who were involved in the care. Those people have now left the national health service or moved on, but at the end of the day, once we have had the discussion, I shall still refer the matter to the ombudsman. That is the issue now. At the moment—the case has gone on for almost three years—bits of paper are merely being pushed backwards and forwards. I have no complaint about the way in which Southend deals with problems, but I have a very big complaint about the way in which Redbridge health authority is dealing with this problem, and I would be very grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would try to assist me in dealing with it.
4.21 pm
Mr. Colin Breed: I do not want to detain the House for too long, but I wish to raise a very important constituency issue which has been of concern for some time and which has certainly been given a timely twist in the past day or so.
Some years ago, when Devonport dockyard secured the contract for the refitting of the Trident submarines, there was great joy and celebration about the fact that such a valuable contract was coming to Plymouth and about the significant economic benefit that it would provide. Of course, some people were very concerned about having nuclear submarines in the Plymouth dockyard, which is very close to the city. Inevitably, over a period, the dockyard had to undergo considerable improvement. A new dock was created and many things had to be put in place to ensure that issues would be settled when the first Trident submarine arrived.
One of the relatively minor issues—it seemed minor in the initial stages, but grew in importance over time—was the discharge of radioactive waste, especially in association with the submarine's cooling systems. Although there are vast amounts of technical information, I shall speak in layman's terms for the benefit of the House. The issue relates to the water coolant around the nuclear power plant, which becomes radioactive over a period because of its proximity to that power plant. In older type submarines, the tritium—the radioactive substance—is relatively dilute in the water-cooling systems. The new Trident systems have a sealed unit, so the water coolant remains close to the power plant for much longer and therefore becomes much more radioactive.
Devonport Management Ltd. quite properly sought for the licence arrangements to be altered to ensure that the more highly radioactive discharges could be made in the same way as in the refitting of other submarines. That meant that there was an increase of about 700 per cent. in the radioactivity of such liquid discharges, which clearly concerned a number of people not only in my constituency but in other hon. Members' constituencies close to the River Tamar and throughout the country. Some people became anxious about significantly increasing radioactive discharges directly into the river.
I have raised the issue on several occasions in an Adjournment debate and through questions. I have held a lengthy correspondence with the Environment Agency. It is disappointing that the first Trident submarine has been in dock for more than a year and that the matter has not been finalised, given that the problem is a likely consequence of refitting the submarine in Plymouth and that that was probably known some years ago.
A few months ago, I received lengthy and complex reports examining the feasibility of creating a pipeline to discharge the treated radioactive effluent further out into the sea. The research was conducted under the auspices of the best practicable environmental option study. A further study—a radiological assessment of the discharges—has also been conducted. The reports are detailed and identify 11 options for dealing with liquid radioactive discharge.
The options include: discharge into the river, using the existing pipeline; discharge from an extended pipeline; routing liquid effluent via a sewage works

1133
outfall; disposal of liquid effluent by barge in national waters—I particularly favoured that option—and on-site and off-site cementation. No one could suggest that the feasibility study did not examine all the ins and outs of the process. However, it is interesting to note that although DML, the contractors, were extremely keen to maintain the existing system, the radiological assessment of the discharges states that, to stay where we are and bearing in mind that the figures are for comparative purposes, the discharge from the current location of the estimated annual dose of the critical group member is 0.59—I shall not go into detail about what that means—compared with discharge into national waters of 0.00096. In anybody's language, that means that people would be exposed to much less radioactivity if we chose the option of discharge by barge into national waters.
When we examined the matter further, it became clear that there were anomalies in DML's consideration of the option. I therefore wrote to the Environment Agency to suggest that it re-examined the matter because some of the DML's reasons were contradictory. It kindly wrote back and said that it agreed with me. In its rejection of the option, DML stated:
"Disposal of liquid effluent by barge in national waters … is against DEFRA policy"
but is not illegal under current UK law. That is important because we were trying to explain the difference between discharging the effluent into the river, which ultimately flows into the sea, and putting it on to a barge. It was argued that it ends up in the same place. However, putting it on to a barge and thus speeding its journey to the sea would satisfy many more people. It would not pollute the river as much as the current discharge and it would cause significantly less radioactive harm.
It became apparent this week that the European Union has decided that the Government will be threatened with legal action by the European Commission for breaching EU rules on the disposal of nuclear waste. In fact, the Commission says that the UK failed to comply with "major requirements" under EU law, when it authorised nuclear waste disposals last year from Devonport dockyard nuclear plant. The EU health assessment and radiation protection safeguards were ignored, according to the Commission statement.
The current Euratom treaty obliges all European Union Governments to notify any nuclear disposal plans, so that the Commission can assess the potential health impact on other EU countries. It is only right and fair that it should be given that opportunity before any permissions are given. The Commission then has six months to give its views on these transboundary effects. The treaty also includes a justification principle, under which the benefits of a specific nuclear waste plan must be shown to outweigh any of the detrimental effects. Again, that is easily understood.
The Commission was informed in January 2002 that the UK Environment Agency was about to authorise nuclear waste disposal from Devonport dockyard, following the refitting and refuelling of the nuclear submarines there. The statement that was made the day before yesterday said that that move was made without taking account of the Commission's job of assessing the plan, and without applying the justification principle, which
1134
"constitutes a major principle of the radiation protection system".
I understand that officials have sent a "reasoned opinion" to the Government, setting out their objections and asking for an explanation. That explanation needs to be made much more clear. Having been raising this subject for well over a year and, having been unaware that we were transgressing European Union regulations, I think that it behoves the Government to seize this important subject.
The current Trident submarine is in dock, undergoing its refit. I do not know whether any discharge of tritium-affected water has yet taken place, or whether the liquid is still being kept on the submarine. Before any discharge takes place, however, the Environment Agency should surely be fully conversant with all the regulations that need to be complied with before any licence is granted. This subject has caused considerable concern for many people. Some scientists believe that tritium is nowhere near as dangerous as many people pretend it to be, while others provide equally expert opinion stating that tritium is a dangerous radioactive material that should be handled very carefully. I do not have a scientific background, and being bombarded by arguments from both sides is sometimes unhelpful. It is also unhelpful for members of the public who are trying to grapple with the issue.
Many of us believe that the precautionary principle should surround this whole question, and that, as a minimum, we should look into the proper regulation of any discharges and that the Environment Agency should take into account not only domestic DEFRA policy and current UK law but all European Union regulations. This issue has become critical. These matters should have been settled years ago, before the first submarine even came in. We are at a very late stage now. The Commission is clearly unhappy, as are many of my constituents. I think that even the Environment Agency is now beginning to feel that its position is not as solid as it has suggested in the past. It is time for the Minister to advise his colleagues that this issue has to be grasped. It is not going to go away, and a proper policy needs to be developed to deal with it, so that the public know that there is real protection for them.
It is clear to me that, on a precautionary basis, we should not discharge any radioactive liquid into the River Tamar. At the very minimum, we should be taking it well beyond our coastal waters, although keeping it in our national waters. But surely the best thing to do would be to retain it. We are not talking about huge amounts—not millions of gallons but a few thousand gallons of material that could easily be stored until we had a clear understanding of what we were going to do with it. There is a certain confusion, so if we allow discharges, perhaps under a licence that is not as solid as I believe it should be, we will do a great deal of unnecessary harm and cause alarm for my constituents and many others who live on and around the River Tamar.
4.35 pm
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Before the House rises for the Easter recess, I want to raise with the Minister the case of my constituent Mr. Alan Clark, who was grossly unfairly dismissed by Hill Samuel, which is now part of Lloyds TSB. The cover-up

1135
surrounding his dismissal began in the 1990s and has stretched to this very day. In dealing with that constituency case, I want to touch on more general issues with respect to financial regulation. Indeed, I have a specific proposal for Treasury Ministers.
In coming across this injustice, I am indebted to our former colleague Sir Tom Arnold, who was Chairman of the Treasury Committee. He drew the case to my attention and, while Chairman of that Committee, also drew it to the attention of the Bank of England. As a consequence of that action, there was an inquiry—at least one carried out by the lawyers of Hill Samuel and Lloyds TSB—although its findings have never been published. I ask Ministers to look into the possibility of securing the publication of that inquiry so that it can be brought into the public domain. However, Sir Tom Arnold's work, with the assistance of Mr. Michael Gross, ensured that legal proceedings took place resulting in a criminal fraud conviction for one of the bank's senior directors, a Mr. Gordon Skingley.
My constituent Mr. Alan Clark was a director of Hill Samuel bank. He had an exemplary record of service over 22 years, but he was made redundant—I use that term advisedly—days before his 50th birthday. I was in the banking sector in the mid to late 1990s, and I know of many people in similar positions who were made redundant at that time, but the institutions concerned maintained a policy of ensuring that executives, managers and ordinary staff approaching that age could continue until they were 50, owing to the pension arrangements that would kick in when they reached that age.
I know for a fact that at that time Hill Samuel bank maintained just such a humane policy for its employees. After all, it costs the financial institutions concerned very little, but makes a hell of a difference to the individual. My constituent was made redundant at a cost to him of some 40 per cent. of his accrued pension rights. Why was he made redundant? I believe that it was because he stood up to the said Mr. Skingley, who was subsequently convicted of fraud. He blew the whistle and he was punished for it.
My constituent had spent 20 years running Hill Samuel's property section and dealing with the property portfolio. After a merger, the said Mr. Skingley took over that department and Mr. Alan Clark began to become familiar with his dishonest ways of doing business and his manipulation and falsification of figures to liquidate the bank's clients to his own advantage. In a particular case, he sought to do just that to Gross-Hill properties, a well-run and profitable property company with a large portfolio of business and freehold property in south Wales in which the bank was the major shareholder. Mr. Alan Clark was the bank's representative on its board of directors. He raised a warning flag, telling the bank's directors that the liquidation was about to take place and that it was out of order and quite improper. Consequently, his unfair dismissal was engineered by Mr. Skingley, who recognised the threat posed to his dishonest schemes.
I make that assertion on the basis of evidence provided by no less an individual than the then head of personnel at Hill Samuel, Mr. Rodney Gardner. He said
1136
that the bank's senior executives, Messrs McCrichard, Barrington and Freedberg, had wrongly supported Mr. Skingley against my constituent.
Let us contrast the treatment of my constituent with the subsequent treatment of Mr. Skingley once the truth was known and he was convicted of fraud. Mr. Skingley still benefits from his enhanced pension of £50,000 a year. Even if the bank succeeds in freezing it to secure the return of £108,000 that was knowingly misdirected, only two years will elapse before he enjoys the benefits of that enhanced pension again. My constituent Mr. Clark, however, is without 40 per cent. of his rights.
What has been the reaction of Lloyds TSB to representations made by me, by Sir Tom Arnold and by the former personnel officer of the bank concerned? It has been to sweep the matter under the carpet. The lawyers' report on the goings-on remains secret.
Mr. Eric Forth: Why did my hon. Friend's constituent not avail himself of the possibility of going to an industrial tribunal? I assume that he did not do so. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell us about that aspect of the case, if he has not reached it yet.
Mr. Swayne: That is a very fair question, and one that occurred to me when the matter was first brought to my attention by Sir Tom Arnold. When he came to the House with Mr. Clark, he said "When I chaired the Treasury Select Committee I was told about this, and passed it on to the Bank of England. That at least resulted in the inquiry by the lawyers, whose report remains secret. I am no longer in a position to pursue the matter; will you do so?" My immediate reaction was to wonder why Mr. Clark had not taken the case to law at the time. Why had he not availed himself of the tribunal procedure?
Mr. Clark's answer was this. "I had not yet turned 50. I hoped to use my contacts and networks in the City to secure comparable employment. Let me be realistic and frank with you, Mr. Swayne: if I had expected to secure such employment in the City, I would not have been able to do so had I gone to an industrial tribunal and made such a fist of it."
That is, perhaps, an indictment of the City and its ways, and perhaps Mr. Clark's estimate was a misjudgment; but that is the case that he made to me at the time. I am not in a position to second-guess his judgment. Time elapsed, however, and eventually the option was no longer available. He pursued his case by other means, and the result was the conviction of his oppressor but no redress from the bank.
What lesson can we draw from this? We have learned, I think, that we cannot allow the banks to discourage employees from blowing the whistle because they maintain so much power and influence over our financial affairs. I am glad to say that the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 gives the Financial Services Authority a number of mechanisms to promote whistle-blowing of the kind that my constituent had the honesty, decency and bravery to stand up and do. We cannot allow the banks to undermine that through their own policies, as evidenced in this case. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to draw the matter to the attention of the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary and find out what safeguards are available to

1137
prevent a repetition of the sort of cover-up carried out by Lloyds TSB in respect of the fraud perpetrated by Mr. Skingley.
I would suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary discuss with the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary the possibility of establishing supervisory powers within the Treasury itself. An independent supervisor could then independently prepare a report when allegations such as the one that I have brought before the House today are made. Such matters could then be properly investigated. I would feel more comfortable if the Treasury or the Financial Services Authority had mechanisms in place to deal with such obvious injustices.
We cannot allow Lloyds TSB to conduct a report of its own and then keep it entirely to itself. That is unacceptable. A clear injustice has been committed and an enormous amount of skulduggery and financial impropriety has been uncovered beneath it, but it has not been properly exposed.
4.47 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence in calling me to speak in this afternoon's debate. As hon. Members may have noticed, I was not present for most of the debate. I can pray in aid that I was chairing a Standing Committee, though I am also mindful of the adage that excuses are for losers, so I shall not go further down that path. I always find debates like this profitable and try to contribute when so called. Today, I will be brief.
I should like to speak about the schools admission policy in my constituency, particularly in the town of Braintree. Hitherto, the town was divided into catchment areas and those living near one senior school could expect to go to that senior school. In practice, three high schools are available: the Notley, the Tabor and the Alec Hunter high schools. The particular problems that I want to highlight relate to the Notley high school in the south-west of the town an area in which extensive developments have taken place.
The education authority entered into a policy to guarantee places at Notley high school to a series of villages outside the town. That pledge was given at a time when those villages and that area were comparatively undeveloped. Since then, a vast expansion of population and building has taken place outside the town limits of Braintree, and in some of the parishes that had benefited from the pledge of guaranteed places. Consequently, the number of children taking up guaranteed places at the school from those villages has increased, putting pressure on the number of places available at Notley high school.
The county council's proposal, currently under consultation, is that there will be no guaranteed places for those living in Braintree, but that such places will remain for those living in the villages outside. That has the ludicrous and singularly unfair consequence that children living next door to Notley high school will in all likelihood not be able to attend that school in future. It has the further problem of breaking up family groups. Older children from the adjacent John Ray primary school went on, in the natural order of events, to Notley high school, but under the new policy their younger brothers and sisters will have to go to other schools. It
1138
adds a burden on some parents, who have to ferry children to different parts of the town at the same time. However, the overriding problem is that it makes no sense to parents that they can look our of their window and across the road at the high school—which many attended themselves—yet their children cannot attend it as they had anticipated.
I have called on the county council to consider the matter in conjunction with the Department for Education and Skills. I hope that the school and the local education committee will give serious consideration to expanding Notley high school to accommodate the growth of the population on that side of town.
I appreciate that it will be argued that vacant places remain in one of the other high schools. However, there is extensive population growth in that part of town too, and it is anticipated that the demand for school places there will also become great in a few years.
Given the rise in the number of people on the electoral register, I suspect that Braintree may be one of the fastest growing towns in the country. It will need many more school places in the future. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will speak to other Ministers to see whether, through co-operation, some policy can be devised to assist parents and children in the part of Braintree that I have referred to. They may otherwise be denied a place in the school of their choice.
4.51 pm
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make a brief contribution to this debate. I apologise for not being here from the start, as I was visiting various local organisations in my constituency. One or two issues arose from those visits, and I should like to take this opportunity to mention them.
Before I speak about those matters, however, I want the Minister to take one message on board. At the present time, our brave servicemen and women are fighting in the Gulf to eradicate the regime of Saddam Hussein. It is very important that those in the Territorial Army be given recognition for the service that they are giving at this time. There is a TA base in my constituency, the 266 Parachute Battery Royal Artillery Volunteers. Its members are currently out in the Gulf, serving Queen and country. I pay tribute to them, and I hope that their needs, and the needs of their families, are not forgotten.
The spouses and families of permanent service personnel are always given consideration while their relatives are away fighting, but the spouses and families of TA personnel are often overlooked. I hope that the Government will take that into consideration in the coming weeks.
I also want to put on record my heartfelt thanks to Her Majesty the Queen, who visited the Romford constituency a month ago. It was her first visit to Romford as Queen of our country, and she was received warmly by her loyal subjects there. As the local Member of Parliament, I am very proud that she chose to come to Romford. People who know the town will understand that the people there are very patriotic. We believe in our country, and we fly the Union flag with pride from the

1139
town hall every day of the year, and not just on special occasions. In the town centre, market traders regularly fly the flag to show their belief and pride in this country.
I should therefore like to take this opportunity to mention again to the Minister that perhaps it is time for consideration to be given to following the tradition laid down by Her Majesty the Queen, and to flying the Union flag from the Palace of Westminster throughout the year. It is especially sad that in the summer, when many tourists are in London, one looks at the main flagpole on the British Parliament and sees an empty mast. The time has come to follow the example of Buckingham Palace and to fly the flag throughout the year.
I should also like to ask why the flagpole on Portcullis house has never been used to this day. It remains empty even on those designated days when the flag is supposed to be flown. In that context, I want to congratulate St. Peter's Roman Catholic primary school in my constituency, which is one of the only schools that I know that flies the Union flag every day from the school building.
This morning, I met representatives of the local community health council for the London borough of Havering. I ask the Minister to look into the transitional arrangements with regard to the work of local CHCs, given that they are to be abolished later this year. There is a great deal of concern about what is going to replace CHCs and whether the new structure will be as effective as the existing one. The CHCs have done an incredibly good job in representing, from an independent perspective, the needs of patients in all our constituencies. As the Government are abolishing them to replace them with a new system, I hope that Ministers will ensure that the transition will be a good one, that there will be sufficient funding for the new bodies and that co-operation between the Government and the CHCs will continue until the transition period is over. I am afraid that at the moment there is not a lot of confidence in my local CHC that matters are progressing in a way that will benefit my constituents and all those who need to use the services of the CHC.
I should also like to remember the people of Gibraltar, who are loyally supporting the United Kingdom as our country faces conflict. I hope that the Government recognise the contribution that the loyal people of that British overseas territory make to the support for our country at this time, and that it will not be forgotten in future. I hope that when the Prime Minister meets his counterpart in Spain he will remember that Gibraltar has played a significant role not only in the current situation, but in previous military conflicts. That should not be forgotten either.
I wish everybody a very happy Easter. Easter is an important time of year for spending time with one's family and for attending church or whatever religious organisation one may choose. It is important that we uphold the traditions of Easter. It is not a matter simply of having a holiday, but of remembering why Easter exists and its purpose. That is why I am delighted that last week in business questions the Minister agreed with my defence of the hot cross bun. Many people have since
1140
written to me and contacted me by various means to express their support for upholding our traditions. The absurdity of the local authorities who decided—
Rob Marris: Perhaps I could tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that the rumour in the national press that Wolverhampton council has banned the hot cross bun is absolute rubbish. It did not, and would not, because in Wolverhampton we value culturally diverse traditions. I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that there has been no ban on hot cross buns by Wolverhampton council.
Mr. Rosindell: I am delighted to hear that news. I had not heard that Wolverhampton council had been mentioned in that context; I had heard about other councils. I am delighted that there is consensus on the issue, because many of our constituents are pretty fed up with various forms of political correctness. The important thing is that we respect all religions and traditions in our country. Certainly, Easter is a time of year when we should celebrate, and eating a hot cross bun is very much part of the Easter traditions of this country.
Finally, I want to mention the Wellgate community farm in my constituency. Next week, it celebrates a special weekend called "Meet the Easter babies", when it opens its gates to local families, children and other residents of the area so that they can meet the new animal babies that have been born on the farm. It is a wonderful local organisation and I commend the idea of community farms to the Minister. They are wonderful for children, older people and those with learning disabilities, who are able to go and meet the animals. I hope that the Government will support such community farms in future—my own local farm and others in the network across the country. They do wonderful work—and what better time to visit a community farm than at Easter?
5 pm
Andrew Mackinlay: I will try to be brief because I know that others would like to speak in the debate over whether we should adjourn for Easter. One thing that concerns me when we adjourn is that there is no parliamentary scrutiny. I want to raise three issues with the Minister. A few minutes ago, he made a quiet comment from a sedentary position about misreporting. The Government are often misreported, but despite their reputation for presentation, they are sometimes quite powerless in their own interests. I will give a couple of examples of that. The Licensing Bill is at Committee stage just now and it is being said that the Bill will prevent darts playing in pubs and clubs. People know that that is rubbish, but the Government's press and publicity machine should legitimately and vigorously be rebutting that idea. Rather than being great sweeping issues, these are the bread-and-butter issues that our constituents raise in our surgeries.
My second example concerns airports. I live across the river from Cliffe, which is an option for the new airport. I use the word "option" deliberately, but Cliffe airport is being portrayed by many people as a Government proposal. That is not being rebutted sufficiently. People have a right to understand. There may be ignorance, but the Government are not making

1141
it clear that Cliffe is one of many options. I think it would be the wrong choice and am fairly optimistic that it will not be chosen. However, the distinction between an option to be explored and a Government proposal should be made much more vigorously.
If Parliament closes for Easter, an issue that exercises many hon. Members, but one that will go off the boil, is that of the future of pharmacies. The House of Commons got the message over to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry a few days ago that hon. Members from all corners of the United Kingdom and from all political parties would be extraordinarily angry if the Government, after their 90-day consultation period, were to do anything that would harm our local pharmacies. I do not think that the Government will do that, but why stall in announcing the inevitable—that the network of community pharmacies that we have, we will hold? For the life of me, I cannot see why the Government have to deliberate so long. It is bad politics and the view of the House of Commons is overwhelming on the issue. When he reports back through Government machinery to the various Ministers with interests in this, I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the mood of the House of Commons today, as before, was that the matter should not be pursued any further.
Mr. Tyler: I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's view that having to wait until July before we receive any sort of response from the Government is entirely wrong. Did the hon. Gentleman notice that, in the debate in Westminster Hall when I challenged the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), as to whether the recommendations in the Office of Fair Trading report would require primary legislation as opposed to secondary legislation, he said that he understood that it would require a full Act of Parliament? The hon. Gentleman will share my view that, in the third Session of this Parliament, the likelihood of the Government squeezing such a Bill into the legislative programme is nil. The Government should say so.
Andrew Mackinlay: That is absolutely correct. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I, as a Labour hon. Member, feel frustration that the Government have allowed a thing such as this to run. As I say, they should not do it. I do not think that they will do it and they should kill it dead—for selfish party political reasons as well as for the overriding reason that the House of Commons and the public do not want it.
The debate also gives me an opportunity to consider the parliamentary calendar. Journalists and some Members of Parliament seem to think that we shall have a shorter summer recess. That is not the case. The dates have been shifted, although there is still an uneven distribution of parliamentary sittings. May I urge the deputy Leader of the House to raise that point with the next Leader of the House? The summer recess dates have changed, but there will still be a long close-down when we shall be unable to ask parliamentary questions, there will be no scrutiny and we shall be unable to hear oral statements. We do not want Parliament to be in continuous session, but many of us want round-the-year sittings that reflect the role of a modern Government. During continuing international and national crises, we need access to Ministers.
1142
The Government can take credit for the innovation of written statements, although some people feel—with a degree of justification—that some matters are put into written statements when they should be dealt with orally at the Dispatch Box. Overall, however, we acknowledge and welcome the net increase in Government statements.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to a written statement made earlier this week by the Foreign Secretary. I hope that the House will forgive me for reading it out. It states:
"I am gravely concerned at reports that Northbridge Services Group, a UK company, is recruiting British, South African, French and other ex-servicemen as military units to work in Côte d'Ivoire. The crisis in Côte d'Ivoire has caused enormous suffering for the people of that country, and threatens the stability of the wider region. The Linas-Marcoussis agreement offers Ivorians the opportunity of a peaceful, political settlement, which addresses the key issue underlying the crisis. Ivorians are now making progress in setting up a broad-based government of National Reconciliation, under the terms of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement. Any deployment of foreign military units at this time would seriously undermine the peace process, and the efforts of the UK and wider international community to support a durable, political settlement. We have made it clear to Northbridge Services Group that the UK Government would deplore any intervention of this sort."—[Official Report, 1 April 2003; Vol. 402, c. 52WS.]
I have rarely heard a more pathetic Government statement. To spell it out in plain language: our security and intelligence services rumbled the fact that one of those wretched companies was recruiting mercenaries in the United Kingdom to fight in the Ivory Coast and stir up trouble against our interests and the interests of the people of the Ivory Coast and the international community. The Foreign Secretary said that the Government had made it clear that they would deplore such intervention. I certainly hope so, but why does not the Foreign Secretary do something about it?
The statement was frustrating because, a couple of years ago, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office produced a Green Paper on mercenaries—grudgingly. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs had to extract the document from the Government as though it was pulling teeth from an elephant. The Committee deliberated on the matter and received a response from the Government.
I want all mercenary recruitment stopped; it should be outlawed in this country. At the least, the Committee wanted regulation, but there is none. The Government have shown no enthusiasm to introduce regulation either of the recruitment of mercenaries in the United Kingdom or of their operation from this country; and when something occurs that is against our interests, or those of the international community and, especially, of impoverished, suffering people in war-torn Ivory Coast, they merely say, "We deplore it". I want the Minister to tell the Foreign Office that that will not do. It is a most disappointing response.
I want to add a view that I have been unable to express on the Floor of the House until now: I believe that the United Kingdom's prosecution of the war in Iraq, although wretched and distressing, is correct. We had little choice in the matter. The Government and the Law Officers have presented a complicated legal case, and I believe that it would have been better summarised by the fact that—this is certainly something that I personally

1143
rely on—Saddam Hussein's regime asked for an armistice at the end of the last Gulf war, and it was granted subject to conditions, as armistices are. He abrogated that armistice; no one else did. He never complied with those conditions.
Of course, in retrospect, we should perhaps have been firmer, sooner in telling Saddam Hussein that he had not complied with the armistice conditions, but we know why we did not. It was politically difficult to take any action, and there was a reluctance to restart hostilities. We had 12 years of trying to say, "Please, nice Mr. Saddam Hussein, will you comply?" When he did not, we tried some other bit of leverage. We applied sanctions, but they did not put any leverage on him, but just hit the Iraqi people.
The kernel of the legal case and the moral case—I am mindful of the need for proportionality and last resort when justifying how one votes in such matters—is the fact that Saddam Hussein abrogated the armistice that he sought. Since then, there have been considerable and continuing humanitarian atrocities against the people of Iraq—something in which we have acquiesced by our silence, and we can no longer do so.
I should like to have spoken at greater length to explain my position, but I will not do so because that is difficult for the House. However, the shadow Leader of the House needs to be sensitive to the fact that every Member of Parliament often wants an opportunity to state publicly where they stand. I hope that he and the acting Leader of the House may pick up the fact that, on such grave issues, we should be able to write our views into the Official Report, so that they are on the record and there is no misunderstanding or hiding behind the fact that we have not had an opportunity to be called by Mr. Speaker.
5.12 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: I, too, apologise for not having been present at the outset of the debate. I had the pleasure of serving on a Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), and if it had not been for my perhaps all too lengthy participation, he would have been able to speak in this debate even earlier.
Like the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), I wish to refer to Iraq. We cannot think of ourselves going away for an Easter holiday without thinking about our troops in the Gulf and their families at home going through a very anxious period. I am sure that all hon. Members hope that, when we return after Easter, the war will be won and our troops will be safely home.
Also like the hon. Member for Thurrock, I wish to refer to community pharmacies. I have presented several petitions covering thousands of my constituents who are worried about the future of their community pharmacies. The Government are in an extraordinary position: I do not know whether other hon. Members are aware that there has been an announcement—a press release no less—by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), who is responsible for health in Northern Ireland.
1144
One would have thought that the Under-Secretary was speaking on behalf of the Government when he announced, by press release, that he was rejecting outright the Office of Fair Trading report. He said that the report
"does not take account of Health Service issues of patient care"
He added:
"it has been put to me that deregulation would run the significant risk of reducing access to pharmaceutical services, particularly in rural areas. There may be a reduction and, indeed, a removal of local services in some areas to the detriment of the infirm, the elderly and those less well off in our community. I cannot allow that to happen."
That is a statement by a member of the Government.
As has been pointed out in an excellent letter from my noble Friend Lord Fowler in today's Financial Times, that is totally inconsistent with the line being adopted by the Government and the Department of Trade and Industry, where the Secretary of State there has said that we must wait until the end of July before the Government are able finally to pronounce on the matter. Meanwhile, we have had the announcements in Scotland and Wales that they will have no truck with the recommendations in the report. I hope that the Minister can explain how one part of the Government machine can say "no way" to the Office of Fair Trading report and the other part can say, much to the consternation of people in my constituency, that it will have to wait to see what happens and will not tell them until the end of July.
Another aspect of Government policy that is causing a lot of anxiety is their approach to post office closures. We understand that they say that post offices have to close and recognise what has been said about proper consultation. As the local Member of Parliament, I have been involved in the consultation about two post office closures in Christchurch. Both have been the subject of strong opposition that is represented by letters and petitions, and, I think uniquely, they have engendered the opposition of Postwatch, the body appointed by and paid for by the Government to represent consumer interests on post office matters.
The first post office closure to which Postwatch objected was at Stanpit, but its objections counted for nothing and the post office closed. We are now in the period after the closure of representations on the future of Town Common post office, and we are waiting anxiously to learn what decision has been reached. If the views of local people, the Member of Parliament and Postwatch on the post office at Town Common again count for nothing, that will drive a coach and horses through any pretence on the part of the Government that the post office closure programme is subject to proper consultation.
Consultation means listening to what is said in the consultation process. If we are paying for a statutory consultative body such as Postwatch and ignoring its views, there is no point in having it. That shows that the whole process is an absolute sham.
I hope that the Government will relent in relation to the Town Common closure, not least because the nearest post office is more than a mile away. They have made much play of people in urban areas living within one mile of the nearest post office and ensuring that 95 per cent. of them will be able to continue to do so. In this part of west Christchurch, that principle will not apply.

1145
Finally, I wish to refer briefly to the council tax, which is causing an enormous amount of anxiety for my constituents, as it is for others elsewhere. We shall have an opportunity to debate this subject at greater length next week, but the Government must realise that the increases in council tax for which they are responsible are totally unacceptable. The increases are engendering an enormous amount of correspondence. I receive many letters in every post from pensioners in my constituency who say that they just cannot afford them.
I have a letter from a gentleman and his wife that says that they are going to pay what they paid last year plus 1.7 per cent—the amount by which the retail prices index rose in the past year. They say that they have
"small pensions, we wouldn't qualify for financial help due to means testing as we have some savings, carefully put away over many years and which we shall need in the future to take care of us in old age."
The Government have not thought through the implications of the sustained very high increases in council tax. They are depriving elderly people of the ability to be responsible for themselves in their old age by taking money away from them. They could never have planned for such spending. A Liberal Democrat councillor in my constituency has suggested that such hard-pressed people should have to sell their homes, but the Government have not come up with an alternative. These people will have an unhappy Easter because of the Government's behaviour.
5.19 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: This has been an unusually fascinating Adjournment debate, not least because the balance between Members who have raised constituency issues and those who have raised national issues has been about the same. That makes today's debate slightly uncharacteristic, but interesting for that.
I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not attempt to analyse everything that they have said—they will be far more eager to hear from the Minister than from me. However, I want to maintain the traditions of the House by attempting to do some justice to the debate by winding it up from the official Opposition Front Bench.
I shall take one salient point from the matters that each of the contributions highlighted. The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) referred to the decline in manufacturing, both generally and in his constituency. I think that we would all admit that there has been a secular decline not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the developed world. Legitimately, there is a political element to that debate. Opposition Members feel that many of the measures that the Government have taken have hastened the decline by placing additional burdens on manufacturing industry.
The hon. and learned Gentleman justified that, and he was politically entitled to do so. The judgment of Opposition and Labour Members differs on how far Government policy has exacerbated the manufacturing sector problem. In the end, the manufacturers will have to make that judgment. We would wish the Government to be somewhat more sensitive to the views of the manufacturing sector before making what often seems
1146
to us a headlong rush towards increasing regulations, whether they are justified by health and safety considerations or anything else. We would wish the Government to ameliorate that approach somewhat, to say the very least. Indeed, we would prefer them to reverse it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) raised an issue that I know worries all of our constituents: the vexed issue of telecommunication masts. As someone who refuses to use a mobile telephone, I feel a degree of virtue which I suspect is not shared by many Members or perhaps by many of our constituents. I am intrigued when anguished constituents approach me claiming that telecommunication masts are harming them, their children or their relatives. It is on the tip of my tongue to say, "Do you use a mobile telephone?", but I stop myself because I do not want to displease them.
There is a genuine tension between the desire of people to use these damned devices, which I cannot understand, and the technology and equipment that is required to support them. I suppose that I have some sympathy with the Government of the day, who have to resolve the issue. However, what my hon. Friend was saying must surely be reasonable: that whatever knowledge is available should be widely understood and then visibly and palpably used by the Government in the development of their policies. There is a gap between a general understanding of the nature of the problems that have arisen from telecommunication masts, and what appears to some people to be almost a casual attitude on the part of the Government. I hope that the Minister will at the very least be able to reassure us that that is not the case.
The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) treated us to one of the most comprehensive analyses that we have yet heard in the House about the historical context of the Iraqi conflict. We are grateful to him for that. In a sense, the hon. Gentleman wishes, as perhaps we all do, that that analysis had been better understood before the conflict started and in the long run-up to it. Now that we are where we are, the best that we can hope for is that the points that the hon. Gentleman made will be fully taken into account in the post-hostility reconstruction phase, so that we might at least hope that we can get the best out of the conflict for the people of not only Iraq but the middle east generally. That would be the benefit could accrue from the hon. Gentleman's contribution.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) raised a matter that was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton: the tension between our modern desire to be informed instantaneously about everything through the technology that is available to us, and the traditional approach that the military has always taken, which is that what it does should be as confidential, not to say secret, as possible. If we are not careful, an absurd situation will arise. If we are being told what is happening, so are the Iraqis. And if we are not being told what has happened because we have been misinformed, what is the point of the exercise anyway? I find that problem hard to resolve—we have got ourselves into serious difficulties.

1147
The concept of embedded journalists intrigues me. I wondered whether it was to do with their private lives, but apparently it is not—it is about them charging around in military vehicles. However, I am not sure what their true value is. If they are sworn not to give away anything of military significance, what are they telling us? I sometimes think that the exercise is pointless, and we may learn that lesson once hostilities come to an end.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) returned to the issue of Iraq, and emphasised, like many contributors to the debate, the importance of the reconstruction phase. He also saw a resolution to the Palestine issue as integral to a resolution to the post-conflict problems in Iraq. I doubt whether anyone in the House would disagree with that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) raised matters that were also raised by many other hon. Members—the closure of pharmacies and post offices, which are of the greatest importance to our constituents, affecting their everyday lives. They are not sure why their local pharmacy or chemist's shop is being threatened, and do not understand why the Government cannot give them an explanation. The Government, however, are in an anomalous position. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said, if a Minister spills the beans and says, "Don't worry, we are not going to do that at all", that cuts across the point of both the Office of Fair Trading, of which we may or may not approve, and the consultation. If consultation is to be meaningful, we cannot demand instant decisions even from this Government, when one of their legitimate agencies or organs has made a decision.
Andrew Mackinlay: The consultation period is finished—they could kill the idea.
Mr. Forth: Well, it is frustrating for our constituents and us to be left in a period of unnecessary uncertainty. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), has done us all a favour. Perhaps as a result of what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, we can now go out and tell everyone in the land that a Minister has told us what is going to happen so, based on the doctrine of collective responsibility—if it still exists—we can all sleep in our beds tonight, drugged by products from pharmacies, no doubt.
The closure of post offices was also raised. Like other hon. Members, I have constituents who are anxious that their local post office will close. In my case, it is the one in Burnt Ash lane in Bromley. Again, there is confusion. On one hand, we are being told that the Post Office is now an independent, robust organisation and must do what it deems to be correct; on the other, there is a duty on the Government to protect the integrity not only of our postal services, but of the community services that have traditionally been provided by our post offices. The Government do not seem to be prepared to grasp that problem and deal with it. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, can give us words of comfort on that issue.
1148
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) emphasised the same problem in his constituency, and went on to raise an issue of concern to growing numbers of Members on both sides of the House: the conflicts that have arisen as a result of the change in our working patterns and hours. In fact, today's debate has illustrated that. A number of hon. Members have been performing duties elsewhere, so have been unable to attend the whole debate, thus highlighting the point made by my hon. Friend. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies to the debate—he is doing so given the absurd lack of a Leader of the House, which I find increasingly irritating, not to say scandalous—he will be able to tell us that the issue of the hours will be revisited by the House authorities and the new Leader of the House, so that Members who are having second thoughts about the issue will have an opportunity to express their views. If I may suggest it as an intermediate position, perhaps we might reconsider the Tuesday hours, to see whether Monday and Tuesday might be operated on the old hours, with Wednesday and Thursday on the new dispensation. We could at least have a trial to see whether that would help to resolve some of the problems that we are experiencing.
The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) raised an issue of enormous concern to his constituents and the surrounding area. It was a technical issue, but none the less important for that. His suggestion sounded to my layman's ears all too reasonable—that is, that the potentially noxious discharges should not be allowed to proceed until much more is known about their effect, and until the alternatives have been properly explored. That sounded a reasonable request, as I hope the Minister will agree when he sums up the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) raised his constituent's problem, which I hope will help to resolve it in a way that has not been possible before. I hope that my hon. Friend will pursue his idea of Treasury supervision of the banking sector and that he will receive a positive response.
I was intrigued by the remarks of the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), not least because, having done my penance in the Department for Education for five years in a previous existence, everything that he said rang all too familiar with me. He seemed to be describing the conflict that arises between local education authority boundaries; the Greenwich judgment, which allows school admissions to cross those boundaries in a way that was not the case before; and class size limitations, which are a new factor that schools must take into account. I would add a further factor: school transport.
I grappled with those problems for five years, and I never found a satisfactory resolution to them. In the end, one has to make up one's mind that either one has a school admissions policy that allows parents no choice at all—in other words, it states, "Your child will go to the nearest school, regardless"—or one has a policy that tries to open up the system and make it competitive. The inevitable result of that is that many parents will not be able to get their child into the nearest school, or into their school of first choice. I live with that because my local education authority happens to have some very good schools and many of the places are occupied by children from neighbouring boroughs. At this time of

1149
year, we all have parents coming to us with the problem, so I feel a great deal of empathy with what the hon. Gentleman says.
My only suggestion is that the hon. Gentleman take the issues directly to Education Ministers, in an effort to concentrate their minds on the dilemmas and problems that exist, to see whether they can find a way of resolving them. They must be resolved as a matter of national policy, because in a funny way, the more the issue is devolved, the more complex, frustrating and difficult it becomes. I can offer the hon. Gentleman no more help than that, but I recognise the problem.
I want to wave the flag with my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell). It frustrates me as much as it does him that our national flag is in danger of becoming something of which people are ashamed. That cannot be right. The symbol of our nation—our national flag—must surely be able to be flown over public buildings with pride. It should not be something for which we apologise or of which we are ashamed in any circumstances that I can think of. I hope that his repetition of the problem will help to move it forward and maintain our pride in one of our national symbols.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) raised a number of issues—licensing, Cliffe airport, and pharmacies. I am not sure that the issue of mercenaries is as simple as he suggested. If we are proud of the fact that our citizens are free to do as they wish within the law, and if we start to restrict their ability even to become a mercenary, that raises some profound issues of individual freedom, freedom of movement and freedom of choice. There may be some legitimate boundaries to that, but even in this case, we would have to be extremely careful before we rushed in to tackle the problem.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch again spoke about pharmacies and post offices, which affect his constituency as much as any other. We should all be grateful for his revelation about the Northern Ireland Minister, which may have provided us with the solace and comfort that we have been seeking in the matter. Providing that the Parliamentary Secretary will act, as I hope he can, in a spirit of collective responsibility with his Government colleague and confirm what my hon. Friend said, the debate will have been worthwhile.
5.34 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I always act in the spirit of collective responsibility, if I may give that assurance to the shadow Leader of the House.
I should like to begin by making an apology in advance. The low numbers of hon. Members in the Chamber earlier today led me to assume that I would be in for a marathon, as I was in winding up my first pre-recess Adjournment debate back in the summer, when I think that I spoke for 50 minutes and went through every single detail of every hon. Member's speech. I think that that was widely appreciated. Indeed, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) nods. I shall endeavour to do the same thing today and deal with all the issues, but in case I do not manage to do so, I give an undertaking to hon. Members: if I do not address all the points that they raised, I shall ensure that they are written to about them, as I have done in the past.
1150
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) began the debate with a measured and expert assessment of what he saw as the position regarding detainees in Guantanamo bay. I share some of his concerns about the situation and I assure him that the Government are keen for it to be resolved. I repeat to him what the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions—some of the information that is still being gleaned from the detainees is proving extremely important in the ongoing fight against terrorism. None the less, I assure him that the Government are taking his concerns on board.
My hon. and learned Friend spoke about the very important role of manufacturing industry in his constituency. In particular, he spoke warmly about the role of the Manufacturing Advisory Service. I wholeheartedly concur with him on that point.
My hon. and learned Friend was also one of a number of hon. Members who spoke about the procedures of the House. In particular, he referred to the way in which we deal with taxation law. He will be aware that we are trying as much as we possibly can to improve and increase the amount of pre-legislative scrutiny that we conduct. Hon. Members will see that that is the case in the next few months, as some Bills published in draft will receive pre-legislative scrutiny. It is our wish to move to a situation in which that is overwhelmingly the case. On his suggestion that we debate some matters for too long and other matters for not long enough, I guess that that will always be a matter of personal interest in the subject in question, although I hear what he says.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred to the old chestnut—it is, of course, an important old chestnut—of resurfacing the A30. I hope that she was as pleased as I was with this week's announcement that, far from what was predicted by some doom-mongers nationally and locally who said that the resurfacing would not happen for another 10 years, the job will be in the first tranche of resurfacing to take place by 2007 at the latest. In doing that work, we will be repairing the terrible damage done by the previous Government when they ordered those cheap and very noisy concrete roads. None the less, I shall have words with my fellow Ministers in the Department for Transport regarding the point that she made about the contract and the question whether it might be possible for the Government to recoup all or some of the original cost of the road. If she is right in her assertion that the contracts gave an assurance at the time that was not correct, I shall certainly look into that.
Mr. Breed: I am delighted to hear that, but if we wait until 2007, the work will be probably be done approximately when the road was going to resurfaced anyway.
Mr. Bradshaw: That is not the case. Until this Government came to power, there was no commitment to resurface all the noisy concrete roads that were commissioned under the previous Government. We said previously that the work would be done within 10 years and we have now brought that forward for a large number of roads, which will be dealt with by 2007 at the latest.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton also raised the issue of telephone masts, which I know is of great concern to her; she has been very involved with the

1151
campaign in our mutual local newspaper. The Government err on the side of caution. I shall ensure that my ministerial colleagues look into the comments of Dr. Blackwell that she quoted from the Express and Echo, which dealt with the importance of taking into account non-thermal effects, and ensure that she receives a response from them in that regard. I am sure that she is aware that, on 20 March, which can only be a couple of weeks ago or less, the Government announced a further two-year project investigating evidence of ill-health around base stations. I hope that that will help to produce some of the more conclusive evidence that we would all like to see.
The hon. Lady was absolutely right to say that representatives of the media based in Iraq and the Gulf should exercise responsibility about how much they give away about troop movements. The safety of our forces must always be paramount.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) dedicated his whole speech to Iraq. Indeed, we have had rather an unusual pre-recess Adjournment debate in that so many hon. Members understandably talked about Iraq. My hon. Friend rightly emphasised the importance of what will happen in post-Saddam Iraq. We will be judged on what happens in post-Saddam Iraq. Many who were sceptical of, or in outright opposition to, the decision to take military action want the action to be brought to a swift and successful conclusion now that it is under way. I hope that we can unite not only domestically, but internationally so that the Security Council and the European Union unite behind the post-Saddam Iraq that we all want.
I prefer to use the word "redevelopment" rather than "reconstruction" because reconstruction implies that we have caused the destruction. We have not, of course, because it has been caused by more than 20 years of Saddam Hussein's terrible dictatorship and misrule. I am sure that hon. Members are well aware that Iraq was wealthier, per capita, than Portugal or Malaysia before Saddam came to power. However, before the conflict started, 60 per cent. of its population was dependent on help from the oil-for-food programme. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. It could be wealthy and successful, and I am confident that it will be after Saddam has been deposed and we have had time to help the Iraqi people to redevelop their country.
My hon. Friend quoted at length from what sounded like an interesting book. I have not read it but I shall have a look at it if I have time. I was not totally convinced by all of what he read. It seemed to suggest that the problem we face in Iraq is that we are a former imperial power. That can be said of a lot of places, and there is a flip side to the argument. When I was the Minister responsible for the middle east, I found that people in the region expect us to get involved and engaged because they think that we bear an extra responsibility because of history, and I think that that is right. My experience showed that people in the Arab world, and especially the middle east, welcome British engagement because they think that we have expertise, and we owe it to them because of history.
1152
I do not follow the argument that because we, the United States or any other country might have made mistakes in a part of the world, we should not do the right thing now. Several people have written to me about the Iraqi conflict and made that argument, but I do not understand its logic. My hon. Friend said that our history makes it difficult for us to be the shaper of a post-Saddam Iraq. We have made it perfectly clear that we do not want to shape a post-Saddam Iraq because we want the Iraqi people to do that and for Iraq's administration to pass into the hands of free Iraqis as soon as possible.
Mr. Barnes: I do not understand how we can avoid getting involved in shaping what will happen in Iraq. If we are a conquering force in the area, even if we get hold of other people and the United Nations, our role will be very significant. The past is a problem. There might be advantages of being an imperial power because we would be known in the area and some people might have liked us. However, many others believe that we adopted an exploitative position.
Mr. Bradshaw: With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not accept his use of the terminology "a conquering force". We will be a liberating force, and we already are in the parts of Iraq in which the Iraqi people are sufficiently confident to speak freely and where they feel safe from retribution from Saddam's henchmen. My hon. Friend should look at the model of Afghanistan. Of course, our input and that of the international community was important to help the Afghan people to set up their conference and institutions such as the Loya Jirga, but such things were based firmly on Afghan traditions and practices. I can assure him that the same applies in Iraq. It is not in our interests to be perceived as trying to tell the Iraqi people how they should run their country once they have been liberated. In comparison with Afghanistan, Iraq has not only good natural resources but a highly educated work force and 4 million highly educated people in exile. Many may want to return to help with the redevelopment of their country.
My hon. Friend argued that one of the reasons for inaction was the danger that Saddam might use his chemical or biological weapons. I have never understood the logic of that argument, which suggests that one should do nothing and leave Saddam to continue to develop such weapons and his capability of delivering them further until he poses an even greater danger. Sometimes it is necessary to confront a smaller danger to prevent a greater danger.
I do not share my hon. Friend's pessimism about our ability to help the Iraqis to establish a representative, more democratic regime and I do not agree that the effects will be destabilising to the region. Some people may ask what good stability has done the region in the past few decades, and argue that it needs change, democracy and a few more regimes that respect human rights.
Many hon. Members mentioned the middle east peace process. I believe that the impact of our actions could be positive. Having been the Minister responsible for the middle east, I know that the Israeli population's reluctance to make some of the tough choices that a peace settlement involves is partly due to feeling threatened by states, including Iraq, which remain

1153
dedicated to the destruction of Israel. A different regime in Iraq would make the solution to the middle east peace process easier. It will also encourage the essential engagement of the United States.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) was right to point out that, whatever one thinks of President Bush, he is the first American president of any political colour not only to commit America to the creation of a Palestinian state and a two-state solution but to support its enshrinement by the United Nations in resolutions. We must use our influence to ensure that he stands by that commitment.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire has anxieties about the creation of a Kurdish state. Again, I should like to reassure him. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), who visited Iraq, said that the position in northern Iraq had changed. Thanks to the democracy that is enjoyed there, the people have overcome their traditional rivalry and their desire for a Kurdish state. They want autonomy in Iraq, with its borders intact. There is general international agreement about that.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), like several other hon. Members, dwelt on the media coverage of the war and some of the comments attributed to the Home Secretary. As a former journalist, I take a close interest in that. I agree with hon. Members who said that the journalists out there have shown immense courage. It is not an easy job. It is paradoxical that being in Baghdad is currently almost easier than being embedded. The journalists who are embedded with the forces have not had a shower for weeks and are living in difficult conditions. However, by and large, they are doing a tremendous job.
Sometimes the journalists in Baghdad do not do enough to remind their audiences of the restrictions under which they operate. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North mentioned the case of the journalists who had been freed after being imprisoned in Iraq. The reporting from journalists who have lived among the Iraqi people and subsequently leave Iraq is different from that of journalists in Baghdad, who are not allowed to say what they want and cannot contact the people they want. A classic example is Johann Hari, the columnist from The Independent, which is an anti-war newspaper. He used to be anti-war but he spent three months in Iraq and wrote that people approached him with the words, "Are you British? Please liberate us." I also think that the BBC and other broadcasters and journalists are sometimes reluctant to make a value judgment about regimes. I believe, as a democrat, that democracy is good, or better. Sometimes, journalists who enjoy the freedoms of a democracy are reticent about making a value judgment that suggests that our form of government, our freedoms or our democracy are better than the system under which the Iraqis have suffered for so long.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall also asked why no weapons of mass destruction had yet been found. That was a bit of a naÏve question. It is early days, and that is not the main priority of what we are doing at the moment. I draw to his attention the Northern Ireland analogy. We all know that the IRA has had weapons for 30 years. That is widely acknowledged, but we have never been able to find them. So it is not as easy as the
1154
hon. Gentleman suggests, but I confident that, when the regime in Iraq falls and its true nature is revealed, his concerns will be allayed.
The hon. Gentleman rightly said that none of us could trust what the Saddam regime said. I thought, however, that he was rather unfair about the newspapers. There has been a lively debate in the newspapers in this country, as there has here. They have not all been blindly supportive of what is going on. The polling of newspaper readerships has also been interesting, in that it reveals that the prejudices of a newspaper's readers does not necessarily reflect the editorial line that that newspaper has adopted on the Iraqi conflict. The hon. Gentleman also hoped that what was going on was not distracting people's attention from domestic issues. We do not have control over that, and, as he rightly said, The Independent did a big piece today about all the so-called bad news that people have not noticed because there is a war going on. As I said at business questions earlier, I could equally point to lots of good news that has not been given very much attention because of the military conflict.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North rightly drew hon. Members' attention to the most recent accounts of journalists who had been held captive in Baghdad and who are now free. He robustly—and, I think, rightly—defended the military action that we are taking. He also rightly reiterated the importance of the hearts and minds operation, which I think is becoming more successful every day as parts of southern Iraq are liberated. It is very difficult for us to imagine what it is like to live under that kind of tyranny. People say, "Why aren't they all jumping up and down and throwing flowers over the troops?" In some places, they are, but they are doing it only when they feel really safe to do it, and when it can be guaranteed that there is no chance that we will leave again—after what happened in 1991—or that the militia and informers who still live among them will not take their revenge. That is absolutely right. I have said before that part of a successful outcome will be our not staying longer than is absolutely necessary. I have also mentioned the importance of making progress on the middle east peace process.
The hon. Member for Castle Point kicked off his local election campaign with a litany of complaints that made his constituency sound like a bit of a disaster area, although I am sure that it is not. He confidently predicted many gains for his party in the local elections. We shall see. He also complained about the recent local council tax increases. We can all trade stories about that. In my area, for example, my prudent local Labour council in Exeter is putting up its council tax by only 5.7 per cent., even though it received the same amount of money as the Conservative and Liberal Democrat-dominated county council, which is raising its council tax by 18 per cent. We can all trade these examples, but the fact remains that, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Government have increased spending on local authorities by 25 per cent. in real terms, compared with a 6 per cent. cut under the previous Conservative Government.
I am afraid that it was in the middle of the hon. Gentleman's speech that I had to go out and get a doughnut, so I am sure that I missed a number of the important constituency points that he raised. If I did miss any, I promise to get back to him. I came back as

1155
he was saying some very sensible things about Iraq and describing the success of democracy in northern Iraq, from his own experience of visiting the area. He also made a number of recommendations that I am not sure are official Conservative party policy, but don't worry, I shall definitely go and check. If they are not, I shall let my party know.
The hon. Gentleman also revealed the true, Europhobic face of the Tory party at the end of his speech. When I looked in "Dod's", I noticed that the UK Independence party got a vote bigger than his majority at the last election, so I can understand why he did so.
The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) raised the issue, of which I was aware, of his constituent who is still awaiting trial in Egypt. The hon. Gentleman has had discussions with Baroness Amos and, indeed, the issue has been discussed by the Prime Minister and the President of Egypt. I shall pass on the request. In my experience, the Egyptian ambassador is a charming man, and I shall mention the issue when I see him next.
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is pleased with the outcome of his local planning appeal. Of course, he cannot expect me to comment, as it is a local planning matter, and, as he said, we will have to wait and see whether the applicant appeals. A number of Members, including him, referred to the hours of the House. I think that all those who complained voted against the change, so their complaints are largely to be expected, but I am afraid that they will have to wait a while. There may be teething problems and if there are difficulties with Committees meeting at certain hours there may be things that can be done, but thinking that we will go back to the bad old days after only a few weeks is to hope for too much. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made clear at the time, the changes that we voted for are for this Parliament, so I do not think that it will be possible to hold a review before it ends.
One reason for the GP vacancies up and down the country is that we are creating a lot more places and it takes time to train GPs. There is a particular problem with single practices, which the hon. Member for Southend, West will be aware of, arising from the Shipman inquiry, but I shall look into the cases that he raised and get back to him.
The hon. Gentleman and his colleague, the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), raised certain cases, one involving the giving of bad financial advice and the other a distressing example of a whistleblower who was badly treated. It sounds to me as though both show a need for better regulation of financial services, which is great to hear from the Conservatives as they are usually complaining about
1156
there being too much regulation and the Government being too active. We certainly hear that complaint often from the shadow Leader of the House. I will look into the cases that have been raised and get back to Members. On the health authority complaint raised by the hon. Member for Southend, West, I think, if I understood him rightly, that he is still going to the ombudsman. I wish him well in that endeavour.
The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) raised an issue that is important to his constituents—the discharges in connection with work at Devonport dockyard. I understand that he has been in regular communication with the Environment Agency, and I shall endeavour to get an update for him, given the European Commission statement to which he referred. As he acknowledged, however, there are always two sides to this argument. It is a very difficult subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) raised the inability of some parents to get their children into the school of their choice, which will be an important issue to his constituents. A number of us have had that experience, as I have in my constituency, because the population is growing in a particular area or a school is becoming much more popular. In most cases, it is usually possible for the school to expand a little, at least temporarily, although that may not be so in that of his school. However, I am surprised at a policy that involves dividing siblings, which is unusual, so I shall write to the Department for Education and Skills and ask it to respond to his points. I shall also ask whether the solution that he suggests might be considered by it and whether it can encourage the local authority to do so.
The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) is always flying the flag. I think that he made his name during the general election campaign: did he not have a dog with a Union jack coat? I have some sympathy on this. The flying of flags here is, I am told, a matter for Black Rod, so the hon. Gentleman might like to make representations there. Also, he may be interested to know that I had a constituency case in which building workers flew a Union flag because of what is going on in Iraq, but they were told to take it down by the foreman as there was a worry that the site would be picketed by anti-war protestors. It is ridiculous.
I notice that the hon. Gentleman is wearing flag of St. George cuff links℄very tasteful. I am all for reclaiming the flag of St. George and the Union flag as well as hot cross buns for Easter. I am also pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) was able to put on record the facts about his authority. Such stories tend to get blown out of proportion, and we cannot always believe everything we read in the newspapers. That is perhaps a good point to finish.
It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PETITIONS

  General Practitioners
  6 pm
  Mr. David Amess: I have the honour to present a petition from Doctor, which has organised a campaign called "Save our single-handers". Signatures have been gathered from all over the country, and the petition involves many local practitioners whose patients value their work and are very upset by what the Prime Minister said in the House a year ago.
  The petition reads as follows.
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of Doctors supported by those signatories whose signatures are appended.
  Sheweth,
  Their concern at the comments of the Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury during Prime Minister's Questions on 3rd July 2002 to the effect that "There has been a move over time away from single-handed practices so as to improve the quality of care that people receive", and also their concern that he has not been able to cite any evidence to support his supposition.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House urge the Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury to apologise for his aforementioned comments of 3rd July 2002 which have caused discontent amongst patients and General Practitioners.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Hearing-impaired people
  6.2 pm
  Bob Spink: I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of all people with hearing impairment, particularly those living in south-east Essex. We must listen to what these worthy and caring people have to say, and promote equal access for disabled people and inclusive design to make television, radio and telephone equipment useful for those with impaired hearing without adaptation. I warmly congratulate the members of the Benfleet hard of hearing club on their community-spirited action in collecting signatures for the petition, which reads as follows.
  To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of Mrs. Irene Haylock, Ashleigh Sharp, Jessica Arnold, members of the Benfleet Hard of Hearing Club, and others of like disposition sheweth
  That there are some 8.7 million hearing impaired people in the UK and without changes in legislation, and particularly in the Communications Bill, technology and commercial developments will leave them under increasing disadvantages and will increase the extent of the digital divide whereby disabled people will be left further behind and more seriously discriminated against.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Government to implement changes in the Communications Bill to end exclusion for hearing impaired people from digital TV, Radio and telephone services.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Tom Cooke
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Peter Duncan: I welcome the Minister. We have not met before on the occasion of a health debate. As she knows, in Scotland health matters have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. This, however, is a particularly unusual case which has given me a constituency interest in health services in England.
  A couple of Members, having seen the Order Paper, naturally asked me "Who is Tom Cooke?" They wondered whether he was an important person of whom they should have heard. I told them that, having read the report of this debate in Hansard, they would probably appreciate the significance that Tom Cooke might have, and realise that he would prove in due course to be a very important person.
  As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Members are often presented with tragic cases by constituents. Many of those cases seem to involve injustice on a disturbing scale. The sad death of Tom Cooke and the issues raised by his death combine both. Tom's mother and father, Lauren Devine and Gordon Cooke have sought my involvement to bring a focus on Tom's case and draw attention to their plight as they strive to deal with the ongoing consequences more than two and a half years after his death in June 2000.
  Tom's birth and short nine-day life were beset with negligence on behalf of the United Bristol Healthcare Trust—UBHT—and covering up by that organisation when challenged. That this cover-up culture persisted, after the Bristol heart inquiry and the Kennedy report were supposed to have brought it to an end, is a scandal in itself. The Kennedy report highlighted a culture of failure and cover-up in Bristol. There was clearly organisational failure and a culture that was developed in the interests of the trust, and not of the patients in their Bristol hospitals.
  The Secretary of State, in responding to a debate in the House, accepted Kennedy's recommendations and sought to reassure the public that the Government would address the failures. He said:
  "In essence, our response to Kennedy falls into two parts. The first includes the organisational and cultural changes needed to put the patient at the centre of the NHS. The second involves the changes needed to assure quality and secure improvements in services."—[Official Report, 17 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 449–50.]
  The issues raised by the death of Tom Cooke expose those same failures, and many more. Although we were told that it could not happen again, it clearly has.
  Lauren and Gordon had two children already before Tom. Both are healthy and happy and are now attending primary school in my constituency. Tom was born with catastrophic brain injury after antenatal care for Lauren went badly wrong. As a measure of that failure of care, Lauren's period of labour extended to some 62 hours, but UBHT midwifery staff failed to accelerate her care in proportion to the danger faced by both mother and baby.
  That the antenatal care fell below the standards that should be accepted is clear. What is also clear is that UBHT sought to brush the tragedy under the carpet.

  1159
  Some months later, long after Tom had died, Lauren still had possession of her antenatal case notes. They had never been collected, never been checked and never been analysed to learn the lessons. Lauren had to return copies voluntarily so that Tom's file at the hospital might be completed. Put simply, the instinctive reaction of UBHT was to deny, evade and deflect possible criticism—exactly the same denials, evasions and deflection that had characterised the previous scandal in Bristol.
  Tom was born on 20 June 2000, severely handicapped and with significant brain damage. Lauren was also severely weakened by the birth and a traumatic labour. At this stage, significant confusion and, perhaps, obfuscation developed between the two roles of treatment and research. In the immediate aftermath of the birth, was Tom being treated for his condition, or was he being researched as part of a trial? It has since emerged that consent was gained from Lauren for Tom's entry into a research programme. At the time, Lauren had a haemoglobin level of 6.4—half the normal value—and was clearly in no fit state to make any decisions of that nature. Her assent to treatment was obtained, when in fact it was a research programme into brain cooling equipment. Despite the treatment being presented as being necessary to help her son, it has since emerged that in fact Tom was to be used in the research as a control. He was to be given no treatment.
  Equally reprehensibly, Gordon and Lauren were kept away from their son during this period. As a parent myself, I cannot begin to contemplate the isolation that was inflicted upon them, at such a desperate time. Further, Lauren's consent to the recording of a video of Tom's "treatment" was sought. She declined to give that agreement, but the video was produced in any case. This kind of appalling side-stepping and reversal of the express wishes of parents shows what failure remained at UBHT. Action is now required to ensure it cannot happen again.
  Tom died nine days after his birth, at a point when relations between the parents, the doctors and the research team had reached a low point. Lauren and Gordon were given Tom to take home, as they were told he was going to die that day. No advice was given as to how to make his remaining hours comfortable, and no real guidance was given as to why Tom should have been taken home to die. No instructions were given on how to feed him liquids. The House should remember that this was a child—a person—who could not swallow.
  It is now clear that when Tom died, some 10 hours after leaving the hospital, he was probably malnourished, and deprivation of liquids clearly played a significant part in his passing.
  That this case is tragic is not in doubt. The Department of Health must address the following questions. What action has been taken to learn the lessons of the midwifery failure that contributed in large part to this tragedy? Why are the procedures for obtaining parental consent for research trials so routinely bypassed, and why is the division between research and treatment so obviously blurred? What can be done to bring an end to the attempts by UBHT to airbrush out inconvenient patient episodes?
  1160
  As I mentioned earlier, it was five months before Lauren contacted the hospital to inquire what lessons had been learned—a perfectly reasonable request. The error of the hospital's failure to reclaim Lauren's case notes came to light during that conversation. They are always held by the patient during antenatal care, but should always be returned afterwards—UBHT knew that, but the airbrush had been used to fine effect.
  The fact that Lauren is a qualified barrister obviously raised suspicions that she would not be easily placated. The ongoing heart inquiry, leading to the Kennedy report, meant that her silence was vital. After she was warned to keep quiet, the story takes a turn for the worse.
  In order to silence Tom's parents, the totally unfounded allegation—subsequently proven to be inaccurate—was made that Lauren had threatened to harm her other children. It was absurd. It was highly damaging to the family, and the allegation was subsequently rejected.
  These allegations—involving child protection issues—are covered by the Children Act 1989. Quite properly, the legislation seeks to allow the holding of information on those deemed to be a threat to children. But surely the allegations that are recorded must be accurate. I refer to an answer that I received to a written question in which I asked what guidance was given to Government Departments in dealing with information on individual files that have been accepted as inaccurate. The reply was:
  "General guidance on compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998 is issued by the Information Commissioner. The Commissioner's booklet, "The Data Protection Act: Legal Guidance", contains a section on complying with the requirement in the 1998 Act's fourth data protection principle that personal data must be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date."—[Official Report, 21 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 283W.]
  In fact, despite the fact that they have been rejected by Bristol's social services department, the allegations and the subsequent profiling of Lauren have been unstoppable. UBHT achieved what it wanted—the silencing of a dangerous irritation to their club culture, at a time when further exposure of its failings would have been fatal for the organisation.
  The allegations remain on file. Indeed, should Lauren or Gordon seek to request details on their child protection allegations on file, their inquiries themselves would be treated as further incidents of concern.
  These inaccurate allegations spread like wildfire throughout the social services and healthcare network. Lauren and Gordon found their other children affected at their schools, and they were affected at their work. All of that was based on deliberate inaccurate allegations, and all of it deliberately designed to maintain Lauren's silence. It is worth noting that those allegations were distributed on an unsolicited basis—they were even sent to my region, Dumfries and Galloway, the family's new home, when there was no reason for that to happen. It is not in doubt that there was systemic failure at UBHT. Kennedy made that clear. It also made it clear that this is an organisation that will do absolutely anything to cover up bad news.
  As I said, Lauren is a barrister. She is a specialist in child protection issues, so she knows her and Gordon's rights as Tom's parents. Surely the Data Protection Act

  1161
  1998 would force the release of their records from UBHT and allow proper scrutiny of the facts. In fact, the trust has even evaded its responsibility to hold and release information as it is required to by law. Some limited releases are only now being made. One of t he items that could—indeed, should—have been released is the video that was made of the research trial against the express wish of Tom's mother. That was prevented by Department of Health officials breaching confidence and relaying the subject of a private meeting with the DOH's investigation and inquiry unit to the hospital. The video was destroyed by the trust. That is unbelievable deception and an extraordinary failure of the system.
  This raises serious questions. If the Department of Health's own inquiry team cannot be depended upon for action, who can? In the system for scrutiny after the Bristol heart scandal there were supposed to be new channels to ensure independent scrutiny of failures. In fact, for my constituents, there seems to be no such independent channel. An inquiry was offered to Tom's parents, but only by someone overseen by the chief executive of UBHT. That is no way to ensure patient confidence. Given the nature of their treatment over the past months, is it any wonder that Lauren and Gordon would have no confidence in such an option? Where, after the Kennedy report, is the new openness and accountability? Where is the confidence-building independent scrutiny? Many quangos have been created, but none is delivering material improvement in the system of governance and inquiry.
  It is obvious that the system is failing in forcing compliance on errant trusts. How can the Secretary of State for Health, who has ultimate responsibility, ensure that trusts comply with his wise words and his directives? It was impossible to force UBHT to release that research video—instead, they destroyed it. The Secretary of State is the legal owner of trust records and files, yet has no power to ensure that they are held and used properly. The Department has long been aware of the scale of injustice that has been inflicted on Lauren and Gordon and their children. It now needs now to do something about it.
  Closure is required for this family. The best form of closure would be the knowledge that a tragedy like theirs could not happen again. During the time since Tom's death, that has been at the forefront of my constituents' minds. Confrontation has been, and will remain, the last resort. The family have offered to engage constructively with the Department to work through the issues involved, and I hope that the Minister will seize that initiative today.
  The Minister has to address three fundamental issues on which the case rests, as well as many other issues. How can the Department of Health be sure that it cannot happen again? Why is there is no independent mechanism for governing such disputes? How can false allegations stay on file? The Kennedy report had fine objectives. It made 198 recommendations which together and over time would help change the culture of the NHS, which according to the inquiry needs to be
  "a culture of safety and of quality; a culture of openness and of accountability; a culture of public service, a culture in which collaborative teamwork is prized; and a culture of flexibility in which innovation can flourish in response to patients' needs."
  1162
  We are still some way from that fine objective. A human tragedy has been transformed into huge failure on the part of the UBHT. It cannot be allowed to happen again.
  6.19 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) for raising in the House this evening the important question of patient safety. I join him in expressing my sadness at hearing about the tragic death of Tom Cooke, aged only 9 days.
  The issues concerning the family and raised by the hon. Gentleman have been raised with the Department already. They have also been raised with the trust, which conducted a review of a number of issues that were raised by the family and which provided a report to the family on 8 May 2001. My officials have met Tom's mother and her representative and have worked to find a way forward to meet their concerns. The outcome of that discussion was an offer to set up a review that was independent of the trust concerned. The review would be conducted by an independent lawyer and would consider all the family's concerns—including their treatment by the trust before, during and after Tom's birth.
  Although the review would have been conducted under the second stage of the NHS complaints procedure, the reviewer would have been entirely independent of the trust, with his or her final report being made to the chief executive and the board of the trust, as well as to the Department. Unfortunately, the proposal was rejected by the family. We were also unable to pursue an offer that was made by the chief executive of the trust to meet the family and their representative at the Department's offices to discuss the issues.
  Mr. Duncan: I will try not to interrupt the Minister's flow. Does she accept that the independent inquiry that was offered was to be appointed by the chief executive of UBHT? There needs to be some avenue that is entirely independent of an errant trust; otherwise, how can patients trust the system?
  Ms Blears: I understand that the offer was of an independent lawyer to review all the circumstances. That offer would have been a way forward, had it been accepted by the family, who could then have reported to the board allowing decisions to be made on the issues. The review would have been conducted in an entirely independent way. I am sure that we could have built in requirements to ensure that the review was independent. The offer remains open to the family. It is an avenue that I would urge the parties to pursue, because it is important that the issues are explored as fully as they possibly can be.
  While discussions were going on to try to find a way forward, the family, through their lawyers, issued a pre-action protocol. That has the effect of staying proceedings under the complaints procedure, because we cannot pursue complaints or concerns using internal procedures at the same time as we are dealing with those same or related complaints and concerns by way of legal

  1163
  action. Now that we have the pre-action protocol, we cannot pursue the NHS complaints procedure—which is the procedure to use for dealing with matters in the health service.
  There should however be no suggestion that the possibility of a review has been closed to the family. We have been entirely clear that the question of an independent review may be revisited to deal with any outstanding issues when any legal action has been concluded. There has been an allegation that negligence proceedings, if pursued, would deal only with some issues of concern to the family, and that there could be outstanding issues remaining. An independent review could pick up on any outstanding issues that were outwith the legal proceedings. It is entirely right and fair that that should be the case and that all the concerns that have been raised by the family should be investigated properly. That leaves open the question of the appropriate means of addressing a whole range of those concerns, but if there is going to be legal action, that legal action has to take place before we can see what issues outwith the legal action then need to be considered.
  Mr. Duncan: Does the Minister accept that part of the reason for the pre-action protocol was to secure the information that the family needed from the files? That process is still not complete. The family still cannot be sure that they are in receipt of all the information that is being held—information that they are entitled to under the Data Protection Act 1998. They are entitled to information and that was part of the reason for instigating some of this action.
  Ms Blears: It is right that the family, through their lawyers, should be able to pursue the information that they would need to prepare their case if they wished to embark on legal action. I do not know the individual circumstances of this case, but I want to say to the hon. Gentleman that the way in which he has presented this case today suggests that he has concluded that these matters have been investigated and decided. They have not been decided. I should be loth to conduct the debate with the sense that matters had been proven. The hon. Gentleman has used phrases such as "the matter was proved beyond doubt", or "the case is beyond doubt". Some of those matters have not been explored. The trust vigorously defends many of the allegations. I certainly do not know the truth about that individual case. Such matters will be explored through litigation, or properly investigated under the NHS complaints procedure or through the option of the independent review that was offered by the Department. I cannot say whether the allegations are proven. That is the basis on which I make my comments on the case.
  It is right that I should point out that the trust concerned has an international reputation in the field of neonatal medicine and the care of children. In a recent review of clinical governance, undertaken by the Commission for Health Improvement, it was described as
  "being seen as a centre of clinical excellence",
  with "good outcomes of care". Good-quality clinical governance has to be based on robust evidence-based medicine, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees. That
  1164
  requires good research, and it is important that patients and their families understand the context in which such research takes place. I realise that that issue is of concern to the family.
  Before I deal with the issues on patient safety that have been raised, I want to comment on several specific matters. First, there has been a suggestion that Tom Cooke was the subject of research without consent. That is an extremely important matter on which I cannot comment, as it is likely to come into any legal action. However, any treatment given to a child, including treatment given during a research trial, should be subject to the consent of a person with parental responsibility for that child. The Department of Health's guide on consent to examination or treatment makes it crystal clear that consent is a key requirement. I understand that, in this case, written consent was in fact given by both parents.
  Secondly, the hon. Member suggested that social services involvement was inappropriate in this case.
  Mr. Duncan: Before the Minister moves away from the research, will she confirm that no consent was given to the taking of the research video?
  Ms Blears: I am not aware that specific consent was sought for particular elements of the research. My information is that written consent was given by both pa rents, but I do not know whether the different elements of the research were identified in the written consent; nor am I aware that it would be common practice to go through each such item when seeking consent. I am not in a position to provide the hon. Gentleman with that information. I am sure that an examination of the records would make clear the basis on which consent was sought and given. If there were an independent review of these matters, I am sure that point would be at the heart of the process.
  I want to comment on the position of social services. Local authorities are responsible for decisions that they reach about individual children. Ministers cannot intervene in individual cases such as this, nor would it be appropriate for me to comment on cases involving social services that may become the subject of court proceedings, if that is indeed the route that the parents propose to take.
  The Government and I appreciate that there can be serious consequences for an individual if allegations against him or her are unproven. Equally, that needs to be contrasted with the serious effects on children if allegations are not believed or not taken seriously. We all know of circumstances in which children's complaints have not been taken seriously, with terrible results. Although some allegations of abuse will inevitably be mistaken, misplaced, or even false and motivated by malice, we must never encourage a culture of non-interference, of turning a blind eye or passing by on the other side. We must not prevent people from speaking up and raising their concerns. Such matters need proper investigation, and to be—confirmed or not; and appropriate action should be taken. We must make sure that we listen both to children and to those who speak on their behalf.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the destruction of the video when the Department raised the matter with the trust. The Department was genuinely trying to find a

  1165
  way forward for the family, and wanted to establish whether it was possible to locate the video and a blanket that had belonged to Tom. The family specifically asked for the video of Tom not to be played again and to be passed to them with no copies left in existence. That message was relayed to the trust and, in fact, the video was deleted from the researcher's laptop.
  The Department did not ask for that video to be destroyed; nor did we establish who owned it or whose decision it was to destroy it. Those issues have been discussed with Tom's mother, and they certainly could be included in any independent review. If Tom's mother or her adviser wants to make that matter the subject of a complaint, it can be pursued, but the Department certainly did not ask for that video to be destroyed: it was simply seeking a way to obtain it, so that it could be given back to Tom's mother, as she had requested.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to sharing information and said that, by making such a request, the Department could have been in breach of its duty of confidentiality to Tom's mother. Again, all the action taken by the Department in this case has been intended to try to find a way to resolve some of those very difficult issues for Tom's family in their relationship with the trust, but I do not think that a great deal of progress will be made until a review, investigation or litigation takes place to find out the truth of the allegations.
  I want to reassure the House and the hon. Gentleman about how seriously the Department of Health views patient safety and about all the measures that have been put in place in the light of the Bristol report. After t he Bristol report, we said that it was important to change
  1166
  the culture in the NHS, that there needed to be more openness and transparency, and that patients needed to be involved in the service, driving up standards.
  The measures that have been put in place since the Kennedy report into the events at Bristol are very wide-ranging indeed. We have introduced new systems for patient and public involvement, patient advice liaison services, a new regulation for health care professionals to regulate the clinicians involved, the new independent inspectorate for the NHS, the National Patient Safety Agency, a new independent look at children's health services, and better leadership and modernisation in the service. There has been a real drive to ensure that we change that culture, because clinical governance, patient safety, openness and transparency are of the utmost priority in the health service.
  Finally, I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's specific questions. He says that there is no independent mechanism to govern such disputes. Yes, there is: the NHS complaints procedure, which is the appropriate way to pursue such matters. I urge the hon. Gentleman and the family concerned to take that case forward. He asks how we can be sure that such things will not recur. We have not inquired into the facts, as I have explained, but all the measures taken following the Bristol report should ensure that we create a culture in which such matters can certainly be addressed, so that the NHS ensures—
  The motion having been made after Six o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes to Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

Science Education
[Relevant documents: Third Report from the Science and Technology Committee Session 2001–02 HC 508–1 and Sixth Special Report Session 2001–02 HC 1204 (Government Reply).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Woolas.]
2.30 pm
Dr. Ian Gibson: It is a pleasure to present the report from the Select Committee on Science and Technology, entitled "Science education from 14 to 19", which is the third report of our session 2001–02.
The Select Committee has worked assiduously, visiting young people and teachers in different parts of the country and picking up information about how teachers who are going through the process and those who have gone through it felt about science education in this country in 2001–02. I give great credit to the people who helped us to present our report and who got us to the right places at the right time. Now and again, it was close, but there were no deaths or injuries and I compliment our Committee Clerks who worked very hard to ensure that the programme took place, was very interesting and helped with the report.
I also want to thank our specialist advisers: Professor Michael Elves—a former director of the office of science and education affairs at Glaxo Wellcome plc—who gave us the industrial context of our report; Professor Jonathan Osborne of King's College London, who is an expert in science education and has produced many publications; and Ms Betty Parker, who is a former head of science at Simon Langton girls school in Canterbury. I also thank the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, which released Jackie Russell, who has worked for the Department of Education and Skills. She has great experience in this field and worked hard with us, developing the enthusiasms of all members of the Committee.
We need to point out that science is important, not only in schools but in terms of what it produces, and to talk about innovation and producing new scientific ideas. A major part of the Higher Education Bill, which is about to descend on us and is already being widely discussed, examines the purpose of science in this country and how we can use it for industrial development, innovation and so on. A new generation of scientists, boffins and technologists will be needed to produce that development and innovation as we try to survive in a very international market.
Mr. Tim Boswell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take my remarks ill, as I believe the report to have been constructive, and I am sure that he will introduce it constructively. Does he agree that of equal importance to innovation is the scientific knowledge to inculcate a critical mind, which enables
328WH
people to sort the wheat from the chaff and well-founded allegations or propositions from those that are unsupported?
Dr. Gibson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment, but I have hardly entered the first half, let alone the penalty box. I shall come to that arena later.
It is true that we also want a scientifically literate public. It has been clear to many of us involved with scientific issues in the past few years that the public are often described as anti-science. I do not believe that they are, but they are not as informed as they should be and are not sufficiently confident about understanding science and the impact that it has on their lives. During the vigorous debates about the triple vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella and about genetic modification, the public voted with their feet and would not buy certain products, because they were being hoodwinked and baffled with science. That stems from an educational process that does not empower them or give them the confidence to handle the different concepts that are a daily part of our lives. I am gratified to see that The Guardian has started to run a science section once a week. It has realised that science has a great deal of influence on events; other newspapers do it in other ways.
Science education has a dual purpose: it has a bearing not only on legislation in this place but on people's attitudes to problems, in the world outside. We need to focus on schools; the higher education debate will link in to them. We must ensure that our young people are being excited and enthused, so that wherever they end up in society and at whatever level they work, they understand the problems at the grass roots—in schools. In order to create the specialists and experts of the future, we need a literate public now. The media have picked up on that and are employing increasing numbers of people who are scientifically and medically literate to present the arguments about vital processes.
Mr. David Heath: Does my hon. Friend—I call him that because I believe that he is my friend on the Committee—agree that, although the media have made some progress in introducing people who are scientifically literate, there is still an overwhelming culture of treating science and superstition as though they had parity? It is certainly the case in magazines, but also in some newspapers that ought to know better.
Dr. Gibson: I do indeed. That stems from a misunderstanding of how scientific and medical discoveries are made and how much we can say about any discovery. I am 99.9 per cent. sure that the sun is going to rise tomorrow morning, but part of me says that it might not. Something might happen in the atmosphere to change things. We have to put over to the public that scientists are not cocksure or bombastic and do not pretend to know everything. In fact, they often retreat into a world in which they do not want to say anything, particularly in the media, because they do not wish to seem unsure, especially in the face of the Jeremy Paxmans of this world, who drive them into a corner and demand that they come up with a black and white answer. Science is not like that, but that is how it is

329WH
handled in the media. It could stem from the way in which we teach science in our schools, and that was one of the main reasons for the inquiry.
Many organisations have complimented the Committee. We can do with all the compliments that we can get. The House of Lords recently engaged in a debate about the Medical Research Council, about which we had said a few things. We also made statements about renewable energy, and we know that if one says things that are unpopular one is attacked by the establishment—but members of the Committee have broad shoulders and we can hold our ground. In the British scientific educational process, we benefited from the spirit in which we were encouraged to challenge and to be challenged, to acknowledge when others were right and to engage in dialectical debate. We want to see that as part of the scientific process in our schools.
We have been greatly encouraged by the compliments of the Association for Science Education and the Royal Society of Chemistry on many aspects of our report. Many of the teachers who have written to us, and the young people who have accessed the report on websites, are happy that, at last, Parliament seems to be paying attention to their problems. That is what the Committee did—its members listened to many young people, from those at the Science museum to those in the wilds of Penicuik, just outside Edinburgh. The messages that we received from them encouraged us to believe in what we had written.
We have learned through the teachers about another group of people who have been sadly neglected, which made us very despondent—technicians. They are not classroom assistants. They are the people who prepare the classes, often behind the scenes, working away and never seen, but definitely revered by the young people who depend on them for practical help and who engage with them in debate about what they are trying to find out during their practical sessions in laboratories. I shall say more later about the laboratories and the experiments, or the lack of them. The people I refer to—I shall get this off my chest right away—are mostly women, and they are badly paid and completely forgotten. They are represented, of course, by their organisations, but are never listened to in proper negotiations. There are dozens of them in the country, and I hope that the Department will look at the problem and try to ensure a proper job structure and proper pay scales, as we did recently for those who work in the health service laboratories, for these who contribute so much to our science education.
I shall quickly identify the problems, and I am sure that others will amplify them. We felt that there was an inflexibility in science teaching and an irrelevance or repetitiveness in the curriculum. We saw a lack of engagement in classroom debate, limitations in practical and field work, low educational value in coursework—that was confirmed by many people subsequent to our report—and generally unsuccessful implementation of ICT in science teaching.
I would be the first to acknowledge that there have been reforms and that a lot is going on in this field. Some exciting new AS and A-level courses have been introduced—science with public understanding, advancing physics, Salters Homers physics and Salters-
330WH
Nuffield biology—and they teach science as it is today, not as it was 100 years ago. Those developments are down to those committed groups, who have the vision to see where change is needed and have the resources to make it happen.
Dr. John Pugh: The hon. Gentleman spoke of a litany of failings in science teaching. Did the Committee take steps to find out whether those complaints are new or whether similar complaints have always been made about the teaching of science subjects—and perhaps about all teaching?
Dr. Gibson: Yes, but not systematically. Some of us are old enough to remember what we were once subjected to—cutting up buttercups and sharing one piece of apparatus between a class of 30. Those of us who managed to move on in the professional scientific ranks wonder how we ever came through it, given the laboratories where we had to work. We spent most of our time carving "Ian loves Cherie" on the benchtop. Many must have been subject to such classroom facilities, and there is still a long way to go, despite the Government having put in £60 million. I am sure that the constituencies of all hon. Members have a school with a decent-sized science lab or group of science labs.
Dr. Andrew Murrison: The £60 million was welcome, but would the hon. Gentleman not agree that we have no way of auditing where that money has gone? Indeed, one or two of the bodies that he mentioned have commented on that.
Dr. Gibson: Yes, that is true, and not only in the field of science. There seems to be a general malaise. We have to follow money through an exceptional audit trail. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Committee's report on cancer services provoked another audit trail to ensure that the money given by Government ended up where it was intended.. There are still problems. I know that my county of Norfolk, which includes the constituency of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, has had a problem getting the money to the coalface, although that is being dealt with. The bureaucracy is still there, but steps are now being taken not only in Norfolk but throughout the country to ensure that the money gets to the right place. We will be watching.
We expect to hear today that more money will appear for schools. Every member of the Committee visited the schools in their constituencies and did a lot of work there; we met their heads of science and had mini-select committee meetings to find out what was going on. We have a duty as constituency MPs to ensure that the money is given to the local councils and that it is used where it is at. We have identified the problem and I am sure that we will make this happen.
The report points out that many students lose any enthusiasm they once had for science. All too often, they study science because they have to. We often hear that they feel that science is difficult. However, that problem is not insurmountable; we have to think of new ways of putting over difficult concepts. All too often, the students study because they have to, but they neither enjoy nor engage with the subject, and that is a great disappointment. The joys of science and its

331WH
discoveries—particularly this year, as it has been 50 years since the discoveries of Watson and Crick—make huge differences to people's lives. To engage with that and understand it, is a real privilege. The negative image of science may last for life with many young people. "It's too difficult for me," and "It's boring," is so far from the truth for those of us who want to preserve science and drive it forward.
I do not think that science education is serving the dual purposes that I mentioned at the beginning, and the Committee shares that view. Science remains a core part of the curriculum until GCSE level, and that is where the problem is. Why have there not been major changes to the curriculum? I will point out in a positive way what those changes might be. Change is needed at that level, which is reflected in the experience of the Committee and many other people. A pilot of a new-style GCSE is being conducted by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. It was piloted in 90 of the 3,500 schools. When will all the others see that GCSE?
The Department for Education and Skills is proud of its vocational GCSE in applied science. I should like to know how many students take that up and go on afterwards. It may be attracting many students, and I want to know whether it is making an impact on the curriculum.
We are expecting a rewrite of the national curriculum for science. That was announced more than a year ago in February 2002 as part of the Green Paper. It was confirmed in January that the Government really meant that, but what has happened since? I have letters from principals and head teachers in schools who say that they have been to meetings with the QCA, but were not inspired by what is going on there. That is only anecdotal evidence—I have had only a few letters—but I should like to hear whether the Department feels that there will be a sea change and a step change in the organisation of science GCSEs.
We met many inspiring teachers who want to see changes and are prepared to put them into effect. I am pleased to see that the Government have introduced, with the Wellcome Trust, teaching resource centres for science education. There will be a national one and six regional ones, where teachers can refresh themselves, mix with those from higher education institutes, and engage in talking about new experiments, new ways of handling concepts and so on. That recognises the value of retraining teachers in an area that moves extremely rapidly.
We need to think positively about what we need to do. One important insight that I gained during the inquiry and that the Committee highlighted, is that it is a real pity that nowhere in the curriculum can young people discuss things, such as the triple MMR jabs, to which they are subjected in the media and their lives. As soon as one says such a thing , a teacher will get in touch and say, "Oh yes, we do." Well, that is good, but many teachers do not have the time. The curriculum is very demanding, as is the time devoted to coursework. We have to think about quality education as well as the end points that we want.
What should people be taught? It is important to let students experiment for themselves in the lab, to have the opportunity to mess things up and to ask questions, but given the excitement and enthusiasm that is
332WH
generated by experimentation, is it not also important to allow young people to argue and talk? I have never known two scientists to agree with each other on anything. There are still people who do not believe in the double-stranded DNA helix. There are people who still believe that it is a triple helix. Arguments go on, and that is what science is about. We are not generating that enthusiasm in schools.
Mr. Heath: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman about giving time in the curriculum to explore what the student or the class wants to explore without the current constraints. However, does he agree that one of the problems is that the hard sciences, in particular, are often taught by teachers who are not primarily qualified in those subjects and are, therefore, limited by the scope of what they have in front of them, and unable to expand and explain the subject as we would want? Does not that suggest that we need to find ways of getting more properly qualified teachers into those hard sciences?
Dr. Gibson: Yes, that is true, but it is a circular problem. Unless we get people enthused at an early age so that they go on to higher education and then back into the system, the shortage of people picking up science subjects at university will continue. We need to give golden hellos to encourage people to go into teaching the sciences.
Some issues are being addressed, but we have got into a slough of despond because we have not addressed this one. This is the time to do so, and the Government have made a start. However, we need to press hard on the accelerator. The Prime Minister has given a major speech on science, and there are not many Prime Ministers who take time off to talk about the value of science and the need for it in our society. The time is right to look at the whole process, not just the time between 14 and 19. Why not investigate what happens at primary schools? That is where children's sense of excitement, enthusiasm and curiosity is, but it is sometimes knocked out of them. We must ensure that it is kept going and enlivened through the whole process.
Young people must see the relevance of their education. Science can be hard, such as understanding pH, physical principles and so on. They will persevere only if they see the value of the whole process and what might come of it.
Perhaps we need to strike a better balance. It is fine to push people to do physics, chemistry and biology, but we also need literate people who understand and can talk about issues with some confidence. That is not a matter of dumbing down, as some people say. Professional scientists say, "We mustn't talk about these things," but science is part of a political world where people enjoy and worry about events in genetics, for example. Today's newspaper talks about whether the transference of blood from an in vitro baby should be allowed, and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority will be on the news. Young people see all that and wonder what the heck it is all about, but they are unable to engage with it. If they had a basic understanding of the processes, the political and ethical issues would be much more meaningful to them. It is an exciting area. Changes will not happen overnight, but we must give people some confidence in the process.

333WH
I turn now to an issue that is dear to the Minister's heart. There are not enough women in science. The Greenfield report addresses problems at certain levels and particularly in higher education. It also deals with women who return to work after having families. That is great, and we should ensure that that happens. However, we must also help bright young women like those we saw at the Science museum. They told us that they enjoyed cutting up hearts and that they wanted to get on in science, but then they said, "There's no career in science. We'll never end up as professors or get grants to run our own labs, so we'll go into the media and do flashy things on Sky News and BBC News 24." Who can blame them? We must make jobs in the scientific world important.
This week, some of us on the Committee went to the Research Council in Swindon, where we engaged people about the great work that they are doing. This country is superb at producing good stuff from a small base. We are punching above our weight at the minute, but we must look to the future. When we asked people at the Research Council what the problems were, everyone said, "We fear that young people won't come up through the system to take our jobs in a few years." That feeling is universal, and we have a real chance through our report and through interaction with the Government to do something about it.
If things happen at the 14 to 19 level, that will aid the higher education paper to a great extent. The paper is not all about top-up fees. It is about getting people through the system who can create new products, ask questions and make discoveries. I sometimes think that we must have discovered everything that there is to discover, but I should know better. Things that we thought were true 20 years ago are passé they are no longer true. We move on and get a deeper understanding. We used to look at molecules. Now we have the technology to look at atoms and subcomponents of atoms.
It is excellent that science is moving on, and our young people must be part of that world. More than that, they must be able to contribute to it, to argue for and against it from a position of knowledge and belief. They must believe that it is as important to write a book on any aspect of science as it is to win the Booker prize.
When I see the publicity that Booker prize winners get compared with those who write a science book, I sometimes weep. Both are important; they often interact in developing our civilization. We must create a world-class, world-beating system in this country. We can do that, but only if we engage our young people at this stage. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I ask her four questions, to which I expect, of course, instant answers. Does the Department for Education and Skills accept that there is a problem with GCSE science? What is happening with the review of the key stage 4 science curriculum? What are the time scales? When will the wider world hear of the plans?
The Department for Education and Skills sent a memorandum to the Royal Society and to the Association for Science Education about implementing a proper career structure for science technicians. What is being done about that? Can the Department do
334WH
anything to inject a sense of responsibility and some creative thinking into the awarding bodies, which are often seen by the professionals as holding things back by thinking about funny exam questions to trip people up and separate them? They do not challenge the creativity of our young people.
2.56 pm
Mr. Robert Key: The enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) is catching. I am grateful to him, and I could save a great deal of time by endorsing every word that he said. My enthusiasm for science started at school and was entirely down to having good teachers. That I did not pursue a science career is neither here nor there. I spent a year sitting through chemistry lessons next to a young man who also decided not to pursue science professionally. He is now a general—General Patrick Cordingley—whom we can hear on the "Today" programme most mornings. I am a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, so I shall try to make up for my decision not to be a scientist.
I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Minister and to my colleagues, because many weeks ago, before this debate was arranged, I promised the Salisbury astronomical society to meet it at 6 pm this evening to discuss the inquiry that the Select Committee is undertaking into light pollution. Therefore, I must honour that commitment, if you will excuse me.
I am not a scientist, but I was a teacher for 16 years and was enchanted to read the report when it was published almost a year ago, although I was not a member of the Select Committee at the time. I recognised many grains of truth in it. I also recognise the importance of the points that the hon. Gentleman made, particularly about the problem of gender in science. It did not seem to apply to me. I regarded gender balance as normal, although perhaps I might not have used that phrase at the time. I was used to the idea of having an aunt who was a physician, a sister who was a physician and a wife who was a science teacher.
Perhaps stereotyping is the problem. In my experience, girls in single-sex schools do better at subjects, including science. Both my daughters went through the state system from primary school onward. One of them is now a vet and the other teaches English literature. They attended a school that was renowned for its enthusiastic teachers, and my goodness, they did well by my daughters.
I grew up in a community in Salisbury in which science was regarded as normal. However, I understand now that that is not the case for many people. My constituency contains the two Porton Down establishments and the aircraft testing and evaluation establishment at Boscombe Down, so in our community science is normal. That matters hugely.
Paragraph 57 of the report made the important point that people of school age are put off science because it is perceived to be hard work compared with other subjects. One comes across that view time after time, whether one speaks to teachers, professors or children. It always come back to the question: why opt for a subject that requires one to spend extra hours in a laboratory, extra weeks studying, or extra years on a university course? As a parent who has seen a vet through five years of study, I know what that can mean for parents as well. We should address the fact that it is harder to be a scientist.

335WH
The hon. Gentleman referred to the problem relating to technicians, which is fundamental. He said that technicians were never listened to in proper negotiations. My wife was a laboratory technician in a school, and I do not think that she would agree with that statement—I certainly would not dare to. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that science technicians do an incredible job. Frankly, teachers could not cope without them, and proper attention should be paid to them. I agree that it is important to maintain the compulsory element in the curriculum for 14 to 16-year-olds, because it is hugely important that there is scientific literacy in our community. We must help future generations to understand how our world works and the opportunities and challenges that exist. I want also to mention the importance of the language of science being interpreted for the benefit of all.
As Chairman of the Select Committee that has already been mentioned, I went to Swindon yesterday to visit Research Councils UK, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. We also met members of the Medical Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. Then we went to the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils, the Central Laser Facility and the division of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council that deals with space science and technology. Wherever we went, those of us who were not scientists found it difficult to understand what we were being told.
Indeed, when we were standing in the space science division and being told about the wonderful work that was being done, I reckoned that about four out of five phrases meant nothing to me. I understood the words individually, but the concepts were absent. That is a problem for the scientific community, because if it cannot convince politicians, let alone journalists and the electors, of its case, it has little hope of ensuring that resources are prioritised for science. It would be much easier to spend the money on health or social services, because when it comes to science, people say, "Come on, what are you talking about? The Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council? It does not sound as if it deserves a penny."
Mr. Boswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is even more endemic because, expressed by a scientist, a simple word such as "risk" is likely to have a completely different connotation from that which it would have if it were used by a journalist? If a scientist is asked whether there is a risk, he or she is almost bound to say that there is, but that it might not be a risk worth worrying about, in the normal sense of the word used by lay people.
Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is wholly right, and we learned that yesterday when we inquired into the risks relating to bio-terrorism. Of course, the sort of risks that scientists have to quantify in that area are different from what he or I might count as a risk.
The problem is that, in Britain, we have not only a non-science but an anti-science culture, which is fuelled, regrettably, by ignorance and indifference in journalism and the media. That has been recognised by the Royal Institution, which has established a superb online science media centre, to which I refer regularly. It offers
336WH
an extensive database for schools and journalists who have deadlines to meet. It gives the contact details of relevant scientists, in case people want explanations or quotes.
It is the common experience of those who talk to major employers of science graduates that the concern of such employers is not so much with postgraduate science research; they say that the problem is science in schools—not just secondary schools, but from day one at school—and before school. The problem is the entire ethos in which children grow up and whether they inquire about science in the first place. There is plenty of evidence for that. In his report entitled "Set for success", Sir Gareth Roberts catalogued the decline in undergraduates taking physics, mathematics, chemistry and engineering, and in pupils taking, for example, physics A-level. Teacher shortages are part of the problem.
Where do we try to get into the loop? Is it in schools, the home, universities or with teachers? We must start with a Government initiative to take science very seriously by making it a priority and encouraging people to train, so that they can get into our schools.
Who knows what scheme will emerge? It may be golden hellos or some other scheme. Above all, the culture is changing. Whether we are talking about reception classes in primary schools, or universities, politicians must also connect with science and get back in touch with the concerns of ordinary people who are flustered and sometimes frightened by scientific problems that confront them. We must also understand that, without engineering, science cannot be applied for the benefit of mankind. It is important to teach not only science but engineering.
It is important that science policy should not be governed by pressure groups or scuppered by ignorance, prejudice or fear. It is; the duty of democratic politicians to facilitate well-informed debate and to ensure that scientists, decision makers and regulators proceed sure-footedly, morally and ethically. I hope that the Government will address the issues in the report, which certainly contribute to a resolution of the problems that I describe.
What can we do as individuals and as Members of Parliament? The Government have taken many initiatives. All Governments take initiatives, and all Governments believe that not taking initiatives is like riding a bike and falling off. All Ministers are bombarded with new initiatives that they must adopt, or they will fall off the bike and the Government will come apart.
Be that as it may, a modest recommendation, which I make from personal experience, is the specialist school concept, which has been important in science, mathematics and computing. I have personally supported such schools. My daughter attended the South Wilts grammar school for girls, which applied for specialist school status in mathematics and computing. I wholeheartedly supported that application as a politician and former parent. I am glad to say that it has now raised the necessary £50,000. The partnership is in place, and building work is due to commence to meet the needs of the new specialist status. Only last Monday, I was at Stonehenge school in Amesbury, which has started down the same road by applying for specialist status in mathematics and computing.

337WH
We, as local Members, can help to galvanise the community and empower those schools to reach out to their local businesses. All future employers will benefit. All that adds up to a huge agenda. The report has contributed enormously to the understanding of the importance of science education in the community in which we all live and work. I wholeheartedly commend it, and I look forward to reading tomorrow on the internet what the Minister says in reply.
3.8 pm
Dr. Brian Iddon: As a scientist who has taught chemistry, albeit at university level, I was pleased to take part in the creation of the report. In my 33-year career, I tramped around the country and the whole of Europe with what became a popular demonstration lecture called, "The magic of chemistry". I did more than 300 90-minute shows as far away as Naples, Denmark and Scandinavia. That brought me into contact with many teachers and obviously many students who came to see experiments and to listen to the applications of science that they never dreamed of seeing in the classroom. My job was to enthuse teachers to take some of those experiments back to the classroom and, in turn, enthuse the students.
I have known many inspiring teachers in my time and there are still many inspiring science teachers in schools. Unfortunately, there are also many bad ones. I hope that there are more of the former than the latter. If I was asked to single out one of the most important ingredients that make a successful science teacher, or a teacher of any subject under the sun, it falls to one word, which has already been mentioned twice in the debate, enthusiasm, whether one is teaching science, French or history or anything else. Teachers have some of the characteristics of politicians, who in turn have some of the characteristics of lawyers. We are all rather extrovert, and some, if not all of us, have a bit of charisma.
Dr. Gibson: Devious?
Dr. Iddon: I am not going to mention devious. The best are showmen or women. Those who stand up in front of a class and want to pass on their enthusiasm for the subject—science, in this case—have almost to sell that subject to the students and make them believe in what the teachers are telling them. Unless teachers can do that, they will find pupils putting their pens down, switching off and going to sleep at the back of the class.
Many members of the Committee have been teachers and they know that after 60 minutes in front of a class they are absolutely exhausted if they have done the job properly. I admire classroom teachers and I understand, in a way that many members of the public cannot, why they go home exhausted, especially after a full term's effort.
It is essential that all teachers have a good knowledge of their subject. There is nothing worse than a teacher who has constantly to look through the textbook to explain something to a pupil who has asked an awkward question. If a teacher does not know the answer, especially if it is a difficult question, he should admit it
338WH
and take the student to the library after the class, or school, has finished, and ensure that they are fully conversant with that aspect of the subject.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my hon. Friend agree that if such worthy and inquisitive students are subjected to such treatment, they will quickly stop asking questions?
Dr. Iddon: There is that danger. However, it does not happen with philosophers. It helps if teachers have a knowledge of the subject that goes beyond what they have to teach in the classroom. They must be one, two, three or even four steps ahead of those they are teaching.
That brings me to an important element in teaching—retraining. One cannot let teachers loose in the classroom and not expect to retrain them several times in their career. I am sad that dedicated budgets for teachers to retrain in a local university—in science, that is a great help—or on a refresher course run by the local council have almost disappeared in many local authorities.
The most enthusiastic teachers will try to involve their students in activities outside the classroom. For example, science teachers can take their students to demonstration lectures, and where better than the Royal Institution of Great Britain Christmas lectures in London? How many teachers in Manchester, Birmingham and so on even bother to apply to go to such lectures? Outside speakers can be invited into the classroom. How many teachers bother to bring experts from industry or universities into the classroom to impart new knowledge to the pupils?
There are plenty of good museums, most with free admission. There is the wonderful museum of science and industry in Manchester, which I often visit with young people, which takes more than three days to go round. It is the equal of the Natural History museum and other museums in London. Excellent resources abound, but how many teachers bother to tap into them?
I have a son-in-law, Darren Howard, who is a science teacher, so I get some tips from time to time. When I told him that we were carrying out this exercise, he sent me some notes, to which I will refer, as they come from the chalkface. He singled out staffing as the most important priority in his little group. What does he mean by that? According to Darren, it is not necessary for every member of his science team to be a specialist teacher, but he also believes that there should be a specialist in the important subjects of chemistry, physics and biology in the team, with whom the non-specialists can, to use his words, "touch base" to extend their knowledge.
Sadly, the pool of specialist teachers has diminished in the past few decades. I found an economist teaching chemistry in a classroom, and trying to teach practical chemistry in a laboratory. My son-in-law told me about a physical education teacher teaching biology, although that makes a little more sense. Professional bodies such as my own, the Royal Society of Chemistry, report a serious shortfall in chemistry and physics-qualified teachers. However, it is impossible to see the extent of the mismatches between the subject specialisms of the science-teaching force and the subjects actually taught, because there has not been a secondary schools staffing

339WH
survey since 1997. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether we will carry out such a survey in the near future, because I do not believe that we know how many teachers are teaching science throughout the schools system and whether they are specialist teachers.
My son-in-law also singled out timetable difficulties. The Science and Technology Committee discovered that most 11 to 16 schools offer single and double science. Darren believes that few schools can offer triple science, which in his opinion is the best route into post-16 science and then university education. He says:
"We don't have a GCSE double award in humanities and then expect"
pupils
"to take up an A-level in geography".
Therefore, we deliver only two thirds of a science curriculum by the end of key stage 4, yet we expect pupils to cope with A-levels in a science subject and we are surprised by the post-16 drop-out rate.
Since the introduction of local management of schools and the top-slicing of education budgets by local authorities, my son-in-law has seen less money passported into schools to maintain a good supply of science books and to buy consumables and equipment for the laboratory, which are necessary to be able to teach science to the standards that the Committee might expect.
Our report points out that some science classes are far too large to be manageable, and my son-in-law agrees. That is especially important in a laboratory. Having one or two disruptive elements in a large class in a laboratory can be an absolute nightmare. I have heard from teachers who had to stop teaching practical science with disruptive elements in the class, for health and safety reasons alone. That should not be the case.
Ideally, technicians would assist in the classroom—in the laboratory—but in fact they are far too busy in the preparation room behind the classroom getting things ready for the next class. That is because there are far too few technicians. We need at least to double the number of trained—I underline the word "trained"—technicians who assist science teachers doing the job in the classroom, because learning science, particularly practical science, is almost a one-to-one activity. If the student doing the experiment does not know what they are expected to be doing, the education is hopeless. Obviously, therefore, it takes more than one person in a laboratory class to achieve that objective.
My hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee referred to pay and conditions. They are not fixed nationally but are subject to local negotiable rates, which is a scandal. We heard of some wages paid to technicians teaching in schools that are a scandal. That must be overcome if we are to attract good people to teach as technicians in schools. We saw a lot of good will. One technician—I think that this was when we visited Scotland—told us that she was in the school only because her daughter had passed through it and she wanted to ensure that she had a good science education. Technicians should not be undertaking teaching for those reasons at those salary levels.
Practical work is a fundamental part of science teaching. It must be fun and enjoyable. The colours, smells and thrill of changing one chemical into another
340WH
attracted me to study chemistry. I had to assemble weird equipment that I had never seen before, never mind got my hands on, to conduct an experiment. All children should enjoy those thrills in schools, but in the complete knowledge of all the risks involved. Students should be introduced to the control of substances hazardous to health regulations. They should not be afraid of chemicals, including those that make loud bangs when they meet water. The health and safety risks should be taught before dangerous experiments are carried out. They are a fundamental part of classroom teaching
Some school laboratories are completely out of date, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) pointed out. We still have fume cupboards from the Victorian age in many schools. They would not pass a health and safety inspection. What a difference one finds if one looks at the language laboratory and the information technology room in those same schools. That should not be so. Science laboratories should be as well equipped as any other laboratory in the school.
I congratulate the Government on making £60 million available to refurbish school laboratories, but I have been asking parliamentary questions about where that money was spent. The replies have been rather strange. They can be found in the Official Report of 20 January, columns 157–160W. The condition data that have been collected by local education authorities in connection with their asset management plans do not separately identify the condition of science laboratories. Ofsted has not monitored the spending on school science laboratories or equipment supplies.
The Department for Education and Skills has promised an evaluation report of the £60 million capital funding that was allocated to local education authorities for school laboratories in 2000–01 and 2001–02. It covers a sample of 149 participating LEAs and is due this year. I look forward to seeing the results. I also asked how schools that did not benefit from that £60 million allocation could upgrade their science laboratories. Apparently, they will be able to do so from capital allocations, which I am pleased to say are higher than they have been for decades. However, I should like the Minister's assurance that much of that capital expenditure will be used to bring those Victorian school laboratories into this century.
As well as visiting state-funded schools, we visited Westminster school, just round the corner from here in Smith square. What a difference we saw. Money speaks is the old adage, and it certainly speaks there. It was in the process of refurbishing its laboratories from the ground floor right up to the top of that tall building next to Conservative party headquarters. They are delightful laboratories with fine equipment. Lots of money has been spent. Sadly, one would have to go a long way to find anything as good as that in the public sector.
The Field Studies Council told us:
"There is a very worrying decline in the quantity and quality of field work being provided for students studying biology".
Is the problem the cost, the organisation or the dangers associated with taking students out of school, which have been highlighted in the media many times in the past four or five years? Whatever the problem is, it

341WH
should be addressed. Nobody can study biology without going on at least one field trip. We must look at getting field trips back into biology classes.
Mr. Key: When I was a teacher, I was warden of the field studies centre down in Dorset. It was primarily established for the use of the biologists. It was not only the costs but the increasing regulations, health and safety regulations and the culture of litigation that led to the decline of field centres. I regret that even that centre has closed down. Perhaps in view of some of its clientele, it is now known, not inappropriately, as Monkey World.
Dr. Iddon: My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North referred to other aspects that I intended to cover. Courses are overloaded, we do not teach contemporary issues, although we should, and coursework, as many students told us as we toured the country, is boring and repetitive. I also suspect that there is a lot of plagiarism—a student in one year might copy the work of another student or log on to the internet to find the answers. If one is clever enough, one can almost copy one's coursework from the internet.
Teachers teach the examination timetable, and if they get behind with the theory, sadly, the practical work and the field trips suffer. There are pressures on teachers, and we should free up the curriculum a little and make it more flexible.
I shall tell a funny story at this point. I used to be a GCE examiner in O-level chemistry, and one day went to a chief examiners' meeting in Manchester. The job of an examiner was to go through all the questions and the set answers and put ticks in the margin. One of the questions was, "What colour is sulphur?" The answer on my script was, "Yellow." I am an awkward beggar, so I asked the chief examiner what would happen if one of my candidates had put, "Blue." He looked at me as if I had gone barmy and said, "Blue, Dr. Iddon? There is no such thing as blue sulphur." I said to him, "Well, chief examiner, you obviously have not carried out the famous Tyndal experiment, because colloidal sulphur is blue. Moreover, colloidal gold is red and I could describe a few other colours for you." It was a genuine question. I am sad to say that at the end of the year I was sacked. Sometimes we have to be a little more flexible.
We heard a great deal about the Haber process—an aspect of chemistry with which I will not bore hon. Members—which is often taught in a boring way. When I marked GCEs, I had to put seven ticks in the margin. It is decades since I did that marking, but I can almost remember, after marking thousands of those scripts, what each of those seven ticks was for. There was no flexibility in the answer.
Most people said that they no longer wanted to teach the Haber process, but occasionally a voice from the corner would say, "Hang on, I can make the Haber process extremely interesting. It is about fixation of nitrogen and the legumes fix nitrogen. We used to have to rotate crops to ensure that we put nitrogen back into the soil, but today we can do it via the Haber process." The students' eyes would then open up, because they realised that there was some relevance to the process.
342WH
One could then continue and say that during the war the Germans could not import raw materials to make bombs, so they had to examine different ways of fixing nitrogen, because it is nitrogen that goes into explosives—nitrates, polynitro-organic compounds with nitrogen in them. Boring as it may seem in the textbook, something like that can be made to come alive if a science teacher has the enthusiasm. That is sadly lacking in many classrooms, however.
Members of the Committee made the effort to talk to teachers. I spoke to science teachers in Bolton. From that I concur with what my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North said about teachers being fed up with the lack of connection between one key stage and another, from primary through to secondary school, and right into post-16 education. An example of that might be photosynthesis, which is studied not only in science but by nutritionists in the cooking classes. There is much repetition in schools of certain common subjects, and students are fed up with it. In some cases, there are different interpretations of the same aspect, and students get confused. It is time that syllabuses are sorted out so that there is not that sort of repetition. Head teachers should ensure that such repetition is eliminated in their schools, because it is a switch-off for pupils in all subjects, not just science.
There appears to be a lack of coherence in the redesigning of the school curriculums. For example, curriculum 2000 for post-16 pupils was introduced to run concurrently with the key stage 3 strategy for 11 to 14-year-olds. We completely missed out key stage 4, which links those two important parts of teaching. Surely to goodness we ought to have built on the foundations from key stage 3 through to key stage 4 and post-16, instead of doing two things either side of key stage 4.
In this country, we have punched well above our weight in sciences. Pro rata, we have had more publications cited in the top journals. There has been more innovation in this country than in many other countries, although we did not exploit all of it, such as the hovercraft, and we have won more Nobel prizes pro rata than any country with the possible exception of the United States—I have not seen the latest figures. We are already in the premier division of science, but we want to be the Manchester United of that division— [Hon. Members: "No!"] I thought that that would bring some howls, and I deliberately said it for the benefit of the Committee Chairman.
To return to what I said at the beginning of my speech, the one word in anything—politics, science teaching or history teaching—is enthusiasm. We must build a system that will inspire teachers to pass on that enthusiasm to their pupils. If we can do that, we shall never have any trouble again.
3.31 pm
Dr. Andrew Murrison: What enthusiasm. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). Although I cannot match his enthusiasm, I shall try.
It was not chemicals—their smells, or the different colours or combinations—that made me enthusiastic or was instrumental in my pursuing science at school, but the Van der Graaff generator. Most hon. Members will

343WH
remember that that is the thing that makes one's hair stand on end. Looking around the Chamber, however, the devil in me thinks that in many cases it would no longer work.
Like most members of the Committee, I visited schools in my constituency as part of the process of gathering evidence for the publication of the report. I visited St. Augustine's Catholic college in Trowbridge, which is a specialist technology college. The headmaster, Mr. Brendan Wall, helpfully put on a programme for the day, which was worth while, and from which I learned a great deal. I came away with lots of messages that have been distilled into the report.
One message that I got from the teachers was that we need to protect the integrity of what one could describe as hard science. There was a great fear that we might dumb down our science curriculum. The teachers gave much thought to their contributions, and they were concerned that in supporting hard science and not dumbing the curriculum down we might ignore the citizenship agenda of science. There is a play-off between on the one hand protecting hard science, producing the scientists and engineers of the future and providing the feedstuff for universities and professions, and on the other introducing science more generally into what one might call the citizenship agenda. We should increase scientific literacy among all school leavers—that is for sure. I hope that in so doing we put the wraps on some of the more exuberant stories that we read in the popular press from time to time, which play on people's ignorance and fears. If we can lift that by introducing science more generally into the curriculum, we shall do the citizens of the future a great service.
In our study we touched on the gender imbalance in science. That issue is close to my heart, because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), I am the proud owner of daughters. I have five, and I should be delighted were they to follow scientific careers at school and thereafter. However, as things stand the odds are stacked against them. We need to work out how we can do better. We know that girls are, increasingly, studying biology and chemistry. Perhaps they are drawn to those subjects because of possible career options in the medical and paramedical professions. Equally, boys are less inclined to study them. It is harder to work out why that should be.
I am struck by the dynamic between career choices made at school and those made later in life. One will inform the other, and it is no good expecting girls to sign up at school for science if they do not perceive that there will be worthwhile careers for them when they leave school. Schoolchildren are, in my experience, extremely canny; they will not go into career options without giving a great deal of thought to what will come of them. However, we need to be aware that those who are currently pursuing scientific and technological engineering careers will influence those making choices at school. We need to think about role models, and we are all aware of the paucity of female role models in science, technology and engineering. Of course, we can always think of exceptions to that general rule. It is easy to say that we need more role models, but how on earth
344WH
do we, as politicians, ensure that there are role models to encourage people such as my daughters to take up science at school?
Dr. Gibson: The hon. Gentleman will remember that one of the leaders of his party was a fellow of the Royal Society. Does he consider Margaret Thatcher a role model?
Dr. Murrison: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Committee for making that political point. That is for history to judge. If I were to be at all critical of Baroness Thatcher, I would have to say that she did not play up her scientific credentials. I remember thinking at the time that she was missing an opportunity. She might now agree with that—who knows?
We need to give some thought to role models. Perhaps, in future, there will be members of all political parties who are scientists and proud of it. That would be nice; such role models are important. However, apart from citing scientists who go on to become directors of companies, we need to show that science is a good thing to do in its own right. We can all think of medics and scientists who go into directorships and general jobs, but we need to focus on those who stick with science or medicine and make them proud to do so. That goes for teaching as well. We often see people in the professions progressing into managerial positions and directorships of boards. That says something about our society and the status that we accord our specialists.
The Save British Science Society and the Royal Society of Chemistry, with which I have an honorary association, have been good enough to write to me with their thoughts on our report and on the Government's response. Their comments echo remarks that have been made by hon. Members about initiative overload. It is certainly my experience from gathering evidence in my constituency that there is a feeling that there is initiative overload. It seems to permeate everything that we do; it is not confined to teaching, although it is particularly demoralising for teachers. They are there to interact with children; that is what they want to do. Rather like doctors who go into medicine because they want to deal with patients, they feel increasingly burdened by the volume of paperwork and initiatives that they are expected to cope with, particularly those that are centrally driven.
The morale of teachers is vital, because there is a great shortage of people who want to teach hard science. There is a clear mismatch between subject specialisations and subjects taught. We politicians are used to talking off the tops of our heads about subjects with which we have only a fleeting acquaintance. We might not feel too badly about it; that is what we do. However, I feel strongly that it is likely to demoralise the teaching work force if they are told that they have to teach subjects outside their specialisation with which they are not entirely comfortable. Someone who knows a little about teaching—I would have to count myself in that number—might say that if they are teaching GCSE, they should be able to cope with that. However, I firmly believe that in order to teach one needs a profound understanding of one's subject; it must not be superficial. It is difficult to see how teachers can be truly enthusiastic about a subject if they do not have the deep knowledge that comes from being a graduate in it.

345WH
I was frankly rather horrified to find that two thirds of GCSE physics teachers do not have a physics degree, and one third do not even have a relevant A-level. That is quite stunning. How teachers are meant to talk in depth about Van der Graaf generators without a profound understanding of them is a mystery to me. That is surely bad for children, and it must be bad for teachers.
We have heard about various initiatives that might be introduced by the Government to improve the situation. We are used to trotting out golden hellos as a possible way of increasing the number of people in particular shortage areas. As a general practitioner, I know that it is talked about in my field a great deal. In teaching, it has manifestly not worked. In the first year in which golden hellos were introduced, the number of applicants to teach physics decreased by 17 per cent., which is quite an extraordinary achievement.
I have two brief remarks to make in conclusion. The British Association for the Advancement of Science is very concerned at the lack of ability to carry money over from one financial year to another. Many hon. Members will be exercised very much at the moment by school budgets, and I suspect that many of them will have been writing to schools recently to ask how they are getting on now that the new financial year has begun. The subject of money carry-overs will probably feature greatly in our mailbags. Science is particularly important because capital expenditure is needed on some bits of kit that are quite expensive. In order to aggregate funds to allow the purchase of that kit, it would be extremely helpful if there were more flexibility in aggregating funds from one financial year to another. I hope that the Minister will comment on that, and bear it in mind.
I would like to echo the views that have already been expressed about disruptive pupils. That is particularly important in the context of science subjects. There is a health and safety angle to the matter, and teachers who teach practical subjects are concerned that they may be in danger if they permit disruptive pupils to remain when they are trying to handle kit that can be quite dangerous if it is not handled correctly. Head teachers are concerned that excluding pupils is potentially expensive and bureaucratically difficult to address. That has been a problem for some years, it appears to be getting worse, and I hope that the Minister will try to address it.
3.43
Mr. David Chaytor: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), the Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, on producing such an excellent report. I also congratulate the members of the Committee on the work that they have put into it. I found it extremely interesting to read.
I would like to make two comments to accompany that word of congratulation. First, it is always seems unfortunate that when Select Committee reports are published, and the Government make their response six months later, it takes another six months before we have an opportunity to discuss it. In our ongoing
346WH
consideration of the modernisation of the procedures of the House, we should look for a way to find time to discuss Select Committee reports more quickly. The Government obviously need time to make their response, but it seems to me that it is not beyond the wit of the men and women who are in charge of organising our business to find a way of providing an earlier opportunity to discuss reports.
Secondly, the Chairman made a point with which I wish to associate myself. Perhaps there is an argument for a further report about science teaching in primary schools; the Committee might give some consideration to that. We all agree that many of the weaknesses that we have identified in our secondary school system have their origins in the primary school system. It is not generally understood that science is critical to the future of the United Kingdom, not only in strict economic terms or in the way in which it adds strength and value to UK plc through innovation, new inventions and new products but because it can liberate individuals and lead to a better quality of life.
Some recent debates on science that have been controversial and political, whether on bovine spongiform encephalopathy, the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, or genetics and embryo research, have shown that although we do not have an anti-science culture—I would not go that far—the population are unsure how to deal with scientific matters, and how to make a reasoned response based on evidence. People therefore find themselves in great difficulty when faced with the need to make calculations of risk. There is value in strengthening our science teaching in schools, not only for those who will become professional scientists and technologists but for the population at large. The population need to be able to make more mature judgments, particularly when assessing and calculating risk, because as science develops, and as it permeates more aspects of all our lives, that sort of judgment will be necessary.
One or two hon. Members have mentioned citizenship. Just as we are concerned about the disengagement of sections of our population from the political process, particularly the young, so we should be concerned that large sections of the population have become disengaged from the scientific process. We face a difficult future if our society is built on a minority of elite scientists who understand the issues and who have the self-confidence and knowledge to debate them, because the majority of people will have no idea about what is under discussion. The majority will effectively be disfranchised from the major public debates of the day.
It is a great tragedy that science teaching in schools has been so weak in so many ways. I do not underestimate our many achievements or the major progress that has been made in recent years. However, children and young people have a natural curiosity about things scientific. They are fascinated by things as varied as the future of the rain forests, the growth of information technology, the design of motor cars and space travel, yet that is not translated into widespread interest in the classroom. The only conclusion that we can draw from the failure to engage with the natural curiosity of young people is that there must be

347WH
something wrong with teaching and with the curriculum. The report accurately reflects many of the specific weaknesses that have to be dealt with.
Dr. Murrison: The hon. Gentleman makes some splendid points. He may wish to consider whether we are at risk of dressing science up too much as a matter of facts, and not enough as a matter for debate. I feel strongly that that brings science into disregard. Does he agree that the lack of enthusiasm in schools is partly a reflection of the cynicism that many people have for sciences that appear constantly to be changing?
Mr. Chaytor: The hon. Gentleman anticipates a point that I was about to make; I ask him to be patient for a little while. Indeed, it will be my main argument.
In the curriculum, we focus too much on the separation of individual subjects, including the sciences, although we now have a double science award. I note the criticisms of the son-in-law of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) about the double science award and its relationship to study post-16. However, we separate the sciences from the arts and humanities in a way that is not altogether productive. That serves to intimidate some young people and to reinforce the idea that science is somehow a harder subject, which leads to a switching-off from the study of science at an early age.
A point that comes across forcefully from the evidence that young people gave in the report is that many of them desperately want to engage in controversial issues that are rooted in science. They want to talk about the issues that they see discussed on television and that they read about in newspapers. There is insufficient time in the national curriculum for young people to do that, which reinforces the point made by the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), that providing more opportunity for discussion of current controversial topics would increase the enthusiasm of young people for confronting the factual evidence base of science.
Mr. McWalter: Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that the Government agreed that the Arts and Humanities Research Board would become an arts and humanities research council? The chief executive of that fledgling research council now attends meetings of the other research councils, which we did the day before yesterday. It was interesting to note that the chairmen of the biological sciences and engineering councils initially asked, "What are these people doing here, and what use will we get out of it?" After a couple of meetings, they asked how they could ever have done without them. They are finding all sorts of connections and synergies, which is a good story to tell in this context.
Mr. Chaytor: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, and it is good to see that sort of progressive development in higher education. My argument is that, so often, progress in our society starts at the top and takes a long time to filter down. It would be far better to examine what is happening at the bottom, and we should have the sort of progressive integration between the sciences and the humanities that exists in almost every primary school in the country. We
348WH
need to reinforce this in our secondary schools, but the current design of the national curriculum has worked against that.
Mr. Boswell: May I join in the party in support of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), a distinguished philosopher, by pointing out that students of that discipline are typically recruited from members of a wide range of disciplines—scientists, mathematicians and people from the humanities. In a sense, that handling of concepts, which is so central to the way in which we interpret our society, can derive some of its strength from the fact that it is not a one-shot route of entry. It can bring together a series of different disciplines on matters of public concern.
Mr. Chaytor: I agree completely. It is a matter of great regret that the national curriculum, as it is currently constructed, does not formally recognise philosophy. With the growth of citizenship, we may have more opportunities to introduce a more philosophical dimension to the national curriculum. I am sure that members of the Committee will correct me if I am wrong, but I am reminded of the remarks made by Einstein, who said that imagination was more important than knowledge. I think that he said that—[Laughter.]—which serves to reinforce the general drift of the argument on which we all seem to agree.
We must examine the impact of assessment on the national curriculum. In the national debate of the past 12 months, the balance is now shifting on the curriculum and assessment. There is a general recognition, which must be reflected in Government policy in due course, that we are over-assessing our young people at almost every level of their education. That also comes across strongly in the report from both teachers and students. We must seriously review the volume of assessment and the way in which work is assessed. In particular, we must examine the balance between external and internal assessment.
I have commented briefly on the problems of the curriculum and assessment, but I also want to comment, as other hon. Members have done, on the problems of teacher recruitment and retention. Figures have been cited on the proportion of people teaching physics who do not have a degree in it. I am sure that similar figures apply for teachers of biology and chemistry. I know that the Government introduced the concept of golden hellos and fee exemption for people starting PGCE courses. However, more must be done. I reinforce the point made about the lack of reliable evidence about staffing in schools.
I urge the Government to tackle the problem, because unless there is evidence of the number of staff with the requisite qualifications teaching particular courses, they cannot form a sensible policy. Teaching science must be made more attractive to young people.
There has been some progress since the report was published. One difficulty in attracting high-quality recruits to teaching is a policy of full employment. We have to grapple with the dilemma that when there are ample jobs in the economy, it is more difficult to recruit people into the public services generally, and especially into teaching subjects that have a strong market value elsewhere in the economy.

349WH
It is not all doom and gloom; far from it. Schools are performing better year on year at GCSE and A-level, of which the most recent league tables, published this week, give further evidence. The Government have responded to criticisms about the lack of capital investment for a generation by implementing a £60 million programme to refurbish laboratories. We look forward to an extension of that programme, of which I have seen evidence in my constituency. Last week, I visited the Holy Cross sixth form college, which was just putting the finishing touches to a new suite of laboratories, which provide a far better teaching environment than anything it had before.
Although there were difficulties in the early stages of the curriculum 2000 reforms because the programme was not properly piloted, there is now a far more flexible, modular post-16 curriculum, which in theory will make it easier for a broader range of students to take science options.
I want to finish by making four specific points: first, the further development of the curriculum is not just a matter of considering what happens at GCSE. With a 14 to 19 curriculum, GCSEs will become less relevant and may ultimately disappear. We must consider the 14 to 19 phase of education as a whole and look at the development of a baccalaureate, to which considerable thought is being given at present. We can crack the problem and move in the right direction if the importance of GCSEs diminishes and we develop a modular 14 to 19 curriculum that encourages more young people to take science; it will build up their confidence in stages when they are successful in different modules.
In the past two weeks, the chief executive of the QCA has said that we must move to a modular GCSE programme. It is a great irony in the education system that the value of modular structures is widely understood at university level, and has more recently been accepted for the 16 to 19 phase through the development of curriculum 2000; but the school system, especially at key stage 4, has continued to hang on to two-year courses, largely built on terminal assessment. It is true that coursework plays a part in GCSEs and that there are some modular GCSEs and half GCSEs, but for those students who most need the incentive of having their achievements recognised at regular intervals, the structure of the curriculum works against them. In revising the 14 to 19 curriculum, diminishing the importance of GCSE and developing a British baccalaureate, we must move to a modular structure which should enable more young people to benefit from science, and to mix and match science with the humanities.
Secondly, a wider range of better careers advice for young people of about 13 or 14 is desperately needed, because as they go to school and live their normal lives, they see only certain kinds of adults in certain kinds of jobs. They can see teachers, nurses, doctors, bus drivers, shop assistants and hairdressers, but they cannot see scientists. At that important, impressionable age, therefore, young people do not have role models in science. At least, they do not have any on their doorsteps; they may see something on television, but, almost by definition, that is remote and not something
350WH
to which they really aspire. We must therefore go through the Connexions service and use individual schools' resources. We must do much more work on giving young people a clearer idea of the career opportunities in science. We must also do far more to provide work experience so that young people at the beginning and end of key stage 4 can spend time outside school in local firms that work in a scientific field.
Thirdly, I want to reinforce the point that was touched on earlier about the need to link science with the humanities and particularly with philosophy. Our curriculum needs to provide much more opportunity to discuss controversial issues. As every good teacher should know, children learn best when they are actively engaged in doing practical things or in discussing and asking questions. The difficulty is that far too much science teaching has been hopelessly didactic, which is one reason why it has switched young people off at an early stage. I am looking for a curriculum that is less rigidly divided between science and the humanities. I am looking to encourage and train young teachers who can teach in an integrated and flexible way.
My fourth and final point relates to the way in which the specialist schools programme could strengthen and enhance science teaching. I pay tribute to the head teacher and staff of Derby high school in my constituency. Earlier this year, it became the first school in the country to be awarded specialist school status for science and the arts. It has planned a hugely ambitious programme of curriculum development, which was clearly instrumental in its being given that unique designation. I commend the school as a model for the future.
We are all desperately keen to strengthen science teaching at the highest levels, and we all know the importance to the national economy of creating a new generation of scientists and technologists. Although we are all conscious of those things and want to drive standards in the hard sciences continuously upwards, we must always recognise the importance of instilling a sound understanding of scientific principles in our young people as a whole. Many schools could build on the specialist science and arts school model. They could use the curriculum imaginatively, creating more space in it for integrated projects, and building on and encouraging children's natural curiosity and imagination, thus enabling them to come to science by that route.
I commend the Chairman and his Committee on their excellent report. I look forward to the follow-up report on science teaching in primary schools.
4.2 pm
Mr. Tony McWalter: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a great privilege to—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would be remiss in my duty if I did not remind hon. Members that the House has decided that the occupant of this Chair should be referred to as a Deputy Speaker.
Mr. McWalter: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Old ways die hard.
It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). He and other hon. Members have perhaps anticipated many of the things

351WH
that I wanted to say. However, I want to dwell on the conception of science that so many young people have, which the education system fails to comprehend or deal with.
The other day, I heard a Minister talking about top-up fees, which might seem some way removed from the report. However, the Minister said, "Why should someone who left school at 16 and who never went to university pay for someone else's university education?" On hearing that, my first thoughts were, "Do people who have not been to university ever go to a doctor? Do they ever drive over a bridge? Do their children breathe air that is cleaner by far than it would have been if many people had not laboured to ensure that emissions from our factories and motor vehicles are less corrosive and damaging?" Those who do not go on to higher education nevertheless benefit enormously from the activities of those who do.
It is particularly interesting that the arguments that most often spring to mind come from the sciences. A society with great achievements in the sciences has the clearest connection between the advancement of knowledge and the promotion of the understanding, and hence the life prospects, of its population.
I am slightly inclined to say that again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I see that the Minister is so familiar with the point that perhaps she has heard it from me before. Ministers who do not have sciences at the forefront of their thinking are more likely to regard such education as a self-indulgence than as an achievement that is of huge benefit to everyone else in society. Just as the sciences may not be at the forefront of Ministers' consciousness, it is also true that many young people's conception of science is severely limited. One problem that we may face in an advanced society is the pollution of a river. If we ask a young person—I have done this experiment, albeit only informally at coffee mornings in my constituency—to think about how scientists connect with that pollution, they are far more likely to think that the scientists caused the pollution than that they have the capacity to remedy it.
We on the Science and Technology Committee are so passionate about the sciences and engineering because of their capacity to transform lives for the better, not only in our society but on the wider world stage. As a Member of Parliament, I had the privilege of visiting Mozambique to monitor an election. In place after place, and circumstance after circumstance, one could see how desperately that society needed engineers and scientists to sort out its water supply, to remove the rotting hulks in the harbour at Beira, which were left over from the civil war, and to try to cure the dreadful residual problems with agricultural impoverishment and the presence of landmines.
Scientists improve the quality of our lives and we depend on them for that quality to be sustained. One of my constituents waited 18 weeks for a scan for cervical cancer, because there was a shortage of scientists in the pathology lab. When she got the result, it was positive—and too late. How many young people understand when they sneer at the sciences in school and say, "It's not for me," what sort of society this would be if too many people said and thought that? How are we to protect a society that needs graduate chemists when the number of chemistry students and chemistry departments that are available to teach people falls like a stone every year?
352WH
It is not good enough for a Government to plan to have 50 per cent, of the population in universities without ever asking themselves what proportion of those students are to be engineers and scientists. It is no good for the Government to refuse to do the figures to connect the policies on science with the kind of country that we are trying to create. I talked about the sense of science being on the back burner for Ministers and about its being regarded as nerdish by too many students who think of it as "not for me". They are given far more attractive alternatives.
My daughters, aged eight and 11, would far rather have a career starring in "EastEnders" or possibly featuring in "Pop Idol". That is no great surprise. Before I do my surgeries on a Saturday morning I have to deliver them to theatre training, where they spend three hours assiduously acquiring all the right talents to pursue that career, such as it is. However, they do not yet have a negative conception of science. That will begin at about the time that they are told for the 17th time that Pluto is the most distant planet in the solar system. Something that was initially exciting and interesting is enervating when one has revisited it for the umpteenth time. Young people seem to have a conception that the kind of person that one needs to be to do science is different from the kind of person one needs to be to be a singer or an actor. The latter are participants; they are given scope for creativity. There is a humour that, if one has the right voice or mannerisms, can come relatively easily. I speak as a one-time excellent second butler in "The Importance of Being Earnest."
Young people have a negative conception of science. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North hit on an important point that was reflected in a short memorandum given to the Committee as part of the evidence: scientific education is one of the last surviving authoritarian social and intellectual systems in Europe. When young people go into a science lesson they are temporarily told to be primarily motoring in receptivity gear and not in participatory gear, and in this day and age they find that increasingly difficult.
I take slight issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) when he says that one science teacher might give one interpretation of a phenomenon and another a different one, which leads to "confusion". My view is that confusion is the grandmother of understanding. Only those who have been confused, had their confusion indulged and been allowed to work their way out of it may achieve the state that we call understanding. There is far too little of that in science education.
The memorandum from Dr. Gerry Ravetz makes just that point. He says that
"students absorb the lesson that every real scientific problem has one and only one simple, correct answer."
That is the kind of answer that one gets on "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire?", which might be a slightly awkward reference these days. [Interruption.] That coughing comes right on cue. I finally get the right answer. Dr. Ravetz continues:
"This mindset can be seriously disabling for all who eventually deal with science-related policy problems."
In a sense, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority deals with science-related policy problems because it is charged with trying to provide us with a

353WH
system in which science has its proper place within the wider curriculum, but the people who advise the QCA on the scientific content of courses and the required standards and assessment do not have the breadth of vision to see how it connects with the other subjects in that package. Dr. Ravetz argues that it is important to get a wide understanding of the connection between scientific understanding and the desire to understand engineering systems, and the wider understanding of how human beings think, whether consequently or inconsequently, about the world in which we live.
The first thing that we must do is get the Government to acknowledge that we have a real problem. We cannot assume that there will always be people coming through who study the sciences. There is a cultural problem. I welcome the new curriculums that seek to address that, but the courses are expensive. In our report we state that they are more demanding of people's intellectual powers than many other courses that they might be offered. We also point out that people have a negative view of the contribution that one makes to a better society when one dons a white coat.
We do not want the Government to say, "We disagree," as happens so often in their response. We want them to engage with us in transforming the conception of science held by so many young people so that more of them take up the challenges of the sciences, and more of them become engineers, chemists and hospital technicians. If we do that, we will retain the high quality of provision in society that we have enjoyed heretofore, the neglect of which endangers our collective future.
4.18 pm
Dr. Desmond Turner: For me, the debate stems from the diminishing supply of university applicants and graduates in what are regarded as the hard sciences. They are hard because they tend to be hard to understand and because they are damn hard work. Let us be honest about it. That puts the country in a difficult position. If we lose the capacity for research and development and hence innovation, we will be relegated as a nation to being simply a less intelligent consumer of other people's scientific and technological innovation and to a future of economic decline. Our only real resource as a nation is our intellectual resource, and we must husband, grow and nurture it. Our scientists and technologists are the vital core of our future.
The cause of the problem involves many factors, and it is not exclusive to the United Kingdom. Other countries also complain that there are too few would-be graduates going into the hard sciences—physics and chemistry—or into engineering. German universities make the same complaint, but not to the same desperate extent as those in the UK.
Chemistry and physics departments are closing at an alarming rate throughout the UK. Why is that happening? I do not believe that one can isolate a single factor—there are many. One is undoubtedly the decoupling of science and engineering from society, which has resulted in scientists and engineers not being well regarded by the rest of society. If most people were
354WH
asked what an engineer was, they would say that he was a guy in oily overalls who fixed cars, and not someone who is a highly trained and skilled professional. That perception rubs off on young people, who do not see science or technology as a sexy, attractive career option, especially when the road to qualification in those subjects is hard.
Moreover, there is a perception, which is not entirely wrong, that the career opportunities for scientists and technologists are not that wonderful. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) gave the example of one of his patients who had to wait for a cancer scan for several months, until it was too late, because there were not enough laboratory scientists. That is a good example of the way in which we undervalue and underpay our scientists.
Medical laboratory scientists have been scandalously abused for years in that respect. It was not until the Government did something about that in the last year or so that the situation changed slightly. A new graduate entering the Public Health Laboratory Service used to start on the princely salary of less than £8,000 a year. It is therefore scarcely surprising that the supply of recruits had completely dried up and that that had created a crisis in the hospital laboratory service. It meant that a modern, science-based medical service could not possibly function, because those people are as essential as doctors.
Many television programmes make certain jobs seem very attractive. There is no shortage of willing recruits into medicine. Not only do people think that doctors are well paid, which they are, but medicine is also seen as sexy, because there must be 10 or 20 hours—I have never counted them—of television soaps based on doctors and nurses on the different channels. That is a pretty good recruitment advertisement. How many television soaps have there been about research scientists or engineers? I cannot remember a single one. If we could persuade television companies to run one or two such soaps, we might provoke some interest and start to change the image of scientists and technologists. We would have to chat up the TV producers pretty intensively to get a result.
That problem is not unconnected to the education problem—the whole thing is a circle. I have no doubt that science education in schools—the subject of the report—is another crucial factor. I have done a bit of science teaching in schools. I would not say that I speak with authority, but I know the problems at first hand. Indeed, I was working in a school when a previous Government introduced the Baker educational reforms—Gerbil, or the great Education Reform Bill—that saddled schools with the GCSE curriculum.
The GCE O-level and CSE curriculums were not that wonderful, but they were a little more flexible than the new GCSE, which turned teaching, and especially science teaching, into an exercise by numbers. Teachers are given no latitude and it is a densely factual curriculum. What matters is that teachers should be able to tick the right boxes at the end of a module to say that the kids have achieved a bit of key stage 3 and so on. That leaves absolutely no room to follow interest for its own sake, or to foster a spirit of discovery.
I was a scientist and I became interested in science because I was excited by it. There is no way that a child could be excited by the present GCSE curriculum. It is

355WH
impossible: it is an oxymoron. That is why the report says that we must focus on developing something new—something that will encourage scientific literacy and understanding rather than teachers simply having to tick the right factual boxes. Not only that, but we must leave time for exploration and discovery.
When kids ask questions in class about a topical subject, such as genetically modified food, or the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, the teacher must not say, "Sorry, but we do not have time for that." The children need to be able to explore such topics. It is not a party political matter, but it was no surprise that the Government came badly unstuck over GM foods. A misjudged article in the Daily Mail carried far more weight than anything that the scientists could say, because the general population's understanding of the issues was so poor. Accusations of witchcraft were much more attractive than what the scientists saw as the reasonable and factual basis for the problem.
We are taking kids from primary school who are keen on science and probably enjoy it and sending them to secondary school and the GCSE curriculum; unless they are particularly dedicated, that will simply turn off their interest in science. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) mentioned nostalgically his days of "stinks". Children cannot do that any more; it just does not happen. He is right that practical work is crucial to developing science education. We inhibit practical work at the expense of getting kids who are interested in science. It is as simple as that. Given the circumstances in which most science teachers have to work—apparatus that does not work, bits of glassware that do not fit—experiments either are unsuccessful or do not happen. That cannot be allowed to continue. We let it perpetuate at our peril.
We have heard about technicians. Their role in science teaching is crucial, yet they have been treated even worse than the medical laboratory scientific officers I mentioned. Many of them have been in the sort of situation that this Government introduced the national minimum wage to relieve—they are so badly paid. In most schools, at the end of term, that is it—they have to go away and they do not get paid for the holidays. People who have to make a living are not attracted to the job. Schools are reliant on women—mothers for whom the hours fit with their family responsibilities and who can survive on a miserable pittance. In addition, our society, which largely values people according to what they are paid, does not treat them with any respect. That is a sad situation.
So, we have lots of problems. We are happy that new syllabuses are being explored. Some A-level syllabuses, in particular, have been successful in making physics more attractive to students. That is good. Just as we have problems with the GCSE syllabus, so we have problems with the A-level syllabus. Traditionally, as science has moved on, things that were once taught only to university students start to be taught to A-level students, but nothing is taken out of the syllabus, so it gets stuffed and stuffed until it becomes totally indigestible.
We need to focus syllabuses—at any level—so that they not only have time built in for individual exploration and development, but they focus on scientific understanding and literacy as opposed to simple facts. The facts are there to tell a story and it is
356WH
the story that matters. If people understand the story and why it is there, hanging the facts around it is relatively simple—they will be understood. Just as it is important to keep up our supply of future innovators, it is vital to expose the rest of the public to sufficient science to enable them to understand their world.
We have to fight against all sorts of problems. Even when science graduates emerge from university, they will not necessarily work in science because we pay them poorly and offer them poor career prospects, certainly in academia. Most of them end up on short-term contracts not knowing where their next year's salary is coming from and spending most of their time writing research proposals. We do not set out sensible career paths. It is not surprising that far too many of the brightest science graduates that we produce go into the City, where they make a lot of money and do not have to slog in the way that they would at the bench.
An awful lot is loaded against us. Let us at least do what we can in education to ensure that at school we give kids the best chance to develop their interests and talents in science and to allow that to happen more naturally than we do now. If we do that successfully, we shall at least increase the number of young people who go into science and technology. That is essential for the sake of our country's future.
4.35 pm
Dr. John Pugh: A great deal has been said and I shall not endeavour to repeat it, although I congratulate the Chairman and the Committee on producing a splendid report. I enjoyed it in the best possible scientific spirit, in so far as it reinforced all my prejudices and provided confirmation of what I already believed.
I was going to begin by saying that I am not a scientist, but then I realised that that very remark incautiously betrays what is wrong with British education, which is based on the old C. P. Snow two-culture model. People are encouraged early in life to define themselves as scientists or non-scientists, and it is not unfair to say that schools do the same. Science teachers—I am sure that hon. Members who have been science teachers are exceptions—are quite keen early on to designate certain pupils as potential scientists. The education system has hitherto worked largely as a filtering system that identifies scientists and sends them further up the line, while non-scientists move on to other things.
There is a marked contrast between the English education system and the German education system, in which people are not free to define themselves as non-scientists until they are free of the system itself. The old English A-level system was fundamentally based on determining whether one would go on the science or the arts side. The results of that are good-quality university science undergraduates, but low general scientific literacy. Governments have perpetually worried about that, and for years and years have thought that it puts the country at a commercial, technological and occasionally intellectual disadvantage.
I note that the Committee's report mentions the Devonshire royal commission which, I think, dates back to the 1830s, when what we are debating was also debated. Governments in those days worried about the lack of science because they thought that that would put

357WH
the country at a severe military disadvantage. They thought that poetry won few wars, although I noticed outside Downing street the other day that poets were campaigning against the war. A big sign had been hung up that said, "Poets Against the War".
To be fair to the Government—I am always inclined to be that—there have been quite significant changes. The quantity and quality of primary school science has improved appreciably over the last decade or so. The national curriculum, which a Conservative Government introduced, has meant that people do not drop science before they are 16. Prior to the national curriculum, there were many schools at which very little science was taught. Therefore, there has not been a total, or even systematic, decline. The quality of resources, of teaching materials and even of some laboratories has improved. The improvement has not been universal and there has not been as much of it as we would like, but there have been significant improvements since the 1970s and 1980s. Although the Committee does not rate IT as the panacea that will make people thoroughly engage in science, it is a useful supplement to scientific education. The audiovisual resources available to teach science now are far superior to those in days gone by.
Nevertheless, we must still record the underachievement in terms of subject entry, subject success and university entry when pupils leave school. Given the resources that have been committed, the results are quite disappointing and require an explanation. One explanation could be that the subjects are genuinely hard, that science is tough: one cannot access it straight away and one must learn the appropriate language for each subject. However, if that were true, our profile would look exactly the same as those of other nations, yet it clearly does not. There is a difference between how we perform in science and science education, and how, for example, the Japanese and Germans perform.
I thought for a second that we are unsuccessful because students of that age are just plain cussed: if people of our age preach to them that they should do science, the chances are that they will do precisely the opposite. Another villain of the piece that many hon. Members have mentioned—
Dr. Murrison: I have been reflecting on the hon. Gentleman's comments. We are scientists and we deal in evidence. What evidence does he have to support his contention that we do less well in science education than the Japanese and the Germans?
Dr. Pugh: The hon. Gentleman has caught me on the hop. I cannot cite the empirical evidence, but would quite happily look it up and observe. However, if he thinks that we do better than any other country, why on earth are we having this debate in the first place? If Japan and Germany were the not the right examples, I am sure that I could cite others that were. Otherwise, this debate would be entirely needless, because we would then be the best country in the world and could rest on our laurels.
Many have mentioned teaching style, which is a key point. Teaching style is to some extent a product of the need for departments in schools to get the right results
358WH
and places in league tables, in order to satisfy the powers that be in those schools that they are achieving as they should be, in pure quantitative terms. That means that although science is being taught in an unimaginative way or a way that does not inspire pupils to go further, none the less, the school's requirements are satisfied, if the results make it look as though there has been some kind of improvement.
The Select Committee is entirely right that the way forward for science education is to engage with more of the issues relating to pupils' lives—what we might call the social or softer scientific issues. Another point made in the report, which I do not think that anyone has stressed so far, is that science education should centre on key ideas, rather than on masses of detail. Were it to do that, it could address some of the values that people would like to see form part of a scientific education. Creativity, imagination and questioning have been mentioned, all good elements, which attract students.
School students currently have every inducement to study science. In careers advice, students are universally told that if they take a science subject at stage A, they will keep their options open, and if they take science at stage B, they will still keep their options open, but if they forsake it at stage A, they turn their back on it for ever and their options are closed, so there is substantial lobbying by careers masters against taking subjects other than science. I genuinely do not think that pupils are unaware of the fact that, on balance, taking science is probably better, in career terms, than taking other subjects, however dire the prospects may be for some scientists. I think that there are some students, however, who fancy that there is a quick way to the top, and to relative affluence, by taking subjects such as business studies and economics, although they are capable of studying science. Somehow, we have not got the recipe right in order to attract students.
I am especially sad about the trouble that we have experienced with AS-levels, which could have offered a way forward. They could have ensured—but so far have not ensured—that, by virtue of studying a wider mix of subjects, students need not join a strange set called scientists in order to be interested and scientifically switched on. AS-levels would make it possible to complement an arts education with a science education, and vice versa. Our pattern of education has not been universally welcomed by those in the universities, who prefer narrowness because it shortens the time that they need to spend on undergraduate education. The failure of the AS-level system to broaden the educational curriculum strengthens the case for a baccalaureate system, as has already been emphasised in a previous contribution.
Mr. McWalter: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one possible way forward is for scientific case studies to feature in the new syllabus on critical thinking, which the Government are proposing? That might meet some of the objections that we have raised by enabling people to have sensible discussions about scientific issues.
Dr. Pugh: I recognise that a course in critical thinking would have some benefit, although the current attempts to provide such a course are inadequate. I have some criticisms of them, and I say that as someone who has

359WH
taken part in pilot projects for such courses. There is some way to go before we have a good vehicle to extend pupils' wider understanding.
One promising development that is crucial and may help in addressing some of the problems detailed today is the Government's emphasis on the skills agenda in the 14 to 19 age group. If science is presented not as something done by strange men in white coats but in relation to practical issues that people understand, can relate to and already know about, interest in it will increase. The more science is portrayed as a cult—I know that science has its esoteric specialisms—or something that is done differently from wider thinking tasks, and not as a system of rational techniques, theories and facts designed to widen our comprehension of ourselves and the world, the less people will opt for it. No one actually avoids science in this world; even those who turn their backs on it at school subsequently have to adapt to a scientific mode of thinking when they find themselves confronted with issues that require it.
It seems to me that Britain has an excellent record in producing very good science graduates and excellent scientific institutions. However, we have not succeeded in becoming a nation at ease with science. There is a distinction to be drawn between the way that engineers are regarded in this country—as nerdy, boffin-type characters—and in Germany, where they are seen as valuable social contributors. That emphasises the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner).
In the education system and the wider world, we still have a sort of cultural apartheid that can be countered only by a sort of cultural revolution. To be fair, in order to accommodate and produce that revolution, the structures in education and the examination system can play only a partial role. What is required is widespread scientific literacy, as opposed to people becoming ever more specialised in the specific concerns of scientific research.
I do not know if many hon. Members have much experience of going to something as out of the way as a computer fair, but if one goes to such a fair, one will see a huge range of people, the vast majority of whom have no formal scientific education. Their jobs may be very ordinary and quite unexceptional and they may have no scientific specialism, but they discuss technical matters with a degree of knowledge, interest and real perception that is unexpected.
The cultural revolution that is required in the spreading of scientific literacy is not an impossible dream. The Government are surely right in stressing that a precondition for that is adequate numeracy. That is the big bar to what many people call the hard sciences. Numeracy needs to be built up and developed at primary level. The Government are not wrong to consider that as an important target and they are not wrong to consider what happens to people in a world where an understanding of science is required, but who are excluded from understanding the science agenda by virtue of being relatively innumerate.
In conclusion, the Government are not altogether unaware of the problem that we are encountering. The Liberal Democrat education team did a little research in schools—particularly among science teachers. We asked specifically: what is the fundamental reason why
360WH
science teachers give up science teaching and go on to other things? Why do they not stay the course? The answer was not disruption. It was not the fact that pupils were giving them a lot of unnecessary trouble that they had not expected when they came into the business. They complained about being overloaded with work and bureaucracy. What had happened over a period was that a job that they had thought to be enjoyable and fun had become something else. If science education is to prosper, the same rules must apply as for all education: bureaucracy and the overburdening of work must end.
4.50 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell: This has been a very constructive and welcome debate. I join in the congratulations to the Science and Technology Committee, its distinguished Chairman, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), and those hon. Members who have participated in the debate, which has been marked by a high degree of consensus.
To pick up the phrase of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), there is a pretty strong tide of enthusiasm for doing something about the problem. The only counselling I would offer at this stage is that the problem is not new. It goes back to the 19th century, and we have been talking about it ever since. We and other enthusiasts will go on talking about the problem, but no one has cracked it yet. We need to have that awful warning. One reason for the problem is that, although we may discuss it in a comparatively modest and consensual format, many opinion formers never engage with it and do not care about doing anything about it. That is just an initial warning.
It would be a good idea if the Committee recorded its thanks to the unsung heroes of this exercise—the individual teachers, who have been praised implicitly. I am thinking also of the Association for Science Education and others who have laboured long and hard to try to make practical improvements in this field.
I have very little to bring to the party, as the Chairman of the Committee will know, because I am not a scientist, although he may give me a different perspective. I am one of those victims of an early selection process. On reflection, I can say that, having never lost my interest in the natural world and having been deeply offended at having to make that early parting of the ways, I have always wanted to reinvest myself into concern about these matters. It has just occurred to me that if I had been through the conventional process, I might well have suffered the symptoms that are well identified in the report. I am talking about those people who reach the end of key stage 4 and find science repetitive and the regurgitation of facts a serious turn-off to any future interest in the subject. Perhaps by accident, I have reached a better position than I would have through the conventional route, but I hope not as the essence of what we want to do is to improve the conventional route.
Reading the report, I was struck by an issue that has not quite come out this afternoon, which is the extent to which Governments should be directly involved in the process. To put it more tendentiously, how do we strike the difficult balance between indifference on the one hand and micro-management on the other? The answer must be for this Government, as successive

361WH
Governments have done on the whole, to take an interest through the national curriculum, and to set broad parameters, including support for the continuation of science as a major part of the key stage 4 curriculum. The Government should make the arrangements for the appropriate palette of qualifications, although of course it is not necessary to specify them in detail. They should indirectly provide, or ensure that the necessary resources are provided, for the delivery of science education.
In that context, we must—all members of the Committee said as much—be concerned at the continuing endemic shortage of specialist science teachers. I note, for example, from yesterday's Teacher Training Agency figures—unless I have misread them—that the number of trainees doing physics is still less than 10 per cent. of those doing English. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) commented, far too high a proportion of science lessons are taken by those without specialist knowledge of the subject. It is difficult to convey relevant detail, or indeed enthusiasm, without the underpinning knowledge to be able to do so.
The report rightly touched on the problems of outdated laboratory facilities, which may say something about the priorities of individual local education authorities and even school governors, and the identified shortage of 4,000 technicians. I notice that the Engineering and Technology Board, whose comments are helpfully brief for the debate, makes the chilling comment that figures point to a 50 per cent, shortage of technicians in the UK work force. The problem does not affect only schools, but is major and systemic, and we will need to address it. In the context of schools, these difficulties with laboratories and technicians add to the problems of image and the delivery of science education. I hope that the Minister will comment on some of those problems in her concluding remarks.
I do not seek to shake the consensus that we have established, but underpinning—overarching, if one prefers—the whole discussion is how the Government will approach the wider context. There have been problems with the curriculum 2000 reforms, to put it mildly. The Government are reconsidering wider contexts and examining the 14 to 19 curriculum under Mike Tomlinson. That is probably the right way to think about things, and I wish the Minister well in that major task. It is, however, coincident with the age range of the report. It is important for her to give some indication of how education for that age range may be approached. Others mentioned moving to a baccalaureate or other system, and what vehicles and institutions would be required to deliver that.
The report's most interesting finding was recommendation 6, which explicitly exposes the dilemma between engaging all students with science as a preparation for life and the aim of inspiring or preparing a group of pupils to continue with science post-16. It briskly and accurately concludes:
"In practice, the present system does neither of these well".
That is the problem—we are falling between two stools.
The Government's response is somewhat oblique. They say that a great deal will depend on the pilots of an innovative GCSE structure that will engage
362WH
"pupils with contemporary scientific issues and focussing on their role as users and consumers of science."
At the same time, the Committee's report accepts that there is a tension between whether or not to incorporate additional mathematical skills at what I might call the pre-vocational stage when we consider science A-levels, where some innovative work has been undertaken.
Frankly, I am surprised that the word "mathematics" has not been mentioned in the debate so far because, as scientists on the Committee will know, it is central to physics. Even the Committee rejected it because of the suggestion that it could be a turn-off for students. In a sense, I understand that, because once pupils have reached the age of 16, they have absolutely no obligation to continue with scientific studies when there are competing options. That must be a consideration. If we talk to people at university level, especially where the sciences have reconfigured themselves into single-subject areas, we find that some are seriously worried about the competence of those who present themselves to universities.
Mr. McWalter: Does the hon. Gentleman recall a remark by Stephen Hawking to the effect that one equation in his book halved its readership?
Mr. Boswell: I had forgotten that, but it was probably after I had switched off myself. The number of those who opened the book but did not finish reading it is perhaps greater than those who stayed the course.
The issue, which does not divide individuals, let alone parties, is how to introduce greater flexibility without loss of rigour. It is understood that if a better understanding of science is to be our major concern, we must not shed scientists' science, because that is important, but neither must we make the curriculum a soft option that people will take because it gets them out of a hole.
Part of the problem is an underlying national problem with mathematics. If there is still such a problem, it has its origins further back and it has not yet been completely overcome by the numeracy strategy in primary schools. There is no doubt that academic sciences are hard disciplines. They require proper numeracy and conceptual underpinning. At the advanced level there is bound to be some pull towards apparently softer options, such as media studies.
At the same time, those who are likely not to aspire to be scientists—most of us—need to understand scientific relevance. I can understand why people propose what I would call thematic options. My reservation about those is that unless they are carefully thought out, they do not convey the underpinning knowledge, and at worst they run the risk of being a kind of psychobabble, referring to subjects without understanding them. Those hon. Members who have commented, rightly, that the curriculum is too authoritarian and deals in facts must not lead us to the opposite conclusion—that everything must hang out and that all possible views are defensible. In a sense that is true, just as one could still make a case for Copernicus and the various ways in which he interpreted the universe. However, they are wrong, and we now know how it does work. We have, at least, to have a measure of reservation before suggesting that we should merely discuss a topic among friends, with all the

363WH
options laid out. That is different from saying that one should not confront issues and explain the underpinning science.
It is interesting to move from recommendation 6 of the report to the discussion on the curriculum. The Government's response to recommendation 39 contains an intriguing suggestion about preparing science for citizenship. However, I caution against swapping prejudices, even about an area that is relevant to us as citizens, electors and decision makers. A subject such as food safety, about which I know a little, is clearly relevant to the economy, and it deeply engages the emotions. However, it cannot be considered without a robust and critical view of the underlying science.
Perhaps I display some of my own academic interests and qualifications, acquired at different stages, when I say that my preference is that any such course should at least be grounded in statistical method. We have discussed the need for evidence-based analysis. The acquisition, validation and presentation of evidence is central to the scientific principle, and the supporting analysis that statistics can bring is important in coming to evidence-based scientific conclusions.
I do not suggest—because it can be daunting—that every teenager should be required to invert a matrix, even though I can remember doing it before computers were available. It was an extremely difficult task. However, some basic statistical notions that are relevant to the issue of risk, which we have discussed, need to be imparted—they are central to the public understanding of science. For example, the concepts of a normal distribution, a standard deviation and what is or is not statistically significant are central to any informed appraisal or discussion of the modern world. If we are to consider issues of great public concern, be they the MMR vaccine or GM crops or food safety, we must engage in the debate.
Mr. McWalter: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, should those issues not be part of the critical thinking procedure that we discussed earlier?
Mr. Boswell: I have no difficulty with that. If we are to have a discussion about public policy under the science remit of the curriculum, it is important that there is an underpinning structure. It must not be seen as merely a concertation of views or as a suggestion that all views have equal validity. Of course, all views have a right to be expressed and it is right that we listen to them. Nevertheless, there must be a scientific basis.
Dr. Pugh: I have been perturbed for the past five minutes, ever since the hon. Gentleman said that Copernicus was wrong. As I understand it, Copernicus formulated the heliocentric view of the universe rather than the geocentric view. I would not want Hansard to record the hon. Gentleman as defending a geocentric view of the universe.
Mr. Boswell: We could go into the issue of whether certain persons would suggest that in order to wind me up. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is right, because even as I said it, I thought I might have got some of it wrong. Copernicus was getting over epicycles if I remember. However, that is a long time ago and shows
364WH
how little astronomy I have done recently. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; we will progress in our knowledge and understanding as we go.
Another important area of potential confusion is the interface between science studies on the one hand and technology on the other. It is easy to conflate or confuse them, and there may be some relevance in doing so. The Minister may want to comment on that, as 14 to 19 education is highly relevant here. I am a little suspicious—perhaps it is a professional cynicism—about blended qualifications. There is always a danger, when we have a bit of a vocational element and a bit of rigorous general or academic attainment, of falling between two stools. It may be better to have freestanding qualifications that earn their own rights in their particular areas and add up to a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts. I leave the Minister to comment on that.
On reflection, I feel that the report and the Government's response to it lack some wider perspectives. That is not to say that there is anything wrong with the report, but inevitably because it is largely schools-based, with some reference to delivery in sixth-form colleges and in further education colleges, it is not surprising that it concentrates on its remit. However, there is a read-back into primary education, and we must look much more carefully at how things begin to go wrong there and how those mistakes are replicated and exacerbated later. We must get that right.
We must also look at the routes beyond 14 to 19 education into the adult world, including higher education. It would be in the interests of higher education institutions to have people apply for their courses who have an understanding of issues of public policy and of the underpinning scientific methods. We must also look at the world of work. We could debate—we might find it a contentious debate—the role of business in relation to science. The ability of business, commerce and engineering to exploit scientific knowledge is central. The bona fides of business, particularly in relation to biotechnology or emissions, and its role in explaining the relevance of science to young people in providing the necessary work experience are vital.
It is fair to say that a primary study and a business-related study would be major free-standing exercises in themselves. They should not be written off as additional studies for the future. Whatever else happens and however much we manage to get through at school, in later life almost everyone at work, in whatever capacity, will require the analytical, evidence-based approach of science and its supporting statistical methods. Frankly, we all need a bit of science in our working portfolio.
5.10 pm
The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education (Margaret Hodge): I join others in congratulating the Committee and the Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), on the very good report on science education. I congratulate my hon. Friend, too, on securing time for a three-hour debate, which is not insubstantial in this place, to discuss the report's conclusions. I share with the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) the view that we have had a well-informed and non-

365WH
confrontational—rather than consensual—debate; hon. Members have expressed various views. I hope that this good debate is the start of further consideration of the important issues that have been raised.
There is consensus on the importance of science to drive economic growth and improve the quality of our lives, which was particularly well articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), and the importance of scientific literacy to support citizenship and all that goes with it. I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend, as I believe that there is plenty in modern science that would make good TV soaps; he should perhaps talk to a producer or two. I can think of a good subject: GM foods, for example, or an issue such as genetic engineering which would entice millions of viewers to early-evening viewing while they are having a cup of tea.
Dr. Turner: I am very glad that my hon. Friend agrees with my comments. Would she volunteer to encourage television companies to take up some superb issues that are knocking around out there? Humble grunts from the Back Benches do not cut as much ice as the Minister.
Margaret Hodge: Recently, Back Benchers have had much more airtime than many on the Front Bench. We both have a role to play in encouraging those developments.
There is a cultural issue, which hon. Members described in various ways. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) talked about the anti-science culture and the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) talked about cultural apartheid. We accept that there are cultural issues, which we must address. I hope that hon. Members will accept that the Government are taking them seriously.
I will give hon. Members one little fact: the Secretary of State has recently given me the responsibility for promoting science as a discipline in the Department for Education and Skills. I am responding to what is primarily a schools debate to take forward that responsibility. I have had good discussions with several members of the Select Committee about how to make science fun and how to persuade more people, especially young people and girls, in whom I have an interest, to study science through education and to pursue it in their working lives.
I take on my responsibility as someone who dropped science at the age of 13 or 14 because I hated my science teacher. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) mentioned inspirational teachers—
Dr. Gibson: Was the teacher a man or a woman?
Margaret Hodge: It was a woman, in an all-girls school. I concur with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East. However, before I had my current responsibility for promoting science in the curriculum as Minister for Lifelong Learning, I had determined that I would do a physics A-level at some point in my life, simply because I do not want to be beaten by it. I invite the hon. Member for Daventry to join me in that lifelong learning ambition.
Dr. Gibson: May I point my hon. Friend in the direction of the Secretary of State, to whom I gave a
366WH
book at Christmas about the physics of football? She will certainly learn from that how to bend it like Beckham from first physics principles.
Margaret Hodge: As long as the book does not promote Norwich City and promotes Arsenal, I will happily read it.
Throughout the debate, legitimate concerns have been raised by members of the Science and Technology Committee. I assure them that we take those concerns seriously, and I hope that in the time remaining I can describe the actions that we are taking to try to address those concerns. However, I also hope that the Committee will acknowledge—some Committee members have done so today—that we have made progress in many of those areas since we have been in government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and the hon. Member for Southport both alluded to the Government's good record on raising the standards of science in primary schools. In 1998, 69 per cent. of pupils reached level 4 at key stage 2, and by 2001 that percentage had risen to 87 per cent. In 2000, 59 per cent. reached level 5 at key stage 3, and by 2002 that had risen to 67 per cent. The number of pupils achieving GCSE grades A to C has gradually increased year on year.
We should not get too depressed in the debate this afternoon, because four out of five pupils currently follow a course that leads to the double award in science GCSE, and six out of 10 are currently taking science or maths at A or AS-level. Although I recognise that in some areas the figures have been decreasing, that is not a bad base from which to start. We should not, therefore, get too depressed about the future of engagement in science and science education in our schools.
At university level, although I know that some science departments are closing and others are under threat, there are also areas of growth. For example, the physical sciences may be decreasing overall, but there is growth in astronomy and oceanography. Similarly, engineering may be decreasing overall, but some areas, such as aeronautical and electronic engineering, are experiencing an increase in demand. There are good signs as well as bad.
I want to describe some of the initiatives that the Government have taken, which support the shared ambition expressed in the debate this afternoon to improve the quality of science education in schools and to increase the enthusiasm for the subject through schools, so that that will lead to further training and learning, and to more people taking up careers in science.
The specialist college initiative has been important. The hon. Member for Salisbury raised that issue, and gave his generous support to the initiative. There are 24 specialist colleges up and running, and there will be 40 more by September. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North alluded to the school in his constituency, Derby high school, which is very innovative: it is a specialist college in science and the performing arts. There are also two specialist schools in science and engineering, which are innovative and a good way forward.

367WH
I shall also mention the £51 million grant from the Wellcome Foundation, matched by the Government, to establish the national network of science learning centres. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North said that there would be six regional centres, but we hope that there will be nine, including the national centre. We hope that the first centre will open in 2004, and that those centres will provide a focus for the enthusiasm that we want to engender among our teachers, and give them confidence. It is important to have enthusiastic teaching, because that will help science throughout the curriculum, in primary as well as secondary schools.
I should also like to mention the work that we are doing in the post-16 standards unit in the Department. We are looking at particular areas of the curriculum to see how we can improve the pedagogy and provide better teaching and learning material and professional developments for teachers. Science is one of the first four areas that we have selected. We now have nearly 300 advanced skills teachers in science, which is a good beginning. They are all enjoying the electronic whiteboards, which are a powerful innovation in classroom teaching. We have also been able to provide free Intel digital microscopes in every maintained primary and secondary school in celebration of science year.
We are doing a great deal to try to get the benefits of information and communication technology into science teaching. One instance in the work we are doing around key stage 3 involves data logging. The data involved can be captured either very fast or very slowly, depending on what one is attempting to do. It is thus possible to see how long it takes for a ball bearing to drop from different heights or track the changes in greenhouse temperature. That is an example of how we are hoping to bring the developments in new technology into the classroom.
The millennium science centres have been a good innovation. I am discussing with my colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport how we can keep the best of those going. I hope that the growing schools initiative will encourage more scientific field work in schools, an issue raised by several hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East. All the advice that we put out at both primary and secondary level encourages the better use of field work. I accept that much more has to be done. A lot comes from the enthusiasm of individual teachers that we must engender.
The issue of teachers themselves has been raised by a number of speakers. Contrary to what the hon. Members for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) and for Daventry said, our attempts to recruit new teachers into science are doing well. In 1999–2000, the year before golden hellos were introduced, we recruited 2,362 people into science teacher training. In the first year of the golden hellos, that rose by 13 per cent, to 2,670. Far be it from me to disagree with Opposition Members, but the preliminary figures for applications that were announced yesterday showed that science teacher training was up 12 per cent, on this time last year. English teacher training was up 10 per cent. and maths teacher training was up by 25 per cent. Within the
368WH
science teacher cohort the number of people with physics degrees was up by 17 per cent. Those are all welcome moves in the right direction.
Dr. Murrison: Will the Minister give way?
Margaret Hodge: I will continue, as we are running out of time and I want to respond on some of the other issues that have been raised.
We have also launched our new studentships: 50 of the brightest and the best A-level students in maths, chemistry and physics who choose to go into teaching will have all their expenses paid at both undergraduate and postgraduate level. Science year, which is now Planet Science, has been successful in promoting good science teachers. Four out of five teachers have now heard of it. Over half of the maintained schools have registered to use the free resources. We are hoping that schemes like the seismic science clubs will become part of the legacy of the initiatives that have taken place under science year. A number of hon. Members mentioned the science and engineering ambassadors, which is a scheme to provide mentors.
I want to deal briefly with the curriculum. We all recognise that there is an issue in the nature of the curriculum, which is why we have taken a number of initiatives around it. It is not just the curriculum, but how it is taught. That combination is important. We have decided that science will remain in the national curriculum with a core of science, which must be both suitable and enriching to provide the basis for a range of qualifications. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North asked me for the timetable for that. We are expecting to receive QCA advice on 17 April. There will then be a period of consultation with both schools and subject interests. We expect to introduce the changes in September 2005.
The programme of study for key stage 4 will, I hope, be less prescriptive and more interesting. There will be not just Bunsen burners and test tubes; subjects will be more relevant to individuals' day-to-day lives. I hope that that will give teachers the necessary confidence, so that they can make science a joyful experience. I take on board the issue of repetition in the curriculum, which is not peculiar to science and which can be seen in whole areas of the curriculum.
The vocation-focused applied science GCSE, which we launched in September 2002, is a good way forward. It will help students, on the basis of their knowledge of biology, chemistry or physics, to learn about the world of work. It will help them in a range of areas, and they will perhaps develop into laboratory technicians or environmental scientists. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North that it is too early to tell how the provisions are working, but we will want to evaluate them.
The new GSCE in science in the 21st century, which we will pilot in 50 schools in September, aims to stimulate science education for consumers, users or producers of science. It will raise some interesting questions, such as, "Do I contribute to air pollution?" or "Is pollution harmful to my environment or me?" or "What choices can we make to improve the quality of air?"
The citizenship programme addresses some of the scientific literacy issues raised by hon. Members. Issues such as immunisation, food safety and organ donation

369WH
should be integral to the citizenship agenda. The hon. Members for Daventry, for Westbury and for Southport mentioned the difficulty of trying to face two ways, and I agree with them. We must ensure that we have a strong cohort of people who will study science at university and take it up as a career. Equally, however, we want to develop scientific literacy among the population as a whole. The last thing we want to do is (dumb down what some hon. Members have called hard science.
Interesting points were made about the baccalaureate. Mike Tomlinson is studying assessment and the curriculum. In the interim, however, I should say that curriculum 2000 has not been a failure; it has been an interesting way of enabling young people to study science and humanities subjects. We are also looking at what we can do to ensure that the maths curriculum is appropriate.
The gender issue is close to my heart, and it is a real challenge. I have said I will focus much of my work on encouraging more girls into science. It is not that they do not go into science, because more girls than boys are studying to become doctors. However, more boys are studying to become engineers. We therefore need to
370WH
ensure that young people of both genders pursue all aspects of science. Bodies such as the Equal Opportunities Commission are working with the Department of Trade and Industry and using the resources that it has produced, and the commission's "What's Stopping You" campaign challenges the stereotypes. Other initiatives that we can take include looking at the new science GCSEs that we are pursuing, and updating the guidance that we give to the Connexions service. Several hon. Members raised those issues. However, we face a real challenge. I hope that ambassadors, which we are beginning to embed in schools, will also be a focus.
This is not the end of the debate, but the beginning. Hard issues have been raised in relation to what is a hard discipline. I recognise how crucial science is to our economic and social well-being. I thank those who contributed to the report, because they have added much to the breadth of our understanding of how we must tackle some difficult issues. I hope that we can act on several recommendations; indeed, we are already doing so. I look forward to engaging members of the Select Committee and other hon. Members on some of these issues.
It being half-past Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Contingency Plans (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what resources he has allocated to improve civil contingency plans for the Portsmouth area in the event of a terrorist attack in the last two years; and if he will make a statement. [105354]

  Mr. Alexander
  Central Government provides funds, in the form of civil defence grant, for local authority emergency planning and civil contingency planning.

  The allocations of civil defence grant for Portsmouth city council and Hampshire county council from 2000–01 onwards are detailed in the following table.

  Local authority

  Portsmouth

  Hampshire

  2000–01

  48, 000

  229, 824

  2001–02

  78, 999

  276,770

  2002–03

  74, 081

  298,610

  2003–04

  74,467

  298,996

  Local authorities often supplement the civil defence grant from their revenue support grant. I understand that Portsmouth city council budgeted to provide an additional £17,304 in 2002–03 and £20,533 in 2003–04 and that Hampshire county council budgeted to provide an additional £326,900 in 2002–03 and £336,600 in 2003–04.

  The civil defence grant is just part of central Government funding for planning for and responding to emergencies. Central Government provides substantial funds to other local responders, including the emergency services and health authorities.

  E-Envoy
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to change(a) the level of staffing and (b) the role of the Office of the e-Envoy; [105629]

  (2) how many staff have worked in the Office of the e-Envoy in each month since its establishment; [105628]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the work of the Office of the e-Envoy since its establishment. [105630]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Office of the e-Envoy was established in September 1999. The following table shows how many staff have worked in the Office of the e-Envoy in each month since this date. All figures are rounded to full-time equivalents (FTE). The Office of the e-Envoy business plan for the 2003–04 financial year assumes an average of 122 FTE staff.
  780W
  Last November, the Office of the e-Envoy published its third UK online annual report. The report provides a comprehensive summary of the work of the Office and makes recommendations for future activity.

  It also highlighted the results of an independent e-economy benchmarking study which found the UK to be second only to the USA in terms of its environment for e-commerce.

  The E-Minister, Patricia Hewitt and the e-Envoy, Andrew Pinder also provide a monthly update to the PM outlining activity.

  Copies of the annual and monthly reports are available in the Library of the House, from the Office of the e-Envoy and online at www.e-envoy.gov.uk.

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  April

  —

  54

  111

  142

  May

  —

  56

  123

  138

  June

  —

  56

  125

  141

  July

  —

  54

  129

  140

  August

  —

  52

  128

  134

  September

  2

  56

  138

  139

  October

  4

  57

  146

  140

  November

  6

  60

  147

  144

  December

  10

  60

  145

  145

  January

  12

  62

  148

  141

  February

  51

  71

  145

  141

  March

  53

  92

  143

  138

  Note:

  Figures are full-time equivalents rounded to nearest whole number.

  Public Appointments
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) how many vacancies in public appointments there were in each county in 2002; [106231]

  (2) how many public appointments there were in each county in 2002. [106232]

  Mr. Alexander
  This information is not held centrally. Individual Ministers, supported by their Departments are responsible for making their own appointments. For my own Department during 2002, six new appointments and 21 re-appointments were made to non-departmental public bodies for which the Cabinet Office was responsible. All were made to boards of public bodies whose headquarters are in London.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many staff are employed by his Department. [106282]

  Mr. Alexander
  Staffing figures for Civil Service departments and agencies are published twice yearly by press notice, copies of which are laid in the Libraries of both Houses. The latest information, for October 2002, was published in February this year. The figures are also made available via the world-wide web at http://www.civil-service.gov.uk/statistics/documents/pdf/staffing_03.pdf

  Departmental Units (Budgets)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the(a) total budget of and (b) total pay costs incurred by (i) the Strategy Unit, (ii) the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit, (iii) the Office of the e-Envoy, (iv) the Office of Public Services Reform and (v) the Prime Minister's Policy Unit have been in each year since their creation. [103068]

  Mr. Alexander
  For details of the No. 10 Policy Directorate, I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 25 March 2003,Official Report, columns 125–27W. The Strategy Unit was not formed until June 2002 so there are no full year's figures on which to report. For the rest of the units inquired about see the following tables:

  £000

  Total budget

  Unit name

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Office of the e-Envoy

  0

  42,299

  55,633

  56,096

  Delivery Unit

  0

  0

  0

  1,393

  OPSR

  0

  0

  0

  1,518

  £000

  Total actual pay costs

  Unit name

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Office of the e-Envoy

  0

  5,566

  7,327

  8,800

  Delivery Unit

  0

  0

  0

  614

  OPSR

  0

  0

  0

  980

DEFENCE

  Gulf War Veterans
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he considers that(a) the renal disorder and (b) the post traumatic stress disorder of Paul Connolly, a civilian Gulf war veteran are attributable to that conflict. [105978]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 31 March 2003]The Ministry of Defence does not believe that Paul Connolly's renal disorder is attributable to the 1990–91 Gulf conflict. The nature of traumatic psychological injury is such that the Ministry of Defence would need to carefully consider up to date specialist psychiatric assessment before being able to give a view on whether or not Paul Connolly has PTSD and, if so, its aetiology.

  HMS Torbay
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there have been problems with HMS Torbay upon its return to active service following its refit. [95416]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Torbay returned to the fleet after her refit in November 2002 following a short delay while the submarine's electrical generation and heat management system and equipment was repaired.

  As is normal following a substantial maintenance and upgrade period, some defects have been identified since HMS Torbay returned to operational service. These have
  782W
  had no significant impact on operational capability and have either been repaired during routine maintenance or will be addressed when the programme permits.

  Iraq
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial support will be made available to the dependants of those killed or injured in the conflict in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [106245]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) provides valuable occupational ill-health benefits, based on years of service and rank, where a service person is injured and medically discharged from the armed forces. If the injury is considered attributable to service, the AFPS benefits are enhanced and paid tax-free. In addition, the War Pension Scheme (WPS) pays a War Disablement Pension and may pay other associated allowances, which include recognition of carer responsibilities.

  Where the member dies in service from an attributable cause and leaves a widow or widower, and/or a dependant child, the AFPS benefits include a short-term family pension, equal to the service person's annual rate of pensionable pay; this is payable for up to 182 days and maintains the household income level in the early months of bereavement. In addition, a death-in-service lump sum is paid of between 1 and 1½ times the individual's representative rate of pay, and an attributable gratuity is also payable; both these are paid tax-free.

  Thereafter, a long-term widow's or widower's pension and, as appropriate, children's pensions are paid. Attributable widow(er)'s pensions are significantly enhanced, index-linked and paid for life, regardless of whether the widow(er) remarries or cohabits. The attributable widow's or widower's pension is 90 per cent. of the member's full career pension, less an abatement to reflect the amount by which the WPS war widow's or widower's pension exceeds the basic state widow's pension. Attributable children's pensions are also enhanced and index-linked, and are paid until age 17; they may remain in payment until a later age if higher education is undertaken. The WPS provides additional compensation for families of those service personnel whose death is attributable to their service. This includes a tax-free War Widow's or Widower's Pension.

  In my written statement of 20 March 2003, Official Report, column 54WS, I announced that unmarried partners, including same sex partners, of service personnel whose death was attributable to conflict-related service would be eligible for ex-gratia benefits equivalent to those awarded to spouses under the AFPS. Partners would need to demonstrate that the relationship was substantial. However, the policy change is not retrospective with respect to deaths occurring before 20 March and does not affect the WPS, which already has its own rules regarding unmarried partners.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has issued to the media(a) television footage and (b) still photographs of Iraqis taken prisoner by coalition forces in the invasion of Iraq. [106419]
  783W
  Dr. Moonie
  A very limited amount of television footage of Iraqi's taken prisoner, which was taken by the services' mobile news teams, has been issued to the media. We have also made some selected still photographs available.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Iraqi prisoners of war have been taken in the conflict; and how many(a) were injured and (b) are being cared for by coalition doctors. [106959]

  Mr. Ingram
  United Kingdom forces are holding approximately 5,000 Iraqi prisoners of war. On 2 April 2003, 37 prisoners were being treated by UK military medical personnel. Of these, 35 had sustained battle related injuries and two were being treated for non-battle related illnesses.

  Information on other prisoners of war is a matter for the coalition member holding them.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Iraqi civilians have been(a) injured and (b) killed as a result of the conflict; and of those killed, how many have been buried. [106960]

  Mr. Ingram
  We have made very clear our commitment to the welfare and future of the people of Iraq, and deeply regret any civilian casualties resulting from coalition action. However, it is impossible to know for sure how many civilians have been injured, or killed and subsequently buried. Figures presented by the Iraqi regime are likely to be inflated or distorted for propaganda purposes, and may include civilians injured or killed by Iraq's own forces.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers of what regiment were photographed posing beside a loyalist paramilitary mural on 1 February; what disciplinary action has been taken against these soldiers and their commanding officer; and what measures have been taken to ensure this behaviour is not repeated. [106352]

  Mr. Ingram
  16 members of the Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire were photographed against a loyalist mural on 1 February. No disciplinary action has been taken against the soldiers although administrative action was taken against their Platoon Commander. Since the taking of the photograph instructions have been issued that murals are not to be used as a backdrop for group photographs.

  Tritium
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on procurement of tritium. [105792]

  Mr. Ingram
  Tritium has been produced for the defence programme at the electricity generating station at Chapelcross, Dumfriesshire. Our stocks are sufficient to meet requirements for the foreseeable future.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Average Earnings
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Minister for Women if she will make a statement on the pay gap between average male and female earnings in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002. [106025]

  Ms Hewitt
  The gender gap in hourly pay between men and women increased slightly from 18.5 per cent in 2001 to 18.9 per cent in 2002. ONS found the increase was due to a widening of the gap at the higher end of the earnings distribution. The gender pay gap for the bottom 75 per cent. of women narrowed over the same period from 13.3 per cent. to 12.8 per cent.

  Child Care
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Minister for Women what recent consultations the Minister has had with child care organisations in the last year regarding the provision of child care; and if she will make a statement. [99038]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have met with various child care organisations over the past six months, as well as speaking at the DayCare Trust conference last November. As part of last year's inter-departmental review of child care, my noble Friend the Minister for Sure Start conducted a broad consultation with organisations with an interest in child care.

  My Department is continuing to work with child care organisations to consider how we encourage more child care support to working parents, and support the child care business sector.

  EU Equality Advisory Committee
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Minister for Women pursuant to her answer of 27 February 2003,Official Report, column 651W, on the EU Equality Advisory Committee, if she will place the minutes to the EU Advisory Committee Meeting in the Library when they are available. [103831]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 24 March 2003]The minutes of the EU Advisory Committee meeting on 9 October have not yet been published. They have to be approved by the Commission and then to be adopted by the Advisory Committee. It is expected that their adoption will take place at the Committee's next meeting on 28 May. After this date, the minutes will be publicly available and I shall place a copy in the Libraries of the House.

  LeicestHER Event
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Minister for Women what Government support was given to the LeicestHER event on 7 March. [103220]

  Ms Hewitt
  As Minister for Women I was pleased to be involved in the second annual LeicestHERday activities which took place in Leicester as part of International Women's Day.

  No direct Government financial support was given to this event, but the East Midlands Development Agency contributed £12,000.
  785W
  The success of the day was due to the involvement and support of the many local partners and local women who took part in the weekend's activities.

  Public Appointments
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Minister for Women pursuant to her answer of 27 February 2003,Official Report, column 651W, on public appointments, if she will list the other bodies that have shown interest or plan to run similar events in 2003. [103830]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 24 March 2003]We have distributed over 3,400 copies of "Get a Public Life", the practical guide on why and how to run your own seminars. I am aware of the following bodies or individuals that have run events already in 2003 or are planning to do so in the near future:

  Leicestershire Business Link;

  Equality Unit in Wales in partnership with Wales Women's National Coalition

  Waltham Forest Women in Public Life

  The Women's TUC

  The City Livery Club

  Yorkshire Forward and Fairplay

  Caroline Flint MP

  The Labour Party

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Gas Network
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made with the pilot schemes set up to test the practicalities of extending the gas network in rural areas; and if she will list the pilot schemes. [107197]

  Mr. Wilson
  The report of the working group on extending the gas network made a number of recommendations, including a programme of pilot schemes to assist communities in non-gas areas with high concentrations of fuel poverty. In the absence of central funding for such a programme, the Government have worked with the industry and other interested parties to devise approaches to promoting connections to non-gas areas, drawing on existing funding schemes and using creative approaches. We expect the first industry-led pathfinder projects to begin in the coming months.

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total cost to her Department was for accountancy services in 2002. [101861]

  Ms Hewitt
  Central records indicate that contracts for accountancy services amount to £6,644,832 for the calendar year 2002.

  British Energy
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will undertake a review of the liabilities of British Energy to examine what cost savings can be made. [106060]
  786W
  Mr. Wilson
  Under the restructuring proposal announced by British Energy on 28 November 2002, the Government is taking financial responsibility for the company's historic spent fuel liabilities under contracts with BNFL, and underwriting new and enhanced arrangements by the company in the form of a new Nuclear Liabilities Fund (NLF) to meet decommissioning and other back-end liabilities.

  Under the operation of the NLF, the Government propose to put in place a series of controls and incentives to ensure that British Energy runs its nuclear power stations as though it were exclusively responsible for the discharge of nuclear liabilities.

  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information she has received since 9 September 2002, which indicated that British Energy was offering electricity contracts for sale at below the wholesale market prices. [106513]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department receives regularly representations about the operation of the electricity market from a variety of sources. The implementation of the trading strategy announced by British Energy on 28 November 2002 as part of its restructuring proposals is a matter for the company.

  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with British Energy on financing the cost of installing flue gas de-sulpherisation of Eggborough power station since 9 September 2002; and if she will make a statement. [106514]

  Mr. Wilson
  My officials have discussed a wide range of matters with British Energy during this period. The installation of flue gas desulphurisation of Eggborough is an operational matter for British Energy.

  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her statement of 28 November 2002,Official Report, column 488, on British Energy, (1) if she will publish the evidence to support the statement that it was necessary to underwrite financial assistance to British Energy because it was the best way of securing the safety of the nuclear power stations; [106580]

  (2) if she will publish the evidence to support the statement that it was necessary to underwrite financial assistance to British Energy because it was the best way of securing the security of electricity supply to the grid and customers. [106579]

  Mr. Wilson
  Nuclear safety and security of electricity supplies are our main priorities for British Energy whether or not the company's restructuring proposals is successful. Our decision to support the company's proposal involved complex assessments stretching over many years. The detailed calculation of those assessments contain assumptions which are commercially confidential, under Exemption 13, Third Party commercial confidences of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 26 March 2003,Official Report, column 221W, on British Energy, whether an application has been made to draw on the

  787W
  current facility to finance the cost of installing flue gas de-sulphurisation at British Energy's Eggborough Power Station (a) directly and (b) indirectly. [106581]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 18 March 2003,Official Report, column 685W, on British Energy. Details of individual applications are also commercially confidential, under Exemption 13, Third Party commercial confidence of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Departmental Events
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the(a) conferences, (b) seminars, (c) workshops, (d) exhibitions and (e) press conferences which have been sponsored by

  £

  Campaign

  Television

  Radio

  Press

  Other

  Total

  UK Online for Business

  1,100,000

  329,211

  506,582

  947,039

  2,882,832

  Export Licence

  —

  —

  10,131

  178

  10,309

  Import Licence

  —

  —

  88,685

  1,553

  90,238

  Miscellaneous

  —

  —

  338,111

  13,763

  351,874

  SBS Business Link

  3,051,141

  979,907

  1,191,389

  697,977

  5,920,414

  Fireworks Campaign

  —

  —

  —

  190,715

  190,715

  National Minimum Wage

  —

  —

  300,388

  17,082

  317,470

  Parental Rights

  —

  —

  650,910

  225,531

  876,441

  Consumer Gateway

  —

  —

  —

  43,483

  43,483

  Quality Mark

  —

  109,365

  439,045

  430,374

  978,784

  Ex-miners Compensation

  —

  —

  85,472

  4,594

  90,066

  Total

  4,151,141

  1,418,483

  3,610,713

  2,572,289

  11,752,626

  Energy Consumption
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of UK household energy usage requirements by region were for(a) manufacturing and industry, (b) transport and (c) providing heat, in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [106804]

  Mr. Wilson
  Total energy consumption by region and final use is not currently available. Data on gas consumption by gas local distribution zone is published in Table 4B of the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2002; data on electricity distributed by public electricity suppliers by region is contained in Table 5B of the same publication, with inland deliveries of petroleum by country shown in Table 3.9.

  The DTI will continue to develop the work on regional energy consumption and the Energy White Paper "Our energy future—creating a low carbon economy" says that we will be consulting on arrangements to collect and make available data on the pattern of energy usage in local areas, to enable local authorities and regional bodies to target activity more effectively. This is one of a number of measures to be taken to help local and regional bodies to ensure energy objectives are reflected in regional and local priorities.
  788W
  her Department and which took place on non-Departmental premises in the last 12 months, broken down by title, purpose, date and cost. [104271]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department does not keep central records of such events. The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department's total spending was on advertising and promotional campaigns between April 2002 and March 2003; and what the cost of each campaign was, broken down by costs relating to(a) television, (b) radio and (c) print media. [106440]

  Ms Hewitt
  Provisional DTI advertising spend in 2002–03 through the Central Office of Information was £11.7 million. The campaign breakdown was as follows:

  This will help the DTI to develop a more detailed and consistent system for a regional analysis of some fuels.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will make a statement on the role of wood-burning fuel in the Government's renewable energy policy; and what steps the Government is taking to encourage its promotion as an alternative source of heat production; [106805]

  (2) how much funding the Government has allocated towards (a) the creation and development of energy crops and (b) the utilisation of fuel wood from existing forests, with regard to the aim of heat production. [106806]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government recognises that wood-burning fuel has significant potential in the UK. Wood fuel is an eligible source for the Renewable Obligations, which came into force on 1 April 2002, and electricity supplied by generators fired on wood fuel will qualify for Renewable Obligation Certificates in dedicated biomass plant or through co-firing under certain conditions.

  A number of programmes have been launched to support and promote bioenergy in the UK, including utilisation of wood fuel. £66 million has been made available by DTI and the National Lottery's New Opportunities Fund to stimulate early deployment of biomass-fired technology for heat, combined heat and power and electricity generation. From this allocation,

  789W
  grants worth over £4 million were announced in January to support the establishment of wood-fired heat clusters throughout the UK.

  DEFRA, as part of its England Rural Development Programme, has made available £29 million for the establishment of energy crops including short rotation coppice (SRC) under the Energy Crops Scheme.

  The Woodland Grant Scheme and the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme, co-ordinated by the Forestry Commission in mainland UK and Forest Services in Northern Ireland, provides grants to create and manage woodland, which can help in the production of wood fuel. The Woodland Grant Scheme also supports the establishment of SRC in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  The Clear Skies Initiative, a £10 million grants programme launched by DTI in February, supports eligible community and domestic wood fired heating projects.

  European Funding
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Government will publish its proposals for replacing European structural funds with its own regional funding system; whether the Government will ensure that all Objective 1 and 2 areas receive the same level of funding as they receive under the Objective 1 and 2 programmes; whether all Objective 1 and 2 areas will continue to receive pound for pound matching funding for regeneration programmes; whether the Government's proposals will offer the same seven-year guarantee of funding as that offered by the Commission's proposals; whether the Government will maintain the same level of non-structural regeneration funding to Objective 1 and 2 areas over this period; and whether money will be targeted at Objective 1 and 2 areas whose economic performance is below that of the national average. [106233]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government set out their proposals for the future of the European Structural Funds post-2006 in "A Modern Regional Policy for the United Kingdom" which was published on 6 March; a parliamentary statement was issued on that day. This paper puts forward a new EU Framework for Devolved Regional Policy, and launches a consultation on the proposition that this should form the basis for a UK negotiating position in the debate in Europe. The consultation period ends on 4 July.

  It is not possible at this stage to be precise about the details of how the Framework and funding will operate in individual regions. However, approximately three-quarters of UK regional development funding already comes directly from the UK Government. And, if the Government's proposals for the future of the Structural Funds were accepted, the Government would guarantee that regional spending would be increased so that the nations and regions of the UK receive a level of resources which ensures that they do not lose out from the UK's proposals on Structural Funds reform, for example from the transitional funding they would automatically have received from the application of the eligibility criteria to EU 25 instead of EU15.
  790W
  The Government have already introduced three-year multi-annual budgeting to encourage long-term planning. And the Government guarantee on future regional spending would extend over the entire seven-year period of the next EU Financial Perspective. As part of this guarantee, the Government would commit to ensuring that the nations and regions have sufficient resources to continue to be able to promote regional productivity and employment from increased UK Government spending on regional policy, targeted on those areas of high unemployment and low GDP.

  The Government have also committed to a new PSA to
  "make sustainable improvements in the economic performance of all English regions and, over the long term, reduce the gap in growth rate between the regions, defining measures to improve performance and reporting progress against these measures by 2006".

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what rate of return will be expected on the trading fund of the Export Credits Guarantee Department; what proportion of guarantees by value she expects it to cover; and if she will make a statement. [104427]

  Ms Hewitt
  ECGD and HM Treasury are currently working on the policy and objectives, financial and regulatory frameworks and operational details of the ECGD Trading Fund. The aim is to complete this work by the summer recess. There has therefore been no decision yet as to the rate of return that the ECGD Trading Fund will be expected to generate, but the Government's policy remains that ECGD's premium rates will not be increased to pay a return on capital.

  The Trading Fund will cover all guarantees issued by ECGD, with the exception of instances where guarantees are issued under Ministerial Instruction, used only rarely in the past. The Government have made a firm commitment that ECGD will continue to support broadly the same amount of business as it does now, but given that the precise volume of ECGD's future business, it is not possible to divide the business in the way the hon. Member has requested.

  Fur Imports
  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and industry (1) what customs classifications apply to animal furs being imported into the country; and if she will make a statement; [105357]

  (2) how many fur pelts have been imported under the customs classification of other fur since January 2000; and if she will make a statement. [105356]

  Ms Hewitt
  The commodity headings used, since 2000, for classifying animal furs being imported into the United Kingdom are given in the table. The classification is based on the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System, which incorporates the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities. Within the UK, responsibility for the classification lies primarily with HM Customs and Excise.
  791W

  Commodity

  Description

  Note

  43011000

  Raw furskins of mink, whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  43012000

  Raw furskins of rabbit or hare, whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  (a)

  43013000

  Raw furskins of lamb, the following: Astrakhan, Broadtail, Caracul, Persian and similar lambs, Indian, Chinese, Mongolian or Tibetan lambs, whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  43014000

  Raw furskins of beaver, whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  (a)

  43015000

  Raw furskins of muskrat, whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  (a)

  43016000

  Raw furskins of fox, whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  43017010

  Raw furskins of whitecoat pups of harp seal and of pups of hooded seal (blue-backs), whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  43017090

  Raw furskins of other seal, whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  43018010

  Raw furskins of sea otter or of nutria (coypu), whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  43018030

  Raw furskins of marmot, whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  43018050

  Raw furskins of wild felines, whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  43018090

  Other raw furskins, whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  (a)

  43018095

  Other raw furskins (including rabbit, hare, beaver or muskrat), whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  (b)

  43019000

  Raw heads, tails, paws and other pieces or cuttings, suitable for furriers' use

  43021100

  Tanned or dressed furskins of mink, whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  43021200

  Tanned or dressed furskins of rabbit or hare, whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  (c)

  43021935

  Tanned or dressed furskins of rabbit or hare, whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  (d)

  43021300

  Tanned or dressed furskins of lamb, the following: Astrakhan, Broadtail, Caracul, Persian and similar lambs, Indian, Chinese, Mongolian or Tibetan lambs, whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  43021910

  Tanned or dressed furskins of beaver, whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  43021920

  Tanned or dressed furskins of muskrat, whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  43021930

  Tanned or dressed furskins of fox, whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  43021941

  Tanned or dressed furskins of whitecoat pups of harp seal and of pups of hooded seal (blue-backs), whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  43021949

  Tanned or dressed furskins of other seal, whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  43021950

  Tanned or dressed furskins of sea otter or of nutria (coypu), whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  43021960

  Tanned or dressed furskins of marmot, whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  43021970

  Tanned or dressed furskins of wild felines, whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  43021980

  Tanned or dressed furskins of sheep or lambs, whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  43021995

  Other tanned or dressed furskins, whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  43022000

  Tanned or dressed heads, tails, paws and other pieces or cuttings, suitable for furriers' use

  43023010

  "Dropped" furskins

  43023021

  Whole furskins and pieces or cuttings thereof, assembled other than "dropped", of mink

  43023025

  Whole furskins and pieces or cuttings thereof, assembled other than "dropped", of rabbit or hare

  43023031

  Whole furskins and pieces or cuttings thereof, assembled other than "dropped", of lamb, the following: Astrakhan, Broadtail, Caracul, Persian and similar lambs, Indian, Chinese, Mongolian or Tibetan lambs

  43023035

  Whole furskins and pieces or cuttings thereof, assembled other than "dropped", of beaver

  43023041

  Whole furskins and pieces or cuttings thereof, assembled other than "dropped", of muskrat

  43023045

  Whole furskins and pieces or cuttings thereof, assembled other than "dropped", of fox

  43023051

  Whole furskins and pieces or cuttings thereof, assembled other than "dropped", of whitecoat pups of harp seal and of pups of hooded seal (blue-backs)

  43023055

  Whole furskins and pieces or cuttings thereof, assembled other than "dropped", of other seal

  43023061

  Whole furskins and pieces or cuttings thereof, assembled other than "dropped", of sea-otter or nutria (coypu)

  43023065

  Whole furskins and pieces or cuttings thereof, assembled other than "dropped", of marmot

  43023071

  Whole furskins and pieces or cuttings thereof, assembled other than "dropped", of wild felines

  43023075

  Other whole furskins and pieces or cuttings thereof, assembled other than "dropped"

  Notes:

  From 2002, the four codes indicated by (a) were replaced by the one code indicated by (b). Changes such as these are negotiated as part of the continuing process of international harmonisation of customs codes negotiated at the World Customs Organisation and at EU level in the General Rules Committee. Also from 2002, the code indicated by (c) was replaced by the code indicated by (d).

  UK imports of fur classified under "other" categories, since January 2000, in metric tonnes, are given in the table. In 2002 imports of furs classified as "other" were

  Commodity code

  Description

  2000

  2001

  2002

  January 2003

  43018090

  Other raw furskins, whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  9.5

  859.0

  (e)

  (e)

  43018095

  Other raw furskins, whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  (e)

  (e)

  27.4

  2.4

  43021995

  Other tanned or dressed furskins, whole, with or without head, tail or paws

  129.2

  66.6

  60.6

  3.2

  43022000

  Tanned or dressed heads, tails, paws and other pieces or cuttings, suitable for furriers' use

  3.3

  1.5

  1.1

  0.0

  43023075

  Other whole furskins and pieces or cuttings thereof, assembled other than "dropped"

  24.0

  24.8

  20.1

  0.4

  (e) Until 2001, raw furskins of rabbit or hare, beaver and muskrat were separately identified. Since 2002 any imports of these products would have been included under code 43018095 as explained in notes concerning commodity codes (a) and (b) in the previous table.
  792W
  a third lower than in 2000 and nearly 90 per cent. lower than in 2001, despite including some additional products, as described under note (e) to the table.

  Iran
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total value of(a) exports to and (b) imports from Iran were in the last year for which figures are available. [106132]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The value of UK exports in 2002 was £402 million; imports were worth £36 million. These statistics are published by HM Customs and Excise in the December 2002 issue of OTS1, Overseas Trade Statistics, UK Trade with Countries Outside the European Community.

  Iraq
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which British companies have(a) tendered for and (b) been awarded (i) contracts and (ii) sub-contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq. [105124]

  Ms Hewitt
  We wish to see UK companies play a substantial role in the humanitarian and redevelopment process in Iraq. We understand that a number of UK companies are pursuing contracts for post-conflict redevelopment work. It would not be appropriate to name individual companies.

  Medical Research Council
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans she has to assess the working practices of the Medical Research Council; and if she will make a statement; [106247]

  (2) what plans the Medical Research Council has to fund future alpha rated research projects; [106246]

  (3) what plans the Medical Research Council has made to increase funding for research into obstetrics; and if she will make a statement; [106249]

  (4) what plans she has to assess the funding and management of the Medical Research Council. [106248]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Medical Research Council (MRC) is internationally renowned for its promotion of excellent medical research. Its core mission is to support research that will have an impact on human health. Everyone is in agreement that it does this very well.

  The Office of Science and Technology (OST) has processes in place to review the planned activities of all the Research Councils. Each council, including the MRC, submits an annual Operating Plan which sets

  Whole life award values

  £ million

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Provision for renewals of existing long-term investments (grants and units), to meet anticipated demand

  65

  105

  180

  Career Establishment Grants

  6

  6

  6

  Training/Career Development: Fellowships and studentships

  39

  40

  41

  SR2002 specific initiatives

  0

  45

  105

  All other new awards

  30

  29

  38

  Totals

  140

  225

  370

  794W
  out their planning and funding assumptions for the following year. The MRC will be publishing its 2003–04 Operating Plan on its website in due course.

  Some of the recommendations and conclusions of the Select Committee report on the MRC issued on 25 March related to management and planning. We will be responding in detail to the recommendations of the SC report in due course and as part of this will consider what additional elements we might need to introduce in this specific case into the standard monitoring and reporting processes that we have with Research Councils in order to address the issues identified.

  OST recognised some time ago that the processes underpinning the ability of the MRC to make a judgment of the financial implications of forward commitments could be improved. OST have been working with them to address this and are pleased with the progress made to date.

  The MRC does not normally earmark funds for particular topics: research proposals in all areas will compete for the funding available. The MRC spent an estimated £19.1 million in 2001–02 on its reproductive health portfolio. Reproductive health research includes normal and abnormal fetal and placental development and growth, as well as conditions affecting pregnancy and childbirth.

  The MRC always welcomes high quality applications for support into any aspect of human health and these are judged in open competition with other demands on funding. Awards will continue to be made according to their scientific quality and importance to human health.

  In respect to funding alpha rated research projects, it is not possible to anticipate the number of applications MRC will receive, nor what the outcome of the subsequent peer review and rating will be at this stage in the cycle. However, set out as follows is a table representing the MRC's current estimate of the value of awards MRC will be making over the coming session:

  Estimates for funding for sessions 2003–04 to 2005–06

  These figures reflect the estimated value of awards which the MRC could make for the session which runs September to July as a useful guide to applicants. Alpha rated research projects would be included in all but the third row of the table. Whole life award values are the total value of awards. (A grant of £1 million per annum would show as a total of £5 million in the table). They do not represent MRC's annual expenditure on awards.
  795W
  These estimates are necessarily very approximate since final totals still depend critically on the mix of awards made from the different forms of MRC support and assume no other change in MRC's circumstances or calls on its budget.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the expected saving to public funds from the private finance initiative schemes due to become operational in 2003. [105717]

  Ms Hewitt
  There are no PFI schemes due to become operational in 2003 within the Department.

  Solar Energy
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will make a decision on funding for phase 2 of the Solar PV Major Demonstration Programme in 2003–04; and if she will make a statement. [106201]

  Mr. Wilson
  The success of the £20 million first phase of the Major Photovoltaics Demonstration Programme will be reviewed against its objectives in the first half of 2004, and a decision on funding for any subsequent phase will be made thereafter.

  Temporary Workers Directive
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had on the appropriateness of Article 137 of the Nice Treaty as a legal base for the proposed EU Directive on Temporary Workers; and if she will make a statement. [105849]

  Alan Johnson
  The UK has raised the question of whether a directive with a treaty base of Article 137(6) can cover pay. The European Commission and several other member states are of the view that it can because it only addresses pay in terms of non-discrimination and does not set absolute pay levels. The Government have continued to reserve their position on the inclusion of pay under Article 137 pending further clarification of the definition of pay.

  Travel Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost was of travel by train by staff in her Department in 2002. [106334]

  Ms Hewitt
  Information in respect of the year 2002 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In 1997–98 sampling carried out in preparing the Department's Green Transport Plan indicated that about 90 per cent. of travel by staff for official business was by public transport, mostly by train. It is estimated that the cost of this rail travel was about £1.3 million.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Food Imports
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much 796W
  (a) beef, (b) lamb, (c) port and (d) chicken was imported into the United Kingdom during the last 12 months; and from which countries these imports are allowed. [106696]

  Mr. Morley
  During the last 12 months the United Kingdom has imported, 224,000 tonnes of beef, 102.000 tonnes of lamb, 291,000 tonnes of pork and 305,000 tonnes of poultry meat.

  Meat imports are permitted provided that the exporting country is approved to export to the EU; the meat is accompanied by appropriate animal and public health certification and that the meat originates from EU approved establishments.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent steps she has taken to strengthen the system of checks on food imports. [104909]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 25 March 2003]The EU operates a system of strict controls on imports of animal products. All products of animal origin must be checked on entry into the UK at a border inspection post (BIP). Following the outbreak of FMD, the State Veterinary Service have introduced an audit programme for BIPs to ensure consistent application of these import checks. During the visits officers provide advice to BIPs and monitor progress to correct any deficiencies found.

  Additional measures have been introduced at ports and airports to tackle illegal imports. Temporary agency staff attached to the local and port health authorities and funded by Defra, have been recruited to carry out checks to detect smuggled goods—teams of six are based at our major airports and teams of two at major seaports. We are also paying for additional checks through overtime elsewhere. Further inspection resources have also been provided through the detector dog pilot, and a publicity campaign which has targeted ports, airports and points of departure. We have announced that with effect from 11 April, HM Customs and Excise will be taking over responsibility for anti-smuggling activity since they have the infrastructure, intelligence and experience to target more effectively.

  The Food Standards Agency has responsibility for public health checks on all other imported foods. Following a Cabinet Office review of checks on imports the Food Standards Agency are leading a step change project to deliver improved co-ordination of all imported food controls by local authorities and port health authorities at seaports, airports and inland.

  Waste Incinerators
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many waste incinerators have been(a) approved and (b) built since May 1997. [106702]

  Mr. Meacher
  I understand that since 1997 19 municipal incinerators have been approved for operation or a change in operation by the Environment Agency under relevant pollution control legislation. Of these eight have been built or substantially modified, and have commenced or re-commenced operation.

  Farmers' Markets
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what further support she intends to give to farmers' markets. [106703]

  Alun Michael
  We welcome the development of farmers' markets and the benefits they can bring consumers and farmers alike. Farmers' markets continue to be eligible for support under the Rural Enterprise Scheme and the Agriculture Development Scheme, provided that the projects for which funding is sought meet the required eligibility criteria. A number of projects relating to farmers' markets have received funding under these schemes. In addition, the National Association of Farmers' Markets continues to receive financial support from the Countryside Agency, which we grant-aid.

  Climate Change
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will make a statement on the impact on climate change of aviation. [106704]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that forcing of the climate due to aviation was responsible for 3.5 per cent. of man-made forcing of the climate in 1992. Forcing due to aviation is projected to grow by between 2.6 and 11 times by 2050. This is projected to be equivalent to 3 per cent. to 15 per cent. of total man-made forcing of the climate in 2050. The aviation industry, like other industries, needs to pay for the environmental damage that it causes, and the Government will shortly be holding discussions with stakeholders on the appropriate use of economic instruments to achieve this.

  Electronic Collars for Animals
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will make a statement on her policy on electric shock collars for animals. [106705]

  Mr. Morley
  I have just completed a consultation exercise on animal welfare law. I would not wish to make any announcement concerning official views on electronic collars for animals in advance of any announcement of the measures that may be introduced as part of the Animal Welfare Bill.

  Flood Protection (Rural Areas)
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will make a statement on the public money made available to fund flood protection in rural areas. [106706]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra provides grant aid on capital flood and coastal defence projects that meet specified criteria and an appropriate priority score but decisions regarding which projects to promote and their timing rest with operating authorities. The Government's798W
  provision overall is set to rise to £564 million in 2005–06 but provision is not made within this specifically for rural areas.

  Agri-environment Schemes
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received on her Department's agri-environment schemes. [106698]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has received 150 external responses to the consultation on a draft framework for future agri-environment schemes in England that closed at the end of February 2003. These responses are currently being analysed and we will publish the results once this exercise is complete.

  Defra also continues to receive a small number of individual representations on this subject.

  Agri-monetary Compensation (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money has been paid in agri-monetary compensation in the county of Buckinghamshire since 9 January 2002. [106375]

  Alun Michael
  The RPA has paid £222,358.12 in agri-monetary compensation in the county of Buckinghamshire between 9 January 2002 and the end of March 2003.

  Aquaculture
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking to promote research and development in aquaculture. [106808]

  Mr. Morley
  The LINK Aquaculture programme, launched in 1996 and sponsored by Defra, SEERAD and the National Environment Research Council contributed approximately £5.3 million to thirty-seven R and D projects, which, together with industry match funding, created an R and D programme valued at approximately £10 million. The Defra contribution to this was £2.2 million. This highly successful programme which comes to an end this year has been subject to comprehensive independent review, see the Defra website (http://www.defra.gov.uk/esg/economics/econeval/LINK-Aqua.PDF).

  Defra's average current annual spend on research into sustainable aquaculture and fish/shellfish health issues is £1.75 million. In 2002 Defra provisionally set aside £1 million for funding finfish and shellfish aquaculture research jointly with industry and with other sponsors over the next five years. My officials are giving careful consideration to the priority research areas which the various sectors of the industry identified and discussed with sponsors at a recent meeting of the UK-wide Committee for Aquaculture Research and Development.

  Bovine TB
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment
  799W
  she has made of the reasons for TB infections in cattle; and what estimate she has made of the percentage of cases that involve cattle-to-cattle transmission. [106662]

  Mr. Morley
  The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG) attaches a high priority to the relative importance of cattle-to-cattle transmission, but it is not possible to put a percentage figure on it at present. Current research will help fill the gaps. While the badger culling trial is looking at the part badgers might play in the transmission of cattle TB, other research, such as the TB99 epidemiological questionnaire and cattle pathogenesis studies, should provide data about cattle-to-cattle transmission. A research project looking at TB in herds restocked after the foot and mouth outbreak should also provide valuable data. A preliminary analysis of the risk factors associated with cattle TB is set out in the ISG's Third Report, which is available online at: www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/isg/report/isg3.pdf

  CAP Review
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when she will next meet EU partners to discuss the Mid-Term CAP Review. [106700]

  Alun Michael
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, will next meet EU partners to discuss reform of the CAP at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 8 April.

  £ million

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Expenditure on existing agreements

  Funds available for new applications

  Expenditure on existing agreements

  Funds available for new applications

  Expenditure on existing agreements

  Funds available for new applications

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme1

  72.5

  8.5

  65.6

  30.4

  55.7

  55.3

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme

  45.2

  2.8

  45.2

  2.8

  45.2

  2.8

  Organic Farming Scheme

  6.5

  15.5

  2.4

  20.6

  1.5

  21.5

  Farm Woodland Premium Scheme

  10.7

  0.3

  10.4

  1.6

  10.4

  2.6

  Woodland Grant Scheme

  7.4

  13.6

  5.4

  16.6

  4.1

  17.9

  Hill Farm Allowance2

  34.8

  0.0

  27.2

  0.0

  27.2

  0.0

  Rural Enterprise Scheme

  10.2

  13.8

  2.3

  33.7

  0.7

  35.3

  Processing and Marketing Grant

  6.6

  1.4

  1.5

  6.5

  0.3

  7.7

  Vocational Training Scheme

  1.7

  2.3

  0.8

  3.2

  0.2

  3.8

  Energy Crops Scheme

  0.1

  4.9

  0.0

  5.0

  0.0

  5.0

  1The rising profile of available funds for new applications will be reduced each year by the expenditure on applications approved in the preceding year(s).

  2Expenditure on the Hill Farm Allowance is determined by claims from farmers in the Less Favoured Areas who in any one year have an eligible forage area and keep sheep and/or breeding cattle. Payment rates are set according to demand and the available funds. The budget is planned to be spent in full each year.

  The budget for each of the schemes is kept under review, and some limited re-balancing of the available funds may be necessary, with European Commission approval as required, to meet the changing priorities of the Programme.

  Landfill Tax Credit Scheme
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the

  Departmental Creche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what creche facilities are provided by her Department; and at what cost. [104289]

  Alun Michael
  Defra provide 149 full-time subsidised nursery places for Departmental and Agency staff at six sites. The actual number of children using the nurseries is higher than this figure due to many of the places being allocated on a part-time basis. The cost of nursery places and the amount of subsidy varies for each location.

  School holiday playscheme places are also available to Departmental and Agency staff working at eight sites. The number of users varies at each site and for each school holiday period.

  The overall cost of this provision for the HQ offices (York and London) during the 2002–2003 financial year is estimated to be £88,500. Childcare facilities at other sites are funded from local budgets. Defra keeps its childcare provision arrangements under regular review.

  English Rural Development Programme
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 17 March 2003,Official Report, column 502W, on the English Rural Development Programme, how much of each of the amounts shown is accounted for by expenditure already agreed to; and how much is available to new applicants, broken down by scheme in each case. [106227]

  Alun Michael
  The planned expenditure on schemes under the England Rural Development Programme is broken down as follows:

  statement made by the hon. Member for Wentworth on 3 February, Official Report, column 5WS, on the landfill tax credit scheme, (1) how much her Department is paying ENTRUST to administer the transitional funding application process in England; and whether this activity of ENTRUST for the public sector is being subsidised by private sector payments to ENTRUST; [103504]
  801W
  (2) what the terms of engagement are between DEFRA and ENTRUST regarding ENTRUST's administration of the transitional funding application process in England. [103505]

  Mr. Meacher
  To administer the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme (LTCS) Sustainable Waste Management Legacy Fund, ENTRUST will receive a fee of 2 per cent. of the total amount distributed (i.e. if the Fund distributes £20 million to eligible applicants, the administration fee received will be £400,000). The precise figure will not be known until all applications have been processed. The closing date for applications is 31 March. This fee is in line with the separate payment ENTRUST receives to regulate the LTCS and represents good value for money. The cost of administering the Legacy Fund is not being subsidised by payments from tax credits to regulate the LTCS.

  The rules of engagement between Defra and ENTRUST regarding the administration of the Fund are set out in a memorandum of understanding between the two parties. A copy of this memorandum will be posted on the ENTRUST website.

  Live Animal Transportation
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information she has collated about the European Commission's policy on the future of live animal transportation. [107268]

  Mr. Morley
  The European Commission has stated that it intends to present a proposal to replace the existing EU legislation on the welfare of animals during transport and that this proposal will aim at:providing more harmonised and stricter procedures in order to ensure better enforcement. This aspect will relate to the conditions for transporters, road drivers and vehicles to be authorised, certificates for transporters, drivers and vehicles and exchange of information between national authorities in case of infringements;
  updating the technical standards in line with the new scientific data on animal transport provided by the 2002 report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. This report covers a wide range of subjects, and in particular, includes aspects on travelling time sequences, space allowances, training of drivers, fitness of animals to be transported, higher standards for the transport of horses and requirements for the means of transport;
  extending some training and operational requirements for livestock markets; and
  providing detailed rules for livestock vessels.

  This statement and additional information following public consultation by the Commission on this topic at the end of 2002 is set out on the European Commission's website under the work of the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General.

  Lobsters
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to introduce a statutory instrument to ban the landing of buried lobsters; and if she will make a statement. [106757]
  802W
  Mr. Morley
  We have held a consultation exercise with the industry and there was broad consensus that, in the absence of an established European management regime, we should act to provide additional protection for lobster stocks. As soon as resources become available we will publish a draft Statutory Instrument to prevent the landing of buried lobsters. This will be subject to the normal consultation process.

  Power Stations
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of the sulphur bubble she calculates arises from power stations operating during 1996 to 2000. [106466]

  Alun Michael
  I presume that this question refers to a sulphur dioxide 'bubble' in a national plan under the revised Large Combustion Plant Directive (2001/80/EC) for plants that were in existence in 1987. We have a choice whether to implement the revised Directive for these plants by the emission limits approach or by adopting the national plan approach. Measures under the Directive would apply to these plants from 2008. If we adopted the national plan approach, we expect power stations in the electricity supply industry to contribute about 66 per cent. to the calculation of the bubble, which would be about 177 kilo tonnes. This is based on current information about operation of these plants between 1996 and 2000.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the quantity of coal to be burnt in UK power stations in 2010; and if she will make a statement. [106471]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The most recent energy projections for the UK, published as Energy Paper 68 in November 2000, show an estimated range for coal demand in the major power stations of approximately nine to 20 million tonnes of oil equivalent in the year 2010. This corresponds to a coal tonnage of around 15 to 31 million tonnes. The estimated range is based on two different energy price assumptions, a working assumption for the means by which operators would react to the revised large combustion plant directive and a number of other assumptions.

  As noted in supporting material published alongside the Energy White Paper, coal burn in electricity generation over the past couple of years has been higher than levels that might have been expected based on Energy Paper 68. In the light of recent market experience and policy developments we will be moving on to review the projections.

  Illustrative figures in supporting material to the Energy White Paper indicate that coal can continue to make a significant contribution to the UK's future energy needs, but the White Paper acknowledges that coal may face increasing pressures from an environmental perspective.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the terms of reference are of ENTEC to consider the New Large Combustion Plants Directive; and if she will make a statement. [106472]
  803W
  Alun Michael
  ENTEC is undertaking consultancy work on the revised Large Combustion Plant Directive (2001/80/EC) for plant that were in existence in 1987. This work is primarily focussing on establishing the costs and benefits of the implementation options under the revised Directive. We have a choice whether to implement the revised Directive for these plants by the emission limits approach or by adopting the national plan approach, and results from the consultancy work will inform our decision. Measures under the Directive would apply to these plants from 2008.

  Rural Payments Agency
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the reasons are for delays in payments to farmers by the Rural Payments Agency regarding set-aside land after grass crops; and what information the Rural Payments Agency may require in order to effect the payments as speedily as possible. [106847]

  Alun Michael
  The payments to farmers to which the hon. Member refers result from a decision of the European Court of Justice in a case concerning penalties imposed in the United Kingdom for set-aside following grass. That decision was subsequently clarified in a judgment of the High Court of England and Wales on 14 November 2002.

  Defra lawyers are currently awaiting a response from the NFU lawyers in respect of those farmers in the group litigation. Of those 260 farmers affected by the judgment who are not in the group litigation, 188 have already been contacted for further information relating to the cultivation and harvesting of grass from the areas of land that had been the subject of penalties. 27 of these cases have been rejected as not meeting the relevant criteria for settlement.

  Six-day Rule
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with(a) farming unions and (b) organisers of rural fairs and festivals regarding the effect of the six-day rule. [106699]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra Ministers and officials regularly meet and correspond with farming union representatives and other stakeholders, including agricultural shows organisers, on a number of animal health matters.

  Water Meters
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many water meters were installed in houses(a) in England and Wales and (b) in the Buckingham constituency in 2001–02. [106381]

  Mr. Morley
  The net increase in the number of household customers charged on the basis of metering for the year 2001–02, in England and Wales, was 230,915.

  Information is not collected on a constituency basis.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Aid Convoy Protection
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with aid agencies about protection for aid convoys being provided by the British military. [106961]

  Clare Short
  The UK military is working to establish safe and secure environments in the areas of Iraq it controls. This will allow humanitarian agencies to enter and provide humanitarian assistance where it is needed. It is likely that some areas will be made secure quickly; others will take longer.

  NGOs based in Kuwait have been given passes to enter southern Iraq and are intending to enter soon. The UN is carrying out its own security assessment of parts of southern Iraq, the results of which will determine the timing of UN operations there.

  Aid agencies prefer to operate within a 'humanitarian space' made secure by the controlling forces rather than being directly escorted by military forces. The latter could be seen to undermine the independence and impartiality the agencies require to gain access to those in need.

  Hague Convention
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to encourage countries to sign the Hague Convention. [106914]

  Clare Short
  Our objective is to support countries in their plans to eliminate poverty. Our discussions with them focus on the most effective way we can work in partnership with them to achieve this.

  HIPC
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what mechanisms are in place to ensure the proper ownership of the Heavily Indebted Poor Country Initiative by debtor nations. [106185]

  Clare Short
  The enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative was agreed by the international community at the Annual Meetings of the World bank and the IMF in September 1999. These institutions work jointly with the HIPC countries to assess the level of debt relief required to bring debt sustainability ratios down to the HIPC thresholds-150 per cent. debt to export earnings and 250 per cent. debt to government revenue. Linked to this process, countries are required to develop national poverty reduction strategies setting out how government resources, including savings from debt relief, will be spent. These strategies, which are produced in consultation with civil society and donors, are increasingly owned and led by the countries themselves, reflecting a fundamental change in the relationship between donors and developing country partners.
  805W
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking, along with other donor country governments, to improve long-term debt sustainability in heavily indebted poor countries. [106191]

  Clare Short
  The UK, along with other donors, is committed to countries exiting the HIPC process with sustainable levels of debt. The World bank and the IMF have agreed to provide additional debt relief at Completion Point to those countries that have suffered a fundamental change in their economic circumstances due to external shocks. The UK is pressing these institutions to widen their approach to topping up, so that any HIPC eligible country facing unsustainable debts, that has demonstrated its commitment to poverty reduction and economic reform, should qualify for this additional relief. It is essential that countries take strong measures to improve their economic position in order to maintain long term debt sustainability. This means strengthening their debt management offices, taking out new borrowing on concessional terms only, and diversifying their export markets. Through the multi donor HIPC Capacity Building Programme, we are helping countries to learn to plan and manage their debt more effectively, and to negotiate with their creditors better terms on their external debts.

  Humanitarian Aid
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development for how many protracted humanitarian crises the UK Government is providing aid(a) directly and (b) through the UN. [106143]

  Clare Short
  My Department is providing aid to 13 protracted humanitarian crises, some of the funding goes through the UN agencies and other humanitarian agencies.

  Afghanistan

  Burma

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  Ethiopia

  Guinea

  Liberia

  Iraq

  Palestine

  Sierra Leone

  Southern Africa

  North Korea

  Cote D'Ivoire

  North Caucasus

  Infant Malnutrition
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what information she has collated on the number of children aged under five years who have died of malnutrition in each of the last five years in(a) Afghanistan, (b) Cote d'Ivoire,(c) Ethiopia, (d) Iraq, (e) Malawi, (f) Palestine and (g) Pakistan. [106530]

  Clare Short
  Malnutrition is rarely a direct cause of death in children. However, it is frequently an underlying cause, and estimates suggest it is a contributing factor in over 50 per cent. of all deaths in 806W
  children under five years of age. This is because malnourished children have lowered resistance to infection, and are more likely to die from common diseases such as diarrhoea and pneumonia.

  Because it is normally a contributing factor rather than a direct cause, reliable figures on numbers of deaths from malnutrition are difficult to obtain, and tend not to reflect the true nature of the situation. The proportion of children under the age of five years who are underweight is generally considered a better measure on nutritional status within a particular country. National data is rarely available on an annual basis, but the most recent figures, and the total number of deaths in children under the age of five years are given in the table for the countries you have requested.

  Country

  Percentage of under-fives underweight (1995–2000)

  Under 5 mortalityrate (per 1000 livebirths), 2000

  Afghanistan

  48

  257

  Cote d'Ivoire

  21

  173

  Ethiopia

  47

  174

  Iraq

  16

  130

  Malawi

  25

  188

  Palestine

  4

  25

  Pakistan

  38

  110

  Sources:

  Unicef and WDI

  Iran
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which aid projects her Department supports in Iran. [106131]

  Clare Short
  Since 1999 my Department has been supporting the work of the AMAR International Charitable Foundation in Iran for medical and sanitary support for Iraqi refugees from the southern marsh area of Iraq, both in and outside of designated refugee camps. This support so far has been for a total of £1.45 million.

  Iraq
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contingency plans she has to provide reconstruction assistance to Iraq in the event of no further resolution being made by the United Nations relating to reconstruction in Iraq. [106189]

  Clare Short
  A UN mandate for reconstruction is a legal requirement for UK involvement in significant reform of Iraqi institutions, and a precondition for the engagement of the World bank, the International Monetary Fund and many countries.

  Without a UN mandate the UK's assistance would have to be limited to providing humanitarian assistance

  807W
  and ensuring the continuity of the civil administration, according to our obligations under the Geneva and Hague conventions governing armed conflict.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to reestablish a logistical distribution team, funded by her Department, to handle the distribution of humanitarian aid in Iraq. [106962]

  Clare Short
  DFID's policy is to work through partner agencies such as the UN, International Committee of the Red Cross and NGOs who have relevant expertise and local experience in the distribution of humanitarian assistance.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Basra, Iraq. [106958]

  Clare Short
  Our daily published reports on the humanitarian situation in Iraq have reported regularly on the situation in Basra and the problems with water supplies.

  The World Health Organisation, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and others are very concerned about the possible health impact of ongoing water supply problems in Basra. We share these concerns. The ICRC are working to try to maintain and improve supplies.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance she has made available to Saharan people living in refugee camps. [105624]

  Clare Short
  DFID's assistance to the Saharawi refugees is channelled through contributions to the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO). We believe that this collaborative approach towards funding, alongside our international partners, represents the best way of addressing the problems faced by the refugee population.

  A global plan for assistance to the Saharawi was agreed by the EC in May last year. This will provide 14.34 million euros (approximately £9 million) of assistance over a 15 month period. This brings the total assistance provided since 1993 to over 95 million euros, including over 79 million euros in food aid programme co-ordinated by ECHO, the World Food Programme and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Approximately 19 per cent. of this funding comes from my Department's budget.

  DFID also supports refugees through UNHCR including, but not specifically, Saharawi in camps in Algeria. My Department signed a four year Institutional Strategy Paper with UNHCR in 2002 which guarantees the agency core funding for each year of the partnership. For 2003 this contribution is £14 million. As this contribution is unearmarked it is difficult to ascertain exactly how much of the £14 million is spent in the context of this specific refugee situation.

TRANSPORT

  Bus Companies
  Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of bus companies' income in 2002 was generated from(a) local and (b) national subsidies. [106454]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Based on statistics for England (including London) in 2001–02, 25 per cent. of total bus company income was provided by local authorities and Transport for London, in the form of subsidy for bus services and reimbursement of concessionary fares. 10 per cent. was provided by my Department in the form of Bus Service Operators Grant (formerly called Fuel Duty Rebate).

  Daylight Saving
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of(a) the change in the number of lives lost per year and (b) the economic benefits if Britain adopted daylight saving. [106672]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 28 March 2003,Official Report, column 410W.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his estimate is of the expenditure of his Department on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002. [106310]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 15 January 2003,Official Report, column 623W.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the running costs in 2002 were of(a) his Ministers private offices, separately identifying expenditure on staff. and (b) his Department. [105990]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department was formed on 29 May 2002. Information in relation departmental running costs for 2002–03 will be published shortly in departmental appropriation and resource accounts.

  EU Second Railway Package
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the EU Second Railway Package. [107266]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given my right hon. Friend, the Minister for Transport, to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Falkirk East (Mr. Connarty) on the 2 April 2003,Official Report, columns 703–05W.

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many contracts the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has given to independent assessors in the last two years; and what assessors were appointed to the Humber. [106786]
  809W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) appointed an assessor in December 2001 in order to observe the transitional arrangements made by Associated British Ports to overcome the strike by their former pilots on the Humber. His findings are included in the Department's report on the new Humber pilotage service, which was published in April 2002.

  Maritime Inspections
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) qualifications and (b) training are required for Maritime and Coastguard Agency inspectors to inspect living and working conditions on UK registered ships. [106859]

  Mr. Jamieson
  On entry to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), marine surveyors must have a master mariner or chief engineer qualification, or a relevant maritime degree. Qualifications and experience are supplemented by internal training and guidance based on International Labour Organization (ILO) and UK requirements.

  In-service training is provided by experienced surveyors and a specialist food and hygiene inspector. The MCA also uses a competency framework to maintain and develop its surveyor skills, which includes Ship Health and Safety and Welfare. Training is kept under review.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meetings of the 27 and 28 March with European transport ministers. [107366]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend. the Minister for Transport, to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Falkirk East (Mr. Connarty) on the 2 April 2003,Official Report, columns 703–05W.

  Rail Cards
  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Association of Train Companies regarding the use of railcards for train journeys costing less than £10; and what his policy is on encouraging short journeys by train. [106424]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ministers have frequent discussions with representatives of the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC), al: which a range of issues have been discussed, including their proposals for the use of the South East Network card. The availability of rail cards are not regulated. Decisions on its availability and conditions of use are therefore a matter for the train operators.

  Railways
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on(a) recent changes and (b) planned changes to (i) funding arrangements for freight on the railways and (ii) his Department's strategy for increasing the volume of freight carried on Britain's rail network. [104939]
  810W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on 25 February 2003,Official Report, column 486W.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent research has been used to assess passenger(a) personal security and (b) perceptions about their surroundings on the railways; and if he will make a statement. [106888]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department is currently reviewing passenger perceptions of personal security in public transport journeys. This review follows on from earlier Departmental research published in 1997. We are also currently identifying good practice on on-train personal security. Part of this work includes considering the perceptions of passengers.

  Analysing the perceptions of rail passengers has also been included in recent research projects to find out the transport needs of women, older people, and people from minority ethnic communities.

  The Secure Stations Scheme is a national accreditation scheme recognising set standards of good practice in rail station, staff and passenger security. An independent survey of passenger perceptions is undertaken as part of the station's application process.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many incidences of arson on the railways there were in each year since 1995, broken down by(a) train operating company and (b) line. [87629]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 December 2002, c. 685 W]: There is no legal obligation for the industry to report the TOC involved in an incident reportable under the Reporting of Injuries, Disease and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR). However, since January 2000 the industry has agreed to record the TOC on a voluntary basis. Line details are reportable under RIDDOR but the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has only been able to capture this information since January 2000 with the introduction of its new database system.

  A table provided by the HSE, which records details of arson instances between January 2000 and March 2002 including the TOC and line involved, has been deposited in the Libraries of the House. In addition, a table provided by the British Transport Police on the number of reported incidents of arson since 1999 has also been deposited in the Libraries of the House.

  Stansted Airport
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reasons underlie the differences between the projected capacity figures for the three expansion options for Stansted Airport outlined in The Future of Air Transport in the South East and SERAS report No. 51. [106503]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The terminal capacities for both the one and three additional runway options at Stansted presented in the "Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East" do not differ from those quoted in the SERAS report No. 51 (Stansted
  811W
  options five and seven). Both documents quote capacities of 82 and 129 million passengers per annum (mppa) respectively.

  The consultation option for two new runways at Stansted was developed as a variant in the early stages of the study and is presented in the "SERAS Stage One Appraisal Findings report (section 4.1.9)". The capacity quoted for this option in the consultation document and that report is 102 mppa. Copies of all reports are available in the House Libraries.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Crime (Clear-up Rate)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the clear-up rate for crime was in each of the District Council Units in Belfast in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [106238]

  Jane Kennedy
  The following table shows notifiable offences recorded and cleared by the police in each of the District Command Units in Belfast for the period January—December 2002.

  These figures are provisional and may be subject to revision.

  District Command Unit

  Recorded

  Cleared

  Clearance rate (percentage)

  Belfast East

  8,257

  1,210

  14.7

  Belfast North

  12,315

  1,523

  12.4

  Belfast South

  18,373

  2,737

  14.9

  Belfast West

  6,231

  1,259

  20.2

  HMP Maghaberry
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to implement the recommendations set out in the recent report on HMP Maghaberry by HM Inspector of Prisons and to ensure that more female officers and managers are deployed in Mourne House. [106049]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Northern Ireland Prison Service have in place an action plan to implement the accepted recommendations contained in the HM Inspector of Prisons Report on Maghaberry Prison. The Service has also commissioned a feasibility study to address female

  Number of firearms, ammunition and explosives recovered: 1 January 1996 to 28 February 2003

  Belfast area

  Northern Ireland

  Year

  Firearms

  Ammunition

  Explosives (Kgs)

  Firearms

  Ammunition

  Explosives (Kgs)

  1996

  25

  1,318

  452.23

  97

  10,701

  1,677.03

  1997

  36

  4,001

  87.46

  105

  8,804

  1,257.70

  1998

  21

  3,314

  209.56

  88

  12,189

  883.35

  1999

  38

  5,862

  2.35

  113

  16,472

  89.26

  2000

  42

  6,064

  31.59

  134

  10,722

  311.21

  2001

  34

  3,500

  15.40

  97

  10,986

  119.58

  2002

  38

  6,688

  2.10

  125

  13,600

  8.21

  20031

  8

  120

  2.33

  24

  1,571

  12.82

  Total

  242

  30,867

  803.02

  783

  85,045

  4,359.16

  1 28 February

  812W
  prisoner and immigration detainee accommodation in light of a recent Strategic Prison Estate Review. The deployment of staff within the Service takes account of operational requirements and must be in line with equal opportunities regulations.

  Murders
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many murder cases in Northern Ireland opened in the last 30 years remain unsolved. [106239]

  Jane Kennedy
  Four hundred and eighty-six murders remain unsolved from 1987 to 2003. Statistics were not held on computer prior to 1987 and the information requested from 1973 to 1986 could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Police (Lisburn)
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many police officers are attached to the Lisburn District Command Unit; and what plans there are to increase this number. [106870]

  Jane Kennedy
  On 1 April 2003 the complement of police officers in Lisburn District Command Unit was as follows:

  Police Officers

  Number

  Regular Officers

  217

  Full-time Reserve Officers

  89

  Part-time Reserve Officers

  58

  The Police Service in consultation with the Policing Board has produced a human resource planning strategy to ensure that there is sufficient support for operational policing. There will also be a redeployment of police officers from many Headquarters roles which should see an increase of officers in District Command Units over the next three years.

  Weapons Finds
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many finds of arms and bomb making material there have been in(a) Belfast and (b) Northern Ireland in each year since 1996. [105910]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is included in the following table:
  813W
  Note:

  1. The following types of incidents are included:

  Weapons, ammunition and explosives recovered as a result of a person/rummage search (e.g. house/vehicle searches).

  Ammunition recovered as a result of intimidation incidents (e.g. bullets received in mail).

  Weapons, ammunition and explosives found by members of the public.

  Other violent incidents where weapons/ammunition have been used and recovered (e.g. armed robberies).

  Paramilitary style attacks involving shootings where weapons/ammunition have been recovered.

  2. Explosives recovered figures have beer supplied by the army and exclude those seized as a result of ATO defusing devices.

  3. Belfast area includes those PSNI stations covered by Belfast east, Belfast west, Belfast north and Belfast south DCUs.

  2002 and 2003 statistics are provisional and are subject to minor amendment.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what(a) the total budget and (b) the cost of administration were in the latest year for which figures are available for (i) her Department and (ii) each of the non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department. [105009]

  Tessa Jowell
  As published in the Department's resource accounts 2001–02, the total budget and administration costs of the Department were £33,032,000 and £31,584,000 respectively.

  The total budgets of the non-departmental bodies sponsored by the Department are listed in Note 7, Section M, to the resource accounts 2001–02 under the estimate column. Copies of the Department's resource accounts may be obtained from the Library of the House.

  Information on administration costs of each of the non-departmental bodies is not held centrally and can be obtained from the bodies' annual reports and accounts for 2001–02, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the running costs in 2002 were of(a) her Ministers' private offices, separately identifying expenditure on staff, and (b) her Department. [105999]

  Dr. Howells
  The running costs information relating to the Ministers' private offices and the Department for 2001–02 is shown in the table. Figures for the running costs for 2002–03 will be published later in the year in the departmental resource accounts 2002–03.

  FY 2001–02

  (£ millions)

  DCMS running costs

  31.584

  Ministers' private offices running costs

  1.667

  Ministers' private offices staff costs

  1.263

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff were employed by(a) her Department and (b) each of the non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department in each of the last five years. [105010]

  Dr. Howells
  The information for DCMS is set out in the following table.
  814W

  Staff

  2003

  475

  2002

  468

  2001

  405

  2000

  400

  1999

  372

  The Department does not maintain a central record of staff within each of the non-departmental bodies sponsored by us. This information could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Iraq
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures are in place to ensure that British broadcasters do not violate the Geneva Convention in their coverage of the war in Iraq. [106221]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 1 April 2003]: The ITC establish high standards in relation to privacy and human dignity by placing, in their programme code, certain requirements on UK broadcasters. These include guidance on respect for human dignity and treatment of minorities. Broadcasters must adhere to these rules and respect them as regards prisoners of war. Equally these rules apply to the treatment of footage of dead soldiers and civilians. I expect that current ITC regulations will prevent the violation of the Geneva Convention occurring in material broadcast from a UK licensed service.

  BBC producers' guidelines also recognise the principles of the Geneva Convention. The BBC believes that its editorial policies are fully consistent with the principles of the Geneva Convention. Their editorial policies (which are in the public domain) include guidelines on the coverage of casualties, death and injury and prisoners of war.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will investigate whether there has been a violation of the Geneva Convention by the BBC following their televising of film of United States soldiers held by Iraq as prisoners of war; and if she will make a statement. [106222]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 1 Apri1 2003]: The BBC producers' guidelines recognise the principles of the Geneva Convention; individual editorial decisions on content are ultimately matters for the BBC Board of Governors.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff are employed by her Department. [106292]
  815W
  Dr. Howells
  The Department currently employs 475 staff.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Academic Achievement
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on academic achievement at(a) Key Stage 3, (b) GCSE and (c) A-level for pupils from pupil referral units in each academic year since 1997. [102557]

  (a) Key Stage 3 Test for pupils in Pupil Referral Units in England 1997–2002

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Percentage of pupils achieving level 5 or above

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  English

  7

  9

  3

  4

  5

  7

  Mathematics

  14

  11

  7

  10

  13

  16

  Science

  10

  7

  3

  6

  10

  11

  Number of eligible pupils

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  English

  301

  381

  742

  581

  730

  741

  Mathematics

  331

  419

  811

  627

  781

  784

  Science

  324

  406

  779

  599

  751

  778

  (b) GCSE/GNVQ achievements of 15 year old pupils in Pupil Referral Units in England 1997–2002

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Percentage achieving

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5 or more grades A*—C

  0.6

  0.8

  0.7

  0.6

  1.1

  1.5

  1 or more grades A*—G

  36.2

  45.2

  43.2

  63.1

  62.7

  63.0

  Number of 15 year old pupils

  3,853

  3,835

  4,139

  3,004

  3,081

  2,960

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 24 February, ref 96714, what assessment he has made of the impact of narrow in-school variation on value-added standards of achievement at Key Stage 3 and GCSE. [100255]

  Mr. Miliband
  The variation within schools in pupils' Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3 attainment is only slightly associated statistically with the progress they make during Key Stage 3 (as indicated by the 2002 Performance Tables school-level Key Stage 2–3 Value Added measure). In general, the smaller the variation in Key Stage 2 or Key Stage 3 performance between pupils within their schools, the marginally greater the level of aggregate relative progress recorded by the value added measure. These features are also evident in the progress made during Key Stage 4.

  Autism
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) autism units attached to maintained schools, (b) generic special schools and (c) autism specialist schools there were in Kent in each year since 1997. [105864]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department for Education and Skills does not currently hold this information centrally. The total number of special schools in Kent in each of the years 1998 to 2002 is shown in the following table:

  Special schools

  Maintained

  Non-maintained

  Total

  1998

  34

  4

  38

  1999

  31

  4

  35

  2000

  30

  4

  34

  816W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The tables refer to the Key Stage 3 and GCSE achievements of pupils solely registered at Pupil Referral Units at the time of the tests and examinations. These pupils are not obliged to take Key Stage 3 tests nor GCSE examinations.

  Information on the GCE A level achievement of pupils in PRUs is not readily available. Very few students in the PRUs take A-levels and for some years there are no students at all.

  Special schools

  Maintained

  Non-maintained

  Total

  2001

  29

  4

  33

  2002

  29

  4

  33

  Kent local education authority has informed the DfES that there are seven specifically designated resourced mainstream maintained provisions for children and pupils on the autistic spectrum in Kent, in addition 119 Ken: maintained mainstream schools meet the needs of pupils with statements of special educational need w here the primary need type is identified as autism and the need is described as very severe and complex. Many other Kent maintained mainstream schools meet the needs of pupils on the autistic spectrum, some with statements of special educational needs and others without.

  There is no DfES definition of a generic special school. However the Kent authority has told us that there is one Kent special school which meets the needs of pupils with both moderate learning difficulties and specific learning difficulties, which may be one definition of "generic". There will be many other Kent special schools which cater for children with a range of special needs.

  None of the Kent maintained special schools is specifically designated for children with autism. However there are 16 that will meet the needs of pupils who are on the autistic spectrum and there are other special schools which will take pupils who have needs associated with autism.
  817W
  There are also a number of independent and non-maintained schools in Kent that make provision for pupils with primary autistic needs.

  Classroom Sizes
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what average classroom sizes

  Maintained primary and secondary schools1: average size of one teacher classes2 Position in January each year.

  Jarrow

  South Tyneside

  North East

  England

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  1997

  26.4

  22.7

  27.0

  22.7

  27.2

  22.0

  27.5

  21.7

  1998

  26.2

  22.0

  26.9

  22.5

  27.3

  22.2

  27.7

  21.7

  1999

  25.9

  22.4

  26.2

  22.8

  26.7

  22.3

  27.5

  21.9

  2000

  25.4

  22.1

  25.8

  22.7

  26.2

  22.1

  27.1

  22.0

  2001

  25.5

  21.7

  25.8

  22.4

  25.8

  22.1

  26.7

  22.0

  2002

  24.8

  21.8

  25.2

  22.0

  25.3

  21.8

  26.3

  21.9

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Classes as taught during the one selected period in each school on the day of the census in January.

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  Graduate Tax
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) when he will publish details of the principal alternative models of university and student funding which Hs Department has considered; [104662]

  (2) if he will publish details of the principal variations on a graduate tax which his Department has considered; [104663]

  (3) what assessment has been made of the financial implications for (a) the Exchequer, (b) students and (c) universities of the principal variants on a graduate tax which his Department has considered;[104664]

  (4) what assessment has been made of the financial implications for (a) students, (b) universities and (c) Exchequer of the principal alternatives for a flat, non-differential tuition fee structure which his Department has considered. [104665]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 31 March 2003]I will write to the hon. Member shortly and will place a copy of the letter in the House of Commons Library.

  Materials Science
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will introduce an AS/A level course in materials science. [105774]

  Mr. Miliband
  There are currently no plans to introduce an AS/A level course in materials science.

  Parenting Orders
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many parenting orders have been sought by and granted to schools in the Buckingham constituency since July 2001. [106369]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is not collected centrally. However, Buckinghamshire local education authority advises that local magistrates have granted parenting orders in nine of the cases it has brought to prosecution since July 2001.
  818W
  were in (a) Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) the north east and (d) England in each year since 1997. [105853]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many decisions taken by schools in the Buckingham constituency permanently to exclude pupils were reversed by independent appeal panels in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [106010]

  Mr. Miliband
  Information on exclusion appeals is collected at local education authority (LEA) level. The available information for Buckinghamshire LEA is shown in the table. Figures for the academic year 2001–02 will be available in May 2002.

  Summary of school exclusion appeals in academic years 1999–2000 and 2000–01: Buckinghamshire LEA

  Exclusions appeals by parents

  Heard

  Decided in Parents'Favour

  Lodged Number

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage2

  Primary, Secondary and Special Schools

  1999–2000

  10

  8

  80.0

  4

  50.0

  2000–01

  16

  13

  81.3

  6

  46.2

  1 Shown as a percentage of appeals lodged.

  2 Shown as a percentage of appeals heard.

  Source:

  School Exclusion Appeals Survey

  Pupil Setting
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the guidelines are to local education authorities with regard to the in-school setting of pupils by ability at secondary level; [105402]

  (2) what proportion of state secondary schools he estimates set pupils by ability at Year 7; [105403]

  (3) for which (a) subjects and (b) year groups it is (i) mandatory and (ii) optional to set classes of pupils by ability at secondary school level. [105405]

  Mr. Miliband
  Setting by pupil ability is not mandatory in any subject in secondary schools. We have not issued general guidelines to local education authorities over approaches to in-school setting of
  819W
  pupils, although we have encouraged setting as part of a range of measures which schools can adopt to meet the learning needs of their more able pupils.

  We do not collect data on setting in secondary schools. Within about 87 per cent. of the secondary schools inspected by Ofsted during 2001/02 at least one setted/banded lesson was inspected.

  Ofsted also found that the level of setting increases throughout Key Stage 3, from 26 per cent. of lessons inspected in Year 7, to 38 per cent. in Year 8, rising to 44 per cent. in Year 9, with setting much more common in subjects such as mathematics, science, modern foreign languages and English.

  SATs
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what change there has been in SAT results of primary schools students over the last five years. [106512]

  Mr. Miliband
  The National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies have brought about significant improvements in primary school test results over the last five years. The tables below show the percentage of seven and 11 year olds achieving the expected level in the Key Stage 1 and 2 tests.

  Key Stage 1 test results (percentage of children achieving level 2 or above)

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  20021

  English2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Reading

  80

  82

  83

  84

  84

  Writing

  81

  83

  84

  86

  86

  Spelling

  66

  71

  72

  75

  78

  Mathematics

  84

  87

  90

  91

  90

  1 Provisional

  2 There is no overall English result at Key Stage 1.

  Key Stage 2 test results ( percentage of children achieving level 4 and above)

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  20021

  English

  65

  71

  75

  75

  75

  Mathematics

  59

  69

  72

  71

  73

  Science

  69

  78

  85

  87

  86

  1 Provisional

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of school pupils achieved level 4 at Key Stage 2 in(a) English and (b) maths in (i) England and (ii) schools in the Buckingham constituency in 2002. [106766]

  Mr. Miliband
  The percentage of pupils achieving Level 4 or above in the 2002 Key Stage 2 tests in (i) England and (ii) schools in the Buckingham constituency:

  Percentage

  English

  Buckingham

  83

  England

  75

  Mathematics

  Buckingham

  80

  England

  73

  School Absences
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many unauthorised absences there were in each school in each year since 1998, broken down by parliamentary constituency. [104595]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 24 March 2003]I will write to the h an. Member with the information when it is available, and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library.

  School Exclusions
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will reverse the policy on exclusion in secondary schools. [105539]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 31 March 2003]As a result of the SEN and Disability Act 2001, children who have statements of special educational needs (SEN), have a stronger right to mainstream education where this is what their parents want, and where it is compatible with the efficient education of other children. The Act also amended the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to provide protection from discrimination for disabled pupils and prospective pupils, and introduced duties on LEAs and schools to plan strategically to increase access to schools for disabled pupils.

  There are strong educational, as well as social and moral, grounds for educating children with SEN or disabilities with their peers, and we believe that with the right strategies and support, the vast majority of children with special educational needs or disabilities can be included in a mainstream school. An increasing number of schools are showing that an inclusive approach can reinforce a commitment to higher standards of achievement for all children. This approach applies equally to early years settings, primary, and secondary schools. However, we also see a continuing and vital role for special schools, and are currently consulting on the proposals of the Special Schools Working Group, who have made recommendations on how special schools could work with mainstream schools to further develop their role within the Government's inclusion framework.

  Special Educational Needs
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children per 1,000 are issued with a statement of special needs in(a) Haltemprice and Howden and (b) the East Riding of Yorkshire. [105234]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  As at January 2002 there were 420 children attending schools in Haltemprice and Howden with statements of SEN. This equates to 26.7 pupils in every 1,000.

  For East Riding of Yorkshire there were 1,264 pupils attending schools with statements of SEN which equates to 23.9 pupils in every 1,000.
  821W
  This data is derived from Annual Schools' Census returns made by schools to the Department in January each year.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the gender ratio is of pupils(a) receiving special education and (b) statemented in mainstream schools, on account of emotional and behavioural difficulties; and if he will make a statement on (i) provision of places and (ii) appropriateness of educational experience among teachers in the light of that ratio. [105310]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The available information is shown in the table.

  There is currently no requirement for schools to submit information in the Annual Schools' Census on the nature of such pupils' disability or learning difficulty. However, in June 2001, the Department carried out a pilot study involving a sample of 200 mainstream and special schools to assess whether it would be possible to collect data from schools on a broad range of types of Special Educational Needs (SEN). From January 2004 the Department is planning to ask schools and Local Education Authorities to provide this information.

  Local Education Authorities and schools have statutory responsibilities under the Education Act 1996 to identify, assess and make appropriate provision for children with special educational needs, including those with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Guidance on carrying out those responsibilities is given in the Speicial Educational Needs Code of Practice.

  Maintained Primary Secondary and Special Schools: Ratio Boys: Girls with Special Educational Needs January 2002 England

  1Maintained Primary

  1Maintained Secondary

  2Maintained Special

  SEN Pupils without statements

  Pupils with statements

  SEN Pupils without statements

  Pupils with statements

  SEN Pupils without statements

  Pupils with statements

  Ratio boys: girls

  1.8:1

  2.5:1

  1.7:1

  2.6:1

  2.3:1

  2.1:1

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Excludes General Hospital Schools.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many special needs status(a) primary and (b) secondary school children there were (i) in England and (ii) in the Buckingham constituency in 2002. [106018]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Maintained primary and secondary schools: Number of pupils with special educational needs (SEN): January 2002

  Number of pupils with a statement of SEN

  Percentage of pupils with a statement of SEN2

  Number of pupils with SEN without a statement

  Percentage of pupils with SEN without a statement2

  Primary schools1

  Buckingham constituency

  96

  1.3

  969

  13.1

  England

  70,729

  1.6

  834,143

  19.1

  Secondary schools1

  Buckingham constituency

  77

  1.8

  517

  12.1

  England

  78,606

  2.4

  519,116

  15.9

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed

  2 The number of pupils with and without statements expressed as a proportion of the number of pupils on roll.

  822W
  Local Education Authorities have a duty to secure sufficient schools for pupils in their area and in doing so much have particular regard to the need to secure special educational provision. It is up to Local Education Authorities to determine the pattern of provision in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Maintained Primary Secondary and Special Schools: Number of Pupils with Special Educational Needs (SEN) By Gender1

  January 2002 England

  Maintained Primary1

  SEN Pupils without statements

  Pupils with statements

  Boys

  Girls

  Total

  Boys

  Girls

  Total

  531,647

  302,496

  834,143

  50,337

  20,392

  70,729

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  Maintained Primary Secondary and Special Schools: Number of Pupils with Special Educational Needs (SEN) by Gender1

  January 2002 England

  Maintained Secondary1

  SEN Pupils without statement

  Pupils with statements

  Boys

  Girls

  Total

  Boys

  Girls

  Total

  323,323

  195,793

  519,116

  56,477

  22,129

  78,606

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  Maintained Primary Secondary and Special Schools: Number of Pupils with Special Educational Needs (SEN) by Gender1

  January 2002 England

  Maintained Special2

  SEN Pupils without statements

  Pupils with statements

  Boys

  Girls

  Total

  Boys

  Girls

  Total

  1,677

  730

  2,407

  58,498

  27,231

  85,729

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Excludes General Hospital Schools

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of secondary schools has received specialist status. [106510]

  Mr. Miliband
  1,197 secondary schools have been awarded specialist status as part of the Specialist Schools Programme. This represents 38 per cent. of the secondary schools in England.

  Teachers
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there were in Kent in each year since 1997. [105866]

  Mr. Miliband
  Vacancy numbers in the maintained schools sector in England by local authority are shown in table 40 of the 2002 edition of Statistics of Education: School Workforce in England. A copy of this volume has been placed in the Library. The table is also
  823W
  available on the statistics section of the DfES website at:http://www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics/DB/VOL/v0380/456-t40.htm.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many teachers there were in(a) Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) the North East and (d) England in each year since 1997; [105852]

  Table 1

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  20021

  Jarrow constituency2

  700

  690

  700

  710

  740

  760

  South Tyneside3

  1,370

  1,350

  1,380

  1,310

  1,440

  1,460

  North East3

  22,200

  21,950

  22,020

  22,010

  22,540

  22,910

  England3

  399,170

  397,650

  401,150

  404,630

  410,170

  419,620

  1 2002 is the most recent information available.

  2 Source: Annual Schools' Census (ASC). Includes regular teachers normally employed within schools.

  3 Source: Annual Survey of Teachers in Service (618G). This is the Department's standard source of teacher information but it does not provide constituency level data. Includes all regular teachers employed including: centrally employed teachers; teachers on paid leave, plus teachers employed to replace them (if employed for a month or more). In 2002, teacher numbers on 618G were 2 to 3 per cent. higher than on ASC.

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Table 2 provides the average salary of full-time' regular qualified teachers in the maintained schools sector, as at March of each year shown. Average salaries are not available at constituency level.

  Table 2

  £

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20012

  South Tyneside

  22,460

  23,110

  24,150

  25,180

  27,140

  North East

  22,460

  23,060

  23,970

  24,960

  26,850

  England

  22,900

  23,540

  24,440

  25,380

  27,200

  2 2001 is the most recent information available.

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Maintained schools: full-time equivalent number of teaching staff1 and teaching assistants2 1996–2002—position in January each year—Leeds local education authority

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Teaching staff

  Nursery3

  3.0

  3.0

  3.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Primary4

  2,816.7

  2,817.7

  2,773.6

  2,767.5

  2,772.0

  2,795.1

  2,867.6

  Secondary4

  2,715.0

  2,664.5

  2,712.9

  2,744.0

  2,768.4

  2,858.0

  2,979.3

  Special5

  199.8

  196.1

  192.7

  169.1

  172.6

  168.5

  170.6

  Pupil Referral Units

  24.0

  24.9

  31.9

  49.0

  25.1

  22.5

  24.6

  FTE total teaching staff

  5,758.4

  5,706.3

  5,714.1

  5,729.5

  5,738.0

  5,844.2

  6,042.2

  Teaching assistants

  Nursery3

  1.0

  1.7

  1.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Primary4

  1,091.9

  1,131.5

  1,200.2

  1,194.6

  1,239.2

  1,318.7

  1,731.1

  Secondary4

  242.6

  282.1

  302.8

  327.0

  389.3

  462.1

  462.0

  Special5

  137.3

  148.9

  158.7

  149.0

  148.3

  160.9

  188.7

  Pupil Referral Units

  1.8

  3.7

  17.1

  0.9

  13.4

  13.1

  8.0

  FTE total teaching assistants

  1,474.6

  1,568.0

  1,679.8

  1,671.4

  1,790.2

  1,954.9

  2,389.8

  1 Includes all qualified and other teaching staff.

  2 Includes nursery assistants, special needs support staff, minority ethnic pupil support staff and non-teaching assistants.

  3 On 31 August 1998, the one maintained nursery school in Leeds local education authority closed.

  4 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  5 Includes Maintained and Non-Maintained Special Schools.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census
  824W
  (2) what the average pay for a teacher was in (a) Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) the North East and (d) England in each year since 1997. [105855]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table provides the full-time equivalent number of teachers in service in the maintained sector, as at January, of each year shown.

  1 Source:

  Database of Teacher Records. Figures cover all grades and include any allowances paid. The 2001 salary figures include those threshold pay increases that were made before March 2001. However, they do not include threshold pay increases relating to people who passed the threshold in September 2000 and had not received their payment by March 2001. This money was backdated after March 2001 and therefore the average salary for March 2001 will be understated.

  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) teachers and (b) non-teaching assistants were employed in schools in Leeds in each year since 1996. [105983]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 1 April 2003]The numbers of teachers and teaching assistants employed in maintained schools in Leeds local education authority are shown in the following table.

  Truancy (Anti-war Demonstrations)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the level of truancy due to anti-war demonstrations. [105251]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  It is for schools and Local Education Authorities to consider how best to prevent or deal with unauthorised absences which occur.

  Absence from school for whatever reason during a school session constitutes unauthorised absence.

  Where pupils are out of school without permission from the school the absence should he recorded as unauthorised. Information on total authorised and unauthorised absence is collected annually from schools but is not broken down by reasons for absence.

  Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what target has been set for the total number of 14 to 16-year-olds studying for a vocational qualification. [105136]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 27 March 2003]The Government's 2001 manifesto was "to enable every pupil to realise their talent with a radical extension of vocational courses to as many as 200,000 14 and 15-year-olds".

SCOTLAND

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Boundary Commission for Scotland is able to present reports independently of other Boundary Commissions. [106184]
  826W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (as amended) provides that the Boundary Commission for Scotland submit its reports to me. There is no requirement for the Commission to present its report with that of any other Commission.

  Community Pharmacies
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive on whether the recommendations of the Office of Fair Trading on control entry requirements for community pharmacies can be introduced within one country of the UK but not another. [106649]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office has kept closely in touch with the Scottish Executive on this issue. In terms of the devolution settlement, the Executive are free to take their own decisions on devolved matters. The Government and the Executive will continue to work together when dealing with responses to reports by the Office of Fair Trading, including their recent examination of the private dentistry market.

  Laptop Computers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many laptop computers were used by(a) Ministers and special advisers and (b) officials in her Department in each year since 1995; how many were (i) lost and (ii) stolen; what their cost was; and if she will make a statement. [98709]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  Since that date, the numbers of laptops used are as follows:

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Ministers

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Special Advisers

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Officials

  3

  11

  13

  16

  One laptop computer was stolen from the department in 1999–2000. It had an approximate value of £2,200 at the time of purchase.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH

  Afghanistan
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken by the(a) UN and (b) Afghan Transitional Authority to register the Afghan population for future democratic elections. [106678]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 2 April 2003]: The United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan (UNAMA) has been working closely with the Transitional Administration to develop a comprehensive programme of voter registration, on a country-wide and on a non-partisan basis, in anticipation of elections in 2004. UNAMA hopes to begin registration in August 2003, with a particular focus initially on rural areas where winter access would be more difficult.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2003,Official Report, column 1066W, on Afghanistan, whether the programme of demobilisation, disarmament and reintegration of former combatants in Afghanistan has begun. [106680]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 2 April 2003]: The programme of demobilisation, disarmament and reintegration of former combatants in Afghanistan has not yet begun. Details of the programme remain under discussion in Kabul.

  Arbitrary Detentions
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with Mr. Atkinson's lawyers since the publication of the UN working group on arbitrary detentions' opinion 16/2002. [106045]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention adopted opinion 16/2002 on 29 November 2002. Neither Mr. Atkinson's UK lawyers nor any other lawyers acting on his behalf have contacted either the embassy or the FCO since November 2002.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 10 March 2003,Official Report, column 33W, what steps he is taking to secure the information necessary to determine if Mr. Atkinson's continued detention is of an arbitrary nature. [106046]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded that Mr. Atkinson's continued detention stems from the application of Dubai law. Mr. Atkinson, his family and his lawyers have repeatedly been informed that the question of the interpretation of local law can only be addressed by his solicitors through local lawyers. Our embassy in Dubai offered Mr. Atkinson's lawyers a list of local lawyers in May last year.
  828W
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2003,Official Report, column 1069W, when the Consul-General was informed of Mr. Atkinson's injury; and if he will make a statement about the circumstances of the riot in which Mr. Atkinson sustained the injury. [106047]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our consular staff visited Jumeirah Central Prison in Dubai on 12 August 2002, immediately upon learning of disturbances at the prison. During the visit, Mr. Atkinson told our consular staff that some prisoners, including himself, had been beaten during the disturbances at the prison on 30 July 2002, when, we understand, police were called to quell fighting among local prisoners.

  Calmative Weapons
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the research and development of calmative weapons for deployment by US forces in the Gulf. [102487]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None.

  Central African Republic
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the political situation in the Central African Republic. [105427]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are deeply concerned about the overthrow on 15 March of the democratically elected government of the Central African Republic. As the first successful coup d'etat in Africa in over three years, it is a serious retrograde step. We condemn it unequivocally, as we condemn any unconstitutional seizure of power. We support the European Union declaration of 21 March that urges the resumption of political dialogue and early progress towards the restoration of the democratic process. We call on all parties in the region to support these aims and to respect the territorial integrity of the country.

  Colin Powell
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with Mr. Colin Powell. [105645]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in frequent telephone contact with Colin Powell. They last met for bilateral discussions in Washington on 23 January 2003, and again on 26 and 27 March 2003, during which a number of foreign policy issues were discussed. They have also had discussions in the margins of the UN Security Council.

  CS Gas
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his Answer of 13 February 2003,Official Report, column 1070, to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), whether he has been notified that US forces plan to deploy CS gas to the Gulf. [102486]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the United States administration in respect of the research, development and deployment of CS gas and pepper spray for US forces in the Gulf. [102485]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the United States Administration in respect of deployment of(a) CS gas and (b) pepper spray to armed forces in the Gulf. [102075]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. John Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [104202]

  Mr. MacShane
  For the past two years the FCO has been implementing a major Internet infrastructure project to enhance its global web presence. This includes a new FCO website (www.fco.gov.uk), a new UK Visas website (www.ukvisas.gov.uk), separate websites for all British missions worldwide, and a new portal site about the UK (www.i-uk.com). The latter joins up the online work of our key public diplomacy partners:

  British Council, British Tourist Authority, InvestUK and Trade Partners UK.

  The total cost of the project is £10 million funded by the Treasury's Capital Modernisation Fund. It is not possible to separate out the cost of the FCO site alone.

  The number of page impressions for the FCO site over the past year is 26.4 million, although during the last fortnight page impressions have peaked at 700,000 per day.

  Diplomatic Representation (Africa)
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his written statement of 31 March 2003,Official Report, column 43WS, on Diplomatic Representation (Africa), if he will set out the (a) qualitative and (b) diplomatic difference in status between the embassy in Bamako he intends to close and the office he in tends to retain there; and if he will make a statement. [106871]
  830W
  Mr. Rammell
  At present the United Kingdom has a resident Ambassador in Mali. From the early summer, the accredited Ambassador to Mali will be based in another regional capital. We plan to retain locally-engaged staff in Bamako, but the exact nature of the office there is still under consideration. We intend to use the presence of our staff in Bamako, and visits by the Ambassador and other British officials, to maintain our valuable bilateral relationship with Mali. My noble Friend the Baroness Amos will visit Bamako in April 2003 for bilateral discussions. This visit is a clear signal of our continuing commitment to Mali.

  Eritrea
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Eritrea. [105498]

  Mr. Rammell
  The bilateral relationship with Eritrea is good. We opened an Embassy in Asmara in March 2002. We have played an active role in pushing forward the Ethiopia/Eritrea peace process during the last few years. My noble Friend the Baroness Amos met the Eritrean Ambassador most recently on 19 March to discuss progress on the peace process and to raise concerns about the constitutional problems in Eritrea. We do have concerns about the human rights situation there which we raise regularly with the Eritrean government. We are also concerned at the humanitarian situation and have contributed £2 million for relief purposes since January 2003.

  Extractive Industries
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many reports he has received of breaches of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Voluntary Charter for Extractive Industries since December 2000. [105585]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK and US Governments jointly launched the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights in 2000, with the participation of several UK and US energy and mining companies and NGOs. The Principles provide practical guidance to companies seeking to ensure that respect for human rights is central to the arrangements they make for protecting the security of their operations in areas of conflict.

  Participants are encouraged to share their experiences and expertise with each other as part of a learning process. We also discuss the Principles with the companies and NGOs concerned when particular human rights issues arise. It is through this dialogue that the process is carried forward, not on the basis of complaints or reports of specific breaches of principles.

  Horn of Africa
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the leaders of the states in the Horn of Africa on(a) violent crime and (b) small arms proliferation. [105426]
  831W
  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had meetings in February in London with the Foreign Ministers of Kenya and Ethiopia. He discussed with them our concerns about terrorism and the general level of violence in the Horn of Africa.

  Small arms proliferation is also a significant problem in the region. The UK is active and works extensively in Africa with Governments, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and NGOs on Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) issues. We have committed significant resources from our Global Conflict Prevention Pool for SALW to assist the secretariat that supports the 2000 Nairobi Declaration. We also support the Experts Panel established by UNSCR 1425 (2002) to monitor the arms embargo on Somalia.

  India
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make representations to the Government of India regarding access to Punjab by international human rights groups; [105476]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Government of India on the date by which it will ratify the United Nations' Convention Against Torture; [105475]

  (3) if he will make representations to the Government of India regarding access to Punjab by the United Nations' Special Rapporteur on Torture. [105474]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I discussed India's position regarding the Convention Against Torture (CAT) with Mr. I. D. Swami, the Indian Minister of State for Home Affairs, on 17 October 2002 during my visit to India. We understand that India is planning to start the process of ratifying CAT, although a bill has not yet been brought before the Indian Parliament. We continue to encourage India to ratify CAT.

  We have made and will continue to make official level representations to the Government of India for greater general access to India of UN Special Rapporteurs and international human rights NGOs. Save in exceptional circumstances, our general policy is not to make state-specific representations. We have in the past carried out project work under the Human Rights Project Fund in co-operation with the Punjabi State Police.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will announce the name of the next British High Commissioner for India. [105647]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 3 December 2002,Official Report, column 644W.

  Kenya
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Kenyan authorities regarding small arms proliferation in the northern pastoral regions of Kenya that border Uganda, Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia. [105424]
  832W
  Mr. Rammell
  There have been no recent ministerial discussions with the Kenyan authorities on small arms proliferation, but we have supported their efforts to tackle the problem. both regionally and nationally. Following the signing of the Nairobi Declaration on Small Arms in March 2000, the UK committed significant resources to support the Nairobi Declaration Secretariat. We have also provided the Kenyan police with equipment to help destroy weapons. On 15 March there was a public destruction of 1,000 illegally held weapons.

  Middle East
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government has received from(a) Syria and (b) Iran on the firing of coalition missiles into (i) a bus carrying Syrian nationals from Iraq to Syria on 23 March and (ii) Iranian territory. [105589]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our embassies in Damascus and Tehran have been in contact with the Syrian and Iranian Governments about these incidents. Under no circumstances would the Coalition deliberately target a civilian bus. This is a tragic accident, for which the US have already issued an apology. The Coalition is taking the utmost care to minimise civilian casualties. There are strong indications that the munitions that landed in Iranian territory were in fact Iraqi but the matter is still being examined.

  Rwanda
  Mr. John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had on the political situation in Rwanda. [105420]

  Mr. Rammell
  My noble Friend the Baroness Amos visited Rwanda on 29–30 January 2003 and held extensive discussions with key Rwandan Government figures on a wide range of issues, including the situation in the Great Lakes, the election process, human rights and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in implementing UN mandates on Western Sahara. [105663]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  United Nations Security Council resolution (UNSCR) 1429 of 30 July 2002 extended the mandate of the United Nations Mission for a Referendum on Western Sahara (MINURSO) until 31 January 2003. Among other things, this invited James Baker, the UN Secretary-General's (UNSG) Personal Envoy, to pursue his efforts to find a political solution to the dispute, taking into account the concerns expressed by the parties, and expressed the readiness of the Security Council to consider any approach that provides for self determination for the people of Western Sahara.
  833W
  MINURSO's mandate has since been extended twice: by UNSCR 1463 to allow the parties time to consider the latest proposal presented to them by the UNSG's Personal Envoy; and most recently by UNSCR 1469 to allow consideration of the responses of the parties to the proposal.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of(a) Morocco and (b) the Polisario to discuss the future of the Western Sahara. [105664]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I met Mohammed Benaissa, Moroccan Foreign Minister in November 2002 and Lehbib Breica, the Frente Polisario representative to the UK and Ireland in December 2002.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what unilateral sanctions are in force by the United Kingdom against Zimbabwe that match(a) the recent Executive Order signed by the President of the United States under the title of 'Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe' and (b) EU sanctions against Zimbabwe. [105837]

  Mr. Straw
  President Bush's Executive Order of 7 March 2003 provides for an assets freeze, and so brings the United States measures against the ZANU-PF regime into line with those of the EU, which we implemented on 18 February 2002, and which were extended for another 12 months on 18 February 2003.

  The United Kingdom, as a member state of the European Union, does not need unilateral measures to replicate those of the EU, which it supports and implements.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will recommend at the next Geneva Affairs Council meeting that Mr. Ari Ben-Menashe be added to the list of names on the EU sanctions list against the Zimbabwe regime and its supporters. [105838]

  Mr. Straw
  The EU's common position on Zimbabwe targets individuals"who are engaged in activities that seriously undermine democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe".

  Only Zimbabweans have so far been subjected to the measures, but the list of names is kept under regular review.

  Mr. Ben-Menashe, a Canadian national, is the state's main witness in the on-going treason trial of MDC leader, Morgan Tsvangirai. The EU said on 20 February 2003,
  "The European Union is following closely the legal procedures in the trial of the head of the main opposition party, Mr. Morgan Tsvangirai, being fully aware of the relevance and the importance of the outcome for the future of democratic pluralism in this country".

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Asbestosis
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have died in England and Wales during the last three years from asbestosis; and if he will make a statement. [103276]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The number of deaths in England and Wales for the latest three years for which data are available, where the underlying cause of death on the death certificate was given as asbestosis, was 52 in 1998, 57 in 1999 and 63 in 2000.

  Iron Mains Replacement (Transco)
  Mr. Heyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether Transco completed the replacement of all medium pressure ductile iron mains within 30 metres of buildings by 31 December 2002 as required by the HSE's Improvement Notice issued in September 2000. [102241]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Transco completed their planned replacement programme by 31 December 2002. This excluded 11.382 km, which were discovered too late to be replaced within this deadline. Transco originally anticipated replacing approximately 2,360 km of mains. However, they eventually replaced 2897.842 km within this timescale, an overrun of 537.842 km or 22.75 per cent. Transco were given an Extension to the Improvement Notice to 30 April 2003 to remove the remaining 11.382 km. I am advised that there are sound engineering reasons why this cannot be done any earlier, including safety considerations.

  Basic State Pension
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many letters he has received on the recent document sent to pensioners on the percentage change in the basic pensions; and if he will make a statement. [104765]

  Mr. McCartney
  This is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, Chief Executive of The Pension Service. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Paul Flynn, dated 3 April 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many letters he has received on the recent document sent to pensioners on the percentage change in the basic pension; and if he will make a statement.
  At the annual uprating exercise pensioners are issued with a number of forms:
  People who are paid direct to their bank/building society account received:
  BR2189 flyer leaflet, which provides the uprated standard weekly rates of benefit;
  form BR2199, which is the formal notification of the customers' own uprated pension;
  leaflet BR2215, which gives general benefit guidance, including a complaints procedure; and
  a stop press leaflet, which aims to answer all the main questions that the customer may have regarding uprating.

  835W

  People who use order books received:
  a UP25 flyer. This is issued with all order books issued between December and May, even if the order book expires before the annual uprating. This provides the details of the new uprated standard weekly rates of benefit.
  All uprating notifications have now been issued. I have received three letters from MPs about this issue and the Ministerial Correspondence Team has received one letter.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Benefit Administration (Funding)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will make a statement on the means by which the administration of(a) housing and (b) council tax benefit by local authorities is funded; [94004]

  (2) what the cost to (a) his Department and its predecessor and (b) local authorities of administering (i) housing and (ii) council tax benefit was in the last four years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [94005]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Half of the administration subsidy for both housing benefit and council tax benefit is funded through a grant from the Department for Work and Pensions. This is allocated to individual local authorities using a formula agreed in consultation with the local authority associations. The formula takes account of the size of the caseload and the complexity of housing benefit cases, with elements for accommodation and staffing costs. The remaining half is funded by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Executive through the Revenue Support Grant (Grant Aided Expenditure in Scotland) within their local government finance settlements.

  From 2003–04 administration subsidy will be paid entirely by this Department as one direct grant to local authorities. During 2003–04 we will also distribute an additional £33 million for ongoing and transitional costs associated with the introduction of the Pension Credit as well as £11 million for ongoing costs associated with new tax credits.

  The Department also helps fund the administration of the Verification Framework and payments are made through the Help Fund to support various local authority led initiatives aimed at improving housing

  DWP expenditure on anti-fraud initiatives, the Verification Framework and the Help Fund

  £ million

  Challenge funding

  Benefits agency/local authority joint working payments

  Security against fraud and error (SAFE) and weekly benefit savings (WBS)

  Verification framework

  Help Fund

  1998–99

  9.5

  —

  18.6

  5.5

  —

  1999–2000

  5.5

  —

  15.5

  29.1

  —

  2000–01

  2.9

  2.7

  12.2

  24.4

  —

  2001–02

  —

  1.4

  14.4

  38.6

  1.6

  Notes:

  1. Although not specifically for administration local authorities are given financial incentives for investigating and detecting fraud.

  2. Challenge Funding was a scheme where councils could submit bids for innovative anti-fraud initiatives.

  3. The Security Against Fraud and Error (SAFE) scheme was first introduced in April 2001 and fully replaced the Weekly Benefit Savings (WBS) scheme in April 2002.

  4. SAFE and WBS figures are subject to revision by local authorities.

  5. Figures have been rounded to the nearest £100,000.

  6. Verification Framework (VF) expenditure includes both set-up and ongoing funding.

  836W
  benefit administration where lack of funds is a barrier. A further £223 million Verification Framework funding is being made available for the three years from April 2003. This will provide a 50 per cent. increase in both set-up and ongoing funding. We are also investing £200 million over the next three years in helping authorities meet the new Performance Standards.

  Actual expenditure on the administration of these benefits, as reported by local authorities, exceeds the total subsidy provided by central Government. Local authorities account for their expenditure in very different ways. For example, some will include a portion of central charges for administrative costs that will have little to do with housing benefit administration in their housing benefit costs, some will provide a cost net of additional grants from the Department. Because the data reported by authorities do not reflect a uniform accounting standard across authorities, reported expenditure across all authorities may not be directly comparable with the grants paid figures.

  The available information is in the tables.

  DWP Administration Subsidy and Caseload

  £ million

  HB administration

  Average HB caseload

  CTB administration

  Average CTB caseload

  1998–1999

  97.9

  4,414,000

  61.2

  5,257,000

  1999–2000

  87.6

  4,198,000

  72.0

  5,022,000

  2000–2001

  86.8

  3,952,000

  74.2

  4,731,000

  2001–2002

  89.7

  3,844,000

  76.3

  4,636,000

  Notes:

  1. Caseload data refer to households claiming housing benefit which may be a single person, a couple or a family. More than one benefit household can live in one property, for example two or more adults in a flat or house share.

  2. Caseload figures for any non-responding authorities have been estimated.

  3. Council tax benefit caseload totals exclude any Second Adult Rebate cases.

  4. Housing benefit caseload figures exclude any Extended Payment cases.

  5. The data is the average of caseloads taken in May, August, November and February of each year.

  6. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 100,000.

  Sources:

  Social Security Income Related Benefits (Subsidy to Authorities) Amendment Orders 1999 to 2002. Housing Benefit and council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly 100 per cent caseload stock-count taken in May, August, November and February 1998–99 to 2001–02.

  837W

  7. The Help Fund was introduced from April 2001.

  8. The reduction in SAFE and WBS funding may be attributable to increased VF funding which may have led to a fall in the level of fraud entering the benefit system.

  Sources:

  WBS and SAFE figures are from local authorities' audited final subsidy claims. Challenge Funding and Joint Working Payment figures from 1998–99 to 2000–01 are from DSS/DWP Appropriation Accounts. 2001–02 figures are from DWP records. VF and Help Fund data is from DWP administrative records

  Reported administrative costs of local authorities in Great Britain

  £ million

  Housing benefit

  Council tax benefit

  Total

  DWP funding as percentage of reported expenditure

  1997–98

  349.7

  192.7

  542.5

  43

  1998–99

  361.4

  192.0

  553.3

  35

  1999–2000

  379.6

  209.4

  588.9

  36

  2000–01

  412.2

  229.9

  642.1

  32

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 100,000.

  2. Figures are subject to revision by local authorities.

  Sources:

  1. English authorities—reports to the ODPM, and its predecessors, using form R04.

  2. Welsh authorities—reports to the Welsh Assembly using form R04. Prior to devolution, returns were made to the Welsh Office.

  3. Scottish authorities—reports to the Scottish Executive using Local Financial Return LFR9. Prior to devolution, returns were made to the Scottish Office.

  Benefit Uprating
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the effect upon claimants'(a) income and (b) entitlement to income related benefits arising From the uprating of benefits by RPI. [100736]

  Mr. McCartney
  (a) Uprating of benefits by RPI ensures that claimants' benefit incomes rise at least in line with the rise in cost of living. Some benefits will be uprated by more than prices from April. For example, retirement pension will be uprated by 2.6 per cent., giving a pensioner on full state pension an extra £100 a year, and the minimum income guarantee by earnings (4 per cent.).

  (b) Income-related benefits, excluding the minimum income guarantee, are uprated by the Rossi index, which is the RPI excluding housing costs and local taxes. This is because housing costs and local taxes are met through separate hypothecated benefits, for example housing benefit for rent. The impact of RPI itself on income-related benefits depends on the relative values of the two indices, but since any marginal increases in eligible rents and council taxes are almost always met in full by increased benefits, most claimants will see their benefits rise at least in line with the cost of living.

  Benefits Payments
  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in what circumstances can payment of benefits in cash at post offices can be continued. [106178]

  Malcolm Wicks
  All customers who wish to continue to collect their benefit or pension in cash at the Post Office need to choose one of the account options that can be accessed at post offices.
  838W
  DWP is providing customers with information (including letters and leaflets) which clearly sets out the account options as part of the move to payment direct into accounts. This information material sets out the key features of the various accounts and explains how people can access their money at the Post Office, if they wish to do so. Customers can choose the account which best suits their needs and circumstances.

  British Sign Language
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 14 March 2003,Official Report, column 494W, on British Sign Language (BSL), what projects the Government have funded (a) to increase the number of BSL interpreters and (b) to improve the infrastructure for interpreter training and assessment, broken down by region. [106901]

  Maria Eagle
  The former Department for Education and Employment let contracts with the Royal National Institute for Deaf People (RNID) and the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People (CACDP) to address the shortage of interpreters and to improve the training infrastructure. No information is held with regard to breakdown by region.

  CACDP contract has now come to an end. The RNID contact runs until 2004.

  In the statement he made to the House on BSL on 18 March 2003, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, announced a discrete programme of initiatives to support the statement. We will be consulting organisations of and for deaf people about how the additional funding of £1 million should be allocated.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much council tax benefit was paid in 2001–02 in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [104761]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Council tax benefit helps people with low incomes to pay their council tax whether they are in or out of work.

  The information is in the table.

  Council Tax Benefit Expenditure 2001–2002

  £ million

  England

  2,250

  Wales

  125

  Scotland

  315

  Total

  2,690

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 5 million.

  2. Figures have been compiled using 2001–2002 pre-audited subsidy claims from individual local authorities.

  839W

  3. The figures include estimates for local authorities that have not responded. These estimates are based on historical data. These types of estimates are standard practice in reporting totals where there have been non-respondents.

  4. Figures may be subject to revision by local authorities.

  Source:

  Annual subsidy returns by local authorities to the Department for Work and Pensions.

  Deaths at Work
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many deaths at work there were in(a) the UK and (b) Buckinghamshire in 2002. [105702]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The number of deaths at work reported to the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities for 2002 is not yet confirmed. Provisional figures for 2001–02, as well as final figures for 2000–01 are as follows:

  Table 1: The number of fatal injuries reported to HSE and local authorities 2000–01 to 2001–021

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Employee

  213

  204

  Self-employed

  79

  45

  Member of the public

  444

  384

  Total

  736

  633

  Table 2: The number of fatal injuries in Buckinghamshire1 reported to HSE2 and local authorities 2000–01 to 2001–021

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Employee

  4

  3

  Self-employed

  1

  —

  Member of the public

  4

  2

  Total

  9

  5

  1 Provisional

  2 County of Buckinghamshire identified by local authorities: Aylesbury; South Bucks; Chiltern; Wycombe and Milton Keynes Unitary Authority.

  Notes:

  1. The figures for Buckinghamshire do not cover the mining, offshore and railway industries. The figures are based on notifications from employers and others, which for these industries are assigned to a national or other basis and are not readily assignable to a particular county. The figures also do not cover chemical manufacturing industries due to the availability of data at county level from specific HSE information systems.

  2. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is enforced by HSE and local authorities in Great Britain only. Northern Ireland is not within HSE's jurisdiction.

  3. The figures only include fatal injuries reported to HSE and local authorities under the Reporting of Injuries. Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) 1995. They do not include numbers of deaths in work-related road traffic accidents, for example.

  4. The annual basis is the planning year from 1 April to 31 March.

  Departmental Computer Systems
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which computer systems within his Department use XML. [98110]

  Mr. McCartney
  Any Internet/Intranet-based channel into current DWP systems uses XML. XML is also used as part of the Department's IT infrastructure for systems to communicate with each other—in particular the communications between the new modernised systems and the legacy systems.
  840W
  Current Departmental systems using XML are:

  Pensions Forecasting System (PFS)

  Customer Management System (CMS)

  New Tax Credits (NTC);

  Empower (First Wave)

  Child Support 2 (formerly known as CSR)

  Child Benefit System

  Contributions Recovery Unit (CRU)—base CRU recovering money from insurance companies

  CRU NHS—exchanges road traffic accident information with the national health service

  Inherited SERPS

  Customer History Database.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to classify groups of staff within his Department as working in a high-risk occupation. [106121]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department ensures all work activities undertaken by its staff are thoroughly risk assessed in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

  Where particular hazards are identified through the assessment process appropriate control measures are then put in place to ensure any risks are properly managed out.

  There are currently no plans to classify particular groups of staff.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Oliver Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 27 January 2003, Ref. 93561, what plans he has to conduct a further assessment of the level of fraud in relation to disability living allowance; and if he will make a statement on the reasons why no such assessment has been conducted since February 1997. [95040]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We announced on 3 March, at the Public Accounts Committee hearing on tackling benefit fraud that the Department is intending to run a further benefit review to provide an up-to-date picture of the level of fraud and error in disability living allowance.

  As the approach will be different from that used in 1996, we are planning to run a small pilot during May and June this year. Although the pilot results will not be published, the exercise will enable us to test out the most appropriate methodology prior to running the main review next year.

  Measurement of fraud and error is complex and expensive and so we have concentrated our measurement efforts on Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance and Ho using Benefit, which we estimate account for around two-thirds of all losses through fraud and error. However, we keep the need for further measurement of other benefits under review.
  841W
  We believe that we should concentrate our resources on prevention and detection of fraud and error rather than just measuring it and latest results show that our efforts are being successful. Between 1997–78 and 2001–02, we had reduced fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance by 24 per cent. more than double our target of a 10 per cent. reduction.

  Divorce
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many couples going through a divorce have used the pensions sharing regulations since they were implemented in December 2000; and what proportion this represents of all couples going through a divorce. [106117]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information available without incurring disproportionate cost is that my Department has been monitoring orders made in the courts and is aware of 1,521 pension sharing or pension attachment orders having been made to date in England and Wales. 137,270 Decrees Absolute were made in 2001.

  The new regulations apply only to those cases where a petition for divorce was filed after 1 December 2000. Many of the cases where a Decree Absolute was granted in 2001 did not, therefore, come under the new regulations. Figures for the number of divorces in 2002 are not yet available.

  HCTB1 Form
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place a copy of the new HCTB1 form in the Library. [106122]

  Malcolm Wicks
  A copy of form HCTB1 has been placed in the Library.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in what hours telephone advice is available from the Health and Safety Executive to the general public; how many requests for telephone advice from the general public to the Health and Safety Executive were received outside normal hours in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement on emergency advice requested by members of the public. [102593]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  HSE Infoline is the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) Contact Centre providing help and information about health and safety at work, and access to expert advice and guidance. HSE Infoline is open from 8.00 am to 6.00 pm from Monday to Friday, except Bank Holidays.

  Infoline currently receives about 250,000 calls and 25,000 written enquiries a year. During the 12 months ending 28 February 2003, Infoline received 1,683 calls out of hours.

  In addition HSE provides a Duty Officer system to handle calls taken outside normal working hours. In the 12 months ending 28 February 2003, 2,411 calls were received by the Duty Officer system. Of these, 618 calls were passed immediately to an inspector for action and
  842W
  investigation, 1,345 were referred the next working day and 448 were referred to other appropriate agencies including Local Authorities.

  There is also a HSE website which provides 24 hours a day, seven days a week access to a wide range of advice, guidance and information from HSE.

  Pension Forecasts
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the differences are in the information sources and technology used to process individual pension forecasts upon request, and those automatically issued prior to retirement. [99959]

  Mr. McCartney
  Individual pension forecasts are produced by the Retirement Pension Forecasting System. It uses information from an individual's national insurance record held on the Inland Revenue's National Insurance Recording System (NIRS). It also uses detailed information supplied by the individual on form BR19 when they apply for a forecast.

  The letter entitled "About your Retirement Pension" is produced by the Pension Computer System. It also uses information from an individual's national insurance record. The data are downloaded from the NIRS system to the Pension Computer System approximately four months and eight days prior to the customer attaining pension age to enable the notification to be sent and to allow time for a benefit application to be submitted and processed.

  Pensioner Households
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether pensioners will be able to withdraw their pensions using their state pensions books from the Post Office under the new proposals by Royal Mail to introduce Direct Payment. [106098]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department for Work and Pensions is introducing Direct Payment as the normal method of paying benefits and pensions from April this year. This means that order books are being phased out.

  Customers need to take no action until they are contacted. When it is their turn to change, they will be supplied with information (including letters and leaflets) which clearly set out the account options as part of the move to Direct Payment. The information material gives the key features of the various types of accounts and explains how people can access their money at the Post Office, if they wish to do so.

  We have always recognised that there will be a small number of people who cannot manage to access their benefit or pension by Direct Payment. An alternative method of payment will be used for this group and will be in place when it is needed.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have taken stakeholder pensions; and when he expects the Government's take-up target to be met. [106372]
  843W
  Mr. McCartney
  Information specifically concerning the number of individuals taking out a stakeholder pension is not collected. However, figures from the Association of British Insurers (ABI) show that by the end of December 2002 1,250,243 stakeholder pensions had been sold.

  Stakeholder pensions were introduced as part of our long-term reforms to ensure that everyone has the chance to save for a decent income in retirement. Stakeholder pensions are intended to provide a low-charge pension option for those people who do not have access to a good company pension scheme with an employer contribution. There is no specific take-up target.

  The impact of stakeholder pensions on saving for retirement extends beyond their sales alone/stakeholder pensions have driven down other personal pension charges; some employers have widened access to their occupational pension schemes; and other employers have set up group personal pensions with an employer contribution.

  Post Office Card Account
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what advice he is giving to(a) blind people and (b) others with disabilities who cannot use the current PIN pads installed in post offices for access to the Post Office card account; and if he will make a statement. [106177]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the Written answer I gave the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) on 24 March 2003,Official Report, column 10W.

  SchlumbergerSema
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have been sent

  Total number of new complaints received concerning the performance of SchlumbergerSema in conducting medical assessments

  Jan

  Feb

  Mar

  Apr

  May

  Jun

  Jul

  Aug

  Sep

  Oct

  Nov

  Dec

  1998

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  286

  331

  330

  253

  1999

  318

  365

  416

  315

  299

  318

  308

  318

  346

  349

  320

  268

  2000

  282

  387

  499

  348

  506

  433

  451

  442

  359

  366

  463

  344

  2001

  388

  419

  452

  348

  385

  335

  351

  420

  363

  318

  470

  222

  2002

  391

  416

  398

  334

  330

  265

  376

  341

  252

  359

  315

  288

  2003

  289

  252

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Note:

  Information is not collected on the specific point of receipt of each complaint.

  Source:

  Medical Provision and Contracting Team management information.

  Smoking
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) when he next plans to review the Approved Code of Practice for the White Papers, "Smoking Kills"; [105771]

  (2) when he next plans to meet hospitality trade representatives to discuss the implications of passing the Approved Code of Practice; [105772]

  (3) if he will review the costs and benefits of smoking restrictions in the work place. [105773]
  844W
  home unseen from their medical assessment by SchlumbergerSema since May 2002; and if he will make a statement. [105366]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Of 517,806 customers who attended SchlumbergerSema's Medical Examination Centres for assessments between 1 May 2002 and 28 February 2003, 17,667 or less than 3.5 per cent. were sent home unseen. Customers may be sent home for a number of reasons, including those arriving more than 30 minutes late for their appointment and declining to wait until the doctor can see them.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions he has had with SchlumbergerSema concerning performance levels since the re-awarding of its contract; and if he will make a statement. [105367]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The performance of SchlumbergerSema is formally reviewed against all contracted service levels on a monthly basis. This practice has been continuous since the original contract went live in September 1998.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many representations(a) his Department, (b) SchlumbergerSema, (c) the Benefits Agency and (d) Jobcentre Plus have received concerning the performance of SchlumbergerSema in conducting benefits medical assessments in each of the months since the contract was first awarded; and if he will make a statement. [105368]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Medical Services' performance is regularly monitored to ensure people's capacity for work is fairly assessed. The latest figures show that the level of complaints as a proportion of examinations completed has fallen from 0.63 per cent. for quarter ending November 2000 to 0.43 per cent. for the quarter ending February 2003.

  The available information is in the table.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Government are currently looking at possible options to reduce the exposure of people to tobacco smoke. We will announce our conclusions in due course about how best we will achieve further progress in this area.

  Social Fund
  Mr. David Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the administrative costs of the Social Fund were in each of the last five financial years; and if he will make a statement. [82079]
  845W
  Malcolm Wicks
  (pursuant to my written reply 19 December 2002, col. 1020W.)

  The information is not available in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Department now accounts for its administration and benefit expenditure by Strategic Objective, as set out in its Public Service Agreements (PSA), and by individual Requests for Resources (RfRs) as set out in the Departmental Estimates and Accounts.

  Estimates of the cost of administering the Social Fund are available for 1997–98 and 1998–99 and these are shown in the table.

  £

  Financial year

  Estimated Social Fund expenditure1

  1997–98

  161,000,000

  1998–99

  215,000,000

  Note:

  Costs are rounded to the nearest £million

  Source:

  Social Security Departmental Reports 1999–2000 (Figure 50) and 2000–01 to 2001–02 (Figure 42).

  Targeting Fraud Website May 2000—December 2002

  Month

  Number of hits1

  Number of cases of suspected fraud reported

  Number of cases accepted for action by investigation staff

  Number of investigations completed

  Number of resulting benefit rate changes2

  Number of successful prosecutions

  May 2000

  —

  3

  1

  1

  0

  0

  June 2000

  —

  80

  27

  3

  0

  0

  July 2000

  —

  93

  35

  7

  1

  0

  August 2000

  —

  75

  27

  18

  5

  0

  September 2000

  31,311,930

  95

  28

  13

  2

  0

  October 2000

  —

  89

  29

  27

  4

  0

  November 2000

  —

  81

  18

  28

  6

  0

  December 2000

  —

  41

  14

  13

  1

  0

  January 2001

  11,516

  68

  35

  21

  5

  0

  February 2001

  58,620

  71

  22

  25

  2

  0

  March 2001

  49,027

  242

  83

  28

  2

  0

  April 2001

  19,349

  317

  102

  36

  9

  1

  May 2001

  8,659

  172

  60

  46

  8

  0

  June 2001

  16,475

  197

  61

  54

  13

  0

  July 2001

  19,203

  144

  61

  64

  12

  0

  August 2001

  15,617

  117

  39

  45

  12

  0

  September 2001

  50,905

  160

  41

  57

  14

  0

  October 2001

  14,328

  200

  86

  48

  12

  0

  November 2001

  22,825

  241

  111

  52

  16

  1

  December 2001

  13,382

  190

  70

  48

  11

  0

  January 2002

  15,103

  384

  159

  62

  15

  2

  February 2002

  14,027

  315

  134

  88

  18

  0

  March 2002

  12,548

  297

  143

  73

  12

  0

  April 2002

  11,011

  333

  125

  88

  18

  1

  May 2002

  9,512

  309

  127

  116

  20

  2

  June 2002

  11,293

  226

  88

  86

  28

  1

  July 2002

  8,797

  244

  94

  98

  26

  1

  August 2002

  7,043

  240

  69

  86

  18

  1

  September 2002

  10,182

  251

  90

  87

  25

  0

  October 2002

  6,658

  318

  129

  112

  37

  3

  November 2002

  8,843

  289

  118

  83

  25

  1

  December 2002

  9,202

  203

  85

  72

  25

  4

  Total

  1,736,055

  6,085

  2,311

  1,685

  402

  18

  1 Information provided by the National Benefit Fraud Hotline.

  2 The number of benefit rate changes includes both increases and decreases both due to client error and to official error. This is not the number of frauds proven, for which data is not available.

  3 For the month of December 2000 the total figure includes the number of hits from May 2000 until December 2000 and these cannot be broken down by month. Figures were not accessible, at that time, without incurring disproportionate costs.

  4 The fraud database shows completed cases commenced in the relevant period. Due to the elapsed time between commencement of an investigation and completion of a prosecution there are cases which are inserted into previously completed data for earlier periods. All totals are therefore correct at the time when quoted but subject to adjustment at a later date.

  Source:

  Fraud Information By Sector system4

  Targeting Fraud Website
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many hits the Targeting Fraud website has received, broken down by month; how many cases of suspected fraud have been reported to the website; how many of these suspected cases have been investigated; how many(a) cases of fraud have been established, (b) changes to benefits have been made and (c) successful prosecutions there have been, as a result; and what sentences have been imposed by the courts where prosecutions have been successful; [89768]

  (2) how many submissions have been made to the Targeting Fraud website in each month since January 2000; how many referrals for investigation were made as a result of submissions to the Targeting Fraud website; how many investigations were completed as a result of submissions to the website; and how many prosecutions have resulted from website submissions. [92502]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information is not collated centrally on sentences imposed by the courts where successful prosecutions have resulted from the Targeting Fraud Website. The available information is in the table.

HEALTH

  Anti-depressants
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions he has had with the Seroxat Users Group regarding the Committee on Safety of Medicines review of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor class anti-depressants; [105537]

  (2) what action he is taking to ensure that the research conducted by members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines who hold shares in manufacturers of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor class anti-depressants is fully independent; [105536]

  (3) what action he is taking to ensure that the review of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor class antidepressants being conducted by the Committee of Safety of Medicines is fully independent. [105538]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answers 28 March 2003]: The Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and the independent scientific advisory group the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) have kept the safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants under close review since authorisation, it is normal practice for the CSM to convene an expert group to consider particular issues. The meeting of the ad hoc expert working group of 21 November 2002 was primarily convened to hear a presentation of the research of Dr. David Healy. Members of the Medicines Act advisory committees, such as the CSM, are required to follow a code of practice relating to declarations of interests in the pharmaceutical industry. The code is applied where members attend meetings of expert working groups and this was the case on 21 November 2002.

  A new CSM expert group is being appointed to conduct further review of SSRIs and appropriate membership is being considered in light of issues raised at the meeting and the further work these will require, as well as further legal advice on interests in the particular circumstances of this class review.

  Officials at the MCA are in contact with members of the Seroxat Users Group and have taken the views of the group into account.

  Assisted Conception
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures NHS hospital trusts follow to ensure the safety and reliability of the test-tube baby procedure. [106850]

  Ms Blears
  National health service trusts, and all other units providing in vitro fertilisation, must be licensed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and take account of the provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 as well as the HFEA's code of practice and other guidance issued by the HFEA. The HFEA inspects all clinics regularly to make sure the requirements are being met.

  Carbon Monoxide
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) deaths, (b) injuries and (c) illnesses have
  848W
  been attributed to carbon monoxide in the (i) UK and (ii) south-west region in each of the past 10 years; and what action the Government has taken, or plans, to reduce the number of people harmed by carbon monoxide. [104883]

  Ms Blears
  The total number of deaths per year, due to carbon monoxide poisoning of any cause (including suicide) in England has declined from 1,419 in 1992 to 441 in 2001 and in the south-west region has declined from 181 in 1992 to 62 in 2001. A breakdown of the figures for each of the last 10 years has been placed in the Library.

  Figures relating to Scotland and Wales are a matter for the devolved administrations. Whilst the institutions in Northern Ireland are suspended, responsibility lies with the Minister for the Northern Ireland office.

  Unpublished research commissioned by the Department for Trade and Industry has suggested that between 42 and 57 deaths a year in the United Kingdom are the result of carbon monoxide poisoning from domestic appliances. A breakdown for each of the last ten years is shown in the table. This information is not available for the south-west region.

  Deaths in the UK from poisoning in the home by carbon monoxide from domestic appliances in 1990–99

  Number of deaths

  1990

  46

  1991

  51

  1992

  50

  1993

  57

  1994

  55

  1995

  51

  1996

  59

  1997

  42

  1998

  47

  1999

  45

  In 2002, the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Nursing Officer at the Department of Health issued a letter to community nurses, midwives, health visitors and general practitioners to encourage recognition of the symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning. The Department of Health has also commissioned research on the health effects of carbon monoxide.

  Following a fundamental review of gas safety by the Health and Safety Commission completed in 2000, HSC has set a target of a minimum 20 per cent. reduction in gas-related fatalities over a 10-year average; this includes those caused by CO poisoning (75 per cent. of all gas fatalities).

  Measures being taken forward include: improving the public's safety awareness through advice and publicity; driving up gas installers' standards of work by introducing completion certificates to be given to consumers; changes to gas safety enforcement responsibilities and changes to the duties of gas emergency service providers.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 12 December 2002,Official Report, column 493W, on care home applications, what

  849W
  the average length of time is for care home applications to be registered and processed by the National Care Standards Commission; and how many such applications there have been. [105892]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not currently available. Information is available, however, for all new registrations relating to care homes for which the National Care Standards Commission received an application after 1 April 2002. This amounts to 779 applications and the average time taken to process these applications is 114 days. Work continues to refine this information and I will write to the hon. Member with the specific information requested when it becomes available.

  Civil Service Travel
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what grades in the Civil Service in his Department are allowed to travel by air(a) first class and (b) business class at public expense when on official duties. [104964]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department of Health no longer has traditional civil service grades, but has paybands into which all posts fall. The class of travel used by staff travelling by air on official duties is decided by the manager authorising the travel according to operational needs and not the payband of the traveller. The Department is committed to ensuring that staff use the most efficient and economic means in the circumstances taking into account any management benefit or the requirements of disabled staff.

  Commercial Confidentiality
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [105557]

  Mr. Lammy
  All those working for and on behalf of the Department have a duty to protect all official information we are entrusted with by ministers, the public and outside organisations.

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

  Commission for Patient and Public Improvement in Health
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff are planned to work in the nine regional centres of the Commission for Patient and Public Improvement in Health in Birmingham. [106544]

  Mr. Lammy
  Staffing arrangements for the regional centres of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health are a matter for the Commission.
  850W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many full-time staff work in the headquarters of the Commission for Patient and Public Improvement in Health in Birmingham; and what plans there are to change this number. [106569]

  Mr. Lammy
  Staffing arrangements are a matter for the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (CPPIH). Further information relating to these can be obtained directly from the CPPIH at 9th Floor, Ladywood House, 45–56 Stephenson Street, Birmingham, B2 4DY.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the budget of the Commission for Patient and Public Improvement in Health is in 2002–03 for(a) training members of local forums and (b) national and local publicity. [106570]

  Mr. Lammy
  The costs for the training of local forum members will be met from the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health's (CPPIH) 2003–04 budget. Expenditure on national and local publicity and indeed other activities in 2002–03, is a matter for the CPPIH.

  Community Pharmacists
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role of community pharmacists. [105567]

  Mr. Lammy
  Community pharmacists play a vital role in the national health service and in local communities more generally. They dispense around 600 million NHS prescriptions a year. They provide advice on minor ailments and sell a wide range of medicines which help people take care of their own health. They are increasingly involved in a range of additional services, including detailed advice to patients and to doctors on the use of medicines, smoking cessation schemes, and supervised consumption of methadone by drug misusers. The first repeat dispensing schemes, under which community pharmacists will supply repeat medication for up to a year, will begin shortly.

  Later this year, the first pharmacists will become supplementary prescribers. We want to see an increased role for community pharmacists in providing services to NHS patients and we are currently developing a new contractual framework to make that happen. We also want to improve access and choice, so that more NHS patients can use the skills of community pharmacists for advice, information and services.

  Consultants
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the clinical consultant caseload in Portsmouth is(a) ward-based and (b) home-based; and if he will make a statement. [104942]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not held centrally. Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) only holds data for admitted patient care in England's national health service hospitals, and therefore, data are not available for home care. Collection of data at ward level is not mandatory and therefore is not available.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many NHS registered dentists there were in the Buckinghamshire Health Authority in 2002; [105704]

  (2) how many dental practices in the Buckingham constituency (a) closed and (b) opened in 2002. [105705]

  Ms Blears
  The numbers of national health service dentists in Buckinghamshire health authority in the general dental service (CDS), personal dental service (PDS) and salaried service of the GDS at 30 September 2002 are shown in the table. The numbers of dentists for the community and hospital dental services are shown for 30 September 2001.

  NHS dental services at 30 September 2002—Buckinghamshire health authority

  Number of dentists1

  General dental service2

  291

  Personal dental service3

  27

  Community dental service4

  30

  Hospital dental service4

  10

  Salaried service of the GDS

  4

  1 Dentists are counted in each dental service in which they practice apart from PDS dentists working in the GDS who are counted in the GDS only.

  2 GDS cover principals on the health authority list, assistants and vocational dental practitioners.

  3 The PDS covers dentists working in the PDS who are not also working in the GDS.

  4 Rounded to the nearest 10 at 30 September 2001.

  These figures are on a headcount basis rather than whole time equivalent (wte) and take no account of part-time working.

  There were no dental practices closed in 2002, nor were any new practices opened during 2002.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further help he will give to primary care trusts in rural areas to recruit NHS dentists. [105502]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, introduced to the House on 12 March, proposes that each primary care trust (PCT) be given a duty to provide or secure the provision of primary dental services in its area to the extent that it considers reasonable to do so and be given the financial resources to do this. These financial resources are currently managed centrally. It is the intention of the Bill that local commissioning will give PCTs levers that they do not currently have to influence the provision of oral health services in their areas, rural or otherwise.

  The Bill also puts in place a framework by which it will be possible to pay dentists differently. Under the proposed arrangements, primary care dentists would be able to spend more time with their patients and focus on prevention and health promotion as well as treatment. It is anticipated that this will make national health service dentistry a more attractive option for dentists and that they will be encouraged to remain within the NHS or increase their NHS commitment.

  Departmental Catering Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of(a) in-house canteen and (b) other catering services provided by the Department in 2002. [104263]

  Mr. Lammy
  During 2002, the cost to the Department, excluding agencies, of in house canteen services was 84,000 and other catering services £776,000.

  The cost of in house canteen services reflects the management fee paid on one of the Department's contracts. The cost of accommodation and utilities, associated with the provision of in-house facilities, has not been included.

  Departmental Invoices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the occasions on which(a) his Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period in the financial year 2001–02. [104322]

  Mr. Lammy
  The payment record during 2001–02 is shown in the table.

  Number on time

  Percentage

  Number late

  Percentage

  Department of Health

  340,881

  96.35

  12,921

  3.65

  Agencies

  26,747

  80.28

  6,570

  19.72

  NDPBs

  69,711

  72.71

  26,161

  27.29

  Expenditure (Ministers' Offices)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the running costs in 2002 were of(a) his Ministers' private offices, separately identifying expenditure on staff, and (b) his Department. [105992]

  Mr. Lammy
  In the financial year 2001–02, it cost £2,876,000 to run Ministers' private offices, £2,242,000 of which was staff costs.

  Outturn against the Department's Administration Cost Limit for 2001–02 is reported in Note 6.1 of the Department's resource accounts for 2001–02, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Five-a-day Co-ordinators
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS trusts employ National Five-A-Day co-ordinators; and what the salary is of each. [104076]

  Ms Blears
  Salford Primary Care Trust was awarded a grant by the New Opportunities Fund to employ Five-A-Day co-ordinators. One is a part-time national post at a salary of £35,000 per annum pro rata; and 10 are regional co-ordinators—seven full-time and three part-time—at salaries between £25,000 and £30,000 pro rata.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the buildings(a) owned and (b) used by the

  853W
  Food Standards Agency, giving in each case (i) their location and (ii) their latest market value; and if he will make a statement. [105090]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) and its executive agency The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) do not own any buildings. The FSA's head office in Kingsway, London, has an annual rent of £4.2 million. Devolved offices are located in Aberdeen, Belfast and Cardiff with annual rentals of £160,000, £67,000 and £51,000 respectively.

  The MHS has its head office in York. The annual rent is £346,000. The MHS has regional offices in York (annual rent £48,000), Edinburgh (£7,000), Wolverhampton (£19,000), Cardiff (£18,000) and Taunton (£16,000).

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the total cost to public funds of the Food Standards Agency in each year from 1999–2000 to 2004–05 (planned). [105091]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) was formed on 1 April 2000. The total costs to the public funds in the United Kingdom of the FSA, including the activities of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), which is an executive agency of the FSA and its offices in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the years to 2004–05 are shown in the table.

  £ million

  Financial Year

  FSA

  MHS

  Total

  2000–01 (actual)

  80.0

  3.7

  83.7

  2001–02 (actual)

  97.4

  18.1

  115.5

  2002–03 (planned)

  102

  25

  127

  2003–04

  n/a

  n/a

  138

  2004–

  n/a

  n/a

  147

  Genetics
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to publish the Green Paper on Genetics. [105312]

  Ms Blears
  We have been developing our proposals on genetics and these will be published shortly.

  Health Overview and Scrutiny Committees
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources will be made available to health overview and scrutiny committees from funds previously allocated to community health councils. [106541]

  Mr. Lammy
  The £23.5 million previously made available to fund Community Health Councils (CHCs) is contributing to the much wider programme of Government initiatives to support and strengthen patient and public involvement.

  The functions of CHCs are being picked up by a range of mechanisms which include patient advice and liaison services, independent complaints advocacy services, patients forums, the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health and the scrutiny of health services by local authority overview and scrutiny committees. Overall the funding has increased substantially.
  854W
  Funding to support local authority scrutiny of the national health services is currently being considered within the Department and an announcement will be made shortly.

  Healthy Workplace Initiative (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) companies, (b) voluntary organisations and (c) public sector organisations based in the Buckinghamshire constituency have signed up to the healthy workplace initiative; what information he has received; and at what cost to public funds. [106378]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer the hon. Member to the response given to him by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Blears), on Tuesday 7 February 2002,Official Report, column 1152W. There has been no change in the position since this response was given.

  Human Cloning
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy on human cloning. [104207]

  Ms Blears
  The United Kingdom already has a legal ban, the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001, that prevents any attempt to carry out human reproductive cloning.

  In its response to the 2002 House of Lords Select Committee report on stem cell research, the Government agreed with the Select Committee that there is a powerfulcase for the use of therapeutic cloning, under strict regulation, as a research tool.

  Such research is permitted and regulated under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.

  Independent Complaint Advocacy Service
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Independent Complaint Advocacy Service will be established. [106358]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the response I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) on 19 March 2003,Official Report, columns 849–50W.

  Infections (Plane Travel)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people who became ill from infection caused by travelling by plane, broken down by(a) common cold, (b) influenza and (c) other illnesses, in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [104489]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not collected.

  Meat Hygiene
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many red meat and poultry meat slaughterhouses(a) have introduced the Meat (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point) system since 7 June 2002, (b) have since been the subject of enforcement action because of contravention of the regulations and (c) are

  855W
  about to be subject to such action or are being considered for such action because of contraventions of the regulations; and if he will make a statement. [106486]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 1 April 2003]The Meat (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point) Regulations 2002 came into effect on 7 June 2002 in respect of large licensed meat plants and of these, 78 red meat and poultry meat slaughterhouses have fully implemented the requirements, 15 such premises have since been the subject of enforcement action because of contravention of these regulations and five are being considered for such action.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the(a) mental health service improvements announced in the national service framework for mental health and (b) N HS plan for (i) crisis teams, (ii) assertive outreach programmes, (iii) home treatment, (iv) early intervention in psychosis and (v) primary care mental health teams will be launched in the Portsmouth area; and if he will make a statement. [104943]

  Ms Blears
  The mental health national service framework, published in September 1999, outlines national standards for mental health and how they should be developed and delivered. It concentrates on the mental health needs of working age adults, and covers health promotion, assessment and diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation and care, encompassing primary and secondary care as well as the roles of partner agencies.

  In the Portsmouth area work to develop mental health services is on-going. Hampshire and the Isle of Wight Strategic Health Authority has advised of the following mental health services in place:

  Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment
  Portsmouth City Primary Care Trust (PCT) has gained successful approval of its crisis resolution and home treatment business case at the PCT board and recruitment of key staff posts commenced in March 2003.

  Assertive Outreach
  Portsmouth City PCT has a small assertive outreach team, which has been operating since 1999.

  Early Intervention Psychosis
  Portsmouth City PCT is working with colleagues in Hampshire to develop a model.

  Primary Care Mental Health Teams
  Portsmouth City has a number of pilot GP practices.

  Ms Drugs
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each nominated prescribing centre in the risk sharing scheme for MS drugs the(a) planned and (b) actual establishment by (i) type of occupation and (ii) grade; what the total population covered is; how many people with MS each covers; if he will estimate how many MS sufferers are likely to be eligible for each under ABN guidelines; and how much has been spent to date by each on (A) prescribing and (B) staffing. [105396]

  Mr. Lammy
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  NHS Staff
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) patient pathway supervisors, (b) customer relationship managers, (c) Sure Start managers, (d) National Five-A-Day Co-ordinators, (e) facilitators, (f) assertive outreach managers, (g) bilingual advocates, (h) liaison officers and (i) strategists are employed in the national health service; and what their average salary is in each case. [104075]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested for patient pathway supervisors, customer relationship managers, facilitators, bilingual advocates, liaison officers and strategists is not collected centrally.

  There are 11 Five-A-Day co-ordinator posts, of which three are part-time in the regions with eight co-ordinators having been recruited so far.

  Salford Primary Care Trust was awarded a grant by the New Opportunities Fund to employ Five-A-Day co-ordinators in each region plus one supra-regional coordinator. The salary of the supra-regional co-ordinator will be around £35,000. The regional co-ordinators' salaries are between £25,000 and £30,000.

  In October 2001, there were 191 assertive outreach teams and 90 whole-time equivalent assertive outreach managers.

  There are currently 439 sure start programmes. The number of managers in these areas and their average salary is not collected centrally.

  Obesity
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has conducted into(a) the cost to the public sector and (b) the impact on public spending between 2003 and 2020 as a result of children currently classified as clinically obese; and if he will place copies of the research in the Library. [103804]

  Ms Blears
  The Department of Health has not carried out any research into the cost to the public sector and the impact on public spending between 2003 and 2020 of clinically obese children.

  The National Audit Office report, Tackling Obesity in England, published in February 2001, estimated that the direct cost for both children and adults to the National Health Service to treating obesity in 1998 was £9.4 million. Treating the consequences of obesity cost the National Health Service approximately 480 million per year, or about 1.5 per cent. of the total NHS expenditure for that year. The National Audit Office report predicted that if the prevalence of obesity continues to rise at the present rate until 2010, these annual costs would increase by £1 billion, or over a third, to around £3.6 billion, by that year. Extrapolation beyond 2010 can not be calculated with any certainty.

  The Government is committed to halting the current trend of increasing overweight and obesity in both children and adults through cross- government work on diet and physical activity.

  Passive Smoking
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken into
  857W
  levels of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke using (a) examinations of hair, blood, saliva and urine to detect constituents of metabolites of tobacco smoke, (b) personal monitors to gather data, (c) surveys and questionnaires on the time and frequency of exposure and (d) measurement of air concentration of constituents of second-hand tobacco smoke. [97573]

  Ms Blears
  Research was recently commissioned to develop new and more accurate methodology to determine the constituents of sidestream smoke. The final methodology developed was published last year as "Sidestream smoke collection using a harmonised linear smoking machine" by Fiona Thomas and Keith Darrall in Beitrage zur Tabakforschung International, volume 20, part 2, pages 69—76, June 2002.

  The Department has not commissioned research into any of the other areas mentioned.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the percentage of cases of lung cancer that are caused by passive smoking in the workplace. [103486]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 20 March 2003]The information is not available in the form requested.

  The independent Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) examined the increased risk of prolonged exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in its 1998 report. It was concluded that long term exposure of non-smokers to environmental tobacco smoke caused an increased risk of lung cancer which, in those living with smokers, is in the region of 20 to 30 per cent. The numbers of people exposed are not known precisely, but an estimate would suggest about several hundred extra lung cancer deaths a year are caused by exposure to passive smoking. A separate estimate for lung cancer caused by exposure to tobacco smoke in the workplace has not been produced.

  Source:

  Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health. London: The Stationery Office, 1998.

  Availableat:http://www.archive.officiandocuments.co.uk/document/doh/tobacco/report.htm

  Patients' Complaints
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are in place to handle Wandsworth patients' complaints after September; what plans he has for(a) the Wandsworth pilot Patients' Forum and (b) the Wandsworth pilot Independent Complaints Advocacy Service; and which of these will deal with complaints [105813]

  Mr. Lammy
  It is our intention that Independent Complaints Advocacy Services (ICAS) will be available throughout the country from 1 September 2003.

  In the new system of patient and public involvement, local delivery of ICAS is the responsibility of primary care trust (PCT) patients' forums. As an interim measure, while patients forums are being established and are building their capacity and networks, we shall be working with the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (CPPIH) to put in place national coverage of ICAS through a contract with specialist complaints support providers.
  858W
  I recently announced an extension to the ICAS pilots, including the Wandsworth pilot, to 31 July 2003.

  The CPPIH has a specific remit to set national standards for ICAS and to monitor compliance. The ICAS pilots currently work to draft national standards and are developing local operational protocols, which will inform future provision.

  Pharmacies
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to safeguard access to pharmacy services for people living in rural areas. [104809]

  Mr. Lammy
  Under the National Health Service Act 1977, it is the responsibility of national health service primary care trusts (PCTs) to arrange the provision of pharmaceutical services in their area. This includes determining whether it is necessary or desirable to secure adequate provision of services by granting new applications. The Health and Social Care Act 2001 also empowers PCTs to devise contracts for local pharmaceutical services which address particular local needs.

  The Essential Small Pharmacy Scheme provides additional financial support to pharmacies which might otherwise be unviable.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pharmacies(a) opened and (b) closed in (i) the UK, (ii) Suffolk and (iii) the Bury St. Edmunds constituency in each of the last five years. [104811]

  Mr. Lammy
  The table shows information on the number of pharmacies opening and closing in England and Wales and in the former Suffolk Health Authority in the five years to 31 March 2002. Such information for Bury St. Edmunds is not held centrally, but there has been no change in the number of pharmacies in Bury St. Edmunds over this period. Information for Scotland and Northern Ireland should be requested from the relevant administrations.

  Number of NHS pharmacies

  Year ending1

  Opening

  Closing

  England and Wales

  1998

  48

  46

  1999

  51

  56

  2000

  27

  37

  2001

  36

  40

  2002

  30

  34

  Suffolk health authority

  1998

  0

  0

  1999

  0

  0

  2000

  3

  0

  2001

  2

  0

  2002

  0

  1

  1 31 March

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the contribution his Department made to the Office of Fair Trading's recent report on entry controls for pharmacies. [105445]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 31 March 2003]Officials from the Department of Health met staff from the Office of Fair Trading during the course of their enquiry into entry controls for pharmacies and provided
  859W
  factual material. The Department did not provide a contribution to the text of the report. Decisions about content are the responsibility of the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Preventive Medicine
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role of preventative medicine in the National Health Service. [102205]

  Ms Blears
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health, in his speech to the Faculty of Public Health Medicine on 20 November 2002, reaffirmed the Government's commitment to put public health and addressing health inequality at the heart of the National Health Service. Prevention and delaying the onset of disease are key priorities of the NHS Plan, Cancer Plan, and the national service frameworks (NSFs).

  The planning and priorities framework, "Improvement, Expansion and Reform", which sets out the priorities for the next three years for the NHS and social services, includes targets for:
  smoking cessation (including reduction of smoking in pregnancy)
  initiation of breastfeeding
  practice-based registers to ensure that patients with or at risk of coronary heart disease and diabetes receive appropriate care and treatment in line with NSF standards, including advice on diet, physical activity and smoking.

  Medical training, particularly undergraduate training is already beginning to reflect this emphasis upon prevention. Under the recently revised curriculum, set by the GeneralMedical Council, effectively on behalf of the Government, there is a substantially enhanced public health and prevention content.

  School Fruit Schemes
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether, under the National School Fruit Scheme, all four-year-olds in education are entitled to a free piece of fruit each school day; and whether this entitlement applies to children in LEA maintained nursery schools, as well as nursery classes attached to primary schools. [104880]

  Ms Blears
  The National School Fruit Scheme is a Government commitment to entitle all four to six-year-olds to a free piece of fruit each school day from 2004.

  Entitlement at present is restricted to children in areas where region-wide pilots for the scheme have already been introduced. Eligibility for these pilots is defined as four to six-year-olds in local education authority (LEA) maintained infant, primary and special schools and other children in the same classes. This includes nursery classes attached to these schools but not stand-alone nursery schools, whether or not they are LEA maintained.

  During these pilots, we are keeping all aspects of the scheme under review, including the application of eligibility criteria, prior to the national scheme being introduced.

  Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to protect the public against severe acute respiratory syndrome; and if he will make a statement. [105210]

  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to the written ministerial statement that I gave today.

  Smoking
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many smokers there are in the UK population; and what evaluation he has made of the resultant cost to the NHS per individual. [102655]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 19 March 2003]There were an estimated 12.7 million smokers in the United Kingdom in 2001.

  In 1997, the latest year for which there is data, it was estimated that treating illness and disease caused by smoking costs the national health service in England up to£ 1.7 billion every year in terms of general practitioner visits, prescriptions, treatment and operations1. No comparable information is available for the remainder of the UK.

  It is not possible to provide a meaningful estimate of the cost to the NHS per smoker from these data, as costs are incurred not just for current smokers but also for ex-smokers and those affected by passive smoking.

  1 Buck D., Godfrey C., .Parrott S., Raw M., University of York Centre for Health Economics. "Cost effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions". London: Health Education Authority, 1997.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce legislation to ban smoking in restaurants. [101914]

  Ms Blears
  The Government wants to increase the number of smoke-free environments. We have worked closely with the hospitality trade to develop a Public Places Charter designed provide customers with clear information on the type of smoking policy operating in a particularestablishment and allow them to make an informed choice.

  As part of ensuring people have the information to make an informed choice we are developing education and information resources to raise awareness and understanding of the risks associated with passive smoking.

  This includes increasing the visibility of health messages highlighting to smokers the risks environmental tobacco smoke presents. This is through regulations to transpose into UnitedKingdom law the European Union directive on the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products. These regulations require tobacco products to carry larger and starker health warnings, on both the front and back of the packet. The dangers of passive smoking are highlighted in two of the new warnings, which include "Smoking seriously harms you and others around you" and "Protect children: don't make them breathe your smoke" The contents of tobacco smoke are also highlighted in a warning saying, "Smoke contains benzene, nitrosomines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide".
  861W
  We are also encouraging all employers to introduce smoke-free work places. This year the Department is funding local tobacco control alliances across England to carry out projects in close co-operation with local employers to tackle passive smoking and to increase the number of smoke-free environments. These projects vary in nature from the production of smoke-free guides to pubs and restaurants to the provision of advice and support to managers wishing to introduce policies. We hope that many will be suitable for national application.

  Telephone Helplines
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 20 February 2003,Official Report, column 38W, on telephone helplines, how many calls were made to each helpline charged at national rate in the last year for which records are available; and what the average duration of these calls was. [105877]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department does not hold records of these calls.

  Two Shires Ambulance Trust
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed by Two Shires Ambulance Trust in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002. [105696]

  Ms Blears
  I have been advised by Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority that the number of staff employed by Two Shires Ambulance Trust in 2001 was 857 and in 2002 was 923.

  These figures include the staff employed by the trust who work at the NHS Direct site in Milton Keynes.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the sickness absence rate was for the Two Shires Ambulance Trust in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002. [105697]

  Ms Blears
  The sickness absence rate for the Two Shires Ambulance National Health Service Trust for 2000 and 2001 is shown in the table. The survey for 2002 has not yet been completed.

  Sickness absence rate—Two Shires Ambulance NHS Trust

  Percentage

  2000

  5.5

  2001

  5.1

  Notes:

  1. Figures are the amount of time lost through absences as a percentage of staff time available.

  2. The survey for 2002 has not yet been completed.

  Source:

  Department of Health survey of sickness absence.

  United Kingdom Accreditation Service
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Public Health Laboratory Service will maintain its UK Accreditation Service accreditation when it transfers into the NHS. [105487]
  862W
  Ms Blears
  The Public Health Laboratory Service will be transferring to national health service trusts 31 of its laboratories that carry out general clinical diagnostic microbiology. We are advised that these transfers will not affect their accreditation by the United Kingdom Accreditation Scheme (UKAS).

  Unlicensed Taxi Drivers
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance his Department has issued to ambulance trusts on the vetting of taxi drivers used as sub-contractors to transport patients on behalf of the trust; [104620]

  (2) what guidance his Department has issued to ambulance trusts on the employment of unlicensed taxi drivers as sub-contractors to transport patients on behalf of the trust; [104621]

  (3) what duty ambulance trusts have to ensure that drivers employed as sub-contractors are persons who can be trusted with the safety of their passengers; [104622]

  (4) what guidance his Department has issued to ambulance trusts on the employment of taxi firms without an operator's licence as sub-contractors to transport patients on behalf of the trust; [104623]

  (5) what duty ambulance trusts have to ensure that vehicles used by taxi firms as sub-contractors are in a condition to transport patients safely; [104624]

  (6) what duty ambulance trusts have to ensure that firms employed as sub-contractors to transport patients on behalf of the trust hold an operator's licence; [104625]

  (7) what recent discussions his Department has had with Essex Ambulance Trust on the use of subcontractors to transport patients on behalf of the Trust. [104626]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department of Health has not had any discussions with Essex Ambulance Trust on the use of sub-contractors to transport patients on behalf of the trust.

  All national health service bodies, including ambulance trusts, have to meet the control assurance standards contained in the following document, issued December 2001, "Management of Purchasing and Supply, Incorporating Control of Contracts and Contractors". A copy of this will be placed in the Library.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in the Buckinghamshire health authority area waited more than(a) 13 weeks and (b) 26 weeks for a first outpatient appointment in each reporting period over the past two years. [105706]

  Ms Blears
  The number of patients in the Buckinghamshire health authority who waited more than 13 weeks and 26 weeks for a first outpatient appointment is shown in the table.
  863W

  Patients seen who have waited:

  Year

  Quarter

  13 to 26 weeks

  26 plus weeks

  Data pre "Shifting the Balance of Power"

  2000–01

  4

  5,611

  1,737

  2001–02

  1

  3,970

  685

  2001–02

  2

  4,771

  770

  2001–02

  3

  5,562

  1,068

  2001–2

  4

  —

  —

  Data post "Shifting the Balance of Power"1

  2002–03

  1

  5,123

  425

  2002–03

  2

  6,380

  174

  2002–03

  3

  6,039

  342

  1Includes Chiltern and South Bucks primary care trust (PCT), Milton Keynes PCT, Vale of Aylesbury PCT and Wycombe PCT.

  Source:

  Department of Health form QMO8R

TREASURY

  Heroin (Afghanistan)
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps his Department is taking to monitor and control the dispersal of heroin from Afghanistan, with particular reference to its import into the UK. [106116]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise is providing advice and assistance to the Afghan Transitional Administration to help counter the narcotics trade there. Customs also has a network of Drug Liaison Officers who gather intelligence and assist in the interdiction of heroin along transit routes from Afghanistan to the UK.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the annual revenue to the Exchequer from air passenger duty was in each year since 1997, broken down by(a) destination category and (b) rate category. [106179]

  John Healey
  Details of revenue from air passenger duty, by destination category and rate category, are published in the HM Customs and Excise 'Air Passenger Duty Factsheet' (February 2002, Page 1), a copy of which can be found in the Library of the House.

  Humanitarian Relief
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reimburse the Department for International Development for the money it has allocated for humanitarian relief from next year's contingency reserve. [106481]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 1 April 2003]The Government have set aside a total of £240 million for humanitarian assistance in Iraq. This includes £30 million for the MOD to provide immediate assistance on the ground, and £210 million which DfID will distribute, including an extra £120 million announced by the Chancellor on 27 March 2003.
  864W
  There are no plans to reimburse DfID for the money it has allocated for humanitarian relief from its contingency reserve.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff are employed by his Department. [106280]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer the Minister of State, Cabinet Office is giving him today.

  Tobacco Duty
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate has been made of the level of revenue received from duty on tobacco in each of the last five years. [106516]

  John Healey
  Excise duty and estimated VAT receipts for tobacco are published in the HM Customs and Excise "Tobacco Factsheet" Page 1, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Civil Contingency Planning
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [102624]

  Mr. Leslie
  (a) I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 21 March 2003, Official Report, columns 957–58W.

  (b) The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister civil contingency responsibilities include the readiness of the Fire Service to respond to civil threats, including chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear attack, the ability of the regions to engage in effective emergency planning; and earthquakes and major building structural failures. For the Fire Service, a total of £56 million has been committed to the New Dimension mass decontamination programme. On search and rescue, £3 million has been made available for the training of responders, the purchase of technical search and rescue and heavy rescue equipment, and the provision of training rigs at the Fire Service College; and a further £2 million to provide for the special needs of the capital.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is establishing regional resilience teams in Government Offices from 1 April 2003 to assist in providing multi-agency strategic direction to civil protection planning and preparedness at regional level.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is also responsible for the inter-agency London Resilience Team, which acts to drive and co-ordinate emergency planning against a catastrophic incident in the capital. It

  865W
  has reviewed preparedness in the capital and developed an urgent programme of action to strengthen the high level of resilience.

  A small unit co-ordinates the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's response to broader civil contingency issues and the development of plans and capabilities in relation to its responsibilities. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is also taking appropriate actions to ensure the resilience of it's own operations. This includes collaboration with other Departments.

  Communities Plan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress with the implementation of the Communities Plan. [106014]

  Mr. McNulty
  The investment set out in the Communities Plan comes on stream at the start of financial year 2003–04. Work is proceeding across the whole agenda of the Plan and milestones have been achieved in a number of areas.

  Most of the market renewal pathfinders have now been established with early action proceeding in these areas alongside finalisation of strategic schemes.

  In the growth areas the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is in discussion with local partners about strengthened local delivery arrangements.

  The Housing Corporation's 2003–04 programme for investment in affordable housing has been announced. The challenge fund element will deliver some 8000 homes, of which about half will be for key workers, and some 2,500 will be built using modern methods of construction.

  On 31 March we published our Housing Bill. This includes proposals for licensing of landlords and changes to the rules relating to the Right to Buy.

  The home ownership task force has been launched, and regional housing boards have been set up in the regions.

  European Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress with achieving transparency in respect of the European working groups for which his Department is responsible. [105737]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government remain committed to greater openness in the EU institutions, including working groups, and strongly support the measures agreed at the Seville European Council to make the council more open in its legislative process. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister welcomes Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, council and commission documents as a result of which more documents are released to the public while genuinely sensitive documents are given the necessary protection.

  Homebuy Scheme
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people in the Buckingham constituency have 866W
  received interest free equity loans under the Homebuy Scheme; and what the total amount of funding granted is. [106020]

  Mr. McNulty
  Up until 28 February 2003, 49 Homebuy purchases had been completed in Buckinghamshire since the scheme began in April 1999. The total amount of funding provided by the Housing Corporation for Homebuy purchases in Buckinghamshire was £1,693,269. A breakdown by local authority is tabled as follows:

  Local authority

  Homebuy completions

  Funding provided (£)

  Aylesbury Vale

  7

  199,019

  Chiltern

  0

  0

  Milton Keynes

  5

  133,917

  South Buckinghamshire

  21

  695,150

  Wycombe

  16

  665,183

  Total

  49

  1,693,269

  Housing Development (Ministry of Defence Land)
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence on the release of MOD-owned land in South East England for housing development; and if he will make a statement. [105749]

  Mr. McNulty
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has not had discussions with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence about the release of land in the South East himself. Officials of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have, however, had discussions involving Ministry of Defence, the regional agencies and English Partnerships over broad issues relating to Ministry of Defence land in the South East.

  On a national level, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has given English Partnerships a new strategic role for surplus public sector land across Government. They are now drawing up a register of surplus public sector land. Working with the RDAs, they will help ensure that wider Government objectives, such as housing and regional economic strategies, are factored into future site disposals.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the responses he has received to Government proposals for a referendum on a regional assembly for the South West. [107147]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has so far received over 5,400 responses to it's soundings exercise about the level of interest in each English region in holding a referendum about an elected regional assembly. 540 have been identified as being from the South West.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will announce its decisions after the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill has received Royal Assent.

  Travellers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the publicly-owned travellers sites broken down by(a) local authority and (b) parliamentary constituences. [106023]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister publishes an annual count of authorised Gypsy and Traveller sites in England, which is broken down into each local authority area. The annual sites count and bi-annual caravan count is also available through the website. The January 2003 sites count will be published in due course.

  A copy of the latest sites and caravan count has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many grants have been paid in 2002–03 to voluntary organisations based in the Buckingham constituency from the Special Grants Programme. [105703]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Special Grants Programme (SGP) is administered by open competition. One funding application was received from a Buckinghamshire-based voluntary organisation during the 2002–3 SGP competition. This application was unsuccessful; consequently no grants were awarded within the Buckinghamshire constituency.

  Walton Group Plc
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made on the return of the Government grant given to the Walton Group plc in relation to Exchange Flags, Liverpool; and where the funds will be applied. [106997]

  Mr. McNulty
  Between November 1992 and July 1994, developers the Walton Group Plc and contractors Todd and Benn (Contractors) Limited were given £4,444,782 in a City Grant to renovate the disused Exchange Buildings in Liverpool. When English Partnerships (EP) claimed that the work was not completed, the Government sought the return of the grant plus costs incurred. The case was settled out of court last year.

  Shortly before the final payment deadline of 1 April 2003, English Partnerships received a full and final cash settlement of just over £5.5 million. This represents the full amount of the original grant and all the costs expended.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 18 November 2002, Official Report, column 125W, the settlement terms allowed for interest to accrue under certain circumstances. This clause was triggered, and the sum received therefore also includes the full amount of interest due.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is now asking EP to work with the city council and the North West Development Agency—its partners in Liverpool Vision, the city's urban regeneration company—to identify appropriate projects that will ensure the original grant money can now be applied for the benefit of Liverpool City Centre.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Arrests
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were arrested and not charged in each of the past five years; and how many of them had never been arrested previously. [106529]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Data given in the table are for arrests for notifiable offences within the financial years 1999–2000 to 2001–02. Information for earlier years is not available on a consistent basis.

  Statistics on the number of people who following arrest are not charged, or those who have never been arrested previously, are not collected centrally.

  Persons arrested for notifiable offences recorded by the police, from 1999–2000 to 2001–02

  £

  Year

  1England and Wales

  1999–2000

  1,277,900

  2000–01

  1,264,200

  2001–02

  1,271,900

  1Total (estimated)

  Asylum Seekers
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether asylum seekers serving prison sentences are able to apply for hard cases section 4 NASS support. [105962]

  Beverley Hughes
  Accommodation may be provided under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as amended, in certain circumstances to asylum seekers whose claims have been finally determined as unsuccessful. Clearly, those in custody cannot obtain section 4 support. Similarly, asylum seekers who have not yet received a final decision on their claim for asylum are not eligible for accommodation under section 4.

  We seek to deport failed asylum seekers and others without rights of residence in the United Kingdom on completion of a prison sentence. Section 4 support would only be available if it was not possible for them to leave the country or be deported.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers and their dependants are supported by(a) NASS, (b) local authorities and (c) the mainstream welfare benefits system. [106089]

  Beverley Hughes
  At the end of December 2002, 54,070 asylum seekers (including dependants) were being supported in The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) accommodation and 37,810 asylum seekers (including dependants) were in receipt of subsistence only support1. These statistics are available on the Home Office's immigration and asylum website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html

  From grant claims sent to the Home Office by English and Welsh local authorities, as at the end of December 2002,29,485 households were in receipt of local authority support(comprising 16,980 individuals and 12,505 families)1.
  869W
  At the end of December 2002, 3,865 asylum seeker households (comprising 1,295 individuals and 2,570 families, were being supported by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

  1Figures have been rounded to the nearest five.

  Civil Contingencies
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [102621]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I am responsible for co-ordination arrangement on counter-terrorism and civil contingencies across Government. With regard to the first part of the question I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr Douglas Alexander) on 21 March 2003,Official Report, column 957W.

  The Cabinet Office is the lead department for civil emergency planning. The Home Office leads on developing the UK's capability to respond to terrorist inspired CBRN incidents and does not hold assets for civil emergency planning. The Department is playing a leading role in the government's work to ensure that the emergency services have the equipment and the trained officers necessary to respond to civil emergencies particularly incidents caused by CBRN terrorism.

  As Home Secretary, I have responsibility within the Government for domestic national security, including counter-terrorism policy, and also for our work relating to preparedness in the face of a terrorist attack. I chair two Cabinet Sub-Committees which deal with these matters, bringing together Ministers from all relevant departments to ensure that contingencies arrangements are in place. Each department, of course, takes responsibility for its own resilience in the face of terrorist attacks and other emergencies. I refer the hon. Member again to the reply given by the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 21 March for that department's role in co-ordinating these arrangements for resilience in government and the public sector.

  I gave a full account of the Government's response to dealing with the consequences of a terrorist attack when I made a statement to the House during the debates on the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 on 3 March 2003, Official Report, column 72WS.

  Communities Against Drugs Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) those schemes which have received funding under the Communities Against Drugs Initiative in the Buckingham constituency, (b) the amount received and (c) targets set to reduce crime under the scheme. [106367]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The schemes that have been funded under the Communities Against Drugs (CAD)870W
  funding stream in the Buckingham Constituency comprise of Sound Studio workshops for young people, youth diversionary activities equipment, a surveillance vehicle, Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) and a 'Handy Man' scheme. It has also paid for a Proactive Unit police sergeant and Drugs Outreach Workers which link young people into an arrest referral weekend project.

  The CAD funding allocation to Aylesbury Vale totalled £127,200 in each of the years 2001–02 and 2002–03. For 2003–04, the total partnership allocation of proposed combined CAD and Safer Community Initiative funding will be £176,346, of which the CAD element remains £127, 200. The total allocation over the three year period is therefore £430,746.

  To reduce crime under CAD, the broad aims are to disrupt local drugs markets, to tackle drug related crime and to strengthen communities. The Home Office does not set any specific target for partnerships for this funding in terms of reduction in crime they should achieve, but their work using CAD funds should contribute to the various targets for reducing crime and drugs set out in the Home Office business plan. In relation to supply of drugs their work under CAD funding should contribute to a police target of a 10 per cent. increase per annum of persons charged, summonsed or cautioned for supply of Class A drugs.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [104206]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The available information for the main Home Office website is shown in the table.

  2002–03

  Cost (£)

  180,290.83

  Number of page impressions

  74,814,304

  The Home Office website moved to a new server on 1 July 2002. Due to technical limitations on the server used between April and June 2002, no full record is available of the page impressions made of some parts of the site during that period. The figure shown in the table therefore under-represents the real number of page impressions.

  With over half of the homes in the United Kingdom now online1 and public access on the rise, our website is an invaluable tool for disseminating important information to the public and in opening up new areas of knowledge about Home Office activity in general. It is a cost-effective vehicle that allows us to speak to many people at once and offers the option for anyone to give us their feedback. We are developing the website, most recently providing information on protection against the terrorist threat.

  1Oftel January 2002

  Domestic Violence
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been received by Surrey councils to combat domestic violence in each of the last five years. [104096]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 21 March 2003]We do not hold comprehensive figures centrally.

  As far as the Home Office is concerned, in the year 2002–03 the following councils received funding totalling approximately 50,000 from the Home Office via Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships: Epsom and Ewell, Guildford, Surrey Heath, Tandridge, Waverley.

  Minicabs
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times(a) this year and (b) last year the police have investigated mini-cab companies for (i) employment of illegal immigrants and (ii) failure to keep accurate work documents. [106554]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Information is not held centrally on the number of police investigations of mini-cab companies or private hire vehicle operating centres. When the police have reason to investigate such businesses, there may, apart from failure to keep accurate work documents, be a number of offences detected. These include driving without insurance, no MOT, no vehicle excise duty, touting and vehicle defects.

  The police do not routinely investigate such businesses in relation to the employment of illegal immigrants, but if they do encounter such activities they would normally involve the Immigration Service.

  Personal Protection
  Mr. Nick Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to distribute to all UK citizens public information packs on personal protection in the event of chemical, biological, radioactive or nuclear attack; and if he will make an assessment of information packs recently produced by private sector firms. [105296]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 27 March 2003]I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) on 10 March 2003,Official Report, olumn 69W. I would like the House tobe assured that we are considering every option for how the Government would provide appropriate information at an appropriate time for the public.

  The Government will not comment on information packs produced by private sector firms as it does not comment on matters that may have commercial implications.

  At the end of December 2002, 3,865 asylum seeker households (comprising 1,295 individuals and 2,570 families) were being supported by the Department for Work andPensions (DWP).

  Note:

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest five.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables there were in the Buckingham constituency in 2002. [106385]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I understand from the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police that it is not possible to provide information about the number of special constables specifically for the Buckingham constituency. At 31 March 2002 the number of special constables in the Aylesbury Vale police area, which incorporates the Buckingham constituency, was 27.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much timber has been bought for use on the Home Office construction site at 2 Marsham Street; which timber companies have provided it; and what efforts have been made to ensure that it comes from legal and sustainable sources. [105386]

  Beverley Hughes
  So far, no timber has been purchased for use in the new Home Office building. Information on the quantities of such purchases will be provided to the Department when they have been made, together with evidence that they have come from legal and sustainable sources.

  There have been no significant timber purchases by Anne Gates Property Pic (AGP) for use in the construction of the new building. In accordance with central guidance, our policy does not require AGP to provide details of timber used during construction. AGP has, nevertheless, agreed to supply copies of certificates showing that purchased construction timber has been sourced legally and sustainably.

  It is not always practical for the source of hired timber, or hired products containing timber such as site office furniture, to be verified in the same way.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which(a) organisations and (b) companies in the UK entertainment industry he consulted on the proposal to introduce charges for work permit applications; and how many of each (i) opposed and (ii) supported the introduction of a flat rate fee for work permits. [106112]

  Beverley Hughes
  In order to ensure that the consultation was fair, transparent and equitable the organisations and companies consulted were randomly selected from the Work Permits (UK) database and the consultation was also placed on the Work Permits (UK) website as well as the UK Online website. As such, no record of the type of employer consulted was collected. The consultation was conducted according to the Code of Practice on written consultation issued by the Cabinet Office.

  However, out of the 135 replies in response to the consultation exercise in England, Scotland and Wales, 12 respondents identified themselves as being from the Entertainment and Leisure industry. While only four of

  873W
  those 12 stated the flat rate fee was more appropriate, overall 59 per cent. of the total respondents stated the flat rate fee was appropriate.

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new jobs will be created in the appropriate government department and in the fee handling agency to deal with the new charges for work permits. [106113]

  Beverley Hughes
  As a direct result of the introduction of charging for work permit applications, I have created 10 full time administrative posts within Work Permits (UK). The duties of these staff include financial reconciliation, accounting, exception reporting and debt recovery, the authorisation of ex-gratia payments, checking deferred and exempt payment types, and preparing inter-departmental transfers of funds.

  The fee handling agency have created five posts to receive and process the fees, issue payment notices and business letters, and provide reporting information to WP(UK).

  The number of staff employed by WP(UK) is consonant with their duty to effectively manage and control the fee collection process. The payment handling company have also employed an appropriate level of staff to manage the duties required of them.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Voting Rights
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what discussions the Lord Chancellor has had with the Minister for Finance, Local Government and Communities in the Welsh Assembly Government on the introduction of votes for 16-year olds; and if he will make a statement. [106205]

  Yvette Cooper
  None. However, the Government welcomes the current review of voting age by the independent Electoral Commission, which will include a public consultation paper to be issued widely this summer. The Government will give serious and careful consideration to any recommendations arising from the review.

  Child Contact Orders
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many orders for child contact are extant in relation to persons under the age of 18; and how many orders were made in each of the last three years for which information is available. [105579]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested about the numbers of extant child contacts orders relating to persons under the age of 18 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the numbers of child contact orders granted during the last three years are as follows:
  874W

  Number

  1999

  41,862

  2000

  46,070

  2001

  55,030

  Committee Members
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if he will list the members of the(a) Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace, (b) Advisory Committees on General Commissioners of Income Tax, (c) Civil Procedure Rule Committee, (d) Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct, (e) Judicial Studies Board and (f) Council on Tribunals. [106123]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The members are listed in a table which has been placed in the Library.

  Conditional Fee Agreements
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the effect of conditional fee agreements on legal services, with particular reference to access to justice. [106198]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  My Department has a comprehensive research programme into the impact of CFAs. The first report was published in July 2002 on the "The impact of conditional fees on the selection, handling and outcomes of personal injury cases" by Paul Fenn, Alistair Gray, Neil Rickman and Howard Carrier. This study analysed cases that closed prior to the introduction of the April 2000 Access Justice Reforms and produced baseline data for assessing the effects of changes in recoverability rules and for charting developments in the mechanisms being used to fund personal injury claims.

  My Department recently commissioned further research that will consider the effects of making success fees and after-the-event insurance premiums recoverable. The study will also consider the handling of clinical negligence cases and investigate the role being played by funding mechanisms in these cases and review experience in relation to funding mechanisms in other European jurisdictions.

  The research has started and is due to be completed in the summer of 2004.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor intends to reply to the letter to him dated 20 February from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Ajmal Ali. [106180]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The letter to my right hon. Friend concerning his constituent, Mr Ali, was signed by my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor on Monday 31 March and sent the same day.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Market Renewal Pathfinders
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  The nine Market Renewal Pathfinders are making good progress in developing their long-term action programmes to turn around their areas which suffer from low demand and abandonment.

  The bulk of the £500 million Market Renewal Fund announced in Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future will be allocated in negotiation with each pathfinder on the basis of proposed outputs and outcomes included in their strategic schemes. Completion of these schemes is essential to ensure future large-scale investment is well informed and based on robust plans.

  We recognise that pathfinders are at different stages in completing their schemes, and whilst we expect three of the pathfinders to complete schemes this year, the remainder will not complete schemes before the end of the financial year.

  I am therefore announcing today an initial allocation of up to £4 million of market renewal funding for those who do not expect to complete their schemes this year. This will mean that alongside development of these robust schemes, early action on the ground can continue in the areas that need it most.

  Pathfinders who complete their schemes this year will be allocated levels of funds to support the proposed programmes, as agreed in negotiation with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Prior to agreement, these pathfinders can, where appropriate, undertake early action that will underpin the wider action plans they are developing in their strategic schemes.

  This represents a key step in delivery of our commitment to tackle low demand and abandonment.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Statutory Money Purchase Illustrations
  The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney)
  The Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Disclosure of Information) Amendment Regulations 2002 that were laid before Parliament on Monday 20 May 2002 come into force on 6th April 2003. The regulations require pension providers to give members of money purchase occupational schemes, stakeholder pension schemes and personal pension schemes an annual illustration of what their future pension might be.
  66WS
  The illustration will give people a meaningful idea of what their future pension might be in today's prices. It will give them a realistic idea of the spending power of their pension, and help them to plan their savings more effectively.

  This is an important part of the Government's drive to encourage people to think about their pension provision and plan for their retirement.

  IS/IT Strategy
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  As part of the Department's work to strengthen the management of its modernisation programme, the Department has updated its Information Systems and Information Technology Strategies. The update has drawn on best practice from change programmes across both public and private sectors which has shown the advantages of focusing our approach on:more frequent, smaller incremental improvements to our IT;
  greater use of off-the-shelf commercial packages;
  reducing the scope, duration and complexity of individual projects;
  integration of existing systems with new technologies to improve the availability of reliable data; and,
  applying these principles to cross-cutting programmes such as data sharing and data management requirements.

  This approach will strengthen the Department's ability to deliver key modernisation outcomes as part of the government's Welfare Reform agenda.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Ufi Learndirect
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis)
  We are today publishing the report of a review of the relationship between my Department and Ufi learndirect.

  The review was commissioned last year, to consider what form of relationship would best serve the objectives of both the Department and Ufi, and provide the best basis for building on Ufi's achievements to date. The review was undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and Quentin Thompson. It makes recommendations for a future structure and methods of operating which will clarify the respective roles and funding routes, increase Ufi's ability to manage the quality and effectiveness of its operations, and ensure that Ufi's activities are integrated within the Learning and Skills Council' s planning of further education programmes in each area.

  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Charles Clarke, has today written to the Chairman of Ufi learndirect, Sir Anthony Greener, enclosing a copy of the report. A copy of the letter and the report have been placed in the House of Commons Library, and are available on the Department's website at http:// www.dfes.gov.uk/az atdex/atoz/.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  National Asylum Support Service and Landmark Properties
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  On 11 July 2002, in answer to a Parliamentary Question from my hon. Friend, Member for Liverpool, Riverside, (Mrs Ellman)Official Report, column 1194W, I announced that I had instructed the Director of National Asylum Support Service (MASS) to arrange for an independent inquiry to be carried out into issues arising from NASS' dealings with the Landmark company. I am, today, publishing a summary of the report of that inquiry and a copy of that summary is being placed in the Library.

  The inquiry confirmed that there were serious problems in the way accommodation for asylum seekers was being run in Liverpool. Its main recommendations have been accepted and are being implemented. Although the report concludes that there has been no material breach of contract by Landmark, it is clear that what happened in Liverpool is completely unacceptable.

  I am therefore also announcing, today, the action which has been put in hand.

  A new contract manager has been appointed and will hold Landmark closely to account; the future of the contract will be reviewed after six months in the light of performance.

  The new Deputy Director General of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, responsible for NASS, has been asked to make clear to Landmark that significant improvements will be needed from them—both in their general performance and also in the standard of their properties. In the meantime, no further dispersal will be made to Landmark properties.

  I have also recently commissioned an independent review of the management, staffing and expertise at NASS, which is due to report by the end of May.

  Prison Service (Corporate and Business Plan)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn)
  The Prison Service's Corporate Plan for 2003–04 to 2005–06 and Business Plan for 2003–04 (which includes the agreed Key Performance Indicators) has been published today and copies have been placed in the Library.

TREASURY

  Valuation Office Agency (Key Performance Indicators 2003–04)
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  I have today set the following key performance indicators for the Valuation Office Agency for 2003–04:

  1. Valuation Accuracy
  Contain reductions in 2000 local rating lists to less than 7.5 per cent. in respect of compiled list appeals settled in 2003–04, and to a maximum of 4.7 per cent. of the total compiled list rateable value over the entire life of the 2000 rating lists.
  68WS
  2. Revaluations
  Prepare for the forthcoming revaluation of non-domestic properties in England and Wales by completing 85 per cent. of the initial valuations required
  Prepare for the forthcoming revaluation of domestic properties in Wales by completing 50 per cent. of initial bandings required
  Prepare for the forthcoming revaluation of domestic properties in England by digitising data in respect of a minimum of three million properties.

  3. Rating Appeal Programming
  Make draft programmes available by 31 July 2003, publish final programmes by 1 October 2003 and adhere to the start date in 95 per cent. of cases.

  4. Customer satisfaction
  Improve customer satisfaction, based on annual surveys, to 86 per cent.

  5. Value for money
  Improve productivity by 2.5 per cent..

  6. Land Services
  Achieve a fee income of £17.8 million ensuring that its share of VOA costs is covered.

  7. People satisfaction
  Improve staff satisfaction in working for the VOA in comparison with other places of work, based on annual surveys, by 2 per cent.

  8. Financial "break even"
  Recover full resource costs, including a return on capital of 3.5 per cent. from fees and charges.

  European Union Import Duties (Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories)
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey)
  Under the EU/Israel Association Agreement, goods originating in the State of Israel may be imported into the European Union at preferential rates of duty, including zero rates. Under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and following United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the international community, including all EU member states, does not recognise the territories which Israel occupied in June 1967 as part of the State of Israel. Goods originating from settlements in these occupied territories are therefore not entitled to the preferences of the EU/Israel Association Agreement.

  The EU/Israel Association Agreement entered into force on 1 June 2000. Article 32 of Protocol 4 provides for the verification of proofs of origin at the request of the importing state. It further provides that preference is to be refused where there is reasonable doubt as to entitlement and there is no reply within ten months, or the reply does not contain sufficient information to determine the real origin of the goods. The Israeli authorities confirmed in July 2001 that they export to the EU goods from settlements in the occupied territories while certifying that they have been produced in the State of Israel.

  Importers have been warned that importing goods produced in the occupied territories may give rise to a customs debt. The European Commission published such a warning in the Official Journal in November 2001, and HM Customs & Excise issued a Joint Customs Consultative Committee (JCCC) Information

  69WS
  Paper to notify UK importers of this European Commission warning notice. Imports from Israeli settlements in the occupied territories can still be made to EU member states but will attract duty at the appropriate rate. Goods originating in the State of Israel can continue to be imported at preferential duty rates.

  Concerted action, organised by the European Commission, is being taken by customs authorities in all EU member states to ensure that goods produced in the settlements do not obtain preferential rates of duty to which they are not entitled. Customs & Excise issued a second JCCC Information Paper in March 2002 announcing how these arrangements would apply in the UK.

  Customs authorities are taking steps to identify imports of goods where there is evidence of occupied territory origin, taking security for duty and sending verification requests to the Israeli authorities, specifically asking whether the goods have been produced in an occupied territory. The standard Israeli reply, sent in response to all such requests, fails to answer the direct question, stating that the goods have been produced in an area that is under Israeli customs responsibility. This answer is insufficient to determine the real origin of the goods, and the Israeli authorities have been told so on each occasion.

  In a written answer I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) on 4 February 2003, Official Report, column 181W, I outlined the action Customs & Excise have been taking in the UK. In line with our obligations under the Community Customs Code [Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92], and as the ten month deadline is reached, Customs & Excise have now begun issuing duty demands to UK importers where there is reason to suspect that goods may have originated in Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Restrictive Shellfish Licensing Scheme
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley)
  For some time, scientists have been advising us that UK crustacea stocks within British waters are at risk of being exploited beyond their sustainable limit. Defra (then MAFF) issued a consultation letter on 5 January 2001 to gauge industry reaction to a series of proposals to address the problem. One of these was to introduce a restrictive shellfish licensing scheme. The industry's responses to our consultation were very constructive and supportive.

  Last October I told Sea Fisheries Committees, shellfish interests and whitefish industry representatives that we would be going ahead with proposals to control effort in the shellfish sector as soon as resources became available. I am delighted to announce that we can now proceed immediately and address the large numbers of concerns that have been put to me about the need to protect the shellfish sector from the effects of possible displacement from other types of fishing.
  70WS
  With effect from January 2004 in respect of over 10 m vessels, and 1 April 2004 in respect of under 10 m vessels, in general only holders of existing fishing vessel licences who have been able to demonstrate that they have fished for crabs or lobsters using pots or nets, and have landed or sold more than 200kg lobsters or 750kg crabs during any 12 month consecutive period between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2002, will be given authority to continue to fish for them. At the same time we will set a limit on the quantities that may be landed by licensed fishing vessels which do not qualify for a shellfishing entitlement.

  We will issue further detailed guidance on eligibility for the scheme in the near future and application forms will be informed sent to all license and entitlement holders as soon as they become available. It will be the responsibility of individual applicants to provide satisfactory and acceptable proof of their eligibility for a shellfish entitlement. Decisions will be fully explained and documented to fishermen deemed not to qualify.

CABINET OFFICE

  Regulatory Impact Assessment (Compliance)
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  A baseline for measuring the level of compliance with the Regulatory Impact Assessment is today being placed on the website of the Cabinet Office Regulatory Impact Unit http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation. An exercise in December 2002 to establish a snapshot of the level of compliance provided a figure of 92 per cent. We will keep this under six monthly review and strive not only to maintain this level of compliance but improve it. In addition, we recognise the need to increase the quality of RIAs and the value they add to the policy making process. We are working closely with departments to identify ways of achieving this.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Camp David on 26 and 27 March. I joined him there on 27 March. The Prime Minister dined with President Bush and I with Secretary Powell (in Washington) on 26 March; and we attended a session of plenary talks on 27 March. The Prime Minister and I then went on to New York to call on the Secretary General of the United Nations.

  Much of our discussions focused on the future, looking beyond the conflict. But we also reviewed first the military situation.

  We noted that the military campaign was on track. The outcome was not in doubt. The coalition were prosecuting it with vigour and determination, but in a way which minimised, as far as humanly possible, civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure.
  71WS
  The coalition were also working intensively to ensure humanitarian relief. In recent days UFA Sir Galahad has delivered humanitarian supplies (including water, rice and lentils) at Um Qasr; the drinking water plant in the same town has been repaired and the drinking water pipeline from Kuwait completed.

  The Prime Minister and President Bush made clear their joint commitment to reuniting the UN Security Council in expectation of further work on the post conflict political process and reconstruction.

  At Camp David, the Prime Minister and President Bush agreed that progress on oil for food—OFF—was the key humanitarian priority. More than half of Iraq's people depend on OFF for their food. So it was urgent for the Security Council to give the Secretary General authority to start getting OFF food to them. The necessary Security Council Resolution (1472) was indeed adopted unanimously in the Security Council on 29 March.

  The Prime Minister and President Bush made clear that we would seek new UN resolutions to affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, to ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief and endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq. President Bush made clear US commitment to the establishment of a new Iraqi government chosen by the Iraqi people themselves.

  The Middle East peace process was a major feature of the Prime Minister's discussions with President Bush. President Bush, the first US president to do so, publicly restated his vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security and reiterated his commitment to implementing the roadmap. He noted that he saw an opportunity to bring renewed hope and progress to the entire middle east.

HEALTH

  Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears)
  In response to information received from the World Health Organisation (WHO) on the first reported cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), the Department, along with the Health Protection Agency (HPA) has continually monitored the threat to the UK from this as yet unidentified virus.

  On 13 March, the Department issued an alert to all general practitioners, National Health Service trusts, and public health professionals, with detailed information on the symptoms of this illness and advice on the management and reporting of probable cases. The Public Health Laboratory Service (as it was at the time) also issued information to professionals through their alert system.

  Further information has subsequently been made available to the profession and public on infection control, surveillance, management of patients, microbiological sampling and investigation and advice for travellers to affected areas and updated on a daily basis via the Department's and the PHLS's websites.

  As a result of this timely response and high degree of vigilance amongst the profession and public, to date we have had only three probable cases of SARS in the UK, this is against a total number of 1,804 in 15 countries. All three of the cases in the UK have recovered from their illness.

  These robust public health measures currently in place have so far contained this disease in the UK.

  We, along with the HPA and WHO, continue to monitor this situation very carefully and advise the public and profession accordingly.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
Report received.
Clause 1 [Expenditure relating to British Energy p.l.c.]:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, at end insert "in relation to qualifying activities"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6.
The purpose of the amendments, together with others which will be moved today, is to define and limit the expenditure under the Bill for its defined purposes. Amendment No. 6 is a reworded version of the amendment moved in Committee on 17th March. It is designed to take account of the Minister's remarks (at col. GC3 of Hansard of 17th March) that the purpose of the clause was not to deal with historic liabilities, which is how the original amendment was worded, but to cover ongoing operational expenditure while the restructuring plan was put in place, and in the event of administration should the restructuring plan fail.
These alternative proposals are being put forward for the company. They have been mentioned on several occasions by the Secretary of State, the Minister and others in public statements and that is confirmed in the Explanatory Notes. That being so, it is important that the operational expenditure referred to in Clause 1 should relate to these two alternative solutions to the company's problems. As this has been firmly reiterated by the Government on many occasions, it is surprising that it does not appear on the face of the Bill.
It is a simple amendment. It will help everyone to understand what the Bill is about and defines clearly what the expenditures allowed under Clause 1 relate to. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I intervene briefly to say that I warmly support the amendment. Before enlarging on that, I should point out that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, has gone out of his way during the past week to supply noble Lords who have taken part in these debates with extensive explanations of the Government's position. He also invited us to a meeting in his office last Tuesday. I should like to put on record that this has proved extremely helpful and may well shorten today's proceedings.
As to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, there appears to be no limitation whatever on the extent of the operational support that the Government are prepared to give to British Energy in the circumstances
1414
in which it finds itself. In Committee, I mentioned that I had been involved, as a Treasury Minister, in the collapse of Rolls-Royce. I should add that I was not Chief Secretary but Financial Secretary at the time. I had forgotten that in that situation no figure, no limitation, was put into the Bill that authorised support for the Rolls-Royce Aero Engines operation and its nationalisation. When we met him, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, made that point very clearly.
The Minister's argument is that this is a similar case. I am not sure that it is. Initially it is the Government's intention to support British Energy in the plight into which it has fallen to enable it to continue in operation and, as Ministers have repeatedly said, to continue to pay salaries and pensions and for the lights to remain on. We on this side of the House support that approach, but is it to be without limit?
The Minister's argument is twofold. First, there will be the normal constraints on public expenditure, exercised through the procedures which apply in another place, and the normal Treasury controls. I understand that. His second argument is that the support will have to be approved by the European Commission under the state aid provision. An application was made to the Commission last month for leave to give that support and we are told that the procedure will take many months to complete. In the mean time, the Government's support must continue.
I do not believe that this situation is the same as the one involving Rolls-Royce. One different aspect is that Rolls-Royce was absolutely essential to the defence of the country. The engines made by Rolls-Royce were used in a great many aircraft, ships, submarines and so on that were needed for the defence of the realm. One can well understand that in those circumstances the costs, whatever they may have been, had be met. Here one is dealing with a commercial operation which has failed, for reasons to which I may refer briefly when we come to the next amendment. Ultimately, there must be some limit to the operational support the Government are prepared to give, although it may be not right to insert a figure. I shall explain the reason for that when we come to the next amendment.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in seeking to define more closely the words that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, himself used in Grand Committee, seems something that the Government could accept in order to reassure people that there will be some control. I remind the House that there has been a great deal of anger on the part of other electricity generators which believe that this is giving this company and this branch of the generating industry an unfair subsidy whereas they have to continue to operate against the stringency of the market without support.
I should have thought that the Government would be well advised to accept the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in these circumstances, if only to reassure the rest of the industry.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I associate myself with the words of my noble friend in thanking the Minister for the help that he has given us over the past week.

1415
As the noble Lord will recall, I supported the amendment in Committee. I support it today, and my name is to it. I am well aware that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has worked extremely hard to make the qualifying activities more or less the words that the Minister used. But I am also well aware that at our meeting one of his officials suggested that he said more words than were in the amendment. I had intended to speak today purely to say that if there were a few more words, why did the Minister not put something extra in the amendment so that it would be acceptable? However, before I decided to do that I thought it wise to have a jolly good look at the other words and, having done so, I see very clearly why the Minister could not have added them to the amendment.
It has been very clear from everything that has been said, and from the notes, that the two alternatives are restructuring or administration. However, the Minister said at col. GC3, which I looked at carefully:
"Finally, it would also allow Government to continue funding the trading arrangements of the operating companies going forward should the restructuring deal fail and should they at any point come into public ownership".—[Official Report, 17/3/03; col. GC3.]
The Minister was not talking about administration. This is the first time he has referred to coming into public ownership and, frankly, I am surprised at that. If that is really one of the options, it should have been made clear before. Anyway, I understand why he has not added that to the amendment.
I think that this is a very safe and wise amendment, and I hope that the Minister will accept it.
11.15 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for his kind comments. I will try to continue to be helpful this morning.
I do not think there is a radical difference between the Rolls-Royce situation and this one. In both cases there are compelling economic reasons to try to keep the company alive. I should say to the noble Baroness that public ownership in this context is really the same as saying "into administration" because we have made it clear there are no other circumstances in which we would take it into public ownership. We have also made it clear that we think it very unlikely that if it goes into administration a private owner will be found to take it over. So, effectively, I do not think there is any difference in those circumstances.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, seek to limit the expenditure that can be made under Clause 1(a) to "qualifying activities", defined as:
"the ongoing operational support to a British Energy company whilst a restructuring plan is being put in place or funding a British Energy company in the event of its being put into administration".
Clause 1(a), as noble Lords will be aware, gives government the power to incur expenditure on BE in a number of eventualities. Some concern was expressed
1416
in Committee that the provisions in this clause were too open-ended. In fact, this clause has been drafted in such a way as to ensure that the Government have the flexibility to be able effectively to meet their policy commitments in relation to BE.
Amendment No. 6 seeks to impose certain restrictions on the activities on which government can spend money under Clause 1(a). I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in tabling this amendment, is referring to the clarification that I sought to give when dealing with a similar amendment in Committee. However, I think I should revisit what I said at that time, and place into context the words that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has used in his amendment. In Committee I stated:
"Quite simply, Clause 1 is there to cover other expenditure which is not covered by Schedule 12. Principally, this would concern ongoing operational support to keep BE going during the period when a restructuring plan is being put into place".
I then went on to explain:
"The statutory authority provided by subsection (1)(a) could also be used to authorise Government to provide funding in the event of administration…Finally, it would also allow Government to continue funding the trading arrangements of the operating companies going forward should the restructuring deal fail".—[Official Report, 17/3/03; col. GC3.]
It is worth reiterating the point that I made in Committee—Clause 1 is there to cover expenditure that is not covered by Schedule 12. Clause 1 will be used principally, but not exclusively, to provide operational support to keep BE going while the restructuring plan is put into place. Schedule 12 deals only with nuclear liabilities.
So there is a need to ensure that if the restructuring deal fails, the Government have the flexibility to incur expenditure on BE beyond the support for its nuclear liabilities, which would take place under Schedule 12. The potential activities on which the Government might need to commit expenditure include, but are certainly not limited to, the "qualifying activities" defined in Amendment No. 6.
We may need, as I stated in Committee, to continue funding the trading arrangements of the operating companies going forward should the restructuring fail and the companies come back to the public sector. If that happened, the Government may need to incur expenditure on BE's nuclear business in a way that we are not able accurately to foresee at this moment. It is important to remain aware of the fact that the restructuring plan has yet to be finally agreed by all parties—or, indeed, approved by the Commission. It would be imprudent to limit the Government's ability to act effectively if the deal fails.
But even assuming the restructuring is successful, there is reason to keep the flexibility of Clause 1. There is still a lack of clarity over the final detailed form of the deal. Although the principles behind the plan have been agreed, the detailed documentation necessary has not yet been finalised. We have said that the policy intention is that funding for the restructuring would be done under Schedule 12—that is the specific provision for funding nuclear liabilities. But the working up of the detailed documentation may bring to light the need

1417
for small items of expenditure to be incurred under Clause 1. For example, I have already explained how—as part of the precautionary measures to avoid handing over a blank cheque—the Government will reserve the right to take back BE's nuclear stations at the end of their life. So we might want to use Clause 1 to purchase the stations at that point, albeit for a nominal sum. Noble Lords should also be comforted by a point I made in Committee; that is, that any expenditure under Clause 1 will be subject: to parliamentary scrutiny through the annual Supply Estimates process.
It is perhaps also worth noting that Amendments Nos. 1 and 6 do not work as drafted as Amendment No. 1 appears to refer to British Energy's qualifying activities, and the "qualifying activities" referred to in Amendment No. 6 appear to be those of the Government in giving financial support to the company. In effect there is some lack of clarity as together the amendments appear not to match. I should emphasise, however, that that is not the main basis of our objection to the amendments.
To summarise, the flexibility that Clause 1 confers ensures that the Government stand ready to be able to act effectively in a range of scenarios. We do not believe that it would be prudent or sensible to limit an important part of the Government's contingency planning in relation to BE by accepting a restriction in primary legislation on their ability to incur expenditure on the company in the way suggested in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed response. I also express my appreciation for the meeting we had the other day. I am a little puzzled, however, at his response to the particular point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, when he said that public ownership—I refer also to the remarks that he made in Committee—was indistinguishable from administration. If that is so, there can be no objection to my amendment. If the Minister says that effectively administration means that the assets would be in public ownership, that is fine. I refer to the wording of my amendment in which "administration" is used. Therefore, I am a little puzzled by the Minister's comment.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I hope that I can clarify the situation. The point I was making was that public administration and public ownership do not constitute the same situation. I should perhaps have made clearer that public ownership will take place only after a process of administration. We do not think it likely that anyone would come forward at the administrative stage to buy the company. Therefore, there is not—as I believe the noble Baroness implied—some sinister agenda of circumstances in which we would take the company into public ownership where it had not been through the process of administration. That was the only point I was trying to make.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, it does seem therefore that the wording of the amendment would not restrict the
1418
Government in that situation. If what the Minister mentioned is all part and parcel of the administration process, it would be covered. I am still worried about leaving this matter absolutely open-ended. If the situation should change so dramatically that neither of the two solutions now being proposed were to be able to operate, I think that the whole matter should be presented once again to Parliament.
I should like to reflect on what the Minister said and consider whether some further amendment should be proposed at the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert—
"(1A) The aggregate of the expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under subsection (1)(a) shall not exceed the sum of £700 million or such greater sum not exceeding £1,000 million as the Secretary of State may provide by order."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, which stands in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and myself, I suggest that the House might also discuss Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5. I say straight away that these are probing amendments. I do not intend to seek to persuade the House to go into the Lobbies in their support.
In Amendment No. 2 we have attempted to include some figures to constitute the upper limit of what the Government might spend in two alternative circumstances. The first alternative is that the restructuring works and therefore the company remains in being and the Government's operational support is a temporary phenomenon, as I believe they intend. By the end of the period of the restructuring the company would be solvent and able to meet its liabilities. The second alternative is that the restructuring does not work and the company has to go into administration. There should be some limit—obviously this would constitute a much greater sum—on what the Government would be obliged to spend in order to keep the power stations operating in administration.
The noble Lord may well ask—as, indeed, he did at our meeting—whether the figures are carefully worked out. I have to say that of course they are not. The first figure in the proposed new subsection (1A) is based on the original support of £650 million with a margin—it is £700 million—but with the power to increase that sum to £1,000 million if the situation demanded. The sum of money would have to be approved by an order in Parliament.
Much more at large are the figures for the expenditure in the case of the administration not succeeding. In the proposed new subsection (1B) we suggest a sum,
"of £2,000 million or such greater sum not exceeding £2,500 million as the Secretary of State may provide by order".
One must look at the background of why this situation has arisen. I shall not repeat what I said on Second Reading or in Committee.
As the Minister said, clearly managerial mistakes were made by British Energy in the way it conducted its business. However, the underlying cause of what brought the company low was the operation of the new electricity trading arrangement (NETA) as applied by the regulator Ofgem. As the Government have frequently boasted, the wholesale price of electricity has been reduced by 40 per cent. At Second Reading the Minister explained that British Energy fell foul of that as it does not have a retail arm. Many of the other energy producers have a retail distribution business as well and can reimburse themselves for their generating losses by making sure that their retail customers make up the loss in the price. There have been very few significant reductions in price certainly as regards domestic retail customers.
Some industrial customers are large enough to get the full benefit of the 40 per cent reduction. I am sure that the noble Lord will have seen the report from the Chemical Industries Association which stated that it was doing very well out of that situation, thank you very much. That rings a bit hollow when one recognises that what it is doing well out of is a system that has driven the biggest producer of electricity into serious financial difficulties. One wonders whether the chemical industry would feel the same about a price effect which drove some of its large companies into Financial difficulties in circumstances where it could not perhaps expect the support which the Government have given in the situation we are discussing.
The point I want to make is that there is no sign yet of any let up in the downward price spiral of wholesale electricity prices. British Energy in its present state with the Government's support will have to continue to operate against the background of the extremely low prices it will obtain from its customers. As I said, it does not have a retail arm from which it can reimburse itself for those losses. The purpose of the amendments, therefore, is to ask the Government if they can now give the House some idea of what is likely to have to be spent over the next few years in order to support British Energy against the background of these extremely low prices, no doubt cheered on by trade associations such as the Chemical Industries Association.
Ofgem, the regulator, was put under an obligation by the Utilities Act 2000 to have regard to the long-term security and diversity of supply. Arguments have been put forward by Mr Callum McCarthy to the effect that one must not regard the possibility of British Energy encountering serious financial difficulties as in any sense his fault. In response, I said that it looks astonishingly different from the other end of the telescope. I do not believe that Mr McCarthy realised, while he was presiding over NETA and driving wholesale prices down, that the effect of that would have such a devastating impact on Britain's largest single electricity producer. Mr McCarthy sought to persuade me that he had regarded and given effect to the obligation. The House may remember that I tabled an amendment during the passage of the Utilities Bill in order to ensure that the chief executive
1420
of Ofgem should have regard to the long-term security and diversity of supply. I must say that I found his argument quite extraordinarily unconvincing.
For the purposes of this clause in the Bill, the fact remains that that is the background against which British Energy must continue to operate, certainly in the months and quite possibly the years ahead. Given that, the Government should give the House some idea of what the Minister and perhaps the Treasury have pencilled in as their likely liabilities over the period. I recognise that in the first instance the sales of Canadian and American assets will have enabled the company to repay some of the loan made by the Government, but it is extremely unlikely whether, in the short term, British Energy will be able to run its business profitably at existing electricity prices, bearing in mind—we shall come to this later in our debates—the payments it has to make in order to finance its nuclear liabilities.
Please could we be told what the liability is likely to be? What is the sum? The Government must have some idea of what they will have to spend in order to preserve the viability of this company. Before I sit down, perhaps I may remark that I see that Mr McCarthy has been tipped as the next chief executive of the Financial Services Authority. All I can say to that is, God help the banks. I beg to move.
11.30 a.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, it is clear from all that my noble friend Lord Jenkin has said that he is an expert in this field. I can add nothing to his remarks, other than to say that of course I wholeheartedly support them.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for reminding us so clearly of the reasons why we are in this situation and why the Government have had to step in to help British Energy. There can be not the slightest doubt that it is the way the market has operated through NETA which has brought about this situation, not only for British Energy but, as was mentioned earlier in our proceedings, for many other companies as well. The safety net has not been extended to them.
It is therefore of compelling importance that we should be told what corrective actions the Government will take as a result of market developments due to the operation of NETA, what those will amount to and what the Government have in mind. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, he has tabled a probing amendment with suggested figures to the best that he could calculate. They may or may not be the figures that the Government have in mind, but it would he helpful if the Minister could offer some clarification. Whether that should appear on the face of the Bill is another matter, but we would certainly like to be informed of the Government's thinking.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I wish to make a remark which I hope is not trivial. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, on using the words "one thousand million" and "two thousand, five hundred million" rather than referring to those

1421
figures as billions, which they are not. On this side of the Atlantic, one thousand million is not one billion; it is one milliard. I am glad to see it used in your Lordships' House.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for tabling these amendments and for giving me the opportunity to clarify a little further our intentions in relation to this clause. I shall try to give him the best information that we have at this stage. However, I should say, first, that our recent support took the form only of a temporary loan. We are striving to achieve a restructuring of British Energy which, once the burden of the nuclear liabilities has been removed and alongside the restructuring of the company's debt, should mean that the company is financially viable, with no ongoing need of a subsidy for future operations. On that basis, British Energy's nuclear stations should be economic, even at the current low electricity prices.
I turn now to the detail of what we think government expenditure is likely to be. Amendment No. 2 refers to expenditure under subsection (1)(a). Perhaps it would be useful to remind noble Lords of the main areas in which we think we would use this provision and how we foresee it working.
The first area is in relation to our loan to the company while the restructuring plan is put in place. The figure of £700 million referred to in the amendment is, I think, a reference to the loan facility that we have in place with British Energy. This loan facility was previously subject to a limit of £650 million. That figure was always a maximum limit. There was no question of us simply handing over £650 million to the company to do with it as it saw fit. Rather, the loan facility was subject to various controls to ensure that the loan was the minimum necessary. Furthermore, following the sale of the company's stake in Bruce Power, it repaid the loan. We continue to make a facility available, but its total size has been significantly reduced to £200 million on a contingency basis in case of a requirement for further trading collateral or working capital.
The second anticipated use of the provision would be in funding an administration of the company if, for whatever reason, the restructuring plan failed. The Government have said previously that, under administration, they would make sufficient funding available to the administrator to enable him to continue running the company by providing a loan towards the working capital and collateral required for its electricity trading. Also, we would of course need to pay the extra costs incurred by the administrator in running the business.
It is difficult to put a precise figure on the cost involved in an administration. Key factors would be the length of time that the company was in administration and the complexity of the task. Clearly, it is our intention to try to minimise the costs as much as possible. That is one of the key reasons why we wanted to bring forward the provisions set out in Clause 1(1)(b) and (c) and in Clause 2. The better prepared we are for the possibility of acquiring the British Energy nuclear business from an administrator, the quicker the
1422
administration could be concluded and the lower the costs of administration. However, the fundamental economic position would still be the same; that is, that the nuclear stations themselves are economic to run. Our support would still take the form of a loan, ultimately repayable by the company once it was back on its feet.
The third anticipated use of the provision in subsection (1)(a) would be in funding a British Energy company if it had been acquired as described in paragraph (b)(i). At this point it is probably worth bringing in Amendment No. 3 since there is a close parallel. Amendment No. 3 deals with subsection (1)(b) and (c) which are contingency provisions aimed at ensuring that we have parliamentary authority to incur expenditure on acquiring British Energy's nuclear business and running it if that proves to be necessary. The power in subsection (1)(c) is analogous to the power in subsection (1)(a), but ensures that we could fund the company's nuclear business if we bought it through an asset purchase, as foreseen under paragraph (b)(ii).
Of course we have already made clear that the Government would contemplate acquiring. British Energy's nuclear business only if the restructuring plan failed, the company went into administration and no other private sector purchaser came forward.
How much do we expect that to cost? In relation to the first element—the acquisition cost—I should point out that the administrator would be under an obligation to the creditors to achieve fair value in any sale of the subsidiary companies or their assets. I do not intend to be drawn on a specific price, as that would inevitably be a matter for negotiations of a commercial nature with the administrator if it ever happened. However, I point out that in our view the fair value of the nuclear business would be low, given that the nuclear power stations currently have significant nuclear liabilities attached to them.
The second element is ongoing funding for the nuclear business if it were acquired back into the public sector. We would see that as a contingency measure. If it proved necessary to acquire the nuclear business, we would still need to develop a proper restructuring plan for it. I expect that that would be based on support for the historic nuclear liabilities of the business, similar to that currently envisaged. I explained in Committee that British Energy's estimate of its nuclear liabilities was £5.2 billion, discounted at 3 per cent, of which £2.1 billion is for the historic spent fuel.
That support is likely to be most suitably given under Schedule 12 to the Electricity Act 1989 rather than Clause 1 of the Bill, as it would be about nuclear liabilities. Even though the company might be in the public sector, the intention would still be that it should pay its own way going forward. It would be our intention that any support for the company under Clause 1 would be of a short-term nature, to allow the company to keep trading until the restructuring could be implemented. The amount would depend on the circumstances, but I expect that it would be along

1423
similar lines to the loan facility that we put in place in September. I would certainly hope that it would not require funding at the level anticipated in Amendment No. 3.
That is about as much information as I am able to give at this stage. I hope that the noble Lord feels that his probing has produced the information that he wanted and that, on that basis, he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, will the Minister give the House his view—it can be no more than a view—as to whether British Energy will be able to operate profitably with electricity at the price of about £16 per megawatt hour?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I thought that I had covered that. It is our view that the nuclear stations will be economic even at the current low electricity price.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, my amendment has produced much more information from the Government than we had hitherto. I am grateful to the Minister for that, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 6 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Removal of restrictions on capacity to acquire certain securities]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, leave out lines 16 to 18.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, grouped with Amendment No. 7 is an amendment that I tabled yesterday, Amendment No. 7A.
The point is quite a simple one. As we argued strongly both at Second Reading and in Committee, the use of the words "of any company" at the end of subsection (1) appears to leave it open to the Government to buy up any company that they wish in the industry. In Committee, and subsequently in correspondence and at our meeting on Tuesday, the Minister explained at great length that the provision would not be interpreted by the court as having that meaning. He also went on to make it very clear that the Government have no intention of buying up any other companies. Coming from him, we accept that that is their present position.
The provision is still open to the possibility that it may he misinterpreted, however. Amendment No. 7A is an attempt, following our discussion on Tuesday, to make it clear that the subsection is there to avoid the doubt that the repeal of the two sections of the 1989 Act could somehow have altered the Government's overall position as a purchaser of last resort. I will not press Amendment No. 7, but I want to move Amendment No. 7A. I beg to move.
11.45 a.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara):My Lords, I should point out that if Amendment No. 7 were agreed to, I could not call Amendment No. 7A.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for explaining his thinking behind the amendment. I also welcomed the opportunity to discuss informally with him and other noble Lords the concerns around Clause 2(1). I hope that I am right in saying that we have now come to a clear understanding about what we intend with the provision.
I shall make it absolutely clear. The Government will not gain any powers of compulsory purchase through the provisions in Clause 2(1). The creation of such powers would require a very clear and explicit provision. The purpose of lines 16 to 18 of page 2 is simply to clarify that the natural powers that the Government were able to exercise before the introduction of the Electricity Act 1989 are properly restored once its Sections 72 and 74 are repealed. However, we understand the noble Lord's concerns that that intention is not as clear as it might he in the Bill.
Amendment No. 7 would remove the clarification given by lines 16 to 18, and we would not agree to that, so I hope that it will be withdrawn. On the other hand, Amendment No. 7A simply serves to clarify our policy intentions. Although I do not think that it is strictly necessary, I recognise that it might help to meet the noble Lord's concerns and I am therefore content to accept it.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the Minister for that concession, which goes a very long way to meet the concerns voiced in this House and in another place about the effect of lines 16 to 18. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 7A:
Page 2, line 16, at beginning insert "for the avoidance of doubt"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 19, after "order" insert made by statutory instrument"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I made it clear in Committee that we accepted in principle the amendment to change the scrutiny procedure for the delegated power from negative to affirmative resolution. I have tabled two amendments, Amendments Nos. 8 and 9, which together provide the correct technical drafting for that purpose. Amendment No. 8 makes it clear that the order to be made would be a statutory instrument, and Amendment No. 9 sets out the procedure for approval of the order. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, expressed concern that that procedure should ensure

1425
that both Houses of Parliament had their say, and the amendment of course does that. I hope that she will not move Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, we are most grateful to the Minister for tabling Amendments Nos. 8 and 9, which we are very happy to accept.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
"(4) Such an order may not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Amendment of Schedule 12 to the Electricity Act 1989]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert—
"(5) The Secretary of State, in making any grants or loans from time to time under this Schedule (as amended) shall impose such conditions or provide such incentives (or both) as he may in his discretion consider are necessary to ensure that the British Energy company operates its nuclear stations as if it were exclusively responsible for the discharge of nuclear responsibilities."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Miller and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. We have been very concerned by the apparently open-ended liability that the Government are taking on for the handling of the nuclear liabilities of British Energy. That has given rise to a good deal of debate, both in this House and in another place.
The Minister went a long way to persuade us that the restructuring could not be sustained if the other bodies involved—they include the banks, of course, and a great many other people—could not be confident that the tab would be picked up by the Government as British Energy's nuclear liabilities matured. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, argued that the restraints and limitations that we sought to oppose in Committee might threaten the restructuring. We on this side of the House have no intention whatever of doing that and have not repeated our amendments that would put a limit on the amount.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, assured us in Committee that the Government were determined that the underwriting of the nuclear liabilities of British Energy should not be seen as an open cheque. He was repeating words which have been used more than once by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has been clear about that.
The Minister spelt out in Grand Committee the method that he intends to use in steering British Energy's handling of its nuclear liabilities. He said,
"the Government propose to put in place a series of controls and incentives to ensure that BE runs its nuclear stations as though it were it were exclusively responsible for the discharge of nuclear liabilities".—[Official Report, 17/3/03; col. GC 31.]
1426
It is relatively easy to say that, but there could be some difficulties and perhaps some reluctance on the part of the people involved to put that into effect. We therefore propose that those words should be written into the Bill. That is the purpose of the amendment.
We have added three extra words—"in his discretion"—so that Government may have some flexibility—that is a favourite word attic noble Lord—as to how the provision should be applied. We believe that it is important that all concerned should see on the face of the Bill that that is what British Energy has to do so that the nuclear liabilities taken on by the Government are kept within bounds.
To use the Minister's own words, our proposal would give "additional discretion". I hope that he accepts the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, there is no purpose in adding the same words as my noble friend. We agree with every word that he said. The Minister was very helpful in trying to address our deep concerns. He has been extremely generous. As my noble friend said, the words that have been put into the amendment were used by the Minister himself, but we added the opportunity for the Secretary of State to use "his discretion", because we are all aware of how much the Minister needs, as well as likes, flexibility.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, tabled an interesting amendment, which moves the issue on from the discussion in Committee. This amendment refers to an important principle; that is, that the Government, in providing support to BE for its nuclear liabilities, should not take away the economic incentive for BE to operate its stations in a responsible way that would minimise the size of those liabilities.
We fully support that principle, as we have pointed out on several occasions. However, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to try to convert that principle into detailed legal drafting that would apply through primary legislation.
The Government are working intensively on the precise details of the undertaking that it will give to British Energy. That binding undertaking would come into effect at the moment the restructuring takes place and will then have long-term effect; that is, over many decades. We are going out of our way to build a number of very detailed controls into this undertaking. There is a whole stream of work on this issue and departmental officials are being advised by external experts on the management of nuclear liabilities. That is all sensible, prudent planning for protecting taxpayers' interests. Having gone to all this trouble, we are not going to change our mind and hand BE a blank cheque telling it that it can have the money with no strings attached. The company itself has agreed to the principle of the conditions which we wish to impose.
I do not believe that it is necessary to go into this degree of detail in primary legislation. It is clearly right for Parliament to have some form of scrutiny over the Government's management of this process, but that

1427
could be properly handled by the existing arrangements of the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee. I am sure that something as significant as this undertaking will receive early scrutiny. I hope, with that reassurance, that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that careful reply, which amplifies what he told us when we met him. I certainly understand the points that he made.
Before I withdraw the amendment, perhaps I could make one extra point. In the very full letter that the Minister wrote to me, which was dated 28th March, he answered the question I had asked in Committee about the Nuclear Liabilities Fund. He spelt the matter out much more clearly there than it had been in any document that I had read. It concerned not only the Nuclear Liabilities Fund, but also the Nuclear Decommissioning Fund. The page and a half of his letter was very illuminating and I think it should be in the public domain. I do not believe that there is anything confidential about it. If I were to submit a Written Question asking about this matter, would the Minister reply—it would be a long answer—setting out what he has set out in his letter to me?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there would be no difficulty in that. If a Written Question is asked, we will certainly seek to put all that information in the public domain.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am most grateful for that. It is a matter of wide concern as to how those liabilities will be handled, not only to British Energy, but to the public sector as a whole. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 24, at end insert—
"( ) This Act (except for sections 3 and 4) shall expire five years after it receives Royal Assent unless it has been extended from time to time for periods not exceeding two years by resolution of both Houses of Parliament."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is what is colloquially known as a "sunset clause". We believe that it is necessary because this Bill empowers the Government to spend large sums of taxpayers' money—in some cases, uncapped sums—on the nuclear industry.
As your Lordships will have seen, we have accepted—sometimes with some reservations—the need for the Government to have such powers. However, in an interview on BBC news on 5th September last year, the Secretary of State expressly disclaimed any intention of seeking a blank cheque from taxpayers for the benefit of British Energy and its shareholders.
In Grand Committee, the noble Lord the Minister explained the ongoing nature of the commitment that the Government were either having to undertake or
1428
underwrite. It is essential that Parliament should have the opportunity, from time to time, to review what has been going on. I also had some general reservations about the Bill as a whole, because the powers that the Government are taking in theory enable the Government to undertake a backdoor process of re-nationalisation. However, the noble Lord has given us quite a lot of comfort today.
However, the Minister for Energy and Construction admitted in another place:
"It is true that repealing"—
Sections 72 and 74 of the Electricity Act 1989—
"could, in theory, permit the Government to acquire shares in…other electricity companies where we cannot currently do so, but I stress that we have no intention of doing so".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/03; col. 589.]
The noble Lord made it clear that where possible he has tried to clarify that it is not quite as bad as we thought.
As I told your Lordships at Second Reading, and as I repeated in Grand Committee, while I accept what is said to be the Government's present intention, I really would have liked to have put temptation irrevocably out of the Government's way. However, having reached this stage of the Bill, the best I can do is to try to insist that the Government periodically come back to Parliament to account for their actions.
Your Lordships will notice that in my amendment I have proposed a lengthy initial period—five years—and for extensions for two years at a time. That would not impose any undue strain on the parliamentary timetable. In the Explanatory Notes to the Bill the Government conceded that,
"In the main, Part 2 [of the 1989 Act] has served its purpose and the provisions no longer apply or are now irrelevant".
I believe that in time, if British Energy manages to extricate itself from its present problems, this Bill too may no longer apply and may become irrelevant. For that reason it is essential that this Bill should have a "use by" date on it.
I believe from his response to my amendment in Grand Committee that the Minister is not entirely unsympathetic to what I am trying to achieve. But he did have some reservations, if the Act did expire, about the knock-on effects that that might have on Clauses 3 and 4 lapsing at the same time. He particularly singled out those two clauses. While I agree that the tax clause, Clause 4, has to be protected, I am not so sure if it will be a great loss if the highly technical provisions of Clause 3 were to go when the need for extended financial provision ceases.
However, cutting the Gordian knot, I am offering in this revised amendment to try to take into account all the concerns of the Minister to save both Clauses 3 and 4 from the effects of the sunset clause. If that does not entirely resolve the Government's reservations—I hope it will, in particular because the Explanatory Notes refer to Clause 2—perhaps I may suggest that as the Government's drafting facilities are much more extensive than mine they could put the matter right at Third Reading. However, the principle of my

1429
amendment remains. It is essential that the Bill, by its very nature and aims, should have an expiry date. I beg to move.
Noon
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for taking into consideration the points I made in Committee about the earlier amendment that was tabled seeking to time-limit the Bill. My comments then related to the difficulties in the application of that amendment as drafted to Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill. Based on that the noble Baroness has now focused her amendment on Clauses 1 and 2.
Unfortunately, there are still difficulties with this amendment. I hope I did not give the wrong impression in my earlier discussion of the amendment which was perhaps a little brief as it was the last amendment under consideration. My remarks about Clauses 3 and 4 were meant as examples of the problems a sunset clause would cause. I specifically prefaced the explanation with the words "for example". I did not mean to suggest that any concerns related only to Clauses 3 and 4. So while I am grateful to the noble Baroness For clearly taking the trouble to adjust her amendment in the light of the earlier debate, It am afraid that this amendment still creates problems.
Let us first consider Clause 1. This clause provides specific authority to incur expenditure on British Energy companies. We have already discussed this clause a little today. I am hopeful that there will be no need for this clause in five years' time. But I am not comfortable with putting in such a restriction on the clause, particularly at this stage when we are still working up the precise detail of our legal undertaking to the company. I believe that it is important to retain flexibility here.
I have stated that our restructuring support to the company will be in relation to its nuclear liabilities and that as a matter of policy this funding would be done under Schedule 12 to the Electricity Act. That remains the case, not least because we have put in place a tax disregard provision that applies to this schedule. But the existence of Clause 1 provides an important safety net. It provides legal certainty that we have statutory authority for our restructuring support to BE, avoiding doubt over whether some element of this support might not be covered by specific authority because it is not quite clear whether or not it falls within Schedule 12. For example, I have already mentioned that having Clause 1 available gives us certainty that we have authority for paying a nominal sum to acquire BE's stations at the end of their life—one of the conditions of our support to BE that we are insisting on in order to protect taxpayers' interests.
One last point on this clause is that any repeal of Clause 1 would need to be supported by detailed savings and transitional provisions to address liabilities, obligations, and so on, that have been already incurred under that clause. We cannot be sure at this stage what those provisions would need to address.
1430
I turn to consider Clause 2. The substantive repeal in the first part of subsection (1) would not be affected by a sunset provision as it is clear that a repealed provision remains repealed. The saving provision in the second part of subsection (1) is there, as we have already said, only for the avoidance of doubt and so it should be acceptable there too.
It may be possible to have a sunset provision on the power to make an order by statutory instrument, but I am not sure it is worth a sunset clause on such a narrow basis. I would also point out that although we would intend to use the delegated power to repeal Part 2 soon, there is always a chance that the need for a consequential provision in respect of such repeal might come to light only later on.
I know that the noble Baroness is not a fan of the Government's desire for flexibility. Governments are always more in favour of flexibility than are opposition parties, and civil servants value flexibility above all else when they are dealing with such issues. However, I hope that in this case she will understand our desire to retain this flexibility and that she will be willing to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I hope I did not misunderstand—not today—the fact that the Minister had sympathy with the clause; I thought he did. However, now that I have left out Clauses 3 and 4 we seem to have come back to Clauses 1 and 2. So, perhaps I slightly misunderstood in the same way that he may have misunderstood that I do not oppose the Government having flexibility; I am trying to give flexibility but I do not want it to be too wide.
On that basis, I shall again consider carefully the Minister's comments. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
12.7 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS AND AMENDMENTS TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line references are to HC Bill 52 as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
13 After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
"INDEPENDENT MEMBERS: DECLARATION AGAINST TERRORISM
(1) Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c.32) (district policing partnerships) is amended as follows.

1431
(2) In paragraph 1 (interpretation) after sub-paragraph (3) insert—
"(3A) In this Schedule a "declaration against terrorism" means a declaration in the form set out in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, with the substitution of the words "if appointed" for the words "if elected"."
(3) In paragraph 5 (council's nominations of independent members) in sub-paragraph (4) after "if" insert "(a)" and after "the DPP" insert—
", or

(b) he has not made a declaration against terrorism".

(4) In paragraph 7 (removal of members from office) in subparagraph (1) after paragraph (a) insert—

"(aa) in the case of an independent member, he has acted in breach of the terms of a declaration against terrorism;".

(5) In paragraph 7 after sub-paragraph (2) insert—
"(3) Section 6 of the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 applies to determine whether an independent member has acted in breach of the terms of a declaration against terrorism as it applies to determine whether a person who has made a declaration required for the purpose of section 3, 4 or 5 of that Act has acted in breach of the terms of the declaration.
(4) As applied by sub-paragraph (3), section 6 of the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 applies with the following modifications—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words from "after" to "the Assembly" substitute "when he is an independent member of a district policing partnership";

(b) omit subsection (4);

(c) in subsection (5), in the definition of "public meeting" after paragraph (c) insert—

"(d) any meeting of a district policing partnership or a committee of a district policing partnership (whether or not a meeting which the public is permitted to attend), and

(e) any meeting of a sub-group established under section 21 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 or a committee of such a sub-group (whether or not a meeting which the public is permitted to attend), and".

(6) Subsections (1) to (5) come into force in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order."
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13.
When we discussed the passage of the 2000 Act it was specifically said by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer that in due time we hoped to see the day when the various sensitivities surrounding policing issues had receded and then we would be able to return to this issue.
As your Lordships know, in August 2001 we published an updated implementation plan. On page 11 of that report, in accordance with Patten recommendations 27 and 28, we made it clear that we would consider whether there was a continuing need for the disqualification provision for independent members of DPPs and the functions of the Belfast subgroups. The plan made it plain that we would consider including any necessary amendments in the subsequent legislation.
As your Lordships all know, there was a review of policing arrangements. My colleague, Jane Kennedy, met a wide range of parties, including all political
1432
parties from Northern Ireland that are represented in this Parliament. We considered the appropriateness of the existing provisions. On 25th November last year the Government published, along with the draft contents of this Bill, some text for consideration. I know certainly that your Lordships appreciated the openness with which the Secretary of State had dealt with this matter. That is the short background.
I make it plain on behalf of the Government that we see a distinction between on the one hand presenting these clauses to Parliament today for inclusion as part of the legislation—I stress that as strongly as I can—and on the other hand bringing those clauses into force and effect. We did not wish to be in this position and we brought forward these changes with some reluctance. No one pretends that all the problems of Northern Ireland have been solved. However, over the past weeks and months there has been extremely important significant progress. I reiterate my continuing appreciation of the attitude that all noble Lords have adopted as we all work together cooperatively to see what improvements we may bring about genuinely and without partisan feeling.
As your Lordships know, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State had discussions at Hillsborough last month. Progress was made. Your Lordships also know that the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach will return to Hillsborough shortly. If the circumstances are right—we all hope and pray that they will be—they will publish proposals setting out the way forward, covering acts of completion as set out in the Prime Minister's Customs House speech.
Often your Lordships have pointed out to me that we have already had three policing Bills for Northern Ireland. I do not believe that anyone would wish to have a further Bill. But that is not the end of the story. I stress again, at the risk of being tedious, that the provisions dealing with the Belfast sub-groups, which we shall come to later, and these clauses cannot come into force and into effect when the Bill receives Royal Assent. They will be commenced only by means of a subsequent order. Your Lordships know that that will have to be subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses. That is covered by Amendments Nos. 48 and 49. We shall envisage bringing forward the clauses only in the context of acts of completion. The Secretary of State was even more specific when he spoke last week saying that,
"They will not come into effect unless we have agreement that those acts of completion have been dealt with".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/3/2003; col. 361.]
The Prime Minister has made it plain that acts of completion cannot and do not simply mean a statement or a declaration. They must mean giving up violence completely and totally, so that we can move forward with the democratic process, with all parties that wish to be in government abiding by the same democratic rules.
The affirmative resolution procedure provides an absolute guarantee that Parliament will have the final say as to when those provisions come into effect. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place said that both Houses would have the

1433
opportunity for a full debate should an order be brought forward. I give my personal guarantee that I shall make appropriate time available.
I want to comment briefly on Amendments Nos. 14B, 14C and 48A and, as it also deals with commencement, Amendment No. 15B. They are all attempts, in differing ways, to get at the same effect. Amendment No. 14B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, focuses on the issue of decommissioning. I respectfully suggest that it is not the only issue. The noble Lords. Lord Maginnis and Lord Rogan, in Amendments Nos. 14C and 15B approach it in a slightly different way and include a provision for the Secretary of State to add more elements to the list of necessary conditions. I say in a spirit of amity that I do not believe that those amendments are workable. I shall be happy to amplify that in due time should that be appropriate.
I understand the thinking behind the proposals. In the Government's view we really need a situation where the new world envisaged by the Belfast agreement works properly and as it should. When the institutions are working effectively, and when there is a degree of mutual trust and co-operation—not threats, fear and various intimidation—we shall need to consider the Secretary of State's proposal for Parliament to decide about commencement.
There will be an element of political judgment. That is inevitable and right in a democratic society. I have detected that there is concern in the House that the decision should not simply be left to the Secretary of State at that stage. That is the important point that favours the adoption of Amendment No. 48A, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Smith of Clifton and Lord Glentoran. In order for devolution to be restored, trust must be restored, and restored sufficiently to enable all parties to feel able to come together once again in collective government.
My summary, by way of approval of Amendment No. 48A, is that it is—I mean this as a commendation and not as a criticism—a more subtle and sophisticated way of reaching a conclusion which we all favour.
Last week Jane Kennedy said,
"trust must reside not just in the Governments of Britain or Ireland. The parties to the arrangements that we want to reestablish in Northern Ireland will have to make those partnerships work. It is within that context that we would consider the changes being brought forward".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/3/03; col. 541.]
Therefore, the effect of Amendment No. 48A would be to add another element to the judgment that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would have to make. For that reason, we are content to accept that amendment. I hope your Lordships will regard that as helpful.
Amendment No. 14 amends the disqualification provision set out in paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 to the 2000 Act. At present the legislation provides that no one who has ever received a custodial sentence should be allowed to serve—I underline the following words—as an independent member of a DPP, no matter how long ago they were convicted or for what offence or whether
1434
or not the sentence was suspended. Our amendment changes that and would provide that a period of five years would have to elapse following a person's discharge in respect of an offence before he or she may be considered for appointment to a DPP.
If your Lordships accept them, those provisions would bring the rules for independent members into line with the arrangements that already apply to the political members of DPPs, who are drawn from local district councils. Under the terms of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972, as amended, candidates wishing to stand for election as local councillors are ineligible for a period of five years following their discharge from an offence that attracted a custodial sentence.
Those arrangements, in this amendment, mirror for independent members what obtains for local authority members. Similar arrangements, of course, apply in relation to appointment to police authorities in England and Wales, where people are disqualified from being appointed as a member of a police authority if they have received, within five years before the date of the appointment, a sentence of imprisonment for a period of not less than three months.
The only change to the wording of this clause since it was first published as a text for consideration last November—I referred to that earlier—is to clarify the status of suspended sentences. In line with the equivalent electoral legislation, suspended sentences will not count for the purposes of the disqualification rules unless they are ordered to take effect. The suspension of the sentence will be subject to certain conditions set by the judge. If an individual breaks any of those conditions, the sentence ceases to be suspended and the disqualification provisions would come to bear.
Those changes would not mean that all ex-prisoners will automatically be suitable for appointment. The Northern Ireland Office Minister at the time of the passage of the 2000 Act through the Commons made it plain that there would be a number of important safeguards. Appointments will be made in accordance with a code of practice issued by the Secretary of State, on merit and by the cross-community Policing Board. The code of practice makes it clear that the board will write to the Chief Constable to ask for confirmation of the criminal records declared by applicants.
I hope that Amendment No. 13 finds favour with your Lordships because it has been raised, in one way or another, on many occasions. It would bring the arrangements for independent members into line with those that already apply for political members. Prospective independent members would be required, before their application can be considered by the Policing Board, to make a declaration against terrorism, in exactly the same terms as prospective local councillors are required to make. I stress that that has been raised on many occasions in the past, not Least by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and it is extremely important. I commend it to your Lordships.

1435
There is an important sanction. If an independent member acts in breach or appears to have acted in breach of the declaration against terrorism, it is within the board's power, or the power of the council with the approval of the board, to remove that person from membership. There is a slight difference from the rules applying to councillors. In the case of local councillors, the case must go to the courts before they can be removed. Amendment No. 14 provides that the board—or the council with the approval of the board—should be able to make that decision. Of course, an aggrieved individual could seek a judicial review of the decision of the board or council of removal. The court, on judicial review, would have to come to its judicial conclusion about the reasonableness of that decision.
There is still scope for the board to take action in respect of political members since existing paragraph 7(1)(e) of Schedule 3 allows the board to remove someone because,
"he is…unable or unfit to discharge his functions".
I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, is in his place because I come to an important aspect of this legislation. By the courtesy of the noble Lord, I was given—yesterday evening—an early copy of the recommendations of his extremely highly regarded committee. That is what brought me to bring forward Amendments Nos. 48ZA and 49A in manuscript for which I apologise but it was necessary to act quickly. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, spoke privately to me about his concerns. I know that a number of noble Lords around the House take a strict view, first, on the importance of the affirmative procedure; and, secondly, on the unfailing attention we have always given to recommendations of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. Therefore, I put down manuscript amendments in my name, having the authority of the Secretary of State to do so, to provide for an affirmative procedure to apply to an order that the Secretary of State might bring forward under the new clause inserted by government Amendment No. 22 which deals with the exceptional arrangements for recruitment of constables with specialist skills.
We shall come to Amendment No. 22 later in the day but I thought it appropriate and necessary for me to make those remarks at this stage. Amendment No. 22 provides that the exceptional arrangements will be available for two years starting from Royal Assent. The Secretary of State may extend the life of the provision on one occasion only to allow it to operate for a maximum period of four years. Because of the strong views that noble Lords have expressed about 50:50 recruitment, because of the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, we have agreed that the affirmative approach is sensible and proportionate. I therefore commend those two amendments which I think will be unanimously welcomed.
I do not discount the proposition that the introduction of these changes will be difficult for many. In my opinion, it is undoubtedly the way forward. I have said previously to your Lordships that the more time that passes at present the more confident I become that normality and
1436
stability will be achieved for our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland. I believe that there are sufficient, abundant safeguards.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, first, I still hate doing such business on a Thursday morning. At the same time, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal and his staff, the Clerks and others who have been so helpful in bringing together the manuscript amendments and other matters in a considerable hurry in the early hours of this morning. I agree with a great deal of what the noble and learned Lord said. It is true that the House and parties have worked together in a positive way over the past few weeks while the Bill has been going through your Lordships' House.
I do not intend to make a long speech. However, when I last spoke on the Bill I made one point very strongly. My honourable friend in another place, Quentin Davies, although taking rather more time, made the same point. We do not in principle object to the Weston Park clauses. We do not like them; we wish they did not have to be. However, if they are the price of Sinn Fein/IRA, or their scribe P O'Neil, coming to the table and delivering what the world knows they have to deliver in order to have peace and democracy in Northern Ireland, then so be it.
Her Majesty's Opposition, the Conservative Party, are in total disagreement with Her Majesty's Government over the timing in bringing forward those clauses. We do not consider that it is sensible to continue to meet Sinn Fein demands until they deliver. For those noble Lords who may not have done so, I have read Martin McGuinness's speech to the Ard Fheis. I have read much of Adams's speech to the same gathering. I also read in The Times Martin McGuinness's recent interview. Nowhere did I find any indication of any softening of the stance of Sinn Fein/IRA. The last time I spoke from this Dispatch Box I admitted to being optimistic; perhaps we were moving forward. I believed that. But I was very disappointed by the speeches of Martin McGuinness.
In practical terms, I also thank the noble and learned Lord for accepting the Liberal Democrat Amendment No. 48A to which I put my name. It is extremely helpful. I know that David Trimble is not happy about it; he rang me. However, I feel happier with that than with nothing. But I stress that it is very much second best. I wish to demonstrate that that is how the Opposition feel about these clauses. I shall seek to divide the House on one, two or perhaps three amendments. How we accomplish that will be fairly complex. I am not certain when I say that I beg to take the opinion of the House but I wish to do so when appropriate on Amendment No. 14A.
If something exciting happens, or is due to happen, in the near future—that is, before Easter—I shall have been proved wrong in what I have been saying and I shall be delighted. I believe that Her Majesty's Government should not be giving anything at all to Sinn Fein/IRA until they deliver.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I, too, thank the Leader of the House, his staff and the Clerks for assisting us with a very tricky piece of legislation. I, too, am not confident that I shall be able to follow the procedures as well as I would have wished.
We shall be generally supportive of the Government with regard to Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 48ZA, and so on. The noble Lords, Lord Rogan, and Lord Maginnis, have adopted the wording of an amendment I tabled earlier and subsequently withdrew in terms of Amendment No. 48A which provides a neater formulation. I echo the view of the Leader of the House. At this time, before the package is announced from the two governments in a week or two's time, we must proceed as though things will lead to a restoration of devolution and normality. That is what we are about today.
I acknowledge that Amendment No. 14C, tabled by the Unionists, which details acts of completion, describes the actions that we would regard as the minimum criteria for accepting that acts of completion had occurred. We still need to see that those things have happened; our withdrawal of the amendment in no way undermines our conviction that those actions from the paramilitaries are fundamentally necessary.
However, it is not just the Secretary of State and the political parties here in Westminster that must be satisfied by the acts of completion but, more importantly, the political parties in Northern Ireland. That is why we withdrew our earlier amendment and tabled Amendment No. 48A instead. Following the talks at Hillsborough, the parties must go forward together. That is an imperative. The details of the package will be published shortly. Everyone will know where they stand. Each piece of the package will he considered in the context of the other pieces.
Critical to that is movement on the part of the paramilitaries, but the parties will have to decide whether they can accept the whole package and move forward together, instead of cherry picking. They will have to decide how important are the institutions of government to Northern Ireland. For far too long and on too many occasions, Northern Ireland has had help from outside in order to move on—from the Governments in Westminster and Dublin; from Senator George Mitchell; from President Clinton; and from General de Chastelain. If we can rely on press reports about the package to be published, there will now be an outside body to keep an eye on the parties and ensure that they are all behaving themselves and living up to their responsibilities under the Good Friday agreement.
All those involved in the peace process have worked tirelessly, and we deeply appreciate the time and effort that they have spent on Northern Ireland, but there comes a time when the political parties in Northern Ireland must themselves take responsibility for the peace process. They must decide whether to move forward together or whether to allow the process to stagnate. They must all take steps to demonstrate that they are acting in good faith and do enough to ensure that that good faith is accepted by others involved in the process.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, on the first day in Grand Committee, I recall raising the issue of the text for consideration. I was then extremely worried about that text and the concessions that it provided for those who were—and still are—not unequivocally committed to the peace process. I was worried that the text for consideration would be introduced in another place and that we would not have an opportunity fully to discuss the matters arising therefrom. I was assured by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal that we would have the opportunity fully to discuss those matters. Whatever was the intention, that is not how matters are working out in effect.
The Bill as it now appears before us has increased from a 28 to a 41-clause Bill. That is the increase in size since 5th December last year. As amendments show, the Government are introducing a further six new clauses and two new schedules. In the time allocated, Part 2 was virtually unconsidered in your Lordships' House; it was considered only briefly on Report. The schedules were not considered again. In another place, Part 2 and the schedules were raced through without sufficient scrutiny.
We have here 13 clauses and three schedules that have been virtually unconsidered. That must be of considerable concern for those who recognise the sensitivity of the situation in Northern Ireland. We understand that the Bill, almost in its entirety, is the product of the Government's guarantees and promises, not only to the Social Democratic and Labour Patty but specifically to Sinn Fein, at the Weston Park conference. It derives from elements of that conference to which my party was not given access—nor, indeed, were we made aware of the promises that the Government were making.
Whereas we have some assurances that acts of completion will be required before many of the less palatable aspects of the Bill are implemented, I am not terribly sure about those guarantees. Especially in another place, acts of completion have been described as "processes of acts of completion" or as "in the context of acts of completion". For us to get the sort of guarantee that we require, we need to be told that what is meant by those expressions is "subsequent to acts of completion"; otherwise, we believe that there will be a rush towards handing further concessions to Sinn Fein in the hope that this, that or the next concession will drive the water over the dam.
The reality is that within the past month, there have been significant finds of new Provisional IRA arms, explosives and explosive devices—new material in hides in Belfast. We have had a period in which the IRA has engaged in the most sinister spying on Members of Parliament, prison officers and police. It has happened so often during the past 30 years that I seldom comment on it, but just this week I have been given information that the IRA is in possession of yet more information about me. I often wonder why that is necessary; I live a fairly open life. None the less, I draw attention to that simply to demonstrate the type of people with whom we hope to deal.

1439
I am enough of a democrat—my party is sufficiently democratic—to accept that when there are acts of completion, things will be different. I may not like some things that happen. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal referred to what happens in England and Wales. Could he illustrate the point by telling us the number of murderers, people convicted of fraud or hooligans—similar to those that we saw outside the football match last evening—who become members of police boards or district police partnerships? The noble and learned Lord knows that that is not a meaningful illustration of what could happen in Northern Ireland, where the political pressures and the need to make political points are such that we will be inundated with applications, should the concessions be made, from the most despicable individuals—the scum of our society, to put it bluntly.
The reciprocal of that must be to ask whether ordinary, decent, law-abiding members of our community will feel it worthwhile risking their safety by serving on police boards or district police partnerships. Those are some of the questions that need to be posed and, more importantly, answered by the noble and learned Lord.
Perhaps I am jumping ahead when I refer to the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats that has the agreement of the Conservatives in this House but I wonder whether it is recognised that the amendment puts so much pressure on Ulster Unionists in terms of reestablishing the Assembly. Unless we receive, not guarantees set about by process of, or in the context of, but unequivocal guarantees, we shall have to ask whether we can risk re-establishing the Assembly—and I have ever in my political life been an advocate of devolved and responsibility-sharing government—insofar as it may lead automatically to the most undesirable people becoming involved at the very heart of law and order. For them to become involved at the heart of order endangers not only our police, whom we send out to protect society, but the whole fabric of our society and the integrity of the democratic process in Northern Ireland.
Those are the serious issues that cannot be fully dealt with in the time we have available to discuss the multitude of amendments and business being considered here today. I await with interest to hear how the noble and learned Lord can reassure me and my party on this issue.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Clifton, for their remarks at the outset of their speeches when they paid tribute to my private office—which is in fact a single person, Nicki Daniels. There is no Northern Ireland secretariat or Minister attached to the House of Lords, so Nicki Daniels has to do an enormous amount of work—always courteously, cheerfully and efficiently. I am also very grateful for what was said about the
1440
officials who had to work very very late last night in seeing to and dealing with amendments of which they were not in possession until well after 8 o'clock in the evening. We should not expect people who are public servants to work in those circumstances.
I want to go to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, a moment ago. There is no constraint at all on time. Starting at 11 o'clock on a Thursday, we have ample time to discuss all the issues. I have always been able to provide appropriate, decent time for all our considerations.
Let us go to the fundamentals. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said that no concessions must be made to Sinn Fein/IRA. Absolutely. And they are not. The commencement order was written in at the specific initiative of the Secretary of State to meet those concerns. I repeat: Royal Assent does not bring about even the possibility of the Secretary of State taking action. Then it requires the affirmative procedure to be gone through. I have already assured your Lordships that we will have appropriate time to discuss matters at that stage.
We need to remember this in relation to the mechanism provided by the amendments: can the Secretary of State come to his initial conclusion by way of very fine judgment that it is appropriate to bring in the commencement order? If yes, he has to justify that to both Houses. He knows perfectly well—I say this respectfully to the Commons—that the scrutiny in this House will certainly be informed and detailed, as it always has been. At that stage, we shall have to come to our conclusions as to whether or not his political judgment was correct. I repeat, no concessions have been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, asked—he may know the answer, because he frequently does when he teases me—how many murderers, fraudsters or hooligans serve on British police authorities. He normally takes the police authority for Surrey. I do not know why we always rely on Surrey for these disagreeable examples. The answer is, probably very few—if any. My proposition was not that such people sit on police authorities but that they have the opportunity to do so, should they be qualified—even though they have previous convictions.
The question resolves itself to these propositions. Do we want to move forward? Are we able to believe that in the not-too-distant future the opportunity will be there? If the answer to those questions is yes, we need to give this power—and it is only a prospective power—for the Secretary of State to adopt.
I shall deal specifically with the question of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, about pressures on the Ulster Unionists if the Smith-Glentoran amendment were carried. It is not pressure on the Unionists. It is giving them and other political parties power and influence about a very significant decision. That is why I ventured to suggest earlier that Amendment No. 48A is very subtle and sophisticated, because it gives power

1441
and influence to those parties who, if they do not feel content, will not join in with the re-establishment of the suspended institutions.
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that he has spent a very long life in politics supporting devolved and responsible institutions. We are here providing for the possibility that responsibility may be more widely shared—but only on the basis of demonstrated fact.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
14 After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
"INDEPENDENT MEMBERS: DISQUALIFICATION
(1) In paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c.32) (disqualification for membership of district policing partnership) for sub-paragraph (2) substitute—
"(2) A person is disqualified for being an independent member of a DPP if —

(a)he has been convicted in Northern Ireland or elsewhere of any offence and has had passed on him a sentence of imprisonment or detention, and

(b)the relevant period has not ended.

(3) The relevant period is the period of five years beginning with the person's discharge in respect of the offence.
(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) the following are to be treated as the discharge of a person (whether or not his release is subject to conditions)—

(a)his release on licence;

(b)his release in pursuance of a grant of remission.

(5) Sub-paragraph (4) does not apply in relation to the release of a person in respect of an offence if he is required to return to prison or detention for a further period in respect of the offence.
(6) Subject to sub-paragraph (7), the reference in sub-paragraph (2) to a sentence of imprisonment or detention does not include a suspended sentence.
(7) Sub-paragraph (6) does not apply in relation to a suspended sentence that has been ordered to take effect.
(8) In this paragraph "suspended sentence" means a sentence of imprisonment or detention that is ordered not to take effect unless the conditions specified in the order are met."
(2) Subsection (1) comes into force in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order."
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14, to which I spoke with Amendment No. 13.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14:
14A leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I have already indicated, I should like to press Amendment No. 14A and take the opinion of the House.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Lord Glentoran.)
12.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendtnent (No. 14A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 94; Not-Contents, 147.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Jopling, L.

Ampthill, L.

Laird, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lucas, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Luke, L.

Biffen, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blatch, B.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Bramall, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Marlesford, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Marsh, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Byford, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Caithness, E.

Montrose, D.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Moynihan, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cobbold, L.

Noakes, B.

Colwyn, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

O'Cathain, B.

Cox, B.

Palmer, L.

Crathorne, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Peel, E.

Denham, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Plumb, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elles, B.

Reay, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Fitt, L.

Rogan, L.

Flather, B.

Saatchi, L.

Freeman, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sharples, B.

Geddes, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glentoran, L.

Stewartby, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Strange, B.

Hanham, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Trumpington, B.

Higgins, L.

Vivian, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Waddington, L.

Howe, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Wakeham, L

Howell of Guildford, L.

Wilcox, B.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Windlesham, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Billingham, B.

Addington, L.

Borrie, L.

Ahmed, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bradshaw, L.

Alli,L.

Brennan, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Andrews, B.

Brookman, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Burlison, L.

Bach, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Carter, L.

Berkeley, L.

Chandos, V.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Christopher, L.

1443

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

McNally, L.

Crawley, B.

Maddock, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

David, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Desai, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Dixon, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Donoughue, L.

Nicol, B.

Elder, L.

Northbourne, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Northover, B.

Falkland, V.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Paul, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Freyberg, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gale, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gavron, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Radice, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Golding, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Goodhart, L.

Richard, L.

Goudie, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rooker, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Roper, L.

Greengross, B.

Russell, E.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Sandberg, L.

Hamwee, B.

Sawyer, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Sewel, L.

Harrison, L.

Sheldon, L.

Haskel, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hayman, B.

Simon, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Stern, B.

Hoyle, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Taverne, L.

Hylton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Temple-Morris, L.

Chancellor)

Tordoff, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Uddin, B.

Jeger, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Jones, L.

Walmsley, B.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Weatherill, L.

Lipsey, L.

Whitaker, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Whitty, L.

Lockwood, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Privy Seal)

[Teller]

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
1 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 14B, I must advise the House that, if it is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 14C due to pre-emption.
[Amendment No. 14B not moved.]

AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No.14
14C Line 31, at end insert—
"(3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (2) until acts of completion have occurred.
(4) In subsection (3), "acts of completion" means—

(a) that the decommissioning of firearms, ammunition and explosives held by one of the organisations specified under Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000 has occurred and has been verified under section 3 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 by the Commission;

(b) there has been a statement from that organisation ordering the termination of acts of paramilitary violence by that organisation, including—

(i) shootings;

(ii) beatings;

(iii) threats;

(iv) intimidations; and

(c) there has been a statement from that organisation removing any threats to those who left their homes due to intimidation by that organisation.

(5) The Secretary of State may by order add further acts to those listed in subsection (4) above."
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14C as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 14.
Noble Lords may indeed express some surprise that I am moving this amendment today. As noble Lords will be aware, it was printed yesterday along with other amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. I hasten to add that this is not a tabling error. I, too, was surprised to note that the amendment had been withdrawn. However, I would suggest that, until two days' ago, it would not only have received the support of the Ulster Unionist Party but perhaps even the support of the whole House.
The very notion of convicted criminals sitting on DPPs is a hard pill to swallow for the majority of the people in Northern Ireland. Further, these provisions fly directly in the face of the Patten report. Although the Government have hitherto justified this Bill as if it were implementing Patten in full, this disqualification provision could not be further from Patten. As my colleague, the right honourable David Trimble said in another place last week, according to Patten independent members should,
"reinforce the credentials and credibility of the DPP as a whole".
Moreover, according to Patten, they should be selected to,
"represent business and trade union interests and to provide expertise in matters pertaining to community safety".
It is difficult to see where Patten's vision of DPPs involved convicted criminals.
Surely this is purely a move on the Government's part to encourage republicans to join the Policing Board and the DPPs. However good-intentioned that premise may be, it is entirely premature. Clearly, too much trust has been placed on the republican movement to deliver when recent events, which I shall

1445
not repeat today, have proved its members incapable of leaving terror and violence behind. We have witnessed no progress on decommissioning. There have been no acts of completion.
That is why it is entirely reasonable and prudent to include in the Bill a firm assurance that these provisions will not be introduced prior to, or, as Jane Kennedy suggested in another place "in the context or', acts of completion. These provisions should be introduced only after we have seen not only positive signs from the republican movement—and, of course, the loyalist paramilitaries—that they are moving away from violence, but also action.
As the amendment outlines, paramilitary violence extends beyond the traditional definition of gun and bomb attacks. Acts of completion must also include an end to beatings, threats and intimidation. Those exiled through intimidation must be allowed to return. Is it not sensible to assume that those who wish to join the DPPs should be able to refrain from criminal activity, and encourage others in their community to do likewise?
The Government have talked long and hard about "acts of completion", but we have yet to see a tangible definition. The people of Northern Ireland remain in the dark as to what acts of completion will involve— how they will be implemented and monitored. It is therefore entirely sensible to tie acts of completion to provisions under Schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and Section 3 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 14C, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 14, be agreed to.—(Lord Rogan.)
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I fail to see how anyone could have any objections to the amendment just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. I believe that all Members of this House have been demanding—indeed, if not, they should be—exactly what this amendment demands. The noble Lord made particular reference to the return of exiles who have been exiled by the IRA and who are not allowed to return to their homeland where they were horn and reared. At a meeting only last week chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, this subject caused great concern. I see no indication from the IRA, or by way of the demands that have been made, that they will allow such exiles to return.
When discussing the previous amendments, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Privy Seal, said that you could discuss the whole Northern Ireland Bill with this set of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, made reference to the appointment of independent members to the DPPs. I meant to speak to the previous group of amendments, but I believe that it will be quite in order to mention here the appointment of independent members.
Everyone knows what "independent" means in Northern Ireland. Whatever people over here may regard as independent, people in Northern Ireland will know the identification of that so-called "independent" member, with his former colleagues, given their
1446
experience of having lived for over 30 years with paramilitary activities. 'The Lord Privy Seal gave an undertaking that before someone is appointed as an independent member he must sign a declaration to the effect that he is opposed to all forms of paramilitarism. That is a very reasonable request. However, a thought crossed my mind as I listened to the noble and learned Lord. We know from Weston Park that we are now to have sitting as independent members, or local authority members, people who have had a very dangerous past as regards their activities with paramilitary groups.
I read in a recent report from Northern Ireland that there are at present somewhere in the region of 2,000 unsolved murders in the Province. The vast majority of those murders have been carried out by paramilitaries of one side or the other—either the so-called "loyalists", or the IRA. What position would the board be in when making an appointment of a so-called "independent" member when it is found that perhaps 10, 20, or 25 years ago he was guilty of a paramilitary offence right up to and including the most dangerous one; namely, the crime of murder? What happens if he is appointed to a DPP a s an independent member? Are the police still carrying out inquiries into those murders? If it is then found that a person sitting as an independent member on a DPP was involved in a paramilitary crime of 10, 20, or 25 years ago, will the police pursue that conviction? Alternatively, will that person be put into the category of the OTRs who, under other legislation, will be given something approaching an amnesty?
Can the Lord Privy Seal give me and the people of Northern Ireland an assurance as regards those appointed as independent members, who have perhaps no overt connection with former paramilitarism? If it is subsequently found that such people have been involved in paramilitary activities, will they be disqualified from the DPPs? They may have given an indication that they are perhaps not involved in paramilitarism at present. However, although they have not been convicted, they may have been so involved. Would the latter affect their membership of the DPP?
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, while welcoming the valuable formula of Amendment No. 48A, I was glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, agreed with this amendment, which I also support. It is right and necessary that what constitutes acts of completion should be clearly defined on the face of the Bill since the texts for consideration are already implicit in it. It is difficult to see how the Government could object. Once these texts are in the Bill, implicitly they will be regarded as a commitment, just as the Weston Park agreement has been regarded as a commitment by Sinn Fein/IRA.
As things stand, the Government are, not for the first time, allowing Sinn Fein/IRA to set their own agenda, without a shadow of commitment on their part, a bare four days after the interview with Martin McGuinness reported in The Times, in which he,
"refused to offer firm commitments about the fate of more than a thousand people, most from nationalist communities, who were sent into exile during the Troubles"

1447
—let alone the thousand sent since the Belfast agreement. Mr McGuinness added that,
"he would be concerned about the prospect of people coming back into communities and there being a community reaction".
What arrogance!
How can the Government contemplate putting virtually all the texts for consideration into the legislation, even though it is suspended, after that? This is supposed to be a Bill to enable the police to function effectively, a Bill about restoring law and order. Unamended, it will be a charter for Sinn Fein/IRA to continue to behave as if they were the only arbiters of the lives of innocent people who have been unfortunate enough to cross the paramilitaries.
It will be a mockery of justice if we do not spell out what Sinn Fein/IRA must do first if they are even to return into government. The only acts that have taken place have been a long series of acts of terrorism. Would Mr McGuinness be predicting, as he has, that,
"policing and justice powers could be devolved in a very short period, since there appears to be a consensus"?
And would Gerry Adams be cheerfully contemplating Sinn Fein/IRA,
"joining the Policing Board and participating fully in the policing arrangements on a democratic basis",
if they did not know that commitments have been made—commitments to yield yet more dangerous powers to men whose aim is to destroy the police, men who have been caught red-handed in the last weeks with arms ready primed and clearly intended for use on the streets, not quietly reposing down a hole and put beyond use?
I commend the amendment to the House. It clearly sets out what must be done unconditionally by SinnFein/IRA, and what indeed I thought was expected of them by the Prime Minister and, I hope, the Taoiseach when the Belfast agreement was signed. It is utterly unacceptable that, five years on, the people are still helpless victims of the paramilitaries and that the police and the courts are virtually powerless to help.
I do not understand why we cannot wait to make these commitments until we have seen results and then debate them.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, in my book the amendment that was withdrawn was the best of the amendments, although I must accept the advice of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Privy Seal, that it was not very well drafted and might not have been manageable. I do not have his legal expertise. To me as a lay person the amendment seemed excellent. I am sorry that it came from the Liberal Democrats and that then they withdrew it. I am complimenting them in one way, while regretting that they did not stay with it. However, we all understand each other. I should have liked to see that amendment, of all the amendments, passed.
1.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: If I may say so without appearing to be patronising, the Liberal Democrat motion primarily in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, had the desired effect because it obliged us to concentrate on an important issue to see whether we could accommodate all views and achieve the most appropriate outcome.
With the best will in the world, Amendment No. 14C cannot be made to work. It says:
"The Secretary of State shall not make an order…until acts of completion have occurred.
"…'acts of completion' means-
"…the decommissioning of firearms, ammunition and explosives held by one of the organisations specified under Schedule 2".
Simply one of them? Why only one? Does,
"the decommissioning of firearms, ammunition and explosives"
mean that the retention of a single cartridge for a shotgun by a member of a paramilitary organisation is sufficient to disqualify the Secretary of State from making the order? As soon as one probes the factual consequences of the amendment, one realises that it is not workable.
In any event, I return to my earlier theme. Acts of completion are not limited to mechanical delivery of weapons. After all, if one wanted to be deeply cynical—I am sure that none of your Lordships would wish me to fall into that category of sin—one could say that decommissioning itself is not the answer. It is part of the answer, but it is not the total answer. As your Lordships have pointed out to me on many occasions, decommissioning of itself means handing over existing weapons; it does not prevent the further acquisition of weapons.
Therefore, I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. What we are looking to is a process that will involve individual acts, but that process and all those processes must be seen as steps to a situation that we are lucky enough to have in England and Wales, namely, democratic politics as the only acceptable form of political or quasi-political activity. Although I sympathise with the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Rogan, this is not the way to achieve the desired outcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, asked a number of detailed questions. The removal of members from office is dealt with in paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to the 2000 Act. An independent who does not "make the necessary disclosure" can be removed. If,
"he has been convicted of a criminal offence in Northern Ireland or elsewhere committed after the date of his appointment",
he can be removed. That does not deal with the noble Lord's point, because he was asking about a murder that might have been committed 20 years ago. I take his point on that matter. The comfort I can offer the noble Lord is that if the person concerned is otherwise unable or unfit to discharge his functions as a member of the DPP the board or the council can remove him.
One does not want to use a noble name in vain or inappropriately, but, after all, the first president of the free South Africa had served 27 years in prison for

1449
criminal activity. The question is: are we to insist for ever that redemption is not possible? If, five years after discharge—it may be from a very long prison sentence—someone is to be wholly disqualified from the political process in this context, that is an encouragement to people not to seek to remedy their behaviour; it is in fact an encouragement to them to carry on with unlawful activities.
I repeat what I said earlier: We are only at the preliminary stage. We are not even at the stage of empowering the Secretary of State to make the order. What we are saying is that in due time he may, on affirmative procedure, issue the commencement order. He still has to come to his political fine-tune judgment.
I recognise the sincerity of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, but I do not recommend to your Lordships that we adopt his proposed course of action.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I have listened to the remarks of the noble Lord, the Lord Privy Seal. Nevertheless, I wish to test the will of the House.
1.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 139.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Higgins, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Howe, E.

Ashcroft, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Bell, L.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Biffen, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Blaker, L.

Jopling, L.

Blatch, B.

Laird, L. [Teller]

Bridgeman, V. [Teller]

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Lucas, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Luke, L.

Byford, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marlesford, L.

Colwyn, L.

Marsh, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Crathorne, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Montrose, D.

Elles, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Moynihan, L.

Erroll,E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Feldman, L.

Noakes, B.

Fitt, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Flather. B.

O'Cathain, B.

Freeman, L.

Palmer, L.

Geddes, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Patten, L.

Glentoran, L.

Peel, E.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Hanham, B.

Plumb, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

1450

Reay, L.

Strange, B.

Renton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Rogan, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Saatchi,L.

Trumpington, B.

Seccombe, B.

Vivian, L.

Sharples, B.

Waddington, L.

Wakeham, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wilcox, B.

Skidelsky, L.

Windlesham, L.

Slim, V.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Addington, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hollis.of Heigham, B.

Alli,L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Howells of St. Davids. B.

Andrews, B.

Hoyle, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bach, L.

Hylton,L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Berkeley, L.

Chancellor)

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Jannerof Braunstone, L.

Billingham, B.

Jones, L.

Borrie, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Lester of Heme Hill, L.

Brennan, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Brookman, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Burlison, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carter, L.

[Teller]

Chandos, V.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Christopher, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate. L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

McNally, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Maddock, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Crawley, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

David, B.

Morgan of Huyton, B

Davies of Coity, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Morris of Manchester. L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Nicol, B.

Desai, L.

Northover, B.

Dixon, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Donoughue, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Elder, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkland, V.

Radice, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Rendell of Babergh,B.

Gale,B.

Rennard, L.

Gavron, L.

Richard, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gilbert, L.

Rooker, L.

Golding, B.

Roper, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Russell, E.

Goodhart, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Goudie, B.

Sandberg, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sawyer, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sewel, L.

Greengross, B.

Sheldon, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hamwee, B.

Simon, V.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Harrison, L.

Stern, B.

Haskel, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hayman, B.

Strabolgi, L.

1451

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Taverne, L.

Whitaker, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Whitty, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Wilkins, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Tordoff,L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord

Wallace of Saltaire,L.

Privy Seal)

Walmsley, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
1.27 p.m.
On Question, Amendment No. 14 agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration of Commons amendments be adjourned until later this afternoon.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 1.28 to 2 p.m. for Judicial Business and to 3 p.m. for Public Business.]

Afghanistan: Security of Aid Workers
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to ensure the security of humanitarian aid workers who operate in regions of Afghanistan outside the capital.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, employers of humanitarian aid workers are responsible for the safety and security of their staff. Reputable NGOs have detailed safety and evacuation plans and assess the security of their staff regularly. DfID requires that all NGOs it works with have full safety and evacuation procedures in place. We hope that the security sector reform programme currently being undertaken will in time bring improved security for everyone in Afghanistan, including NGO workers. The international and joint civil/military provincial reconstruction teams have an important part to play in that process.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the callous murder of an International Red Cross aid worker last week brings into sharp focus the lack of security in areas outside Kabul. I thank the noble Baroness for her reply but, as we are seeing now in Basra, will not local people be confused when they see that the new US units—they are called reconstruction teams in Afghanistan—are soldiers in uniform bringing them humanitarian aid?
1452
Will not this undermine the trust that people have in their own local Afghan NGOs and in the aid workers, a trust which has been built up over many years?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the noble Earl is right. These new reconstruction teams are being set up. Three US-led provincial reconstruction teams have begun work in three provinces outside Kabul. One of the great concerns, not only of NGOs but of everyone concerned about the development of Afghanistan, is that the people in the provinces outside Kabul need to make greater links with the new Afghan transitional government. Reconstruction teams are being set up but they are not intended as primary security forces, although initial indications are that there is improved security in the locations where they are deployed.
The teams have three aims: to assist in extending the Afghan Government's authority; to develop a stable and secure environment in the regions outside Kabul; and to facilitate security sector reform and reconstruction.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, what effect has the Iraq war had on the recruitment and funding of ISAF? Can the Minister confirm that the Germans and Dutch, the current commanders of ISAF, have threatened to withdraw?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I can say categorically that the Iraq conflict has had no effect on the recruitment or budget funding of the International Security and Assistance Force, which is permanently in Afghanistan. There is no question of the Dutch or Germans, who are currently leading ISAF, withdrawing. Every country has a six months' term. UK forces led ISAF for the first six months; then the Turkish forces for six months, and now the Dutch and Germans. When their six months' term comes to an end, another country will take over.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, there are conflicting reports about the situation of women in Afghanistan. What is my noble friend's assessment, and what are the Government doing to help them?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the whole House will agree that we must ensure that women are fully part of the new political settlement in Afghanistan because of the particular suffering they have endured for so long in that country. There are reconstruction programmes, which we support and are helping to fund, that ensure that women and girls will benefit from the new political and civil society in Afghanistan. For instance, at the moment, out of the 1,600 people in the Afghan Loya Jirgah, 200 are women. It is a first step, but it is an enormous improvement on zero. We recognise the problems and concerns of NGOs and others about reports that women and girls are being attacked, that girls' schools are sometimes under attack, and that there is a lack of healthcare facilities for women and

1453
girls. We take these issues very seriously. But 1.4 million girls are now in school in Afghanistan, which was not the case 15 months ago.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the—
Baroness Northover: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, given that Afghan clerics have called for a holy war against those who attack Muslim lands, are British aid workers now even less safe in Afghanistan? Does the Minister agree that the Afghan experience generally shows that reconstruction must be a long-term commitment, something we should remember for post-war Iraq?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness's final point. We have said continually that we are in for the long haul. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said recently that we are committed to the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan. The security of aid workers is of great concern to the Government—the Dfl D, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office. Together with the NGOs, we are working all the time to improve security. However, we also try to ensure that NGOs are neutral from the security forces.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, returning to the Question on the Order Paper, and having listened with great attention and respect—and some patience—to everything the Minister said, how are we to ensure the security of humanitarian aid workers anywhere without the intervention of our Armed Forces, who have quite a few jobs on their hands at the moment?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, as I said earlier, we try to secure the safety of NGOs. It is first for the NGOs themselves to feel as safe as possible when operating in a certain locality. Beyond that, in Afghanistan we ensure their safety through the security forces of I SAF and the new provincial reconstruction teams.

PFI Agreements
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will publish a list of all signed private finance initiative agreements.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we already publish such a list. While procurement issues are a matter for the individual department concerned, departments contribute to a list of signed projects compiled by the Office of Government Commerce, which is publicly available on the Office of Government Commerce website. In addition, a full record of future payments under PFI contracts is published in the Red Book. The
1454
relevant tables are: C17, departmental estimate of capital spending by the private sector (signed deals); C18, estimated aggregate capital value of projects at preferred bidder stage; and C19, estimated payments under PFI (signed deals).
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. When I think of the £100 billion involved, would it not be better, and does not the Minister agree that it would be in the public interest, to have a comprehensive list available, in a timely manner, in a prominent place, and in a format that is easily accessible?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, has simply not listened to my Answer. I am inclined to say to her, "I've shown you mine, now you show me yours".
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already said that such a list is available. As for the entirely bogus figure of £100 billion, which the noble Baroness and the Opposition keep on reviving, tell us what is in it.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, familiar as he is with Section 6 of the Companies Act 1985, the Minister will know that that is the section which places an obligation on companies to obtain, before they publish their accounts, the approval of an independent auditor to the effect that the accounts give a true and fair view of the affairs of the company. Therefore, is it not a source of concern that when the Chancellor rises to give his Budget statement next week, he will not have obtained the approval of the Government's auditor for the figures that he will publish that day? In fact, is not the opposite the case? Has not the Government's auditor indicated his disapproval of the Government's method of presenting precisely these PFI and PPP liabilities to which my noble friend Lady Wilcox refers because they do not give a true and fair view of the Government's true liabilities?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are two points here. The first is the quite extraordinary suggestion that the Chancellor, in between completing his Budget calculations and making his Budget speech, should go to the National Audit Office for approval of all his figures. I think that Conservative Chancellors—I am sorry that there are no former Conservative Chancellors present—would raise at least one eyebrow at that suggestion.
The second suggestion is that the National Audit Office has indicated its disapproval of the way in which the PFI figures are presented. That is certainly not the case. If the noble Lord is referring to the issue of on-balance sheet or off-balance sheet, that is not a matter for government decision—it is between the National

1455
Audit Office and the Office for National Statistics. They have jointly expressed the view that these matters are properly presented in government statements.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, can we turn now to the real effect of the PFI on real people in the real world? Has the Minister seen the account today in The Times and other newspapers that WS Atkins, the troubled support services group, is pulling out of a contract to run South wark schools two years into a five-year contract? WS Atkins says:
"We arc no longer prepared to carry on with a contract unless the margins hit our expectations".
In other words, heads we win, tails we walk away.
WS Atkins has seven PPP and PFI contracts in education, and it is about to take a big bite out of the Tube PPP through the Metronet consortium. When will the Government wake up to the risks of handing failing public services over to failing private sector contractors?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I cannot really believe that the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, is suggesting that somehow the Government, presumably through direct labour organisations, should carry out all construction and maintenance work in the public sector. The alternative is that private firms should do it. The noble Lord is now suggesting that those private firms should never be at any risk of financial failure. That cannot be the case— of course there are risks. The shareholders of WS Atkins take those risks. That is the point of private finance initiatives—that is the point of risk transfer.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, that is exactly the point: the Government are taking those risks—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Minister disputed the figure of £100 billion to which my noble friend Lady Wilcox referred. If he disputes that, will he give us the correct figure?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is not my figure. It is a figure dreamed up by the Opposition, and they have never succeeded in explaining it. I do not know what it comprises; I cannot believe in it until I see the evidence.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord asks for a figure—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we must have a degree of civilised order.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister explain to my noble friend Lord Oakeshott: when is a contract not a contract?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, a contract is a contract. It has contractual obligations.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, can the Minister really derogate the Government's responsibility in the matter of the PFI and the PPP? Has not the National Audit Office expressed extreme concern about the off-balance sheet financing of Network Rail and has it not had a dispute with the national statistician about this? How can the Government sit back and say that it is nothing to do with them when it is a government-owned vehicle executing government policy?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is nothing to do with PFI. The classification of Network Rail is a classification of an organisation and not of an asset. The Office for National Statistics and the National Audit Office have agreed that, according to the way in which the ONS must classify Network Rail as per European accounting standards, it has been handled correctly.

Countryside Agency Report
3.16 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they intend to take as a result of the report from the Countryside Agency State of the Countryside 2020.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Countryside Agency report, by painting pictures of alternative future scenarios, makes a very useful contribution to the debate on how we should reconcile, in a sustainable way, the conflicting pressures in our countryside. The Government are already actively working both to achieve real improvements to the quality of life in rural areas and to make the countryside itself attractive and enjoyable.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the fact is that the pictures painted by the Countryside Agency's report depend largely on whether the Government will have more success in implementing their urban regeneration programme than they have had to date. Does the Minister agree that that programme is sadly behind schedule and the report of the noble Lord. Lord Rodgers, has not been implemented, which is why the knock-on effect on the countryside that the Countryside Agency has identified is likely to be so severe by 2020?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness, uncharacteristically, completely misunderstands this report. The Countryside Agency is setting a number of possible scenarios such as whether there is greater or less success if the Government do nothing or if they complete and enhance their policies. There is obviously a relationship between what is going on in the towns and in the countryside, but it is not a direct relationship in terms of urban regeneration as against rural regeneration. The Government have

1457
programmes for both. They have been very successful in delivering both in many respects. Of course, some programmes are behind and some are more successful than we originally estimated. The general picture of the countryside in the report is of a very green and pleasant land.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I declare an interest. Does the Minister agree that the paragraph on farming on page 18 is so depressing that he might have written it himself? Does he further agree that unless we look after farming we will not have the beautiful countryside, the landscape or the habitat that the whole nation wants? At the moment, the Government are going in quite the wrong direction, particularly through their alleged reform of the CAP.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, clearly farming is a major factor in the economy of the countryside and the way the landscape looks. It is therefore very important that we have a sustainable farming sector. But if the noble Lord is suggesting that in order to get a sustainable farming sector we keep the common agricultural policy in its present form, which is effectively subsidising production that does not have a market, greatly distorting the way in which farming operates and preventing it from becoming a commercial success, that is the wrong way to go. The right way to go is, as Commissioner Fischler suggests and the British Government support, the reform of the CAP.
Earl Peel: My Lords, leading on from my noble friend's question, and given the widespread dissatisfaction in the countryside about how the Government are fighting the cause of British agriculture, I ask the Minister two specific questions. What assurance can he give the House that his department will begin to take action against preventing the imports of food from abroad that are produced at standards which are below those produced by our farmers in this country? Secondly, what assurance can he give the House that he will seek derogations when EU directives work directly against the benefit of farmers, thus ensuring that by the year 2020 we still have a farming industry in this country?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we shall have a successful farming industry in this country, and one with a good environmental outcome, if we pursue together the need for farming to respect the environment while at the same time becoming more commercial and more market oriented. That is the lesson of the Curry report, and that is very much the way in which the CAP reform proposals are going. As regards imports, clearly there are EU standards relating to those countries from which we take imports, particularly in relation to meat products. However, the noble Earl appeared to suggest that we would somehow roll back our commitment—and the commitment which we intend to pursue in the WTO negotiations—to a more liberal system of trading of food. I do not think that that is the right way to proceed.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister share my regret that the Government, while they have found it so easy to make copies of the Countryside Agency report available to the press, nevertheless cannot make it available to the PPO until tomorrow? Will he therefore forgive me if l ask for information which may be plainly available in the report? We hear from time to time of country dwellers on means-tested benefits who spend 10 per cent of their benefit on fares to travel to collect their benefit. Is the Minister aware of any research which quantifies that phenomenon? If he is not, will he attempt to persuade his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to commission such research?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not aware of such research. It certainly is not covered in the Countryside Agency report. If that report has not yet reached the PPO. I apologise to noble Lords. It certainly should have done.
It is certainly true that, although the general picture of the countryside is one of substantial prosperity, the picture for some people in the countryside dependent on means-tested benefits and distant from transport and public services is not a good one and needs to be addressed. All government departments need to ensure that their policies take into account that rural dimension.
Lord Carter: My Lords, farming is suffering severe economic problems, but will my noble friend confirm that British agriculture receives more direct subsidy from the Treasury than the rest of British industry put together?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend is., of course, correct. That subsidy results from the CAP. The problem, as I enunciated in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Monro, is that that is the wrong kind of subsidy and support. We want to support British farming. We want to support European farming. However, the way the CAP currently does that goes entirely in the wrong direction.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, as many noble Lords obviously have not had the opportunity to look at this report, perhaps I may say that I too am very disappointed by it. It highlights the problems but it does not address any of the solutions. So I ask the Minister two questions. Accepting that obviously much depends on CAP reform, does he accept that the proposals mean that UK farmers will actually be at a disadvantage compared with other members of the EU because on the whole we have larger farms? Does he also accept that the report does not offer any solutions for many who live in the countryside? Indeed, the comments in that regard of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, were quite correct. It is all very well for the middle classes who have their own transport and housing they can afford, but for those who do not fall within those particular groups the report does not offer any solutions.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the latter question there are a number of government and Housing Corporation programmes relating to affordable housing which go some way to meeting the problems mentioned. Certainly, it is true that in many cases to be poor in rural areas is worse in relative terms than to be poor in parts of our cities. That is a problem which needs to be addressed. As regards the common agricultural policy reforms and UK farmers, although in general I support the direction in which Commissioner Fischler is going, there is one element—the formula on modulation—with which the noble Baroness is familiar, which would disadvantage British farmers if it remains in the form in which it is currently proposed. The British Government therefore seek radical changes to that part of the package.

Iraq: Media Frontline Coverage
3.24 p.m.
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many media passes to cover the war in Iraq they have allocated.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, over 2,300 journalists have been registered and provided with media passes by the coalition in theatre. Of these, some 133 print and broadcast journalists are officially accredited war correspondents embedded with British forces.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that precise Answer. Do Her Majesty's Government think that having such a large number of journalists and reporters embedded in the front line is a sensible and responsible way of covering what is a major war conflict?
Lord Bach: My Lords, British forces have a long established tradition of allowing correspondents to accompany them on operations going back to the Crimean War and right up through all modern wars, including the Falklands War and the Gulf War. Embedding journalists may well inhibit those journalists' freedom of movement but it allows our Armed Forces to help ensure their safety. We live in a free society with a free press. When the press report what we like, we never complain about it. When the press report what we do not like, that is when we must come to its defence.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, what action will be taken following this morning's BBC disclosure of what it described as a confidential document restricted to senior officers only?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not aware of the matter that the noble Lord mentions. I hope very much that the BBC will behave responsibly on this aspect as on all others.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us appreciate that the
1460
Government are more or less obliged to allow journalists and media personnel to be present in war zones and that they have been present during many wars since the Crimean War? However, these days modern technology makes it appear as if they are reporting events before they have even happened. Many of us are very disturbed by that.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the view that my noble friend expresses is felt not just inside this House but also outside it. However, I am afraid we have to accept that the 24-hour media is a reality with which we must live. One of the dangers of embedded journalism can be that it tends to provide snapshots of the action which, taken together, can produce—I choose my words carefully—a less than complete picture of the wider position. It is important that we do not lose sight of the wider campaign objectives.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the differences between democracies and totalitarian states at times of war is that in democracies there continues an informed national debate about that war and that for that informed national debate we depend upon the courage of war correspondents? Does the Minister accept that we on these Benches endorse what he says about a free media? Does he further accept that the longer we prevent government interference in the BBC and the other media, the better our people will understand what is happening in Iraq and the better the likely outcome?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I accept the basis of what the noble Lord says about a free press. I also accept what he says about the bravery of correspondents, embedded or otherwise. I pay tribute—as have many since yesterday—to the distinguished BBC cameraman, Kaveh Golestan, who died tragically yesterday. Along with that freedom, of course, goes responsibility. It is getting that balance right that many in this House are concerned about.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, would we not be seeing a rather different picture of the campaign if a few journalists were embedded in the Iraqi frontline forces?
The journalists embedded in the frontline are very brave people. However, is not their difficulty that they are inclined—in particular if they are inexperienced—to report every shot as heavy fighting, every wound as massive casualties and every pause as the Army being bogged down? Although we must leave the press entirely free to report events, could we not encourage more of the sense of balance that the Minister has just described? If journalists were covering matters a little less close to the immediate front line and giving more perspective to the broader scene, the result would be totally different from the impression we have been receiving.
Lord Bach: My Lords, at present I am afraid that I have no information as regards what Iraqi journalists embedded in their frontline are reporting. When I do

1461
hear something, I shall tell the noble Lord first. The point he asks about is one that I hope I have already made to some extent. We think there is a danger that embedded journalists are trying to provide what are called "snapshots" of the action too soon. That can, and perhaps has, led from time to time over the past couple of weeks to a false idea being given of how the campaign is going.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we have reached the end of Question Time.

Iraq: Military Operations
3.31 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier today in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"I would like to make a further Statement about military action in Iraq. We are now two weeks into the campaign. The coalition continues to make remarkable progress, following the main outlines of our military plan.
"Since my last Statement on 26th March, coalition forces have been establishing a presence in northern Iraq and moving ever closer to Baghdad. Another important phase has been reached as the first troops engage Saddam's Republican Guard divisions on the approaches to the city. At the same time, British forces are consolidating their position in the area in and around Basra.
"I want to repeat the warning I made in my first Statement to this House some two weeks ago. Do not underestimate the task that still faces our forces, or the length of time that it may take to complete. We are still very much in the second phase of the steady progress that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has set out.
"On behalf of the Government, I want to extend our condolences to the families and friends of those servicemen who have lost their lives in recent days. I would like to mention as well those who have been injured, some seriously, since the start of military operations, either in combat or through the usual course of their duties. Thirty-nine UK battle casualties are currently being treated in theatre and 35 have been evacuated. I know that the House will join me in sending our very best wishes for their speedy recovery.
"In this conflict, we have been accused by commentators of underestimating the resistance of the Iraqi regime. We always knew that the regime would fight—but what has shocked us, as democratic states observing the rule of law, is the extent of the Iraqi regime's capacity for brutality and the killing of its own people. Every aspect of what we do is rightly and understandably held up for public scrutiny. In contrast, Saddam Hussein's murderous thugs go about their brutal work out of sight of the media.
1462
"There are those who have been surprised by the caution with which the Iraqi people have greeted coalition forces. But that should not be surprising. This is a regime that has deployed every horror in maintaining its stranglehold on power—torture, rape and execution. In recent days, our forces on the ground around Basra have been appalled by the actions of the regime's thugs as they struggle to maintain their grip on the city.
"On 25th March, there were disturbances in Basra which irregular regime forces suppressed with mortar fire against their own people. On 28th March, when between 1,000 and 2,000 people were preparing to leave Basra, regime militia opened fire with heavy machine gun and mortar fire. Since then irregulars have been routinely firing on civilians in the south-east of Basra. This is the kind of brutal suppression that has been going on inside Iraq for very many years.
"Despite its protestations to the contrary, the Iraqi regime shows no greater respect for the country's cultural wealth than it does for its people. The coalition is taking every precaution to avoid damage to the holy sites in An Najaf and Karbala. By contrast, we know that Saddam Hussein has plans to damage these sites and to blame the coalition. Indeed, his forces have used the site at An Najaf as a defensive position, firing on US forces, who commendably did not return fire.
"The steady advance of the coalition continues. Our strategic grip on Iraq is tightening. In the south, British forces continue to operate in the Al Faw peninsula, the southern oilfields and the Basra area. 7th Armoured Brigade is preventing Iraqi forces in Basra from hindering the main advance, while establishing corridors for the safe movement of civilians and humanitarian aid.
"We have been striking key regime targets in the area. These operations have included successful attacks from the air on the Ba'ath Party headquarters in Basra, and by 7th Armoured Brigade on the intelligence and militia headquarters in Basra and the local state security organisation headquarters in Al Zubayr, to the south of Basra.
"3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines engaged substantial Iraqi forces in the area of Abu Al Khasib in the south-east outskirts of Basra, capturing significant numbers of enemy forces, including senior Iraqi officers. This daring raid resulted in the death of one Royal Marine. There were in addition a number of casualties.
"On the night of 31st March, 16 Air Assault Brigade, with artillery and air support, engaged Iraqi forces, destroying an estimated 17 tanks and five artillery pieces, as well as other Iraqi vehicles and infantry positions.
"We are now focused on building the confidence of the local people. We will continue to patrol aggressively, striking hard at the regime and its militias. Key suburbs of Basra have now been taken. We will go further into the city at a time of our own choosing.

1463
"Further north, elements of the United States' Army's Fifth Corps have now passed through Karbala and are moving towards Baghdad. US forces have been engaging with the Medina and Baghdad Republican Guard divisions, and have secured crossings over the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The lead elements of the US 3rd Infantry Division are now on the outskirts of Baghdad. Over 9,000 Iraqi prisoners of war have been taken by coalition forces.
"Royal Air Force aircraft have contributed to the close air support of these forces. They have also attacked Iraqi forces in the field, and have continued to degrade the regime's command and control facilities, and the combat capability of the security forces which support it.
"Coalition forces have taken the utmost care over the targeting of the air campaign. Every effort has been made to minimise the risk of any civilian casualties or damage to the civilian infrastructure. The House will be aware of the explosions in market districts of Baghdad on 26th and 28th March, and reports of significant numbers of fatalities and injuries. Neither of the marketplaces were targeted by the coalition and we continue to investigate how those tragic events might have occurred. We have long been familiar with the false claims of civilian casualties made by Saddam's regime, and it would be foolish to accept these claims at face value without proper investigation. What we do know is that the air defence commander in Baghdad has been replaced, partly because of his concerns that Iraqi surface-to-air missiles had been malfunctioning, failing to hit their targets and falling back on Baghdad.
"Offensive operations are, however, only one part of the picture. The expertise and flexibility of our forces are essential to the battle to win the confidence of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people have been terrified. Over half the population of Iraq has only known life under Saddam Hussein and his apparatus of fear. The older generation has an appreciation of his cruelty that is borne out by bitter personal experience. That is why it is so important that in a number of areas where UK forces are operating, there is a growing sense of return to normal life. Some people are going back to work. The United Nations has now declared Umm Qasr a `permissive environment'—allowing UN agencies to begin their work there.
"Essential services such as water and electricity are being restored and even improved, due in part to the skill of the Royal Engineers and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Umm Qasr water treatment plant, which can treat up to 3 million litres a day, is now operational. In addition, the water pipeline constructed by UK forces from Kuwait to Umm Qasr is complete, delivering up to 2 million litres of drinking water daily—enough for 160,000 people per day—and providing vital temporary relief.
1464
"Schools and markets are being re-opened. 7th Armoured Brigade has removed Ba'ath Party thugs from the Al Zubayr medical centre—where treatment was previously available only to those close to the regime—to enable access for ordinary Iraqis. Humanitarian aid is being distributed. The security situation in a growing number of areas is such that troops are patrolling on foot rather than in armoured cars, and have in some cases been able to exchange their combat helmets for berets. The UK Armed Forces are putting the full range of their expertise and experience to use, with striking effect.
"The Royal Marines have disabled the last remnants of the Iraqi navy, and the port of Umm Qasr is under coalition control and being opened to shipping. Royal Navy mine countermeasures vessels continue operations to expand the navigable width of the Khawr Abd' Allah channel. They have discovered 105 mines so far—11 laid in the water, and a total of 94 intercepted on Iraqi tugs and patrol boats.
"Those operations are crucial to the humanitarian operation, bringing vital supplies to the Iraqi people. On 28th March the Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel 'Sir Galahad' unloaded its humanitarian cargo of around 300 tonnes of water, medical supplies, food and equipment for providing shelter. Water and perishable goods have already been distributed in the Umm Qasr area; other supplies are being stored until such time as they are required. Two Australian ships, each loaded with some 50,000 tonnes of grain, are expected in Umm Qasr shortly.
"The UN Oil for Food programme was reestablished by Security Council Resolution 1472 on 28th March, an important milestone for the people of Iraq. But it will take time to take effect. 1 (UK) Division therefore has authority to spend up to £30 million for special humanitarian purposes within the first month, and a further £10 million is available for 'quick impact' projects, such as restoring electricity and water supplies.
"After two weeks of military operations against the Iraqi regime, the coalition continues to make progress. Every day we are further weakening Saddam Hussein's control over Iraq, and moving another day closer to the end of his appalling regime and the liberation of the Iraqi people.
"We are engaged in an important and determined effort to convince the Iraqi people of our commitment to them—to their political security and their economic welfare. Above all, we must convince them of our commitment to see through what we have begun—to remove the regime that has terrified the Iraqi people and impoverished their nation for two decades. It will take time.
"We have made an excellent start, but there is still much more to achieve. Our servicemen and women will continue to brave difficulties and dangers in the process. I know that the House will join me in wishing them well".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the House will be extremely grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that very detailed and helpful Statement, which updated us and clarified matters on the campaign. Will he accept that we on these Benches totally associate ourselves with his remarks about the skill and courage of our troops? We look with pride at the way in which our soldiers and Armed Forces are conducting this very skilled and sensitive operation with such good humour, determination and willingness.
Of course, there have been casualties—admittedly few, but each is a tragedy. We therefore also echo the noble Lord's words of condolence and deepest sympathy. Above all, our hearts go out to those who are widowed and the parents of sons or daughters who will not be coming back. I also add a word of praise for the special forces. They are conducting incredibly dangerous operations, unseen and often unpraised. Nevertheless, they are offering their lives for the crucial purpose.
The Statement confirms what amazing progress has been made in the 13 days so far of the campaign. I believe that the first Gulf War lasted 43 days, and someone reminded me that even the German blitzkrieg of 1940 on Paris—the most famous and fastest Panzer advance of all time—took 44 days. Here we are after 13 days. 15 miles from Baghdad, with south and west Iraq more or less secured except for certain areas. That is frankly an amazing achievement.
The oil fields around Ramallah, or most of them, have been secured without destruction. Best of all, as the Minister indicated, there has been growing cooperation and I believe intelligence—it will be vital as we get into Baghdad—from Iraqi citizens. Are not the great pundits who advise us so freely and fully nearly always wrong? Many of them said that everything would be over in a week, and they were wrong about that. Now they have swung to the other extreme and are saying that we will have months of siege round Baghdad, but I suspect that they will be wrong about that too.
The only very mild point of disagreement that I have with the Statement is in the expression of shock about the brutality. Surely it is obvious that the Ba'ath Party is a Nazi-modelled regime, designed on Nazi lines with Nazi ideology by Michael Aflaq. There really should be no surprise at all that its members are behaving like Nazi fanatics—surrendering and then shooting, executing and strangling their own people to the last, ruling by ghastly torture and terror as the Minister mentioned, disguising as civilians, desecrating their own holy sites, and using every other device of people who have no future at all outside the regime and the party. If any of them survives, their future when Iraq settles down will be very terrible indeed.
What the Minister says about the post-conflict situation is encouraging. It must be obvious that everyone's aim is to return Iraq to the Iraqi people as soon as possible. Whether the transition is run by the coalition military, a United Nations authority or, as I suspect will be necessary, both, is not the aim to do
1466
everything possible to get Iraq—an ancient and proud nation—on its feet again as a wealthy and civilised country for the future? Meanwhile, will not the coalition military forces obviously be needed everywhere to safeguard the humanitarian workers and the skilled UN agency staff, whom I know long to get in but cannot do so as long as there is a danger of being shot at or attacked by pockets of resistance?
Is the Minister aware that we welcome the Government's adoption of the scheme proposed by my colleague Iain Duncan Smith for an early conference of political groupings to work out the next stage in Iraq's political development? If possible, that should be held on Iraqi soil. Without any complacency that the battle is over—it obviously is not—we should look further ahead from there and plan to help with social and educational reform. It is even proposed, and I think rightly, that we think about welcoming back Iraqi students into our own universities. There used to be a great many, and we should bring them back and enable them to see how the benefits of a freer and, one hopes, a democratic society work.
Although there are clearly many dangers ahead, and Arab passions may well be enflamed a hit further—they were enflamed before anyway—can we keep in mind the attainable vision of a benign and prosperous Iraq? Instead of pumping poison into the surrounding region, as it has done for the past 12 years, it should start to radiate peace and prosperity throughout the Arab world. It could do so, as it is basically a very wealthy and powerful nation. There may be many risks in what is happening in this campaign, but there are also many possibilities, and I suggest that we think a little more about those.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I also thank the Minister for the Statement. I am conscious that in the middle of a war there is one thing worse than armchair generals, which is armchair politicians, so I do not intend to comment on the details of the Statement or what is happening on the ground.
As noble Lords will recall, our party was not convinced of the case for war starting when it did. Now that it is under way, it is important that it is conducted successfully, quickly, according to the laws of war, and with proportionate and appropriate force. We are most impressed by the behaviour of British troops, particularly by what we have seen of the Black Watch and the Marines in the outskirts of Basra, in terms of the extent to which they have used the bitter experience that British forces have gained over 30 years in Northern Ireland. They have put that to good use in beginning to rebuild the confidence of the people of what is now occupied Iraq. We are also impressed by the restraint of American troops in respect of the extremely delicate issue of the holy places. We regret the number of British casualties and we understand the bitterness of the relations of those killed in accidents as well as in combat. We send our sympathies to those who have suffered.

1467
I want to ask about the important issue of the conduct of the war. The Minister mentioned prisoners of war. It is important that prisoners of war are treated entirely appropriately, according to the laws of war and the Geneva Convention. A number of prisoners of war are being taken who are not currently wearing uniform and whose status is ambiguous. Questions have been raised in the British press and there have been reports that some of them may be handed over to the United States. Will the Minister assure us that prisoners of war who are taken by the British will remain under British control? If not, what justification is there for handing them over to the control of our allies?
We also ask about reports that air-launched cluster bombs have been used. A large number of questions have been raised about them. There is a 5 per cent failure rate which means that many unexploded bomblets are left in an area, even if British troops have given a commitment to clean them up afterwards. Two British soldiers were killed in Kosovo in the process of clearing up cluster bombs that had been used there. There are highly likely to be civilian casualities before the clear-up operation has taken place. Those weapons are to be used only under the most extreme circumstances against massive concentrations of Iraqi troops. I was not aware that we had yet met massive concentrations of Iraqi troops.
I turn to the whole question of weapons of mass destruction, which was, after all, the rationale for going to war. I read in an e-mail this morning a quotation from a senior American official who said that the most disastrous outcome of the war would be if we do not find any weapons of mass destruction. I fear that if it is only the Americans who find evidence of weapons of mass destruction a substantial proportion of the world—certainly of the Muslim world—will not be entirely convinced. Does the Minister accept that getting independent inspectors—preferably UN inspectors—alongside coalition forces to verify if and when weapons of mass destruction are found will enhance the credibility of what we are doing?
Winning the peace is clearly the most important element. We are happy to see the way in which British forces are already concerning themselves with that even while the war continues in terms of humanitarian assistance and nation-building. That will involve some co-operation with some people who have been serving the current regime because that is the way in which one has to operate when rebuilding an administration in what used to be called assistance to the civilian plan. That involves the whole question of the reestablishment of domestic order and self-government. As that operation proceeds with the restoration of local authority and some form of local administration in UK areas, will it be subject to US suzerainty or will it primarily be a British responsibility?
We welcome ideas which I know that the Foreign Secretary has been floating for consultation with other states in the region. If a peaceful Iraq is to be established in a peaceful region, the greater will be the
1468
confidence of Iraq's neighbours in what will be established. The greater the sense that they share the outcome, the better. Those are broader issues for postwar governance of Iraq and they go rather further than the terms of the defence Statement in the middle of the war.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords very much indeed for their support, which will be much appreciated by British troops and their families in this country.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for his points about the progress during the past fortnight. He also discussed the need to ensure that Iraqis became free and lived in a benign and prosperous state. I agree with every point that he made. He sought to disagree with us on one small aspect, which was, of course, our naivety in being shocked by the enormities of the Iraqi regime. I believe that he meant that chiding fairly gently. My goodness, we live in a society that has its own problems, unnecessary violence and difficulties. However, when compared with the Iraqi regime, we are for the most part perhaps too used to living a comfortable, ordinary life. It is still shocking to hear the tales that troops tell about what has happened to those in, for example, Basra who dared to rise up against the tyranny that has oppressed them for so long. I thank him very much for his comments.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, was equally supportive and I am grateful to him, too, for his comments. He asked specific questions about some fairly broad subjects. He will forgive me if I do not go into huge detail on any of them. I know that some time early next week we will be able to discuss in this House, if only briefly, the question of prisoners of war.
The coalition currently holds about 7,600 confirmed prisoners of war, of which the British forces hold 4,100. All those captured by British forces are being treated strictly in accordance with our obligations under the Geneva Conventions and international law, as he would expect. Some prisoners of war currently being held by British forces are in fact United States detainees and they will continue to be held until United States facilities are of a standard that the custody can be transferred. The numbers that we hold may drop in the next couple of weeks. Responsibility for the treatment of prisoners of war rests with the detaining power but the Geneva Conventions allow for transfer to the custody of another party. However, we will retain responsibility for their treatment. Captured Iraqis will be given prisoner of war status until proved otherwise and will be treated, as I said, according to the obligations that we know so well.
It is important to point out that cluster bombs are not in any sense illegal; they are allowed and serve a useful military purpose, which has nothing to do with civilians or confined areas. It has plenty to do with areas in which there are enemy vehicles spread out over an area where it is necessary to ensure that those vehicles cannot be used against us and that they are

1469
destroyed. We have used cluster bombs against legitimate military targets such as Iraqi armoured units in a manner—I emphasise this—that is consistent with our obligations tinder international law.
On weapons of mass destruction, we await to see what is found around the Baghdad area in particular. It is interesting that on 29th March United States marines discovered chemical suits, masks and nerve gas antidote in buildings in Nasiriyah that were clearly used by members of Iraq's 11th Infantry Division. I have actually been asked on the media whether that means that those soldiers were expecting a chemical/biological attack from coalition forces. Just to ask that question shows its absurdity. The United States and Britain are signed up to every convention forbidding our use of such weapons. Iraq, it goes without saying, is not. Those chemical suits, masks and nerve gas were to protect the Iraqi troops from their own government's actions.
Both noble Lords spoke movingly about casualties. Thankfully, as of now, they are not as high as might have occurred in previous wars; however, I say "as of now" because we never know what may occur. The bravery of those men who have died is well known to all of us. Reading today's newspapers, I thought that the mother of a member of the Armed Forces who died in that first terrible accident between Sea Kings spoke in an ordinary voice for all of us when she said,
"He was not just his mother's son, he was the country's son".
4 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, first, I endorse everything said by my noble friend on this Front Bench and in particular pay tribute to the gallantry of our troops. Secondly, can the Minister comment on a report published yesterday which states that there has now been a refinement of cluster bombs enabling similar ordnance to be fired from howitzers? We are all agreed that the future peace and stability of Iraq is of the first importance politically and from a humanitarian point of view.
We are all aware of the public statement that up to 5 per cent of the bomblets in cluster with ordnance do not explode on impact. Can the Minister assure the House, therefore, that proper procedures are established at battery headquarters and at the forward observation post when this ordnance is used to record both the intended target and the actual fall of shot so that in the follow-up we can clear the ordnance from the ground and avoid the prospect of seeing one-legged children as witnessed in the wake of other campaigns where that sort of weapon has been used?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I cannot comment on the report mentioned by the noble Lord because I have not seen it, but I think I can give the assurance he seeks. Every time this particular weapon is used a very close record is kept of what it was that delivered the weapon and where it was so that every effort can be made to ensure that there are no accidents afterwards. War is a terrible thing and casualties occur in the worst possible situations. I cannot give the noble Lord a guarantee
1470
that it will never happen, but great care is taken by coalition forces when using that weapon and every other weapon.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, in thanking the Government for their helpful Statement, from these Benches we also express sympathy for those families who are grieving or who are concerned about members who are severely wounded. We express appreciation too for the very great care which British forces are taking.
Can the Minister say more about the post-military conflict government in Iraq? There is continuing worry about what form that government will take. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, the purpose is to give Iraq back to the Iraqis. That cannot be said frequently enough or loudly enough but I think that the message has riot yet really got through. There is still great concern that the kind of government which comes about in the end might simply be the imposition of a western-style democracy, which is not natural to many countries. Iraq is a predominantly Islamic country. Would it be possible to bring into the councils of those who are planning a post-conflict settlement Islamic thinkers who are working towards an Islamic understanding of democracy and who are prepared to argue for a western-style democracy but using Islamic concepts and Islamic themes'' It seems to me that whatever form of government comes about in Iraq, it must have the confidence of the Iraqi people. That means that it must have the confidence of the best Islamic thinkers in this area.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his comments. We do not disagree with anything he says. He will know that international discussions have taken place over a very long period of time, dating from well before the conflict began, about the form of any administration in post-conflict Iraq. Those discussions continue at the United Nations and between nations generally now. The rule we set ourselves is that we want to see the Iraqis ruled by the Iraqis. That is what matters. It fits in, I believe, with what the right reverend Prelate suggests. In the end, the exact form of government and democracy which emerges will be a matter for the Iraqi people to decide. I am sure it may very well be that his suggestion in relation to experts and holy men in Islam who may be able to advise will be taken on board. We want to see a phased transfer of authority leading to a new representative Iraqi government as soon as possible. The vital words are "as soon as possible". Let us make no mistake. When the conflict is over there will be a security issue that will last for some little time.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is there not some merit in the case put by the Leader of the Opposition for a further conference in Iraq of representatives of the opposition following the one which took place in Salumaniya some five weeks ago? Instead of holding the next conference in Kurdistan, would it not be wise to

1471
hold it in what one hopes will be a liberated Basra in a couple of weeks? That would send precisely the right kind of signals to the rest of Iraq.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has put forward a very interesting idea; we are considering it with care. We have also to consider the security aspects. One thing is certain. Day by day we are getting closer to our objective, which is the freedom of the Iraqi people to decide their own future. The United Kingdom's vision for Iraq and the Iraqi people underlines our commitment to the restoration of a free Iraq, free from UN sanctions and from the tyranny we have discussed today. Certainly, we shall not let the Iraqi people down.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, following the proposal by the right reverend Prelate and the emphasis in the Statement on the care taken by our forces not to cause any damage to the holy places of Najaf and Karbala, will the Government consider having some embedded Shia imams travelling with our forces to verify the care taken in the holy places and the concern that we have for the local Shia population to demonstrate the commitment which the noble Lord mentioned in the Statement?
Lord Bach: My Lords, certainly we take on board the very interesting idea suggested by the noble Lord. However, we should not be in any doubt about the hypocrisy of the Iraqi regime in relation to holy sites. In 1991 Iraqi troops attacked and desecrated the shrine of Imam Ali and destroyed religious libraries in Najaf. They went further and shelled and desecrated Imam Hussein's shrine in Karbala. The shrine of Imam Abbas was also reported damaged. Indeed, it is believed that acts of murder, torture and rape were committed in religious buildings. It is important to make clear that we need to look to the Iraqi regime to behave itself, not to coalition troops.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, without any derogation from anything said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, with which I totally agree, I want to ask the Minister something more immediate. It is a question of prisoners of war, in which I declare an interest, and must do so, as president of the Colditz Association.
I do not want to make a long speech, but I have one or two queries and I want to ask a question. Are we agreed with our American allies as to the treatment of those who dress up as women who are not regular combatants and who are not generally recognised as having the protection of prisoners of war under the convention? What is the position of what used to be called the SOE agents in France? How are they to be treated? Perhaps they are now the SAS. Such matters require consideration. I raised them with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, some time ago. He said that those matters would be monitored.
1472
No doubt they have been. Will they be monitored now? Will some agreement be sought in this rather grey area.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I repeat what I said a few minutes ago that captured Iraqis will be given prisoner of war status until they are proved otherwise and they will be treated according to our obligations under the Geneva Conventions. Captured Iraqi forces are likely to be prisoners of war unless they conceal weapons in the conduct of operations, in which case, as the noble Lord will know, they are unlawful combatants. Although unlawful combatants do not have prisoner of war status, we would have a duty, under international humanitarian law, which we would fulfil, to treat prisoners in a reasonable and humane manner. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the courage and the conduct of our troops contrast not just with the cynicism of using holy places at Najaf and Karbala for purely cynical motives, but also with the cowardly way in which Saddam's militia have used civilians, including pregnant women and children, as human shields and with the way in which hospitals, including a maternity unit, have been used to house his military positions? Perhaps the Minister will return to a question that I put to him last week. What will we do about those who have been responsible for genocide and crimes against humanity during the previous 12 years and during the hostilities to bring them to justice and to account in due course? What mechanisms will be put in place to achieve that?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an excellent point. The contrasts between the coalition and the Iraqi regime are stark. He explains very well why they are so stark but they are stark in many other ways as well. The use of the Iraqi civilian population to hide Iraqi troops, including beaten troops, and in campaigns against the coalition is clear and there is much evidence of that. As regards those who may be guilty of the kind of crimes that he mentions, I repeat that we are absolutely determined, as are our other coalition partners, to bring such people to justice. We do not mean Iraqi soldiers who are forced at gun point to sacrifice their lives for the ridiculous tyranny; we mean those who are actually responsible for what is going on, the ones who hold the guns to their heads. We shall bring them to justice through the international system of justice that has now—thank goodness—been set up.
Lord Richard: My Lords, on the way in which the war has gone to date, it seems as though the British effort is being concentrated in the south and the American effort is being concentrated in the north. I do not know whether my noble friend can answer this question.
A noble Lord: My Lords, then why ask it?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I want to see whether he answers it, of course. What an extraordinary interruption! Do the Government intend that British troops should be used to any significant extent in the fighting for Baghdad? One hears much about the plan, which has had a fair amount of publicity. I hope that is a general question that does not go too far in the direction of disclosure, which my noble friend would not wish to do.
Lord Bach: My Lords, my noble friend asks an excellent question, but it is not one that I can answer—at any rate not today. I would point out that he is right to make a broad division between north and south. In part of the Statement that I read out, Royal Air Force aeroplanes have been very important in the advances that have been made in the middle and towards the north of Iraq. I do not think that we can say that the Brits are in the south and the Americans are in the centre and in the north. It is a coalition effort that is going pretty well.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, can the Minister clarify the prisoner of war situation? He has been largely reassuring about the situation of British detainees, although he spoke of how they would be treated as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions until proved otherwise. Under what mechanism would it be decided that such prisoners were not prisoners of war but unlawful combatants? What would happen to people who are classified as unlawful combatants? I do not believe that he has clarified what he understands the situation to be, and what assurances he has received from the United States about the status of their detainees. There have been worrying press comments about whether they intend to treat all their detainees as prisoners of war. We are all concerned about the precedent of Guantanamo Bay. as people there have been in a legal limbo for over 15 months, including a number of British citizens, without apparent protest or action by the British Government. One would not want people to go into the same kind of legal limbo without clue process of charge and trial or treatment as prisoners of war under the Geneva conventions. Can the Minister clarify what assurances there have been from the United States?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I cannot accept the premise of the noble Baroness that the situation at Guantanamo Bay is as she describes it. I understand that no one from Iraq is there at present, although I may be wrong about that. The US assure us—I have no reason to disbelieve them—that the detainees there are being treated humanely and in accordance with the principles of the Geneva Conventions—that is important. British officials have visited those prisoners on four occasions and found them to be in a "generally satisfactory condition". We are not prepared to accept that people held in Guantanamo Bay necessarily suffer lower standards than anywhere else.
1474
On the first question posed by the noble Baroness, if and when we decide that people are not prisoners of war in the strict sense—I have already answered the question—we shall deal with them under basic humanitarian law.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, in the Statement the Secretary of State referred to regret that we were not seeing anything from the Iraqi side. Am I alone in being concerned about the position of the BBC who has its correspondent in the middle of Baghdad? Are we receiving fair reports from that correspondent?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is never alone in any opinion that he holds. I believe that his opinion may be shared around the House, although it is certainly not an opinion on which Her Majesty's Government can comment.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether arrangements are in place to accommodate a huge increase in the number of people surrendering, which is possible and desirable? One would expect the number to be much larger than the number that he gave the House a little while ago.
Lord Bach: My Lords, all I can say is that we are ready for that eventuality. The British are particularly good at meeting such a situation. My noble friend may be right and we may meet that situation sooner rather than later.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, is it praiseworthy that there is such effective co-ordination between British and American ground and air forces? As the war is now entering a particularly hazardous phase, can the noble Lord assure the House that sufficient strength is held in reserve to support our forces on the ground, in particular in the event that special forces on the Iraqi side are concealed in bunkers deeply underground?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord the reassurance that he seeks.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, perhaps I may ask two questions.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the time is up; and it is mandatory.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
4.20 p.m.
Further proceedings on consideration of Commons amendments resumed.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
15 After Clause 15, insert the following new clause—
"BELFAST
(1) Schedule (Belfast) makes provision in relation to Belfast.

1475
(2) Subsection (1) comes into force in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order."
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.
The new clause and schedule inserted by Amendments Nos. 15 and 52 relate to arrangements within Belfast for the sub-groups of the DPPs. If passed, they would replace the existing Section 21 of the 2000 Act and make a series of supplementary consequential amendments. As noble Lords will have noted, Amendment No. 56 is consequential upon Amendment No. 52. We have dealt with the issue of commencement. I hope that I have covered fully the matters covered by Amendment No. 15B in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rogan, and Lord Maginnis.
There is a police district for every district council area in Northern Ireland except Belfast. Belfast City Council's jurisdiction is split into four police districts: north, south, east and west. That reflects a Patten recommendation because of the generally larger size of the population and, therefore, the work of the police in Belfast. Each of the four police districts in Belfast covers a population very nearly the size of the next largest district outside Belfast.
It is already a requirement under Section 21 of the 2000 Act for Belfast City Council to establish a subgroup of its DPP for each of the police districts within Belfast; that is, four. At present, the sub-groups' only function is to give views on any matter concerning the policing of that police district to the district commander and to the DPP itself. That is in contrast to the functions of a full DPP.
We undertook to consider, in the context of a review of police, whether those limited powers remained appropriate. That is what we have done. We are persuaded that there is justification in the sub-groups for the four Belfast districts having extended functions covering most of the functions enjoyed by full DPPs. We propose, therefore, that the sub-groups should have functions mirroring those contained in Section 16(1)(a) to (d) of the Act. We think that that should help to strengthen local relationships.
Patten specifically referred to these as being subgroups or sub-committees. So, unlike full DPPs, the sub-groups will not be accountable to the Policing Board or the local council. That will remain, I stress, the role of the Belfast DPP itself. We have included, therefore, within this clause provisions requiring subgroups to provide annual reports to the DPP which will enable it in turn to give its own annual report to Belfast City Council.
The powers and duties of the Belfast DPP would change in three respects. First, it is given the power to require a sub-group to provide a report on any matter concerned with the exercise of its functions. This may be for the benefit of the DPP or to enable it to respond to a request from the board for a report covering the whole of Belfast.
1476
Secondly, the Belfast DPP is given slightly longer than other DPPs to submit its annual report to the council. That is to allow it sufficient time to have commissioned and received the relevant reports, as I indicated earlier.
Thirdly, we wish to avoid unnecessary duplication. The DPP retains the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the functions of consultation are adequately fulfilled. But if the DPP itself is satisfied that a function is already being adequately carried out by a sub-group, it is exempted from the obligation to duplicate that work in respect of that sub-group. This is a practical measure to prevent wasteful and unnecessary duplication and cost.
Other than those flexibilities, the functions, powers and role of the Belfast DPP remain in line with those that apply to other DPPs. To ensure an effective link with the sub-groups, four of the political seats on the DPP will be held by the chairmen of the sub-groups. Those offices will be rotated between the four largest political parties on the council, so there will be a slight change in DPP membership each year.
We have looked again at the regulation of subgroup procedures. At present, each sub-group has to,
"consist of at least six members of the partnership".
There is no maximum size; nor is there any specified balance between political and independent members; nor is there any arrangement for rotating chairmanship. We are aware, of course, that even with sub-groups of the minimum size, members of the DPP would have to sit on both it and at least one subgroup—and in some cases more than one. That is a significant workload for councillors who will have many other calls on their time.
Since the sub-groups will take on additional functions, we believe that there will be benefit in increasing the size of the sub-groups and being more specific about membership arrangements. Paragraph 13 of the schedule inserted by Amendment No. 52 inserts a new Schedule 3A in the Act. This mirrors in almost every respect the provisions of Schedule 3 in relation to DPPs. I concentrate, therefore, on the differences.
We propose that each sub-group should consist of 11 members made up of six political members appointed from among the members of the board and five independent members appointed by the board. This is a similar proportion to the balance on other DPPs but a smaller size to reflect the lesser role.
The council is charged, in appointing political members of a sub-group, to seek to ensure that the sum total of all the political members of all the sub-groups taken together reflects the balance of parties within the council. The board has to ensure, in appointing independent members of a sub-group, that so far as is practicable members of the sub-group, taken together, are representative of the community.
In addition, the schedule provides that the council should also notify the board whether applicants are interested in being considered for appointments to only one sub-group or whether there is flexibility.

1477
There is a slight difference for the appointment and rotation of chairmen and vice-chairmen. They will be appointed by the council which will be required to ensure, so far as is practicable, that the office of chairman and vice-chairman in each sub-group is at all times held by members of different political parties; and that the office of chairman is held in turn by each of the largest four parties represented on Belfast City Council.
In addition to those provisions which apply also to DPPs, the council will be obliged to ensure that no one party holds more than one sub-group chairmanship at any point in time. The rules for disqualification and removal are exactly the same as those for membership of DPPs; and, similarly, as regards allowances, indemnities, insurance, finance, validity of proceedings and disclosure of interests.
The arrangements relating to procedure reflect very closely the provisions for DPPs. The only difference is that the Belfast DPP is given the power to give directions to a sub-group about the regulation of its procedure.
The arrangements for constituting committees are very similar to the DPP arrangements. A sub-group can set up a committee of its own volition or may be required to do so by the DPP. The Belfast DPP would need to approve the constitution of any committee set up by the sub-group of its own volition, its membership, the functions to be delegated to it and any directions that that sub-group might choose to give to the committee as to the way in which it carries out its work.
Since they carry out a number of independent functions, we believe that it is appropriate for each sub-group to be designated in its own right for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. Noble Lords will have noted that the latter designation automatically brings sub-groups, in their own right, within the scope of the statutory equality duties set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
The final part of the new schedule goes to transitional arrangements. We wanted to keep disruption to a minimum. It is heartening that to date over 200 persons have applied to serve on the Belfast DPP. We are proposing that, if it believes it necessary in order to create a place for the sub-group chairmen on the main DPP, the council should be able to move one or more existing political members of the DPP to serve instead on one or more sub-groups.
There is no equivalent provision for independent members. It would be inappropriate to alter the appointment of members of the public who have applied for appointment to the DPP.
There is a provision that allows the board to consider as potential members of sub-groups individuals already appointed by independent membership of the Belfast DPP. That obviates the need for individuals to go through the full application process a second time.
1478
To address one or two further matters, I explained, when we discussed Amendments Nos. 48 and 49, that the provisions relating to Belfast will be commenced separately by order, subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses. Amendment No. 48A, tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Smith and Lord Glentoran, creates an important further safeguard.
That is a limited change from the original text for consideration, but, having listened carefully to representations, we thought it right that both issues be subject to the affirmative resolution commencement procedure. I hope that that commends itself to your Lordships as a useful improvement. I therefore reiterate my assurance that both Houses will have the opportunity to have a full debate.
Paragraph 10 of the new schedule inserted by Amendment No. 52 provides that, before issuing or revising a local policing plan under Section 22 of the 2000 Act, the district commander shall consult the relevant sub-group, in addition to the main DPP, and take account of any views expressed.
We think that to be a practical requirement. It would be odd if the district commander were to be denied the views of the sub-groups when it came to drawing up the annual plan. However, I assure your Lordships that each commander will also be required to seek the views of the main Belfast DPP, and I am sure that the PSNI will ensure a homogeneity about the policy approach to Belfast while recognising the relevance of local issues.
Finally, I turn to paragraph 2 of the new schedule, inserted by Amendment No. 52. Section 15 of the 2000 Act provides for the circumstances in which a district council fails to set up a DPP. We wanted to ensure a similar provision if Belfast City Council failed to set up the sub-groups. New Section 15A does just that.
I hope that the amendments commend themselves to your Lordships and that, in due time, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, will be sufficiently content not to press his amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No I 5.—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
4.30 p.m.
Lord Glentoranrose to move, as art amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15:
15A Leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for so clearly laying the Commons amendment before us. As he rightly pointed out, the amendment is covered by Amendment No. 48A, which is to come, but he indicated that the Government will agree to that amendment. I have three issues 'with the amendment. I start with the second, the first having been debated on my Amendment No 14A when we lost the Division.
This amendment is equally iniquitous. To divide Belfast into four segments, as planned, for four sub-group DPPs—one for each tribal area, as it were—although two areas are perhaps not totally tribal; one

1479
is divided and, sadly, continually fighting against itself at present; the other tends to be rather more peaceful. East Belfast is dominated by gang lands of one sort of another; West Belfast is dominated by the paramilitaries of Sinn Fein/IRA.
What Sinn Fein really wants is to get control of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. There is a strange similarity between the demands that Martin McGuinness made in his speech at the Ard Fheis and in his comments to The Times—to which I referred earlier—and those in the Weston Park agreements. I do not suppose that your Lordships will be surprised about that.
However, I shall be at risk of repeating myself if I say much more. I think that I made my arguments clear during the Bill's earlier stages. My view has not changed, but perhaps I tend to become more pragmatic as the day goes on. I hope that the amendment to which the noble and learned Lord will later agree will give us what we want—further safeguards about timing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Roganhad given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 15, Amendment No. 15B:
15B Line 5, at end insert—
"(3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (2) until acts of completion have occurred.
(4) In subsection (3), "acts of completion" means—

(a) that the decommissioning of firearms, ammunition and explosives held by one of the organisations specified under Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000 has occurred and has been verified under section 3 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 by the Commission;

(b) there has been a statement from that organisation ordering the termination of acts of paramilitary violence by that organisation, including—

(i) shootings;

(ii) beatings;

(iii) threats;

(iv) intimidations; and

(c) there has been a statement from that organisation removing any threats to those who left their homes due to intimidation by that organisation.

(5) The Secretary of State may by order add further acts to those listed in subsection (4) above."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the competent arguments that I would plead to support Amendment No. 15B I made before lunch when speaking to Amendment No. 14C—obviously not terribly effectively as I lost the Division. I therefore do not want to move Amendment No. 15B.
[Amendment No. 15B not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 15 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
52 Before Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule—
"BELFAST
1 The Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c.32) is amended as set out in paragraphs 2 to 13.
2 After section 15 insert—
"15A DEFAULT OF COUNCIL: BELFAST SUB-GROUPS
(1) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the district council for Belfast has failed to comply with—

(a) section 21(1), or

(b) any provision of Schedule 3A,

he may, after consulting the Board, direct the council to take, within such period as is specified in the direction, such action for the purpose of remedying the default as is so specified.
(2) If the council fails to comply with a direction under subsection (1), the Secretary of State may—

(a) declare the council to be in default; and

(b) make an order empowering the Board to exercise the functions of the council to such extent as appears to him necessary or expedient to secure that a sub-group of the council's district policing partnership is established for each police district established under section 20(2).

(3) An order under subsection (2) may provide for Schedule 3A to have effect in relation to the exercise by the Board of any functions of the council with such modifications as may be specified in the order.
(4) An order under subsection (2) may confer on the Board power to remove any members of a sub-group of the council's district policing partnership holding office at the date of the order.
(5) Any costs incurred by the Board under an order under subsection (2) shall in the first instance be defrayed as expenses of the Board, but—

(a) an amount equal to one quarter of those costs as certified by the Board shall on demand be paid to the Board by the council; and

(b) any sums demanded under paragraph (a) may be recovered summarily by the Board as a debt.

(6) A sub-group established in pursuance of an order under subsection (2) shall be treated as having been established under section 21."
3 In section 17 (annual report by district policing partnership to council) after subsection (1) insert—
"(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the district policing partnership for Belfast."
4 In section 18 (reports by district policing partnership to Board) after subsection (1) insert—
"(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the district policing partnership for Belfast."
5 For section 21 substitute—
"21 DISTRICT POLICING PARTNERSHIP SUBGROUPS FOR BELFAST
(1) The district council for Belfast shall establish a sub-group of its district policing partnership for each police district established under section 20(2).
(2) The functions of each sub-group shall be—

(a) to provide views to the district commander of the subgroup's police district and to the district policing partnership on any matter concerning the policing of that police district;

(b) to monitor the performance of the police in carrying out—

(i) the policing plan in relation to the police district; and

(ii) the local policing plan applying to the police district;

1481

(c) to make arrangements for obtaining—

(i) the views of the public about matters concerning the policing of the police district; and

(ii) the co-operation of the public with the police in preventing crime;

(d) to act as a general forum for discussion and consultation on matters affecting the policing of the police district.

(3) The code issued under section 19 may contain guidance as to the exercise by sub-groups of their functions.
(4) In exercising its functions a sub-group shall have regard to any such guidance contained in the code.
(5) If the district policing partnership is satisfied that a subgroup is carrying out any of the sub-group's functions in relation to a police district, the partnership is not required to carry out any corresponding function it has in relation to the part of the district comprising the police district.
(6) Schedule 3A shall have effect in relation to the sub-groups.
6 After section 21 insert—
"21A ANNUAL REPORT BY SUB-GROUPS TO BELFAST DISTRICT POLICING PARTNERSHIP
(1) A sub-group established under section 21 shall, not later than 2 months after the end of each financial year, submit to the district policing partnership for Belfast a general report on the exercise of its functions during that year.
(2) A report under subsection (1) shall include details of the arrangements made under section 21(2)(c).
(3) Before submitting any report under subsection (1), a subgroup shall consult the district commander of its police district."
7 After section 21A (inserted by paragraph 6 above) insert—
"21B ANNUAL REPORT BY BELFAST DISTRICT POLICING PARTNERSHIP TO COUNCIL
(1) The district policing partnership for Belfast shall, not later than 4 months after the end of each financial year, submit to the district council for Belfast a general report on the exercise during that year of—

a) its functions;

b) the functions of the sub-groups established under section 21.

(2) When the district policing partnership submits its report under subsection (1) it shall at the same time—

(a) send to the council copies of the sub-group reports for the year;

(b) send copies of its report and the sub-group reports for the year to the Board.

(3) If the district policing partnership has made arrangements under section 16(1)(c) the report under subsection (1) shall include details of the arrangements.
(4) Before submitting any report under subsection (1), the district policing partnership shall consult the district commander of each police district in the district of Belfast.
(5) The district council shall arrange for a report submitted under subsection (1) to be published in such manner as appears to the council to be appropriate.
(6) The district council may arrange for a sub-group report to be published with the report submitted under subsection (1) if—

(a) the council considers publication of the sub-group report to be appropriate, or

(b) the district policing partnership has requested the publication of the sub-group report.

(7) A "sub-group report" is a report submitted to the district policing partnership under section 21A."
8 After section 21B (inserted by paragraph 7 above) insert—
"21C OTHER REPORTS BY SUB-GROUPS TO BELFAST DISTRICT POLICING PARTNERSHIP
(1) A sub-group established under section 21 shall, whenever so required by the district policing partnership for Belfast, submit to the partnership a report on any matter which is specified in the requirement and is connected with the exercise of its functions.
(2) A report under this section shall be made—

(a) in such form as may be specified in the requirement under subsection (1); and

(b) within the period of 2 months from the date on which that requirement is made, or within such longer period as may be agreed between the sub-group and the partnership.

(3) The partnership may arrange for a report submitted under this section to be published in such manner as appears to the partnership to be appropriate.
(4) Subsection (3) does not apply if the partnership has imposed the requirement under subsection (1) to enable it to comply with a requirement imposed on it under section 21D(1)."
9 After section 21C (inserted by paragraph 8 above) insert—
"21D REPORTS BY BELFAST DISTRICT POLICING PARTNERSHIP TO BOARD
(1) The district policing partnership for Belfast shall, whenever so required by the Board, submit to the Board a report on any matter which is specified in the requirement and is connected with the exercise of—

(a) its functions, or

(b) the functions of a sub-group established under section 21.

(2) A report under this section shall be made—

(a) in such form as may be specified in the requirement under subsection (1); and

(b) within the required period or such longer period as may be agreed between the district policing partnership and the Board.

(3) The required period is—

(a) 4 months from the date on which the requirement tinder subsection (1) is made, if the requirement relates wholly or in part to the functions of a sub-group;

(b) 3 months from the date on which the requirement under subsection (1) is made, in any other case.

(4) When the district policing partnership submits its report under subsection (1) it shall at the same time send to the Board copies of any related sub-group report.
(5) The Board may arrange for the publication, in such manner as appears to the Board to be appropriate, of—

(a) a report submitted under subsection (1);

(b) a related sub-group report.

(6) A "sub-group report" is a report submitted to the district policing partnership under section 21C.
(7) A sub-group report is related to a report submitted in pursuance of a requirement under subsection (1) if the district policing partnership imposed the requirement to submit the subgroup report to enable it to comply with the requirement under subsection (1)."
10 In section 22 (the local policing plan) after subsection (3) insert—
"(3A) Before issuing or revising a local policing plan for a police district established under section 20(2), the district commander shall also consult the sub-group established for the district under section 21 and take account of any views expressed."
11 (1) Schedule 1 (the Northern Ireland Policing Board) is amended as follows.

1483
(2) In paragraph 3(7) (disqualification from membership of Board during suspension of devolved government), after paragraph (b)(iii) insert—

"; or

(iv) a member of a sub-group established under section 21.".

(3) In paragraph 10(1)(b) (disqualification from membership of Board during devolved government), after "district policing partnership;" insert—
"or

(iv) a member of a sub-group established under section 21;".

12 In Schedule 3 (district policing partnerships) after paragraph 16 insert—
"Belfast district policing partnership
17 (1) The preceding paragraphs of this Schedule have effect in relation to the district policing partnership for Belfast with the following modifications.
(2) In paragraph 2 after sub-paragraph (5) insert'—
"(6) The members of the DPP who are appointed by the council in accordance with paragraph 3 shall include the persons who hold the office of chairman of each of the sub-groups of the DPP established under section 21."
(3) In paragraph 5 after sub-paragraph (3) insert—
"(3A) In relation to each person nominated by it under subparagraph (1) the council shall also notify the Board of—

(a) whether the person is also willing to be a candidate for appointment as an independent member of a sub-group established under section 21;

(b) the sub-group or sub-groups concerned, if he is so willing.""

13 After Schedule 3 insert—

SCHEDULE 3A BELFAST SUB-GROUPS

  Interpretation
  1 (1) In this Schedule—

  "the council" means the district council for Belfast;

  a "declaration against terrorism" means a declaration in the form set out in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, with the substitution of the words "if appointed" for the words "if elected";

  "independent member", in relation to a sub-group, means a member appointed under paragraph 2(4);

  "local general election" has the same meaning as in the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962;

  "the partnership" means the district policing partnership for Belfast;

  "political member", in relation to a sub-group, means a member appointed under paragraph 2(3);

  "sub-group" means a sub-group established under section 21.

  (2) For the purposes of this Schedule an independent member of the council shall be treated as a party.

  Size and composition
  2 (1) A sub-group shall consist of 11 members.
  (2) The members of a sub-group need not be members of the partnership.
  (3) Six of the members of a sub-group shall be appointed by the council from among members of the council in accordance with paragraph 3.
  (4) Five of the members of a sub-group shall be appointed in accordance with paragraph 4.

  Political members
  3 (1) The council shall exercise its power to appoint political members of a sub-group so as to ensure that, so far as practicable, the political members of all the sub-groups, taken together, reflect the balance of parties prevailing among the members of the council immediately after the last local general election.
  (2) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, a person shall hold and vacate office as a political member in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
  (3) A political member shall hold office until the date of the local general election next following his appointment.
  (4) A person appointed to fill a casual vacancy shall hold office for the remainder of the term of the political member in whose place he is appointed.
  (5) A political member shall cease to hold office if—

  (a) he resigns by notice in writing to the council;

  (b) he becomes disqualified for membership of a subgroup; or

  (c) he ceases to be a member of the council.

  (6) A person whose term of office as a political member expires or who has resigned shall be eligible for re-appointment.

  Independent members
  4 (1) Appointments of independent members shall be made by the Board from among persons nominated by the council in accordance with paragraph 5.
  (2) In appointing independent members of a sub-group the Board shall so far as practicable secure that the members of the sub-group (taken together) are representative of the community in the sub-group's police district.
  (3) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, a person shall hold and vacate office as an independent member in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
  (4) An independent member shall hold office until the date of the local general election next following his appointment.
  (5) A person appointed to fill a casual vacancy shall hold office for the remainder of the term of the independent member in whose place he is appointed.
  (6) An independent member shall cease to hold office if—

  (a) he resigns by notice in writing to the council; or

  (b) he becomes disqualified for membership of a sub-group.

  (7) A person whose term of office as an independent member expires or who has resigned shall be eligible for re-appointment.

  The council's nominations
  5 (1) Where appointments are to be made of independent members of a sub-group, the council shall nominate persons willing to be candidates for appointment.
  (2) Unless otherwise agreed with the Board, the number of persons to be nominated under sub-paragraph (1) on any occasion shall be twice the number of appointments to be made of independent members.
  (3) The council shall notify the Board of—

  (a) the name of each person nominated by it under subparagraph (1); and

  (b) such other information regarding those persons as it considers appropriate.

  (4) In relation to each person nominated by it under subparagraph (1) the council shall also notify the Board of—

  (a) whether the person is also willing to be a candidate for appointment as an independent member of any other sub-group;

  (b) the sub-group or sub-groups concerned, if he is so willing;

  (c) whether the person is also willing to be a candidate for appointment as an independent member of the partnership.

  (5) A person shall not be nominated under sub-paragraph (1) if—

  (a) he is disqualified for membership of a sub-group, or

  (b) he has not made a declaration against terrorism.

  (6) Where the number of persons nominated by the council is less than twice the number of appointments to be made, the Board may itself nominate such number of candidates as when added to the number nominated by the council equals twice the number of appointments to be made.
  (7) If the Board does so, paragraph 4(1) shall have effect as if those persons had been nominated by the council.

  Code of practice on appointment of independent members
  6 (1) In exercising functions under paragraphs 4 and 5, the council and the Board shalt have regard to any code of practice under this paragraph.
  (2) The Secretary of State may issue, and from time to time revise, a code of practice containing guidance as to the exercise by the council and the Board of their functions under paragraphs 4 and 5.
  (3) Before issuing or revising a code of practice under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall consult—

  (a) the Board;

  (b) the council; and

  (c) the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.

  (4) The Secretary of State shall arrange for any code of practice issued or revised under this paragraph to be published in such manner as appears to him to be appropriate.

  Removal of members from office
  7 (1) The Board, or the council with the approval of the Board, may remove a person from office as a political or independent member of a sub-group if satisfied that—

  (a) in the case of an independent member, he failed to make the necessary disclosure in relation to a conviction of his for a criminal offence in Northern Ireland or elsewhere;

  (b) in the case of an independent member, he has acted in breach of the terms of a declaration against terrorism;

  (c) he has been convicted of a criminal offence in Northern Ireland or elsewhere committed after the date of his appointment;

  (d) he has become bankrupt or made a composition or arrangement with his creditors;

  (e) he has failed to comply with the terms of his appointment; or

  (f) he is otherwise unable or unfit to discharge his functions as a member of the sub-group.

  (2) "The necessary disclosure", in relation to a conviction of an independent member, means full disclosure of it—

  (a) before his nomination, to the council;

  (b) before his appointment, to the Board.

  (3) Section 6 of the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 applies to determine whether an independent member has acted in breach of the terms of a declaration against terrorism as it applies to determine whether a person who has made a declaration required for the purpose of section 3, 4 or 5 of that Act has acted in breach of the terms of the declaration.
  (4) As applied by sub-paragraph (3), section 6 of the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 applies with the following modifications—

  (a) in subsection (1), for the words from "after" to "the Assembly" substitute "when he is an independent member of a sub-group established under section 21 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000";

  (b) omit subsection (4);

  (c) in subsection (5), in the definition of "public meeting" after paragraph (c) insert—

  1486

  "(d) any meeting of a sub-group established under section 21 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 or a committee of such a sub-group (whether or not a meeting which the public is permitted to attend), and

  (e) any meeting of a district policing partnership or a committee of a district policing partnership (whether or not a meeting which the public is permitted to attend),".

  Disqualification
  8 (1) A person is disqualified for membership of a sub-group if he is—

  (a) a police officer;

  (b) a member of the police support staff,

  (c) a member of the Board; or

  (d) an employee of the council.

  (2) A person removed from office under paragraph 7(1) is disqualified for membership of a sub-group until the date of the next local general election following his removal.
  (3) A person is disqualified for being an independent member of a sub-group if—

  (a) he has been convicted in Northern Ireland or elsewhere of any offence and has had passed on him a sentence of imprisonment or detention, and

  (b) the relevant period has not ended.

  (4) The relevant period is the period of five years beginning with the person's discharge in respect of the offence.
  (5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) the following are to be treated as the discharge of a person (whether or not his release is subject to conditions)—

  (a) his release on licence;

  (b) his release in pursuance of a grant of remission.

  (6) Sub-paragraph (5) does not apply in relation to the release of a person in respect of an offence if he is required to return to prison or detention for a further period in respect of the offence.
  (7) Subject to sub-paragraph (8), the reference in subparagraph (3) to a sentence of imprisonment or detention does not include a suspended sentence.
  (8) Sub-paragraph (7) does not apply in relation to a suspended sentence that has been ordered to take effect.
  (9) In this paragraph "suspended sentence" means a sentence of imprisonment or detention that is ordered not to take effect unless the conditions specified in the order are met.

  Chairman and vice-chairman
  9 (1) There shall be a chairman and vice-chairman of a subgroup appointed by the council from among the political members.
  (2) In making appointments under sub-paragraph (1), the council shall ensure that, so far as practicable—

  (a) the office of chairman and vice-chairman are at all times held by members of different political parties;

  (b) a person is appointed to the office of chairman or vice-chairman for a term of 12 months at a time or, where that period is shorter than 12 months, for a period ending with the date of the local general election next following his appointment;

  (c) the office of chairman Is held in turn by each of the four largest parties represented on the council immediately after the last local general election;

  (d) the office of chairman is not held by a person who is a member of the same political party as a person who holds the office of chairman of another sub-group.

  (3) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, a person shall hold and vacate office as chairman or vice-chairman in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
  (4) A person may at any time resign as chairman or vice-chairman by notice in writing to the council.
  (5) If the chairman or vice-chairman ceases to be a member of the sub-group, he shall also cease to hold office as chairman or vice-chairman.

  Allowances
  10 The council may pay to the chairman, vice-chairman and other members of a sub-group such allowances as the council, with the approval of the Board, may determine.
  Indemnities
  11 The council may indemnify a member of a sub-group in respect of liability incurred by him in connection with the business of the sub-group.

  Insurance against accidents
  12 (1) The council may insure against risks of a member of a sub-group meeting with a personal accident, whether fatal or not, while he is engaged on the business of the sub-group.
  (2) Sub-paragraph (3) applies if the council receives a sum under any such insurance in respect of an accident to a member of the sub-group.
  (3) The council shall pay the sum to the member or his personal representatives, after deducting any expenses incurred in its recovery.
  (4) The provisions of the Life Assurance Act 1774 as extended by the Life Insurance (Ireland) Act 1866 do not apply to any insurance under this paragraph.

  Finance
  13 The Board shall for each financial year make to the council a grant equal to three-quarters of the expenses reasonably incurred by the council in that year in connection with the establishment of, or the exercise of functions by, sub-groups.

  Procedure
  14 (1) The quorum for a meeting of a sub-group shall be 5.
  (2) Every question at a meeting of a sub-group shall be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting on the question, and in the case of an equal division of the votes, the chairman of the meeting shall have a second or casting vote.
  (3) If the chairman and vice-chairman are absent from a meeting of a sub-group, the members present shall elect one of their number to act as chairman of the meeting.
  (4) Subject to sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) and to section 19 and to any directions given by the partnership, a sub-group may regulate its own procedure.

  Validity of proceedings
  15 The validity of any proceedings of a sub-group or a committee thereof shall not be affected by—

  (a) any defect in the appointment of the chairman or vice-chairman or any other member; or

  (b) any vacancy in the office of chairman or vice-chairman or among the other members.

  Disclosure of pecuniary interests, family connections, etc
  16 Sections 28 to 33, 42, 46, 47 and 146 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 (and section 148 of that Act so far as applying for the interpretation of those sections) apply to a sub-group and its members as if—

  (a) in those sections—

  (i) any reference to a council were a reference to the sub-group;

  (ii) any reference to a councillor were a reference to a member of the sub-group;

  (iii) any reference to the clerk of the council were a reference to the person acting as secretary of the sub-group;

  1488

  (b) in section 28(4) of that Act for the words from "by any local elector" to the end there were substituted the words "by any person";

  (c) in section 29 of that Act any reference to the Minister were a reference to the Secretary of State.

  Committees
  17 (1) A sub-group may constitute a committee of its members.
  (2) A sub-group shall constitute a committee of its members if directed to do so by the partnership.
  (3) A committee of a sub-group shall consist of 5 or more members of the sub-group.
  (4) The members of a committee of a sub-group shall be appointed by the sub-group.
  (5) A sub-group may delegate any of its functions to a committee constituted by it.
  (6) The powers of a committee of a sub-group shall be exercised in accordance with and subject to directions given by the subgroup.
  (7) The proceedings of a committee of a sub-group shall be regulated in accordance with and subject to directions given by the sub-group.
  (8) The approval of the partnership is required to—

  (a) the constitution of a committee under sub-paragraph (1);

  (b) the members of a committee of a sub-group to be appointed under sub-paragraph (4);

  (c) the functions to be delegated to a committee under subparagraph (5);

  (d) the exercise by a committee of any functions delegated to it under sub-paragraph (5);

  (e) the directions to be given to a committee under subparagraphs (6) and (7)."

  14 In Schedule 2 to the Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (N.I. 7) after the entry for the Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards insert'—
  "A sub-group established under section 21 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000."
  15 In Part 7 of Schedule Ito the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c.36) at the appropriate place in alphabetical order insert—
  "A sub-group established under section 21 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000."
  16 (1) Sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) have effect in relation to the transitional period.
  (2) The transitional period is the period—

  (a) beginning on the date on which this Schedule comes into force;

  (b) ending on the date of the next local general election after that date.

  (3) "Local general election" has the same meaning as in the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962.
  (4) In paragraph 17 of Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (inserted by paragraph 12 above) after subparagraph (2) insert—
  "(2A) In paragraph 3, after sub-paragraph (4) insert—
  "(4A) The council may, with the approval of the Board, terminate the appointment of a political member if it appears to the council to be necessary or expedient to do so in order to enable it to comply with paragraph 2(6)."
  (2B) In paragraph 3(5), after paragraph (a) insert'—

  "(aa) his appointment is terminated under sub-paragraph (4A),".

  (2C) In paragraph 3(6), after "expires" insert ", whose appointment is terminated under sub-paragraph (4A)"."
  (5) In Schedule 3A to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (inserted by paragraph 13 above), in paragraph 4(1) after "among" insert "(a)" and after "paragraph 5" insert—
  "; and

  (b) persons who hold office as independent members of the partnership"."

  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 52. As your Lordships will appreciate, I have already spoken to this amendment in the context of Commons Amendment No. 15. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 52.
  [Amendment No. 52A not moved.]
  On Question, Amendment No. 52 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
4 Clause 9, page 6, line 26, leave out from "to" to end of line 27 and insert "a special purposes committee."
5 Page 6, line 42, leave out from second "to" to end of line 43 and insert "a special purposes committee."
6 Page 7, line I, leave out second "the" and insert "a"
7 Page 7, line 2, leave out from "shall" to end of line 5 and
insert "prepare a summary of the information.
(4F) The Chief Constable shall try to obtain the agreement of the committee to the terms of the summary.
(4FA) If the committee agrees to the terms of the summary, the Chief Constable shall include the summary in the report to the Board."
8 Page 7, line 7, leave out second "the" and insert "a"
9 Clause 11, page 8, line 23, leave out "(2) and" and insert "(1A) to"
10 Page 8, line 23, at end insert—
"(1A) In sub-paragraph (3) for "that day" substitute "the (lay on which the chairman calls the meeting"."
11 Page 8, line 34, leave out "held" and insert "called"
12 Clause 12, page 9. line 30, leave out ", or information contained in a document,"
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 12 en bloc.
The amendments relate to the clauses that deal with the requirement on the Chief Constable to report and provide information to the board and the police ombudsman. At Third Reading in this House, we tabled a series of amendments designed to respond to various concerns raised by your Lordships. Those included provision for a small committee within the board with whom the Chief Constable might share any sensitive information that he decided ought to be kept on a restricted circulation.
I said at the time, and my colleagues in the Commons also made it plain, that we would open-mindedly consider any further proposals. Our conclusion was that some of our proposals were too complex. The amendments introduced on Report in the Commons sought to address those concerns and to streamline the interlocking provisions. I have written to all of your Lordships who show an interest in
1490
Northern Ireland affairs describing the effect and purpose of the changes, so I shall try to be reasonably concise.
Essentially, the Government view new Section 33A as very much an everyday power of the board to request and receive information from the Chief Constable. It is not envisaged that sensitive information would be routinely supplied through that route unless deemed appropriate by the Chief Constable. The board is guaranteed access to non-sensitive information that it seeks through that route and, in certain circumstances, might gain access to sensitive information, subject to the professional judgement of the Chief Constable.
The arrangements surrounding access to information—particularly sensitive information—are of necessity complex. There is a great need for transparency and accountability, but we also need to have a sensible balance, taking into account the need for appropriate safeguards on sensitive information.
Perhaps I may briefly set out how we see the balance being reflected by the Chief Constable in relation to his duty to protect life under Section 32(1)(a) of the 2000 Act. In addition, as a member of the PSNI, he is bound by the code of ethics provided for in Section 52 and, by the terms of the attestation in Section 38(1), to uphold fundamental human rights. There are already some safeguards in Section 59 to allow the Chief Constable to refer certain requests to the Secretary of State. There are further safeguards in the amendments that we introduced as part of the Bill that would allow the Chief Constable to limit the distribution of certain information within the board. There is also an important protection in Section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, which provides that
"so far as it is possible to do so. primary legislation … must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights".
If there is a direct tension between the Chief Constable's duty under Section 59 to produce a report for the board and his duty to protect life under Section 32(1), he is obliged as a matter of law to weigh those duties and to fulfil his Section 59 duty in such a way as to be consistent with his Section 32(1) duty. He would judge each case on its merits. I know that the Chief Constable wishes to provide as much information as possible to the board—and that is plainly right.
There is also a duty on the Chief Constable under Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, which provides that
"it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right".
That applies to the Chief Constable's duty under Section 59 just as it does to the duty of a beat constable on the street. Both would act unlawfully if they acted incompatibly with the ECHR.
The issue is not whether the Chief Constable provides a complete report or piece of information—or nothing at all. Rather, he would be obliged to provide the information in such a way as to avoid the risk to an individual's life. For example, he could ensure that the way in which he provides the information to the board avoids mentioning a vulnerable individual by name or

1491
identifying him. That would protect the individual's right to life, while still ensuring that the board had access to the information.
Moving on, the criteria on which the Chief Constable may withhold information in response to a request made under Section 33A are set out in Amendment No. 17. They are, that the disclosure of the information would be likely to endanger an individual—there are special provisions for dealing with this type of information in the context of a Section 59 report, under the amendments to Clauses 9 and 21; that the information requested relates to one of the three grounds of referral set out in Section 76A—laid out in Clause 22—on which, were the request made under Section 59, he would be able to refer to the Secretary of State; or that the grounds of referral set out in the Bill and approved by your Lordships on 30th January are unaffected by the amendments made in another place.
Before I turn to the amendments tabled by noble Lords, it may be helpful if I explain that the phrase "sensitive personnel information" in the revised second ground of referral refers to sensitive information relating to an individual's holding of office or employment specifically where that office or employment comes under the control or direction of the Chief Constable. Elsewhere it means police officers—including reservists, trainees and secondees; police support staff; traffic wardens; police cadets; and designated contractors staff under the Bill.
In light of the change to Clause 18 brought about by Amendment No. 17, we no longer see the need for the small committee provided for under Clause 21 to have a role in relation to Section 33A or to restrict the board's access to documents. Amendment No. 18 therefore removes the provisions in Clause 18 relating to the committee. Amendments Nos. 19 to 21, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 37 are consequential. Amendment No. 16 gives the board access to documents as well as to information. Based on our legal advice that subsequent references to "information" in the clause would encompass "documents" as well as other information, we seek to amend the wording of Clause 12, through Amendment No. 12, to make the Bill consistent.
The fourth ground of referral, now dropped, dealt with information likely to prejudice the detection of crime or prosecution of offenders. The Government's position was set out in the updated implementation plan published in August 2001. It reflects more fully the Patten recommendations. Amendments Nos. 17A and 26A would reintroduce that fourth ground of referral to requests for information under Section 33A of the 2000 Act and would make any unauthorised disclosure of such information an offence. The effect would be to apply the fourth ground only in the context of everyday requests for information and not in relation to Section 59 requests for reports.
Your Lordships debated the fourth ground of referral at length, as did our colleagues in another place. The primary statutory duty of the Policing Board under Section 3 of the 2000 Act is to maintain
1492
an effective police service in Northern Ireland. It would be contrary to that duty for the board to request information or a report within a timescale that could prejudice a major continuing investigation. Under Section 59(2)(b) of the 2000 Act there is already a provision for the board and the Chief Constable to agree a timescale for the production of a report. We are confident that both organisations would seek to reach a sensible accommodation on a timescale. When we last discussed that issue, I assured your Lordships that the Government would provide in the code of practice issued by the Secretary of State on reports and inquiries for the board to seek the guidance of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary on timing. Given the inspector's operational expertise, his views will plainly carry significant weight with board members.
The grounds set out in the Bill, when taken with the other safeguards provided for in the Bill and in existing legislation, get the balance right between ensuring that the board has proper access to information and that sensitive information—and issues—are adequately protected. My honourable friend the Minister of State in another place stated on Report that she had consulted with the Chief Constable and that he was satisfied with the Bill's safeguards. He felt that he would still be able to protect information that he regarded as sensitive and work within the openness that he sought to establish with the board. We ought to draw significant comfort from that statement. I do not believe that Amendments Nos. 17A and 26A are necessary or appropriate and ask that they be withdrawn.
A good deal of criticism and concern has been expressed but, at the end of the day, I hope that your Lordships will feel that we have been open-minded and have achieved a workable outcome.
The issue of the small committee attracted a certain amount of attention in another place. I have already indicated that we do not see that committee as having a role relative to new Section 33A. The effect of Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 is that the board shall have discretion over whether or not to set up a committee to deal with sensitive information—with the exception of three specific circumstances, where it would be essential that such a committee be established to safeguard information that the Chief Constable or the Secretary of State has determined should be shared with a limited number of persons. It includes information that may come from a person conducting a Section 60 inquiry, where the Chief Constable has previously advised that it is too sensitive to be shared widely. That would give the hoard freedom to decide whether or not to establish a committee from the outset. The board can also decide whether it should be a standing or an ad hoc committee.
Amendment No. 43 increases the committee's membership to seven. which will allow the board greater flexibility in its selection processes. We expect that the board would normally wish to include both the chairman and the vice-chairman. Membership could also include representatives from the political

1493
parties on the board as well as an independent voice. All other terms of the constitution of the committee remain as previously set out in the Bill.
Amendment No. 44 gives the small committee a specific title—"special purposes committee"—to clarify its special function and to make references to it in the legislation less cumbersome. Amendments Nos. 4 to 6, 8, 28, 32, 36 and 38 have been made in consequence of this and the other substantive amendments to Clause 21 that I have outlined.
Clause 9 deals with Section 59 reports under the 2000 Act. Amendment No. 7 obliges the Chief Constable to try to obtain the agreement of the special purposes committee to the terms of a non-sensitive summary of the information that he has supplied to it. The Chief Constable must make real and demonstrable efforts to reach agreement with the special purposes committee. If and when agreement is reached, the summary will be provided to the board as part of the Chief Constable's report under Section 59. That puts a greater onus on the Chief Constable in relation to the board than the previous formulation, which merely required him to take account of the committee's views. It is yet another step that we are taking in recognising the role of the board, while being careful not to compromise that of the Chief Constable.
I turn to the threshold for initiating inquiries. Many of your Lordships had concerns about Clause 11. I outlined the safeguards that existed within the 2000 Act. Your Lordships were afraid that a small minority on the board could force through, against the will of their colleagues, a decision to initiate an inquiry.
The safeguards are set out in Section 60 and paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 to the 2000 Act. First, a proposal to initiate an inquiry cannot come out of the blue because the board must initially commission a report from the Chief Constable under Section 59. Only once that report has been received can an inquiry be contemplated. If the chairman receives a request to set up an inquiry, he must call a meeting no later than three working days after receipt of the request. That meeting is to be held no earlier than six days and no later than 21 days after that date. As I reminded your Lordships on a number of occasions, the chairman is obliged to notify each member of the board of the date and purpose of the meeting.
That brings me to Amendment No. 10. This amendment would amend paragraph 18(3) of Schedule 1 to the 2000 Act, to put, beyond doubt, that a minimum of six working days must elapse between the board chairman calling a meeting to discuss a proposal to set up an inquiry and the meeting itself taking place. A number of your Lordships were concerned that there might be dishonourable behaviour. That is intended to put that beyond doubt.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 11 are consequential. It could be read either in the way that I indicated—which I think is appropriate—or that the effect of "that day" in paragraph 18(3) is that the six day period starts from the day on which the chairman receives the request to call a meeting. This is an important safeguard. We do
1494
not want ambiguity on timescales and that is why this amendment has been brought forward to clarify matters.
As regards improper disclosure, there are a number of "tidying up" amendments relating to Clause 20. This deals with the new offence of improper disclosure of sensitive information—an issue to which a number of your Lordships drew attention at various earlier stages. Amendment No. 41 provides that the provisions of Section 59(5) of the 2000 Act do not cut across the offence provisions—that is, the board would need to take account, before deciding to publish a report, of whether the Chief Constable had flagged up any of its contents as sensitive. If he had, the board would need to decide whether to redact that part of the report and publish the rest, or not to publish the report at all.
Amendments Nos. 31, 33 and 34 make it clear that any person assisting a person conducting an inquiry under Section 60 is covered by the offence, irrespective of whether they are secondees from the board's own staff or direct recruits. Amendments Nos. 35, 39 and 40 clarify that it should not be an offence for the board or any special purposes committee of it to share sensitive information with the ombudsman's staff in connection with any of the ombudsman's functions.
Before I beg to move, I realise that this explanation is a little lengthy, but it is, I hope, in respect and recognition of the concerns that your Lordships raised.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 12. —(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I beg to take issue with the noble and learned Lord that the explanation was a little lengthy: it was extremely lengthy. But perhaps I may say that it was very coherent to those of us who are familiar with the Bill. It covers a large range of issues which we have debated and some which I regret we have been unable to question and challenge more fully.
As regards the issue concerning Amendments Nos. 17A and 26A, I accept that the Government have come a very long way from the original drafting of the Bill in building in safeguards around all the issues of inquiries and those that go with it, Many of the amendments that the noble and learned Lord has been speaking to do, indeed, introduce safeguards to the whole judicial process. However, what worries me particularly, has worried me from the beginning, still worries me and I should like to see on the face of the Bill, concerns,
"information the disclosure of which would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders."
That, surely, in any democracy must be a sound reason for not disclosing certain information by a Chief Constable.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
16 Clause 18, page 11, line 35, after "information", insert "and documents"
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16. I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 4, as your Lordships recall. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
17 Page 12, line 3, after "information", insert "is. —

(a) information the disclosure of which would be likely to put an individual in danger, or

(b) information which"

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17. I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I believe that now is the brief opportunity for the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17. —(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
[Amendment to Commons Amendment No. 17]
17A Line 3, at end insert—
"(aa) information the disclosure of which would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,"
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 17.
Moved, That the House do agree with Amendment No. 17A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 17. —(Lord Glentoran.)
Lord Rogan: My Lords, there is no need for me to spend too long reiterating the arguments expressed often in this House and in another place. The Government have yet to provide an acceptable justification for the removal of the fourth ground of appeal—Section 59(3)(d) of the 2000 Act. We are concerned that this will not only undermine the operational capacity of the Chief Constable, but the board's requests could torpedo an expensive and lengthy investigation and could be used as a device to disrupt or defeat ongoing investigation. This amendment therefore simply seeks to reinstate this fourth ground of appeal.
Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 are concerned with the establishment of a "special purposes committee". The whole concept of the committee is wrong. The committee will be created to handle sensitive information that should not be before the board in the first place. There is concern about confidentiality. We
1496
do not want a situation where criminal proceedings could be jeopardised or undermined by the premature disclosure of such information to the board. I therefore support Amendment No. 17A.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am not perfectly clear. Perhaps we may take a hypothetical case. Supposing that there were present upon the board—as it is evidently hoped that there will be—representatives of Sinn Fein/IRA and there is an ongoing case/investigation/event in which members of that organisation are concerned, would they be, in any way, excluded from participation or would they have to be part of it as members of the committee and, therefore, necessarily, have access which could have serious consequences?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the answer is that they would not automatically be excluded nor would they automatically be included. It would be a matter for the judgment of the board. I take the noble Baroness's point referring to a continuing investigation and it should not be overlooked. However, there is the safeguard that the board and the Chief Constable may agree the timetable. One has got those safeguards. The Chief Constable will have to come to his decision. I hope that if we are setting up a board it will be on the basis that it is capable of being trusted to carry out public functions. We all want, I hope, Sinn Fein to go on to the board—a number of your Lordships have been urging them to do so for some time on the necessary basis that one can only be a member of such a board if committed absolutely to the rule of law and the right of police investigations.
Therefore, the safeguards are there. I do not gloss over the difficulties. The comfort that I derive is what my honourable friend Jane Kennedy said in another place—namely, that the Chief Constable has been closely involved and has come to the conclusion that he is content. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is right. We have gone a significant way from the moment when the noble Baroness and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, first raised these issues.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 17A.
5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 17A), as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 17, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 132.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Biffen, L.

Astor, V.

Blaker, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Blatch,B.

1497

Bridgeman, V.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monson, L.

Burnham,L.

Montrose, D.

Byford, B.

Moynihan, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Noakes, B.

Denham, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Elles, B.

Onslow, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elton, L.

Peel, E.

Ferrers, E.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Glentoran, L.

Plumb, L.

Hanham, B.

Quinton, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Rees, L.

Ren ton, L.

Howe. E.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Rogan, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Laird, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Luke, L.

Selborne, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mancroft, L,

Strathclyde, L.

Marlesford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Marsh, L.

Wakeham, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton. L.

Goodhart, L.

Addington, L.

Goudie, B.

Ahmed, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Alli,L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Andrews, B.

Hamwee, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hardy of Wath,L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Harrison, L.

Barker, B.

Haskel,L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hayman, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Hollick,L.

Brennan, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Brett, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Brookman, L.

Hoyle, L.

Burlison, L.

Hylton, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Carter, L.

Chancellor)

Christopher, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Jones, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Crawley, B.

Lipsey, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

David, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

[Teller]

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Desai, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Dixon, L.

McNally, L.

Donoughue, L.

Maddock, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Elder, L.

Mishcon, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Newby, L.

Gale, B.

Nicol, B.

Gavron, L.

Northover, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ouseley, L.

Golding, B.

Patel, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

1498

Pendry, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Taverne, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Rea,L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Rennard, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Richard, L.

Turnberg, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Walmsley, B.

Rooker, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Roper, L.

Whitaker, B.

Russell, E.

Whitty, L.

Sawyer, L.

Wilkins, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Sewel, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Sheldon, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Privy Seal)

Simon, V.

Winston, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, commons Amendment No17 agree to.
5.10 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
18 Page 12, leave out lines 5 to 11.
19 Page 12, line 12, leave out "or the committee"
20 Page 12, line 20, leave out "or the committee"
21 Page 12, line 21, leave out "recipient of the information" and insert "Board"
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 en bloc.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
25 Clause 20, page 13, line 7, after "(2),", insert "(2A),"
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 25, to which I spoke when introducing Amendment No. 4.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 25.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
26 Page 13, line 15, at end insert—
"(2A) The circumstances are that—

(a) the information is supplied by the Chief Constable under section 33A to the Board;

1499

(b) the Chief Constable informs the Board that, in his opinion, the information is information of a kind mentioned in section 33A(5)(a) or (b)."

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26. I spoke to this amendment when I dealt with Amendments Nos. 4 to 12.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26. —(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
[Amendment No. 26A not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
27 Page 13, line 18, leave out "33A or"
28 Page 13, line 18, leave out from second "or" to end of line 19 and insert "a special purposes committee;"
29 Page 13, line 20, leave out from "committee" to "that" in line 21.
30 Page 13, line 22, leave out "section 33A(5)(a) or (b) or"
31 Page 13, line 26, after "section 60" insert "or by a person who is assisting or has assisted in the conduct of such an inquiry"
32 Page 13, line 26, leave out from "to" to end of line 27 and insert "a special purposes committee;"
33 Page 13, line 32, leave out from "is" to "except" in line 33 and insert "assisting or has assisted in the conduct of the inquiry"
34 Page 13, line 34, leave out "member of the staff of the Board" and insert "person"
35 Page 13, line 38, leave out from "Ombudsman" to end of line 39 and insert ", or an officer of the Ombudsman, in connection with any function of the Ombudsman;"
36 Page 13, line 40, leave out from "to" to end of line 41 and insert "a special purposes committee;"
37 Page 14, line 4, at end insert "(2A),"
38 Page 14, line 10, leave out from "to" to "to" in line 11 and insert "a special purposes committee,"
39 Page 14, line 16, leave out from "Ombudsman" to end of line 17 and insert ", or an officer of the Ombudsman, in connection with any function of the Ombudsman;"
40 Page 14, line 31, after "Schedule 1", insert "; and
"officer of the Ombudsman" has the meaning given by section 50(1) of the 1998 Act"
41 Page 14, line 31, at end insert—
"(9) In section 59(5) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c.32) at the beginning insert "Subject to section 74A(6)"."
42 Clause 21, page 14, line 36, leave out "and (1B)" and insert "to (1E)"
43 Page 14, leave out lines 38 to 45 and insert'—
""(1A) The Board shall constitute a committee of its members for the purposes mentioned in subparagraph (1B) if—

(a) the Chief Constable informs the Board that he wishes to supply information to a committee of the Board under section 59(4D),

(b) the Secretary of State informs the Board that he proposes to modify a requirement to submit a report under section 59(1) for the purpose mentioned in section 59(4A)(b), or

1500

(c)a person who is conducting or has conducted an inquiry under section 60, or who is assisting or has assisted in the conduct of such an inquiry, informs the Board that he wishes to disclose information to a committee of the Board under section 74A(5).

(1 B) The purposes are—

(a) handling information supplied to the committee by the Chief Constable under section 59;

(b) handling information supplied to it by a person who is conducting or has conducted an inquiry under section 60 or by a person who is assisting or has assisted in the conduct of such an inquiry.

(1C) The Board may not constitute a committee of its members for the purposes mentioned in sub-paragraph (1 B) if a committee of its members has already been constituted for those purposes under sub-paragraph (1) or (1A).
(1D) A committee constituted under sub-paragraph (1) or (1A) for the purposes mentioned in subparagraph (1B) shall consist of 7 members of the Board.
(1E) The members of a committee constituted under sub-paragraph (1) or (1A) for the purposes mentioned in sub-paragraph (1B)—"
44 Page 15, line 3, at end insert—
"(4) In section 77(1) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (interpretation) at the appropriate place insert—
"special purposes committee" means a committee constituted by the Board under paragraph 24(1) or (1A) of Schedule 1 for the purposes mentioned in paragraph 24(1B) of that Schedule;"."
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27 to 44 en bloc. I spoke to these amendments when dealing with Amendment No. 4.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27 to 44 en bloc.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
22 After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
"APPOINTMENT OF CONSTABLES WITH SPECIAL POLICING SKILLS
(1) The Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c.32) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (5).
(2) In section 36 (appointments to the Police Service of Northern Ireland) after subsection (3) (training requirements for persons appointed to rank of constable) insert—
"(4) Subsection (3) does not apply to a person appointed in pursuance of an authorisation under section 47A(1)."
(3) After section 47 insert—
"47A APPOINTMENTS TO POLICE SERVICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
(1) The Board may if requested to do so by the Chief Constable authorise the appointment to the rank of constable in the Police Service of Northern Ireland of a specified number of persons—

(a) who have a specified policing skill, but

(b) who have not complied with the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 36(3).

1501
(2) The Board shall not give an authorisation under subsection (1) in relation to persons who have a particular policing skill unless it is satisfied—

(a) that the requirements of subsection (3) are met;

(b) that any further requirements which are specified by it under subsection (4) and which apply in relation to the giving of the authorisation are met.

(3) The requirements are—

( a) that there is a need for more persons who have the policing skill to be appointed to the rank of constable in the Police Service of Northern Ireland;

(b) that the need cannot be met by the appointment of persons who have complied with the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 36(3).

(4) The Board may specify further requirements which apply in relation to the giving of an authorisation under subsection (1).
(5) Any requirements specified under subsection (4) may apply in relation to the giving of all authorisations under subsection (1) or to the giving of a particular authorisation or description of authorisation.
(6) In this section "specified" means specified by the Board."
(4) In paragraph 17(4) of Schedule 1 (procedure for Board decisions) for "paragraph 18" substitute "paragraphs 17A and 18".
(5) After paragraph 17 of Schedule I insert—
Authorisations under section 47A(1)
17A The Board shall not give an authorisation under section 47A(1) unless a proposal to do so has been approved by each member of the Board present and voting on the question at a meeting of the Board."
(6) The preceding provisions of this section expire at the end of a period of two years starting on the day on which this Act is passed.
(7) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (6) by substituting "four years" for "two years".
(8) An order under subsection (7) niay be made only with the prior authorisation of the Board.
(9) The Board shall not give an authorisation under subsection (8) unless a proposal to do so has been approved by each member of the Board present and voting on the question at a meeting of the Board.
(10) In paragraph 17(4) of Schedule 1 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c.32) (procedure for Board decisions) after "18" insert "and section (Appointment of constables with special policing skills)(9) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003".
(11) An order under subsection (7) may not be made after the end of the period of two years specified in subsection (6)."
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22.
The amendment provides for a limited exception to the 50:50 recruitment arrangements. The Chief Constable will therefore be able to address the current shortage of experienced officers with special policing skills at the rank of constable. A number of your Lordships have raised this question. The amendment was put forward by the Policing Board, with the unanimous support of its members. I welcome the fact that they have responded so constructively. It is a great credit to the board members that they are working in such a way, so co-operatively. that they came to unanimous agreement on such a sensitive issue.
1502
The provision will allow the Chief Constable to bring into the police service a specified number of officers with specialist policing skills where he can demonstrate that there is a significant shortfall—for instance, detectives. He can use it only when certain criteria established by the board have been met, and where the board members unanimously approve its use.
These exceptional arrangements will be available for two years, starting from Royal Assent. The Secretary of State may extend the life of the provision on one occasion only, to allow it to operate for a maximum period in all of four years. Such an extension would require the unanimous agreement of the Board.
This route of entry will be very much the exception. We see it as a temporary measure to plug the skills gap, about which a number of your Lordships were concerned, created largely as a consequence of the severance scheme. It is in no sense a watering down of, or fundamental departure from, the 50:50 requirement.
I commend the amendment.
Amendment No. 22C would enable the measures to be activated with the approval of a majority of the Policing Board. The board has shown great maturity on this and earlier occasions—for example, on symbols—and I am sure that it will do so in the future. The detail of this exceptional mechanism has been the subject of lengthy and painstaking consideration by the board, which of course includes representatives of the Ulster Unionist Party, and it has expressly requested that its unanimity be a precondition for the mechanism's use. We are eager to honour the board's wishes in this regard, and I therefore invite the noble Lords concerned not to press the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 22A, 22B and 22D, taken together, would require the Secretary of State. if asked by a majority of the board, to make an order suspending the 50:50 provisions. Given the strength of support for Amendment No. 22, both here and in the other place, I very much hope that their Lordships will be prepared to withdraw these amendments. We discussed this matter at length earlier. It would be much too radical a departure from 50:50, which is the cornerstone of our policy.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22. —(Lord Wih'iams of Mostyn.)
AS AMENDMENTS TO COMMONS AMENDMENT N O. 22
22A Line 39, at end insert—
"47B APPOINTMENTS TO POLICE SERVICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND
(1) In the event that—

(a) the Chief Constable is unable to appoint his required number of police trainees or police support staff, or

(b) the number of serving officers is below that intended at the time of consideration,

the Secretary of State shall, at the request of the police board and acting on the recommendation of the Chief Constable, make an order to suspend the provisions of section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 for a period of six months."
22B Line 41, after "17A" insert ", 17B"
22C Line 45, leave out "each member" and insert "a majority"
22D Line 47, at end insert—

Recommendations under section 47B(1)
17B The Board shall not give an authorisation under section 47B(1) unless a proposal to make a request has been approved by a majority of the Board present and voting on the question at a meeting of the Board."
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I beg to move, as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 22, Amendments Nos. 22A to 22D.
It is not my intention to detain the House unnecessarily. Noble Lords will be well aware of our objections to the discriminatory recruitment policy for the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
I am reminded of words I used during the Report stage of consideration of the Bill: 50:50 has created a Catch 22 situation. Aware that the discriminatory recruitment policy has not worked—the Police Service of Northern Ireland is struggling to attract the number of recruits required to police Northern Ireland effectively—the Government have given themselves several get-out clauses. In the words of my party colleague in another place, Lady Hermon, the Government clearly want to have their cake and eat it. By allowing the Chief Constable to recruit constables with specified skills outside the 50:50 recruitment policy, the Government are prolonging the period for which discrimination will be applied.
The principle of equality of opportunity is central to the Belfast agreement. Policing should not be regarded as an exception; 50:50 recruitment denies equality of opportunity—it is nothing short of discrimination. It is a great source of grievance for a very large number of people across Northern Ireland. We in the Ulster Unionist Party have always been consistent in our opposition to 50:50 recruitment.
Amendments Nos. 22A, 22B, 22C and 22D provide that, at the request of a majority of the Policing Board, when the Chief Constable has a shortfall in recruits the provisions of Section 46–50:50—could be suspended for six months. It seems to me that while not ideal—we would very much welcome the complete withdrawal of Section 46—this is an extremely sensible amendment, designed to assist the Chief Constable to police Northern Ireland effectively and efficiently.
We were pleased to note that both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament in another place joined my party colleagues in the Lobbies last week on a similar amendment. I hope that I can enjoy the same privilege.
Moved, as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 22, Amendments Nos. 22A to 22D —(Lord Rogan.)
5.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendments shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 118.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Mancroft, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Marlesford, L.

Biffen,L.

Marsh, L.

Blackwell,L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Blaker, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Blatch, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Bridgeman, V. [Teller]

Monson, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Montrose, D.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Moynihan, L.

Burnham, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Byford, B.

Noakes, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Chadlington, L.

Onslow, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Denham, L.

Peel, E.

Plumb, L,

Dixon-smitn, L.

Quinton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rees, L

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Feldman, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rogan, L.

Glentoran, L.

Seccombe, B.

Goschen, V.

Selborne, E.

Hanham, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howe, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Swinfen, L.

Laird, L.[Teller]

Tebbit,L.

Luke, L.

Wakeham, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Donoughue, L.

Addington, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ahmed, L.

Elder, L.

Alli,L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Andrews, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gale,B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Barker, B.

Gilbert, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Golding, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Brennan, L.

Goodhart, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Goudie, B.

Brookman, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Grabiner, L.

Carter, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Christopher, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hamwee, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Harrison, L.

Crawley, B.

Haskel, L.

David, B.

Hayman, B.

Davies of Coity. L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Hollick,L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Desai.L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Dixon, L.

Hoyle,L.

1505

Hylton, L.

Rooker, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Roper, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Russell, E.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Sawyer, L.

Lipsey, L.

Scott of Needham Market. B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Sewel, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Simon, V.

[Teller]

Smith of Clifton, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

McNally, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Maddock. B.

Strabolgi, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B.

Mishcon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Newby, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Nicol, B.

Turnberg, L.

Northover, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Patel, L.

Wallace of Saltaire,L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Walmsley.B.

Pendry, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Pitkeathley. B.

Whitaker, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Whitty, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Rea,L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord

Richard, L.

Privy Seat)

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Winston, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
5.28 p.m.
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 22 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
23 After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—
"MEMBERS OF PSNI ENGAGED ON OTHER POLICE SERVICE
In section 27 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (c.32) (members of Police Service of Northern Ireland engaged on other police service) after subsection (6) insert—
"(6A) Regulations made by virtue of section 25(3) or (4) in relation to a member of the PSNI who has completed a period of relevant service within subsection (1)(d) may provide for a relevant procedure to be treated for the purposes of the regulations as carried out in accordance with procedures for which provision is made by regulations made by virtue of section 25(3).
(6B) In subsection (6A) "relevant procedure" means an investigation, hearing or other procedure carried out in relation to the person concerned in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom in connection with the person's relevant service.""
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23.
Clause 19 allows the Chief Constable to make fixed-term appointments to the PSN I. The Chief Constable, if he requires special expertise, is entitled to procure it in that way, including from members of the Garda in the Irish Republic. Such secondments could also take place in the other direction. The Irish Government will
1506
shortly be bringing forward a Bill to allow secondments of policing powers from PSNI to the Garda.
The secondment of PSNI officers to the Garda will take place under Section 8 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. It deals with the provision by the board of advice and assistance to international organisations such as the United Nations and other police services. Section 27 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 sets out some of the key principles.
One key principle deals with discipline. Normally, where a member of the PSNI is seconded under Section 8, he may be dealt with under the PSNI's own conduct regulations for any breach of discipline as if that breach had been committed during service with the PSNI. The amendment allows the Secretary of State to modify the relevant regulations in respect of disciplinary matters to enable investigations and hearings held in a country outside the United Kingdom to be taken into account by the PSNI in its own disciplinary proceedings.
Clearly, the imposition of sanctions could have a significant effect on an officer's career and it is right that the choice of penalty should be, and remain, the responsibility of the home service. In practical terms it makes more sense for the host service to carry out the investigation and hearing as this would take place in the jurisdiction in which the alleged offence would have occurred. These arrangements will be reciprocal. Any PSNI officer will be subject to the code of ethics and he would fall within the remit of the Police Ombudsman if a complaint were made.
We expect to have very little, if any, recourse to such regulations. Any member of the PNSI who was seconded anywhere in the world would be an ambassador for his service, but we need to provide for these eventualities.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
24 Insert the following new clause—
"PROTECTED DISCLOSURES BY POLICE OFFICERS
(1) After Article 67K of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/1919 (N.I.16) insert—
"67KA APPLICATION OF PART VA AND RELATED
PROVISIONS TO POLICE
(1) Paragraph (2) applies for the purposes of—

(a) this Part,

(b) Article 70B and Articles 71 and 72 so far as relating to that Article, and

(c) Article 134A and the other provisions of Part XI so far as they relate to the right not to be unfairly dismissed in a case where the dismissal is unfair by virtue of Article 134A.

(2) A person who holds, otherwise than under a contract of employment, the office of constable shall be treated as an employee employed by the relevant officer under a contract of employment; and any reference to a worker being "employed" and to his "employer" shall be construed accordingly.

1507
(3) In this Article "the relevant officer"—

(a) in relation to a police officer, means the Chief Constable;

(b) in relation to a person holding office under section 9(1)(b) of the Police Act 1997 (police members of the National Criminal Intelligence Service) means the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service; and

(c) in relation to any other person holding the office of constable, means the person who has the direction and control of the body of constables in question."

(2) In Article 243(1) of that Order (provisions which do not apply to persons engaged in police service under a contract of employment)—

(a) omit the words "Part VA,";

(b) after "Articles 132" insert ", 134A";

(c) after "Article 132" insert "or 134A".

(3) Article 16 of the Public Interest Disclosure (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/1763 (N.I. 17)) (exclusion of police service from provisions about protected disclosures) shall cease to have effect.
(4) Subsections (1) to (3) come into force in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order."
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24.
The amendment deals with protected disclosures by police officers. The purpose of this new clause, with consequential amendments revoking provisions in the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and the Public Interest Disclosure (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 in Schedule 3 is to afford protection to police officers who make protected disclosures. The clause has the support of the Chief Constable and the ombudsman.
A "protected disclosure" includes disclosures that a criminal offence has been committed; that a person has failed to comply with a legal obligation; or that there has been a miscarriage of justice.
The purpose of these changes is to ensure that PSNI officers, reserve officers and others holding the office of constable, such as the Harbour Police and the NCIS, will be able to report wrongdoing by other officers with the assurance of the full protection of the law if they are discriminated against. Amendments Nos. 50, 54, 55 and 57 are consequential. I commend the amendments to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
45 Clause 28, page 19, line 19, leave out from beginning to "accordingly" in line 22 and insert "members of the police support staff—

(a) a member of the police support staff must be treated as an employee of the Chief Constable in relation to conduct in reliance or purported reliance on a designation under section 23;

(b) conduct by a member of the police support staff in reliance or purported reliance on a designation under section 23 must be taken to be conduct in the course of that employment;

(c) in the case of a tort, the Chief Constable".

46 page 19, line 23, leave out subsection (2).
47 Clause 36, page 22, line 18, leave out paragraph (a).
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 45 to 47.
Clause 28 was added to the Bill by government amendment during our Report stage. It makes provision for the purpose of determining liability for unlawful conduct in the case of conduct by a designated person in purported reliance on that designation.
It was decided in another place that the provision should be refined. At that time the clause provided for the Policing Board to be treated as a joint tortfeasor in the case of action by board employees in reliance on a designation and for the Department of Finance and Personnel to be the joint tortfeasor in the case of civil servants. The preferred position is for the Chief Constable to be responsible as the support staff are under his direction and control. Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 reflect that refinement.
As to Amendment No. 47, at present Clause 36 amends Article 66 of the PACE (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 on codes of practice to allow that the Secretary of State may provide by order for a code of practice to have effect with modifications, although these must be confined to one or more of the following: the effect of the code in relation to an area of Northern Ireland specified in the order; the effect of the code in relation to a period not exceeding two years specified in the order; and the effect of the code in relation to offences or descriptions of offenders specified in the order.
The purpose of the amendment is to remove the possibility of a code of practice being modified under Article 66(6A) so as to apply within a particular area of Northern Ireland. Of course, there is only one police service in Northern Ireland and therefore there is no necessity to stipulate a geographic area.
Amendment No. 53 concerns Schedule I, which relates to the provisions in Clauses 23 and 24 dealing with the exercise of police powers by designated police support staff and contracted-out staff. The powers are similar to those that have been made available in England and Wales for designated civilians through the Police Reform Act 2002. These provisions were brought forward at the express request of the Chief Constable and with the support of the board.
Part 1 of the schedule includes a range of powers which may be needed to support the work of civilian investigating officers in specialist areas. It covers powers to enter and search premises following arrest, which are particularly relevant to the work of scenes of crimes officers, many of whom are now civilians.
Part 2 covers powers that may be exercised by detention officers at police stations. Part 3 covers escort powers. Part 4 defines the meanings of certain terms used in Schedule 1.

1509
The purpose of the specific amendment is to extend standard safeguards to warrants dealt with by designated persons in gaining access to excluded and special procedure material. I commend the amendments to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 45 to 47.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
53 Schedule 1, page 25, line 37, at end insert—
"(ba) Article 17 of that Order (safeguards) has effect in relation to the issue of a warrant under paragraph 9 of Schedule I to that Order to the designated person as it has effect in relation to the issue of a warrant under that paragraph to a constable;
(bb) Article 18 of that Order (execution of warrants) has effect in relation to a warrant issued under paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to that Order (whether to the designated person or to any other person) as if references in that Article to a constable included references to the designated person;"
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 53. I have spoken to this amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 53.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause I, page 1, line 12, after "Constable", insert—

"(aa) the Ombudsman;

(ab) the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission;

(ac) the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland;"

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
Amendment No. 3, along with Clauses 1, 2 and 17, deals with the balancing of the tripartite policing relationship between the Policing Board, the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State. In effect, Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 make two changes. Primarily, they require the Secretary of State to carry out wider consultation before determining or revising codes of practice or long-term policing objectives. At the moment he has to consult with the board with a view to obtaining its agreement and with the Chief Constable and such others as he thinks appropriate regarding any proposed code of practice or long-term policing objectives. Under the amendments proposed, these consultation processes would be expanded, making it a statutory requirement that the Secretary of State should also consult with the Police Ombudsman, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.
The proposed arrangements do not upset the existing balance. Rather they recognise the valuable contribution and input that the tripartite policing relationship brings about. They simply require the Secretary of State to consult more widely.
1510
The amendments separate out the consultation arrangements for issuing and revising codes of practice from those dealing with setting and revising long-term objectives. Codes of practice are now dealt with under the new clause proposed by Amendment No. 3, while Clause 1 now deals specifically with the consultation arrangements for long-term policing objectives. Amendment No. 2 is a consequential amendment enabling this separation to be made.
Were the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, to be in any lingering doubt, I ask him not to move Amendment No. 1A.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
[Amendment No. IA not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. I agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (2).
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. I spoke to this amendment when dealing with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. —(Lord Williams al Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 After Clause I, insert the following new clause—
"CODES OF PRACTICE
In section 27 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c.32) (codes of practice on exercise of functions) for subsection (2) substitute—
"(2) Before issuing or revising a code of practice under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult the Board with a view to obtaining its agreement to the proposed code of practice or revision.
(2A) Before issuing or revising a code of practice under this section, the Secretary of State shall also consult—

(a) the Chief Constable;

(b) the Ombudsman;

(c) the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission;

(d) the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland; and

(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.""

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. I spoke to this amendment when dealing with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.;(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
[Amendments Nos. 3A to 3C not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 3 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
48 Clause 37, page 22, line 33, at end insert—
"(2A) No order may be made under section (Independent members: declaration against terrorism)(6), (Independent members: disqualification)(2) or (Belfast)(2) unless a draft of the statutory rule containing the order to be made has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 48. I spoke to this amendment when dealing with Amendment No. 13.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 48.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 48.
48ZA Line 3, leave out "or (Belfast) (2)" and insert ",(Belfast)(2) or (Appointment of constables with special policing skills)(7)"
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move manuscript Amendment No. 48ZA as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 48. I spoke to this amendment when dealing with Amendment No. 13.
Moved, That Amendment No. 48ZA, as an Amendment to Commons Amendment No. 48, be agreed to.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I think I understood the Lord Privy Seal to say on two occasions that matters would be brought back to this House before enactment. Will he confirm that orders will be laid before Parliament only after acts of completion?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes.
On Question, Amendment No.48ZA agreed to.

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No.48
48A Line 5, at end insert—
"(2B) No order may be made under section (Independent members: disqualification)(2) or (Belfast)(2) at any time when section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (c. 1) (suspension of devolved government) is in force."
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 48A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 48. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 13.
Moved, That Amendment No. 48A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 48, be agreed to.—(Lord Smith of Clifton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 48, as amended, agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
49 Page 22, line 35, after "section", insert "(Independent members: declaration against terrorism)(6), (Independent members: disqualification)(2), (Belfast)(2), (Protected disclosures by police officers)(4),"
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move
1512
that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 49. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 13.
Moved, That, the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 49.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No.49
49A Line 2, after "(Belfast)(2)," insert "(Appointment of constables with special policing skills)(7),"
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 49A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 49. I spoke to this with Amendment No. 13.
Moved, That Amendment No. 49A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 49, be agreed to.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 49, as amended, agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
50 Clause 38, page 22, line 40, after "repeals", insert "and revocations"
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50, to which I spoke with Amendments Nos. 13 and 24.
Moved, That, the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
51 Clause 40, page 23, line 5, leave out subsection (2).
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 51.
Amendment No. 51, as your Lordships will have readily detected, deletes the privilege amendment introduced in this House on Third Reading.
Moved, That, the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 51.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT

54

Schedule 3, page 34, line 29, at beginning insert—

"Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/ 1919 (N.I. 16))

In Article 243(1), the words "Part VA,"."

55

Page 34, line 30, at end insert—

"Public Interest Disclosure (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/ 1763 (N.I. 17))

Article 16."

56 Page 34, line 37, after "Schedule 1," insert "in paragraph 3(7)(b), the word "or" immediately preceding subparagraph (iii), in paragraph 10(1)(b), the word "or" immediately preceding sub-paragraph (iii) and"
57 Page 34, line 39, at end insert—
"2 The revocations in the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and the Public Interest Disclosure (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 have effect in accordance with section (Protected disclosures by police officers)(4) above."
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 54 to 57 en bloc, to which I spoke with Amendments Nos. 15 and 24.
Moved, That, the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 54 to 57 en bloc.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003
5.44 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th March be approved.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we conducted a cross-cutting review of the criminal justice system in 1997. Eighteen proposals for reducing delay and improving service delivery in the criminal system in Northern Ireland came about. Most of those have been taken forward.
In a sense, the order is a portmanteau of provisions which will, individually, and collectively, improve the workings of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. They relate to arrangements for bail, time limits for the initial stages of proceedings, the law on sexual offences, public order and some less important issues.
There has been wide consultation. The draft order was laid before the House on 19th December for consultation; responses received were generally supportive.
The proposals on bail mirror to a large extent existing law in England and Wales, and bring certain aspects of Northern Ireland's bail processes into line with those in England and Wales. They will ensure that bail serves its purpose of allowing those accused of offences to be free of custody while at the same time ensuring that they turn up for trial, do not commit other offences and do not interfere with witnesses. There will therefore be a new offence of absconding on bail; new powers for the police to arrest without warrant those who are unlikely to surrender to custody or who break their bail conditions; and to set conditions on the grant of bail. Finally, the courts' discretion as to whether recognizances should be forfeited or not will be removed. This will help to ensure that people released on bail turn up at court or a police station as required.
On time limits, we wish to reduce the amount of time it takes for cases to pass through the formal criminal justice system. Statutory regulations have been in place in England and Wales since 1987. Targets were introduced in Northern Ireland; we think we should take legislative provision to establish time limits. We need to strike a balance between the timely disposal of cases and the need to allow proper time for the development of cases. We are also aware of the potential risks if people held in custody awaiting trial are released virtually automatically.
There are no immediate plans to introduce time limits, but we will have further consultation about the precise nature and scope of any time limits before any regulations are made.
On sexual offences, there are four main changes. Article 18 amends the law on rape with the effect that men and boys may be the victims of rape. Article 19 brings the law on heterosexual anal intercourse into line with that on homosexual activity by decriminalising such behaviour in private between any persons of or over the age of consent. Article 22 increases the penalty for indecent conduct against a child from two to 10 years' imprisonment. Article 23 abolishes the presumption that a boy under 14 is incapable of sexual intercourse. This is a fair framework for the prosecution of criminal offences.
The order also includes a number of miscellaneous provisions. I draw your Lordships' specific attention to riotous behaviour. The maximum penalty at the moment is six months on summary conviction. I think most people think that that is not sufficient. Riotous behaviour is not an arrestable offence. This makes police activity very difficult in riotous situations. We therefore propose an increase in the maximum penalty to one year and to make the offence arrestable.
There are other changes: for instance, amending summonses; pleas of guilty in the magistrates' court where the accused does not appear; lengthening the period of remand; and allowing the use of live television links, which has been successfully piloted in England.
I am confident that we are introducing arrangements compatible with the Human Rights Act. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th March be approved.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I was fortunate enough to have a very thorough briefing from Northern Ireland Office officials on this order. Although the noble and learned Lord has given us a very thorough outline of the key issues, it is another order of considerable size. I know that my colleagues in another place were concerned that they did not have sufficient time to debate these issues. However, from these Benches, I assure the noble and learned Lord that

1515
I have challenged the officials on all the pertinent issues, which I believe are all sensible and for the betterment of the people of Ulster.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, on these Benches, we welcome the order wholeheartedly, particularly the provisions on riotous behaviour.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill
5.48 p.m.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of the Local Government Bill is to deliver those measures in the White Paper Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services which require primary legislation. This is of critical importance to local authorities; we are seeking to establish a new partnership between central and local government.
The Bill paves the way for a new form of localism where councils will be given substantial new freedoms to help them improve services. The removal of red tape and unnecessary bureaucracy will allow them to focus their efforts on those things which improve effective service delivery. Other provisions in the Bill will help councils to be more responsive to local needs and pressures and, indeed, to promote closer working between councils and other partners, including local business.
There has been substantial consultation on the contents of the Bill. It deals with various aspects of local government finance. The proposals in this respect were first set out in Modernising Local Government Finance: a Green Paper published in September 2000. These were then amended and further developed in the light of the many consultation responses we received and the outcome was set out in the White Paper.
We then published a draft Bill for consultation. This was considered by a Select Committee of the other House and attracted over 300 responses from local government and other stakeholders. In the light of those responses we made further changes to the content.
Apart from the formal consultation processes, we have also been keen to involve key stakeholders in the detailed development of our proposals. For instance, the detailed work on developing and preparing for the implementation of the new prudential system—which I shall discuss in a moment—in Part 1 of the Bill is being taken forward by a joint working group drawn from central and local government, CIPFA and the Audit Commission. Similarly the arrangements and draft guidance for Business Improvement Districts have been and will continue to be developed in consultation with the local government associations,
1516
the CBI and other organisations who represent business, and with town centre management bodies and rating professionals.
I refer at this point to the report published today of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships' House. It has reported on the Bill. I welcome the report and the committee's recognition that the complexity of the Bill is a necessary consequence of dealing with local government finance. We shall, of course, look very carefully at the committee's recommendations. We shall make a serious attempt to accommodate the recommendations in the Bill in due course.
I turn now to the main provisions of the Bill. Most of the content covers both England and Wales. The Welsh Assembly Government support the Bill and have welcomed its introduction.
I shall now seek to devote no more than two or three sentences to each of the eight parts of the Bill. Part 1 concerns capital finance and provides a new framework for local government capital investment. Authorities will have greater freedom to raise finance to buy, build and improve all kinds of property and infrastructure. The long-standing requirement for government borrowing consent will be swept away. Authorities will have power to borrow without government approval if it is prudent to do so. They will simply have to satisfy themselves that they can pay the debt out of their own revenues. There are reserve powers for government to step in, but in the light of consultation, the use of these has been circumscribed so that they can be used only in pre-defined circumstances. The new prudential system is a very substantial freedom, which will be available to all authorities, and local government wants to see the Bill enacted in time for the new system to take effect from the new financial year in April 2004, rather than that which is just about to commence.
Part 2 relates to financial management. The delivery of high quality public services depends on sound financial management. Good authorities already have effective processes in place to manage and monitor their budgets effectively and have adequate provision to deal with unexpected circumstances. Part 2 will enshrine in law some basic processes of sound budgetary management. That will ensure that authorities which experience problems can be assisted.
Part 3 refers to grants. Various mechanisms to make grants are provided for in Part 3. These include a wide-ranging power to give greater flexibility in making grants to local authorities for any purpose. This new power will allow government to pay grants without imposing undue conditions, thereby allowing more grants to be delivered as unring-fenced funding. That does not give Ministers carte blanche to pay out what they want. Ministers can allocate grants only where they have the authority of Parliament to do so.
Part 4 concerns business improvement districts. I reluctantly use the acronym BIDs although I shall try to avoid using jargon. Part 4 will legislate for business improvement districts. BIDs are partnership arrangements through which local business communities

1517
and local authorities can take forward schemes which will benefit the local community, subject to the agreement of ratepayers. Projects could involve additional services such as improvements to the quality of the local environment, measures to remove graffiti more quickly or improvements to parks and open spaces among others. There are already good examples of councils and businesses working together to deliver benefits for their areas. Voluntary regeneration and town centre management schemes are thriving and these will provide a strong basis for the new BID schemes to develop once the legislation is in place.
Part 5 concerns business rates. There are various measures in Part 5 that will change the non-domestic rating system. For example, small business rate relief will benefit small firms occupying single premises with a rateable value of under £8,000. This will significantly reduce the overheads of those businesses.
Another provision in Part 5 will enable the Secretary of State to put in place a scheme to allow local retention of an element of non-domestic rates. This will provide a financial incentive for local authorities and business to work in partnership to maximise local economic growth and regeneration.
Part 6 relates to council tax. Part 6 will update council tax —that is not a euphemism—to ensure that local people contribute a fair share towards local public services. A fixed 10-year cycle of revaluation and varying the number of bands will help to do this. I ought to make clear that the Bill does not include any provision for regional council tax banding. That is not necessary as that provision is already included in the Local Government Finance Act 1992. I must make it absolutely clear that we have no plans to use the power in the 1992 Act.
Under Part 6 local authorities will have very wide discretion to grant discounts and exemptions from council tax where they consider this appropriate. Authorities will thus be free to take decisions locally in ways that best reflect the needs and circumstances of their local communities.
Part 7 is a short part dealing with housing finance. In 1999 we announced the introduction of resource accounting into the Housing Revenue Account (HRA). Part 7 of the Bill completes this, as well as removing a perceived obstacle to our social rent reforms.
We are also placing local housing strategies on a statutory footing and giving authorities the freedom to streamline their housing-related plans into a single document.
Finally, Part 8—I am aware that there are nine parts, but the final one does not count as it comprises a technical issue—deals with non-financial provisions. Some people think that local government finance is a wonderful thing but usually their eyes glaze over as they say that. This is only the Second Reading of the Bill and not the time to go into detail in that regard. Some of my colleagues in another place believe that local government finance is the reason for their existence. That does not apply to me, which is why Part
1518
8 is such a joy to behold. Part 8 contains the non-finance provisions and also gives substantial freedoms to local authorities. I shall touch on just a few examples.
Innovation will be encouraged through the power for all best value authorities to charge for discretionary services. Better-performing councils will be empowered to trade across the services they can provide. An express power will be created to give local authorities the freedom to hold advisory polls on the well-being of their communities and any matter relating to the services for which they are responsible. Councils will be allowed to retain proceeds from litter and dog-fouling penalties and spend these on local environmental improvements, and high performers will be able to use the income for any purpose.
Part 8 also includes a provision to repeal Section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. The Bill will remove the requirement for fire authorities to seek approval of the Secretary of State before making any reduction, no matter how minor or trivial, in the number of firefighting posts or appliances or before the closure of fire stations. The Bill is about extending freedoms and flexibilities to local authorities, and we believe that in a modern fire service it is not appropriate for the Secretary of State to take these decisions. They are much better taken at local level. I deviate dangerously now. The only fire station that closed in my former constituency was replaced by the first community fire station in the country but it still had to go through the ridiculous process that I mentioned.
Part 8 also deals with what is known as Section 28. During consideration of the Bill in another place, an amendment was made to repeal Section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986, more commonly known as Section 28 because the provision was implemented by Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. Those noble Lords who have done their homework will be aware of this, but I have to warn the House that I do not go along with the folklore related to the matter. I say that because I was present on the night that the section was put into the 1988 Local Government Bill. So I know exactly what was said, what was intended and who voted for what, and I have recently refreshed my memory.
Section 28 is a deeply confusing piece of legislation; indeed, it is more confusing today even than it was in 1988. Its aim, of course, is to prohibit the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities. The Government have made their position on Section 28 abundantly clear. It is an unnecessary piece of legislation. However, concerns remain, and I hope that during the course of our deliberations I shall be able to address them. Concerns have been expressed that repeal could somehow have an effect on what is taught to schoolchildren. One point needs to be made crystal clear to the House: the repeal of Section 28 will have no effect whatever on what is taught in schools. I shall repeat that: the repeal of Section 28 will have no effect whatever on what is taught in schools. Let there be no doubt that the Government's position is that children in schools should be protected from inappropriate

1519
materials and receive sex and relationships education that recognises the importance of marriage and stable relationships.
Since Section 28 was last debated in your Lordships' House, the Learning and Skills Act 2000 has been passed which gives effect to the Government's policies and establishes a very robust framework for sex and relationships education. In particular, local authorities have no role in determining what is taught in schools. Section 28 plays no part in that framework. The matter is governed by the Education Act 1996 as amended in 2000, and therefore the repeal of Section 28 would not alter the framework in any way.
In the Government's view it is time for repeal. This view received support from all parties in another place. I understand that repeal was endorsed on Report by a majority of five to one.
The Bill as a whole will deliver significant freedoms and flexibilities to local government and will promote and facilitate real improvement in the way that services are delivered to local communities. It is welcomed by local government and business alike, although I accept that noble Lords will want to explore, scrutinise and debate certain areas. It is absolutely right that that should be so. I beg to move.
6.3 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for being so commendably succinct. I was going to say "brief", but I think the word "succinct" is more appropriate and polite. I cannot promise to be quite as succinct, but I shall certainly try.
While the Regional Assemblies (Referendum) Bill could rightly be described as predicating a mish-mash of government, to which I have referred before, this Bill is a true pot-pourri, even if it is not particularly sweet-smelling. It is a highly technical concoction with some good and some very poor parts. Covering every aspect of local government from financial administration and accountability to council tax discounts and bands, it has wide implications.
Having added a number of clauses on Report in another place, I wonder whether the Government intend to add further to the Bill during its progress through this House. I ask only because suggestions were made in the weekend press that they might seek to include an environmental policy, an initiative from Mr Meacher regarding charging residents who do not conform sufficiently to separating their refuse for recycling. Perhaps the Minister can address this very important matter when he replies.
The Government have trumpeted their belief that the Bill brings greater flexibilities and freedoms for local authorities. Indeed, the Minister has just repeated that. It seeks to reduce red tape and, for high-performing councils, it offers greater scope for innovation. Local government will welcome that, and here I declare an interest as a member of a local authority. However, local government would not wish
1520
such opportunities to be available only to the golden few. As time goes on they should be made available to the whole of local government.
What does the Bill amount to? Councils are to be allowed to fund major improvements and developments through the "prudential" borrowing system, so long as they can afford to service the debt. We do not know yet whether that will carry with it a compensating revenue commitment from the Government. Perhaps it is a point we shall be able to clarify with the Minister at an early stage. The principle of the freedom is welcome. But why, having gone that far, do the Government then decide to demand that capital receipts from the sale of council housing—or a high percentage of them—are to be paid to the centre for redistribution? That will create a housing pool which will leave in the Minister's hands the reallocation of those receipts for housing purposes, but against what criteria?
In the sum of things, the £1.6 billion which may be raised annually from this source is minuscule in comparison with the enormous investment that will be required to meet the commitments already made by the Deputy Prime Minister in his White Paper on sustainable communities. Furthermore, it will deplete the independent reserve that any local authority might have built up to support a housing initiative in its own area. It would be fair to say that, in the past, such a policy crippled housing authorities and prevented much-needed capital expenditure on renovation and renewal.
It is ironic that, under these clauses, a council which is debt free as a result of disposing of its housing stock and passing most of the proceeds on to the Government could, under the terms of Clause 41, find itself contributing indirectly to reducing or relieving the debt of other, possibly less prudent councils, by way of the Secretary of State making a payment to the Public Works Loan Commissioners on their behalf from the pool.
The philosophy of redistribution is continued in the proposals to scoop up the surpluses from good, well-run housing revenue accounts and pool those so that they can be transferred to authorities which have a deficit on their accounts. We see it, too, in the measures to enable councils to levy a full rate on empty properties, but not to keep the resulting revenue. Those proposals alone could very well act as a huge disincentive to local authorities considering whether to embark on the policy. We see little evidence of freedom or flexibility and we will wish to consider the proposals in detail in Committee.
We shall want to do the same with the Government's initiative to allow local authorities to retain some or all of the growth in business rate revenue. New Clause 71 received little scrutiny in another place, although it was broadly welcomed by my honourable friend Mr Hammond. But how welcome it is will depend on the chains and shackles which could limit what it may be used for. We shall be seeking much greater clarity on this whole matter. Can the Minister confirm that wide consultation among businesses, local authorities

1521
and professional bodies will take place on the policy? Furthermore, will that consultation return to this House and to Parliament?
We shall also wish to probe further the Government's proposals for business improvement districts. It is a welcome sign of interest and commitment when businesses wish to become involved in financing a local initiative for improvement. As the Minister remarked, it is not unknown. Indeed, the White Paper makes it clear that already there are many areas where both landowners and business occupiers have joined together and resolved to contribute to a local authority plan to enhance or renovate their area. But, as the Minister also pointed out, those have been voluntary schemes. Business improvement districts will result from a vote by non-domestic ratepayers, which will become mandatory on all businesses in the area. As the Bill stands at present, that vote will be decided on a simple majority and then weighted for a majority based on the rateable values of the hereditaments.
Concerns have been expressed by small businesses—in particular the Federation of Small Businesses, from whom I have heard on this matter—that a two-thirds majority would be more appropriate to safeguard the interests of small businesses. That point was also referred to in the Select Committee report. We shall press this matter further in Committee.
As only non-domestic ratepayers are to be involved—the occupants of premises—the major landowners will not be involved in the electoral decisions on these schemes. Further consideration needs to be given as to how they become involved, at least by convention if not statutorily. Also, it is not clear how the local community other than the business community will be involved in the development and approval of any plans. The local authority will have to play a major part in any plans and partnerships, but we believe that the Bill should provide for the views of the local community to be sought on any proposals.
I turn briefly to the provisions for rate relief for small businesses. Although the principle is welcomed, there are questions as to whether the threshold of rateable values of under £8,000 is too low. We will wish to consider suggestions that have been made to us that that should be increased to at least £10,000.
There are a number of provisions relating to rates and council tax, not all of which I want to go into now. Subject to understanding the regulations, we would be broadly in favour of those regarding the local retention of non-domestic rates. On the face of it, that would give a local authority a larger local revenue base, as was confirmed by the Minister. However, the desirability of that will depend on the constraints put on it by legislation. It would be helpful if the Minister were able to reassure us that the regulations referred to in the Bill would be available before Committee, so that we might have an opportunity to consider them at the same time.
We are not likely to be so accepting of the power to increase the number of council tax bands. Clause 79 is very wide in allowing the Secretary of State,
1522
"to make provision for a different number of valuation bands".
How many and why? The glorious simplicity of the council tax is that it is partly based on property and partly on individual tax. The value of the property is meant to be only a part of the whole, not the deciding factor.
When the council tax was introduced, it was understood that the bands were a device only to ensure that those in poorer areas of housing did not pay the same as those in more affluent areas. However, it also recognised that those in better-off housing might be impoverished, and those in poorer housing might in fact be quite well off. That is still the situation. The intention was that it should be simple to understand, and in general I believe that the relationship between the limited number of bands is comprehensible. The danger lies in the changing value of properties in various parts of the country. Those in the south-east of England are well in excess of those in the north. for example. Therefore, the burden of council tax could be once again shifted to those in this part of the country.
We can understand the need to update the property values in the interest of accuracy, but the adding of further bands makes that look as though the Government might be intending to turn council tax into a property wealth tax, and without further parliamentary scrutiny. We would resist that approach. We all know that council tax bills have already risen enormously under this Government and that that is well recognised by those paying them. Further rises caused by bureaucratic meddling will surely not be very popular.
One element of the Bill—that relating to attributing performance categories of local authorities—has already been implemented despite the fact that this legislation, which authorises it, has not been passed. Most authorities have now been assessed and placed in one of four categories. That seems to be an inescapable process now to release the best authorities from the plethora of inspection regimes, and to provide at least a modicum of relief from continual government involvement in local government affairs.
That relief, however, does not necessarily apply to other measures relating to financial administration generally considered in local government to be unnecessary, particularly the statutory requirements for the monitoring of budgets and for the Secretary of State to set the level of reserves. I hear what the Minister says about that being intended only for use in councils where there are difficulties, but once legislation is in place it is likely to be used.
There are also some concerns around the general power of the Secretary of State to provide grants to particular local authorities. Although that is suggested as being a mechanism to circumvent the need for specific grants, there is a much greater possibility—it was heavily denied by the Minister—that that could result in the Secretary of State having far too much power of allocation to particular authorities.
There are two further matters. I do not intend to comment in detail on them now, but they may be addressed during the course of the debate and will

1523
form part of our deliberations at later stages. They are the provisions on the repeal of Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1986, and the new Clause 120 regarding the Fire Services Act.
With regard to the first, if the Government continue to include Clause 121—it resulted from an amendment in another place—in the Bill to abolish Section 28 of the 1986 Act, I confirm that, if there were to be a vote, on our side it would be a free vote. We recognise that that is a very sensitive issue, and that there are strongly held views on both sides, some of which may well be expressed today. However, Parliament's job must be to ensure that children and young people are protected from unsuitable material and information, either supplied or promoted to them under any educational guise.
We shall therefore press the views put forward by our colleagues in another place. In particular, we will table amendments to ensure that the existing departmental guidelines on sex and relationship education are strengthened and given the force of law, that rights are given to parents to force a ballot on the acceptability to parents of any sex-education material being used, and to give parents the option for their children not to attend sex relationship classes. Over and above that, we will put forward any other matters which in Committee we consider appropriate in that regard.
Clause 120 repeals Section 19 of the Fire Services Act. That arises from the Bain report, as the Minister said. It was drafted before it was considered that the fire Bill, which has just been laid before Parliament and which would undo much of what is being proposed in this Bill in relation to the devolving to local level decisions about the employment of fire and emergency cover resources, might be necessary. In the light of that Bill, it is to be hoped that rational decisions are made by the lire service on the pay deal before it is necessary either to implement it or to consider further the provisions. I imagine that there might have to be changes, subject to the eventual outcome of those decisions.
Clauses 102 and 103 refer to staff' transfer matters. Essentially, they implement the statutory guidance on best value and performance, which is a code of practice on workforce matters in local authority service contracts. As they stand, the clauses effectively undermine the whole rationale of local authorities seeking to externalise any service through a contract. They imply that each contract will have to include that staff must be employed on standard local authority terms and conditions, as the contract must treat them as though TUPE applies. Whether or not local authority staff are transferred, Clause 102(1)(a) makes it clear that directions can be issued to that effect. Under those circumstances, we will probe the clauses much further.
Finally, in another place my honourable friend Philip Hammond put forward an amendment to bring body-piercing establishments under a licensing regime. I understand from him that the Minister, Mr Raynsford, was inclined to accept the principle but felt that the
1524
amendment needed some attention to make it legally acceptable and enforceable. Does the Minister have any news on that, so that we can decide whether it will be necessary for us to reintroduce that amendment in Committee, or whether the Government will be willing to do so themselves?
There is much to be done and we look forward to the next stages of this legislation, and the considerable debate it is likely to engender.
6.19 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords. during the recent debate on the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, I referred to local government as being one of the "spheres" rather than one of the "tiers" of government. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, used a synonym to indicate that he thought that that was rubbish. I will try to maintain the fiction of being ladylike—at any rate, within the Chamber—so I shall not repeat the synonym but I stick by the term and my point. I referred to "spheres" of government because we are not discussing a hierarchy of importance—each level of government and each part of government are important.
I must declare an interest as a Member of the London Assembly and currently its chair. In many ways my years as a London borough councillor were the most satisfying of any of the political jobs that I have done. For a time, at any rate, it was the most hands-on job. There has been much debate about whether the Bill is a centralising or decentralising measure. I start one stage further back: is it likely to increase or decrease participation in the political process?
Civic engagement can take many forms: voting, of course; belonging to a neighbourhood committee; being a school governor and so on. Many have executive and scrutiny components. One means of engagement is as a councillor. That job must carry its own job satisfaction—that of doing, not just of being. I can see increasingly the strains on colleagues—members of a number of authorities—and officers. Because of the controls with which they must battle, those strains are greater than those that applied for some of the time that I was a councillor.
Therefore, to the extent to which the Bill decentralises power, it is welcome. However, beauty being somewhat in the eye of the beholder, we on these Benches do not see all of the provisions as being quite as decentralising as do the Government.
I acknowledge that much of the Bill is about returning autonomy to local authorities. Well, some autonomy is returned to some local authorities. It is extraordinary that our constitutional and legislative history mean that freedom is handed down. "Earned autonomy", as the phrase goes, is a contradiction in terms.
When the Minister introduced the Bill in the Commons on 7th January, he said that there were "two key themes". The first was,
"the need to devolve power and responsibility to local authorities. The second is the importance of driving up standards of delivery in every local authority area. The two arc inextricably linked".— [Official Report, Commons, 7/1/03: col. 45.]

1525
Yes, my Lords, but the Government sometimes seem to apply the second theme as a sine qua non. We believe that autonomy of itself is a driver of good service delivery because it enables services to be designed for local circumstances. Of course things sometimes go wrong, but there must be the freedom to make mistakes.
I must say that I, the Greater London Authority and the Mayor—I do not speak for him that often but I believe that I do so in this regard—remain to be convinced of the need for new statutory provisions in respect of minimum reserves, reports on the robustness of estimates, budgetary monitoring and so on. An authority already has to have regard to statutory budget-setting provisions covering reserves, proper financial administration, relevant chief finance officer advice, CIPFA guidance, external audit reports and so on. Are central government best placed to judge minimum reserves? For instance—I have grappled with this topic over the past three years—central government made no provision for reserves when they set up the Metropolitan Police Authority and Transport for London. In London, we wait to see whether our fears about the reserves that are available to London Underground are confirmed when it is handed over to Transport for London.
The ways in which borrowing is controlled will exercise us in forthcoming stages. Defining long-term liabilities and just what is within the public sector borrowing requirement will not be a dry, technical exercise. I shall certainly try not to let my eyes glaze over about that. I sometimes believe that this is another case of "Through the Looking-Glass" and Humpty-Dumpty; it involves saying, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean. When I refer to the public sector borrowing requirement, it means what I choose it to mean". I share the concerns that have been expressed that with borrowing controls loosened, there is always the danger that the Treasury (on whose grants so much is dependent for so long) will not adequately support local government.
My noble friend Lady Maddock will deal more extensively with the housing provisions of the Bill. I noticed that the Minister in the Commons referred to authorities with a genuine need to spend on housing investment being able to look forward to a new framework with confidence. Surely every authority has problems housing numbers of people who are in need of decent, affordable housing. In other words, they have problems with numbers and/or—it is often a case of "and"—housing conditions. Is there an authority without genuine need?
Many issues are raised with regard to pooling capital receipts, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said. Is it realistic to expect local authorities to dispose of assets—to the extent that they have any—and to pool receipts, given that the regimes for local government finance appear to change so fast?
I turn to council tax. There are no euphemisms about that. I noticed that Members in the Commons referred to progressive council tax on the one hand and regressive council tax on the other. Perhaps I may leave that with an exclamation mark!
1526
We will of course consider the issue of banding. Mr Raynsford said that much could happen by 2005. It is important in our view that the rebanding is robust enough for the medium term at least, whatever happens by 2005.
We welcome the powers to trade and charge, but the dependency on CPA performance raises a number of questions in my mind. One of them—it is perhaps too technical for tonight—is about what happens if the performance assessment of an authority changes during the course of the contract. What is the position of the other authority? That involves the whole issue of vires. Some of us lived through the era of the Hammersmith swaps case.
The honourable Member for Denton and Reddish, who is the joint chairman of the Select Committee, talked bluntly at Second Reading in another place about the performance of those assessing performance. He said that some Audit Commission decisions were extremely subjective and that some people from the Audit Commission who went to local authorities did not have a clue about what is going on. That will ring true to many. The most telling approval of the comprehensive performance assessment regime would be if central government departments submitted themselves to it.
We have new statutory provisions, not a tax, in the business improvement district (BID) provisions. I wish that there was more time in which to discuss new forms of taxation generally. I refer for a moment to the desirability of examining the enabling of development, particularly of infrastructure, through new forms of taxation. It is obvious in London that businesses that happen to be on the route of the Jubilee Line extension have benefited significantly. Being able to harness—to tax— those who benefit from, for example, CrossRail—we hope to see that big new development—could enable that scheme to proceed.
On BIDs, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, is involving himself with the Bill, given his hard work on that issue. He has previously raised it in the House. He will want to consider the role of owners as well as occupiers of property. I make it clear that I am an enthusiast for the scheme; I want to make it work. That includes, among other things, wanting to see the possibility of securitising an income stream, enabling capital to be released and invested in local schemes. However, I confess to being slightly troubled by the requirement of only a simple majority—50 per cent plus one—to impose what is, after all, a levy on those who may have voted against. I accept that there is a double lock of those numbers and rateable values.
I am aware of the concern that such a scheme may, taken together with the business rate, appear a "double whammy", especially to small businesses. I thought that the RICS in that very helpful briefing hit the nail on the head, saying that business rates policies, as a category, are simply too complicated to be transparent to the person—in this case, the business—which pays them.

1527
Perhaps I may raise one small financial matter. I hope that we can find time to deal with it and a spot for it in the Bill. I am going very much from a major to a minor issue, but this is something which exercises councillors. I refer to the threshold for registration of gifts and hospitality, which is £25 for councillors as against £125 for MPs. That is almost unworkably low in London and the South East. It is topical for me because yesterday the GLA Standards Committee found itself looking at embarrassingly different assessments by a number of us of the value of a dinner which several of us had attended in the City. More importantly, the independent Member, who is a very senior Member, described the exercise of such a low limit as "time wasting".
Bills such as this are often the repository for disconnected provisions. One of those here is to enable polls for local elections to be combined with those for European parliamentary elections. My personal view is that the convenience of electors overrides other considerations, but whatever the decision I beg the Government to let us have it soon to enable planning to take place.
One other disconnected but hugely important provision is the repeal of the so-called Section 28. I expect that some speakers today will concentrate only on that. As has been said by the Minister, not only is it a sensible deregulation of redundant legislation, but it is much, much more. Honourable Members in another place were careful to base their arguments on the redundancy issue. For me, the repeal of Section 28 is hugely symbolic and I welcome it enormously. The suggestion that I have heard—that repeal of the section is designed to stop councils spending money on gay people—is one which would not, I think, be made about any other group.
We shall examine the Bill not only in its own terms but also in the context of local government structures as they now are. The Government are letting go somewhat. They designed the executive/scrutiny split, and we shall ask what role they now see for the scrutineer in areas which are the subject of the Bill
There is a great deal to do. Tonight I have not even been able to start on the issues as they affect Wales or matters such as the benefits of charities extending to community amateur sports clubs. I promised that I would mention that. There is a great deal to welcome in the Bill but, sadly, not everything.
6.33 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, first, I welcome the Bill and thank the Minister for his introduction, which was enormously helpful. As I have said before in this House, bishops bring to the House their own immediate experience of local communities. In my own case I and my colleagues have close dealings with two county councils and a number of boroughs and districts. The churches and faith communities have strong and day-to-day relationships with colleagues who represent the political and public needs of our local communities. Whatever we can do in this
1528
place to strengthen confidence and pride in the public service offered by all involved in local government, it is our duty to do. So, I welcome the Bill.
The principle of subsidiarity, which is very much rooted in the Bill, is vital to the health of our politics and our service. We should always do all we can as close as we can to local networks and communities, which are the foundation of a healthy and democratic society.
I hope that the Minister will forgive me for not, like the previous speakers, going through every area of the Bill. I want to comment on two issues, on one of which I am sure noble Lords would expect a bishop to comment. Clearly, I need to comment on the repeal of Section 28. But in both the issues that I want to raise we need to hold on to the principle of seeking to resist centralising power and encouraging local trust and responsibility in local authorities.
That is why I believe this is a good moment to address the vexed issue of Section 28. There has been a great deal of debate upon it. As Members of the House will know, I have always found this particular section unhelpful. It is both a confusing piece of law and discriminatory. But others of my colleagues have taken a different view and quite a number of people, even though they have been concerned about the content of this legislation, have felt that to repeal it might be giving all the wrong signals and messages. So there has been a variety of perspectives around this and we need to be sensitive to all of them.
However, all of us on these Benches, and I am sure more widely, welcome what I believe to be an argument that we are beginning to win; that is, that marriage is a public good for the health of our whole society, not just a good for those who enter that institution. It is good for people who are gay or straight, single, married, divorced, or in reconstituted families. Whatever styles of life people find themselves to be in, marriage is an institution that is a public good; we would say a gift of God to the human community. If marriage is not in good repair in our society, the whole community suffers. So we have a collective responsibility.
I was grateful for the Minister's comments on the learning and skills Bill contribution to all of this. My good friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, made a very important contribution chairing the Church of England's Board of Education in encouraging the use of that Bill to provide in this area. Perhaps I may remind the House of the guidance on sex and relationship education from the Secretary of State, which begins:
"(1)The Secretary of State must issue guidance designed to secure … the following general objectives …
(2) The general objectives are that the pupils—

(a) learn about the nature of marriage …

(b) learn the significance of marriage and stable relationships as key building blocks of community and society;

(c) learn to respect themselves and others".

It goes on in that vein.

1529
I am delighted to hear the Minister re-affirm the Government's commitment to that guidance. In terms of people who will be anxious about such matters, without putting things on the face of the Bill it would be good if the Government and all of us kept such matters under review so that the liberties that are given to local authorities are used well and that our gay and lesbian citizens who feel themselves to have been discriminated against in this piece of legislation are rescued from that feeling, which I think we have a public duty to do, and the community as a whole are satisfied that abuse of that new liberty will not take place.
That, to my mind, is the good news. My second issue is a little more troubling. As a bishop in the south of England, I am not at all convinced by the Bill's provision concerning the use of capital receipts from housing sales by local authorities. Clause 11(2)(b) is the one which causes concern. As I understand it—I look forward to the Government's response to this—the effect of this clause is to pool resources from local authority housing sales and redistribute them across the country. I suggest that that is wrong in principle. I shall turn to the practice in a moment. This may be seen as a piece of Government taxation by the backdoor. The Government are taking the resources that thus far have seemed to be the responsibility of local communities and are putting them elsewhere. They purport to tax the rich to meet the needs of the poor. We all support the need to ensure an adequate distribution of resources in our society so that distressed communities across the country are able to meet housing needs, but not by another attack—dare I suggest—on the principle of local accountability for local resources. It seems to me that this provision goes against the spirit of the rest of the Bill.
I suspect that the attack on principle goes further than that, because the people who are to have their resources raided are those who manage the resources particularly efficiently and well. So the measure punishes efficiency improvements in local government and debt-free local authorities will suffer the most. Thirty-two local authorities in the south of England of all political persuasions are debt free and all are at risk under this provision. An analogy put to me was that it is a little like a gardener who, seeking to kill off a few weeds, sprays weed killer across the whole of the flower bed. Flourishing work will suffer.
I turn to the practice. I know that it has not escaped the Government's attention that we have a housing problem in the south of England. It may come as a surprise to some that even in the leafy suburbs of Surrey and north-east. Hampshire, which is my part of the country, we have significant housing and homelessness problems. In the present housing market, in the face of homelessness local authorities have to provide for growing numbers of people who are on their lists.
At present Waverley council, for example—one of those debt-free authorities that has a principled policy of using all its housing receipts for housing provision—has over 1,800 households on its housing needs register, 450 of whom are tenants of the council
1530
or housing associations in need of larger accommodation and 134 of whom are homeless households in temporary accommodation, nine of whom are in bed and breakfast accommodation. In 2001–02 the council rehoused 354 such families and households in council properties and 38 in housing association properties. Those figures fell to 271 and 31 the following year.
I understand—the Minister can comment on this—that should this piece of legislation come onto statute law, the Government propose to phase it in over three years and at the end of that period only 25 per cent of receipts will be left in the hands of local authorities. I think that is bad politics and a bad principle. I wonder whether we can encourage the Government to think again about it. Maybe we need a provision to ensure by statute that the moneys received by local authorities from housing sales are used for housing purposes. Maybe there is another way of dealing with the matter.
As I said earlier, there is much that we welcome in the Bill, not least its consistent approach across the face of the Bill in seeking to liberate and to trust local communities with their own affairs. That is vital for the flourishing of local government which has not had a good history in recent years. I look forward to seeing this measure proceed, with some improvements that your Lordships will bring to the Bill. I also look forward to the rest of the debate.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Alli: My Lords, I wish to concentrate my comments on the new freedoms for local councils that will help to deliver improved services, on the new capital finance systems, and on the issues relating to capital receipts. Of course, I jest! Like a moth to a flame, I am drawn to the issue of the repeal of Section 28 contained in Clause 121.
The last time we debated Section 28 I react out a letter from a 15 year-old boy. It said,
"I am very depressed, and very alone. I used to be a perfect pupil getting high credit marks, but because of the bullying my marks have fallen. I can't tell anyone. I wish I was dead, just to have some peace. I am so tired—tired of living and tired of this so called 'life'. Because of the stress I can hardly eat and I have started taking lots of painkillers. Nobody knows I am gay. I have no-one to turn to and have no support from anyone. My life has been nothing but a bad headache. Some say we are all free people but we must question: are we really free? Is it so wrong being gay?"
To any caring, loving individual ones natural instinct is to reassure that young man that being gay is not wrong; that he has a fulfilling life ahead of him and that he is valued as an equal member of our society. People ask me why Section 28 is important. Section 28 denies that reassurance to such an individual at a time when he needs it most. It creates confusion across a whole range of services and organisations.
The opponents of the repeal of Section 28 talk about children. Let us face that issue head on because I am tired of this debate being hijacked by people who claim to be serving the interests of children. I say that not just because I believe that Section 28 has always been a law fashioned in bigotry, but also because the wider

1531
context in which Section 28 sits and the management of the policies that it was meant to regulate have been changed, updated and are now out of date.
As a result, Section 28 is a law that is now completely redundant. That fact alone should be enough to support its repeal. Opponents to the repeal of Section 28 know as well as I that we already have a substantial structure of protection for our children. They know as well as I that there are guidelines already existing in relation to sex and health education in Section 430 of the 1996 Act. They know as well as I that there are guidelines and procedures built in to the role of school governors and parent governors ensuring that the will of the parents finds its place in the provision of sex education. They know as well as I that there is already a statutory basis in education law to protect children from inappropriate material. They know as well as I that this provision does nothing to protect a child in a school from inappropriate teaching or training materials. And they know as well as I that this is a piece of legislation fashioned out of prejudice and sustained by bigotry.
Section 28 has long lost its place in rational debate. It has become, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, symbolic. Times are a-changing. I know that this House is moving on this issue and I do not want us to change Section 28 because of a threat from another place. It is worth remembering that another place has voted repeatedly on this issue. Its votes inserted Clause 121 into the Bill and those votes were free votes, a most important currency.
To change Section 28 by consent of this House is my objective. I say to the party opposite, it has an opportunity to lead public opinion through this complex area. I want no political capital out of Section 28. The arguments are well rehearsed and I hope that when we finally come to debate whatever amendment emerges to retain Section 28 that noble Lords in all parts of the House, including the party opposite and the Lords spiritual, will find it possible once and for all to repeal a piece of legislation for which the time has passed. I wish the Bill well and I shall return to Clause 121 at a more appropriate stage.
Forgive me for raising this issue when this Bill has so many other important sections that should be addressed. I hope that your Lordships will understand that I felt I had to voice my concerns in this debate. I look forward to what I am sure will be an interesting debate—I hope the last of its kind in relation to Section 28.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, will forgive me if I do not follow him into that debate at this stage. I wish to confine my remarks to Part 4 of the Bill which introduces the business improvement districts. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, called them BIDs; I suspect that most people will do so.
1532
I begin with a brief description of what BIDs are and how they work. The Outline of Proposals states:
"The Bill provides a statutory scheme enabling local businesses to initiate a process by which, if there is sufficient demand in their locality, a business improvement district ("BID") can be set up. Demand is to be tested by a vote amongst the business ratepayers of the area concerned, overseen by the local authority. The scheme proposed in the Bill does not purport to be a model for all circumstances. Rather, it offers one tool through which some town or industrial improvement projects might be pursued … The business plan will be carried out by a company formed for the purpose. The company will be financed by a charge paid by the business ratepayers within the area of the BID unless the scheme exempts them.
That is not a statement on Part 4 of the Bill. It is a statement about the Business Improvement Districts Bill, a Private Member's Bill which I introduced into the House over five years ago. It had its Second reading on 26th November 1997 and after full Committee and Report stages was read a third time and sent to another place on 10th March 1998; and that is where it stopped. So here we are, five years later and—if I may be guilty of a bad pun—it is BID time again. The Government's Bill is not exactly the same as mine but perhaps the House will recognise the present Bill's parentage. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, can reassure the Deputy Prime Minister that I shall not ask his department for royalties.
Part 4 is not this Government's first attempt to get non-domestic ratepayers to pay more rates for better services. Their original proposal was to legislate for "a supplementary rate" but, as the White Paper, Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services described, that found no favour with either local authorities or business. I need not quote paragraph 7.16. It clearly ruled that out. So the Government scrapped the supplementary rate and did what they should have done in the first place—go for BIDs, as now set out in Part 4 of the Bill.
There are many similarities between this Bill and the earlier Bill. That is not surprising since both claim their inspiration from the BIDs system operating in many American cities. I was intrigued to read the department's press release on publishing the guidance notes which states:
"New York-style schemes aimed at revitalising town centres and other business locations took a step closer today as Local Government Minister, Nick Raynsford, published new draft Government guidance".
I shall return to that guidance in a moment. However, unlike the Government's ill-fated supplementary rate, Part 4 now has the support of the main local government associations and of the representative bodies of the business community. Again, I shall not quote what they said but I have the quotes with me if that is challenged.
As my noble friend Lady Hanham said from the Front Bench, Part 4 will need careful scrutiny in Committee. However, today I have time to raise only one problem that the Government still have to resolve. I refer to the role of the owners, lessors, landlords of property—the freeholders who are not themselves ratepayers.

1533
The essence of a BID, as opposed to the voluntary schemes, which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, mentioned, is that to take effect it must be supported by a majority, both by number and rateable value, of the non-domestic ratepayers occupying property in the defined area covered by the BID. If the majority votes "Yes", all must contribute. That is the point. In a voluntary scheme—and there are a good many in this country—there is no way of dealing with what are often referred to as the "free riders", firms who gain the benefit of the improvements that a BID can bring but cannot be made to pay the levy.
In this country, the lessors of properties let to tenants are not the ratepayers because they are not the occupiers. Under the Bill, therefore, they will have no vote, no participation in the ballot. And there is no power to make them contribute. "So what?", you may say, "Surely the purpose of the scheme is to benefit the occupiers, the shopkeepers, offices, restaurants, cafés and so on which will benefit from the improved services and environment that a BID will bring.". But the Government themselves recognise that the owners, the landlords, have a vital role to play.
I mentioned the BIDs guidance note. It is a valuable document, published earlier this year by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. At page 16 the question is asked:
"Who can set up a Business Improvement District?"
The answer is instructive.
"A BID is a partnership. Any one of the partners in a BID may take responsibility for setting it up, including the local authority and any one of the businesses or landlords in an area. We envisage that in the vast majority of cases, local businesses and landlords will take the lead".
When schemes operate successfully, it has always been the owners of the property in the area who have taken the lead and started it off. I received recently a description of a scheme in Oxford Street which has had a dramatic effect on improving the environment and reducing crime. The entire initiative came from the freeholders of the properties within the area. But under the Bill they have no vote in the ballot; any freeholder who does not want to contribute cannot be made to do so.
It is difficult to see how that issue should be dealt with. The Bill allows them to contribute. That is right. There is too a great deal in the guidance about early consultation. That is right. But in the end free riders cannot be compelled to contribute. Amendments were moved in another place to put the matter right but they were rejected by the noble Lord's honourable friends on the Government Front Bench.
In America, where BIDs originated, the real estate tax—as it is often called—is paid by the owners of property. It is a tax on the ownership of property. In the UK the non-domestic rate is paid by the occupier and it is a tax on the occupation of the property. As the Government argued in another place, to levy the BID charge in this country on property owners would be to introduce a new tax requiring complex and costly administration. I understand the argument. It was argued at great length in Standing Committee in
1534
another place by the mover of the amendment and the Minister. But I do not accept that that has necessarily to be the last word.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will remember that five years ago we debated this issue at some length in Committee and at the Report stage of my Bill. The promoters of the Bill envisaged that to gain acceptance by the voting occupiers, lessors would need to agree a fair apportionment of the cost of the BID levy between each landlord and his tenant. Often it is said that if you let under a 999-year lease the landlord has no interest in any BID. However, if the lease is to fall in next year, so that the freeholder will become the owner of the property, of course the answer is that almost the entire benefit of a BID will accrue to him and he should therefore pay the levy. It was said that without such an agreement between landlords and tenants, the scheme would never get off the ground—the ratepayers would not vote for it and it would not receive a majority.
My Bill provided that if a landlord and tenant could not agree what was a fair and equitable apportionment of the burden of the levy, it could be referred to the county court. That is not the only possible solution. I have asked the representatives of the property world, who are anxious to be included in the BIDs scheme, to advance new proposals that might be framed as amendments to the Bill in Committee. As it stands, Part 4 is incomplete and we could do better.
In the meantime, I welcome Part 4 as an old friend and look forward to improving his wardrobe.
7 p.m.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, in the debate on corporate governance on 12th March, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, referred to Halifax town hall. It is one of those flukes that he is presiding over us this evening. Perhaps for the last time, I declare an interest as a member of a local authority. I have been a member of Calderdale Council, which is based in Halifax town hall, for 25 of the past 30 years. But last Tuesday, I did not submit any nomination papers and, therefore, have 28 days left. There has been some comfort in being in that building, being here and knowing that Sir Charles Barry was the one who designed them both.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, referred to the inscription above the town hall in Halifax, ''Act wisely". They have plenty to act wisely about. As I have reviewed the past 30 years, I have considered the loss of significance of local government. I thought, "When were the halcyon days? What was it like between the wars?". I have got hold of the minute book of Halifax council for the entire year—three and a half inches; just short of 2000 pages—for 1936–37.
About half of the pages consist of lists of bills that it paid, rather than deep policy. But I then find that they had many committees—30 odd—but were a hit more sparing on sub-committees and working parties. They had committees to deal with health and hospitals; light, heat and power; public assistance; maternity and child welfare; and pensions. Not a PFI or a PPP in sight.

1535
Of course, much of that work was taken over by the state just after the war. But what has happened since? Just as I entered local government, public transport went to a metropolitan county, then to a quango, and was then privatised. The police were delegated to a local government quango—which is now rather less a local government quango. The same happened with the fire service. The ambulance service went with the health service, which was nationalised. Water and sewerage went to a quango and was then privatised.
In my time, the colleges went to a quango. In our case, highways are quasi-regionalised. Housing is now in the hands of a social landlord—because that was how resources could be made available that would not otherwise be available to improve and enhance the housing stock. In education, local authorities have far less to do—I believe that to be a good thing, in that there has been delegation to those in schools with real responsibility.
What is left? We have had the three "E"s of efficiency, economy and effectiveness; with best value we have the four "C"s of compare, challenge, compete and consult. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that he is trying to remove the jargon, because we have comprehensive performance assessments and, usually, we must have a strategic partnership somewhere.
My council alone is involved in more than 100 partnerships. It is not alone in that. A multitude of councils is in the same position. It occurs to me that those who are acting wisely, if they saw the need, got on with it. Local government was a major building block of democracy. It is now debilitated and, rather than being a building block, is more like a wrung-out sponge.
What of the Bill? For me, the foregoing puts it into some context. Reading the documents that have been made available to us about the Bill, it is interesting that the Select Committee on Local Government, Transport and the Regions in another place states, referring to local government:
"Government must be prepared to trust it much more",
For me, that is a test for the Bill. Will it help?
I have four points. The first is the borrowing regime. It is suggested that it gives power and responsibility to the local authority; if so, I welcome it. We shall need to read the detail. What are the Minister's powers? Are they a back-stop or a front-stop. If they are a back-stop, so be it. Reference has already been made to business improvement districts. Will the business community wonder why it pays business rates in the first place? When considering what are termed business districts, one could have first, second, third, fourth and fifth-class business districts, depending on whether there is one or how much people want to pay. That may not be too bright an idea when considering our localities—especially the built environment.
1536
Secondly, will that be a reason for local authorities to stop doing what they are doing now because they say, "Perhaps it would be better done by business improvement districts. Then they can pick up some bills".
My third point concerns council tax revision. I note the detailed points made about changing bands and this, that or the other, but the major thing about council tax is that it is to pay. The major feature of council tax that is to pay is that there is rather more to pay this year than last. That keeps happening.
Without tinkering with council tax, we need a system in which people can have confidence. In 28 days' time, votes will be cast by people who are concerned and who will take it out on certain people they believe to have been responsible for the council tax being significantly enhanced. However, those councillors may have felt that they had no option, because of the disposition of resources made available by the Government, about what to do to keep services going for people in their communities.
The Government must grasp the point that it is easy to push responsibility onto councils, so that they must stick up council tax to keep services going while the Government can say, "We are very good and do not raise taxes nationally".
I should like to end on a positive note for the Minister. Vibrant local government needs good people. With one or two colleagues, last week I was asked to meet some bankers. They told us about their social and corporate responsibility. I suggested that they might be certain that their staff are able to serve local and national government to give public service. They said, "We cannot do that because of the Political Parties and Referendums Act. We have decided that we are not making political donations. If we give people time off to do these things, we shall have to declare it and don't want to do that". I am delighted that element is in the Bill so that banks, financial services and big business can be responsible. Often, people who serve as councillors work in some element of the public sector. The private sector will be able to play a better part and people will be given time off to do this important work. Serving as a member of a local authority is a high calling. It is important. It is also important that real opportunity exists, that it is not constrained and debilitated, and that council members can make their localities interesting, enjoyable and exciting places.
7.10 p.m.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I wish to speak specifically about Clause 76, which will allow English authorities to reduce or remove the 50 per cent discount that applies to dwellings with no residents for classes of dwellings prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
Local authorities in Wales already have power under the Wales-only provision in Section 12 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to reduce to 25 per cent or to remove the current 50 per cent

1537
discount for classes of unoccupied dwellings as prescribed by the Welsh Assembly. Clause 76 gives English authorities some additional flexibility that is not included in the existing provision for Wales. Extending Clause 76 to Wales would allow the Welsh Assembly to prescribe classes of dwellings where a Welsh local authority may reduce the discount to amounts other than the 25 per cent or zero permitted under Section 12—and also to decide whether those discounts apply to the whole or part of the local authority's area.
The powers conferred by Clause 76 on English authorities that allows them a degree of flexibility should be extended to Wales. It is absolutely essential for Welsh local authorities to be given those additional powers and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's views on that clause.
7.12 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, although I shall be concentrating on one issue, I am delighted by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in response to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform in respect of criticisms of the Bill. We all welcome what the noble Lord has said. That was a very critical report. It is worth noting that since the committee's inception under the last Conservative Government and subsequently under the present Government, its recommendations have always been agreed. We look forward to that continuing.
Unfortunately, the Water Bill taking place in Grand Committee prevents my noble friend Lady O'Cathain from speaking in this debate. She wishes to contribute at later stages and will. She has asked me to express her concern about the repeal of Clause 28 and also wishes to persuade the Government to consider extending the power to license sex shops—a power that was secured by Westminster City Council via a Private Member's Bill.
In this country, we have freedom of religion and belief. The state upholds the rule of law that provides the basis for freedom and tolerance—but it is right and proper for there to be safeguards against state imposition of belief. Those safeguards and protections are all the more important when the state provides services for children. Parents bear the heaviest responsibility for raising and protecting children. The state should not undermine the beliefs of parents. Nor should the state permit its employees to manipulate or indoctrinate children.
Under current law, local authorities are constrained in three areas that can be the subject of controversy. In those areas, the law acts either to restrict the actions of local authority employees or to restrict expenditure of taxpayers' money. The first area is politics. Section 27 of the Local Government Act 1988 forbids local authorities from incurring expenditure for party political purposes. Education law also requires that when dealing with political issues, schools must give a balanced presentation of opposing views.
The second area is religion, where regulation is extensive. Since 1944, there has been an elaborate procedure for determining the content of religious
1538
education in maintained schools. Each local education authority must have its own special advisory council to oversee what is taught. Teachers' unions still have a veto on the content of religious education. Among other safeguards, every pupil has a right of withdrawal from religious education.
The third area of regulation is sex education. If politics and religion are controversial areas of the curriculum, so too is sex education. In 1986 Parliament amended the law to require that sex education was given in such a way as to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life. When I was an education Minister, that safeguard was not sufficient to assuage parental concerns. In 1993 I was personally involved in making sex education a discrete subject and delegating responsibility for the content of the subject to the governing bodies of schools. For the first time parents were given a statutory right for their children not to receive sex education.
Subsequently I was involved in drawing up sex education guidance from the department, which was in place until it was revised in 2000 following further amendments to the law agreed by your Lordships. Those government amendments required that schools have regard to the new guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
Many parents are concerned about the use of inappropriate materials in schools, which is why Parliament has regulated sex education. Those who support Clause 121 of the Bill and seek the repeal of Section 28 have failed adequately to grasp that point. They have failed to accept that sexuality—just like politics or religion—is a controversial area where parents have strong concerns that their children be protected.
Opinion polls show that the vast majority of parents do not want homosexuality promoted in schools. In the referendum funded by Brian Souter, 1 million Scots voted to keep Section 28—86.8 per cent of those who voted. A poll carried out in the Prime Minister's own constituency of Sedgefield in 2000 found that 71 per cent of people wanted Section 28 retained.
Parents are also concerned about inappropriate materials that cover heterosexuality as well as homosexuality. Section 28 was introduced for a reason. Some local authorities were actively promoting homosexuality in schools. Three years ago my noble friend the late Lady Young held an exhibition of inappropriate materials in your Lordships' House. Section 28 acts as a restraint for the majority of local authorities. If Section 28 is repealed and nothing is put in its place, what happens in a small number of local authorities could become the norm.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to Section 28 preventing expenditure by local authorities on gay men. That is not true. Local authorities do have a great influence on what is taught in schools. At the end of the day, they are the employers. They employ teachers and, like any employer, they are ultimately responsible for the conduct of their employees. In repealing Section 28, the Government are asking us to

1539
believe that a law that binds an employer has no influence at all over employees. That cannot be true, yet it is being claimed.
The Minister in another place stated:
"Local authorities have no say over what sex and relationship education is taught in schools".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/3/03; col. 85.]
If only it were true that local authorities have no say or influence over sex education in schools. The Minister seems to be referring to the fact that specific duties on local education authorities with regard to sex education were removed in 2000. This followed a government amendment to the learning and skills Bill. Certain duties may have been removed but the important point is that LEAs still have a general supervisory role over schools. Legislation does not prohibit them from publishing and recommending sex education materials or from employing advisory staff.
The Government expect LEAs to exercise this supervisory role with respect to sex education. That is clear from Section 351(6) of the Education Act 1996. That same section requires that whenever LEAs exercise these functions they "must have regard" to government guidance on sex education. But one can "have regard to" guidance without actually following it. One can also claim to be following the guidance when one is not. As the Minister knows, the only challenge is on procedural grounds and not on what the schools actually do.
That is exactly what has happened. Some local authorities are pushing highly unsuitable sex education materials into our schools and they are praying in aid government's guidance. I shall give an example of what is happening in one area; namely, Brighton. Brighton and Hove Council and East Sussex County Council have a joint personal, social and health education advisory team. These PSHE advisors—eight part-timers in total—are using their powers to influence sex education to the full.
In the year 2000 the council's advisory team published its own handbook for teachers. The council claims that the handbook is in accordance with government guidance. So what does the handbook say? It "strongly recommends" that schools buy a particular "essential" resource pack entitled, Taking Sex Seriously. A more unsuitable resource it is difficult to imagine. One lesson suggests that pupils are asked to buy condoms for homework. Another lesson has the aim of getting pupils to think about the full range of sexual activities. Teachers are told to,
"give a few examples to get the group thinking along the right lines".
The suggested examples include dressing up, tying up, sadism and/or masochism, partner swapping, anal intercourse or multiple partner at one time. Those are just the milder examples. Decency prevents me from reading out the rest.
Brighton and Hove also fund a group called Gay & Lesbian Arts and Media—or GLAM for short. With council funding this group published a booklet which states that:
"School assemblies need to reflect lesbian, gay and bisexual anniversaries like Stonewall as well as birthdays of famous lesbians, gay and bisexual people."
1540
That same booklet tells teachers that,
"having regard to [Government guidance] does not mean 'adhere to"'.
Of course, in law, that is absolutely true.
The Government place great faith in their guidance which was issued in 2000 to allay concerns about the repeal of Section 28. Having read the guidance, there is much which is ambiguous and unclear.
David Blunkett was Secretary of State at the time of the last debate on Section 28. There was particular concern around that time about a resource entitled, Beyond A Phase, produced by Avon Health Promotion Service, an NHS body. In January 2000, this hit the headlines. The Sunday Times carried a full-page spread about this teachers' pack and video and widespread coverage followed, including ITV's "Tonight with Trevor McDonald".
Of particular concern was the advice from one contributor—Karl—to the video, that children should,
"Try experimenting with other boys and girls and see who you feel most comfortable with".
David Blunkett said on the BBC that this particular resource was inappropriate for schools. He proposed tightening up the law to address the issue of health authority materials. Yet, over two years after his guidance, Beyond A Phase has been recommended by at least three local authorities. They are Brighton and Hove—no surprise—East Sussex and Gloucestershire.
This resource pack includes an infamous series of "role plays" for pupils to act out. The roles include a married man who was "done" for cottaging, an out lesbian mother, a gay teenager, a married woman who had a "one night stand" with another woman, a bisexual granny, a sado-masochistic heterosexual woman, and a transvestite cabaret artist. Your Lordships, this is for children.
In being all things to all men, the guidance failed to stop local authorities peddling inappropriate materials. The guidance has not stopped the use of Beyond A Phase. It has not stopped Brighton and Hove and East Sussex strongly recommending appalling materials. On the contrary, those authorities say that their advice to teachers complies with the guidance.
Schools are not the only place where local authorities can influence what young people are being taught about sex. There are council-funded youth groups all over the country which have sessional youth workers employed by the local authority. If Section 28 is repealed, this work will be unregulated. The Minister in another place referred to guidance issued by the National Youth Agency. But, again, like Brighton and Hove Council, this guidance also recommends the appalling Taking Sex Seriously pack, which I quoted from a moment ago.
Section 28 has proved to have a very positive influence to curb the worst excesses of council-funded youth groups. It is there for parents to use should they have a grievance about sex education. In 2000 a Glasgow nurse took Glasgow City Council to court under Section 28. She sought judicial review of their

1541
decision to fund a youth group, attended by children as young as 12, where a highly pornographic booklet entitled Gay Sex Now was being used. The legal action succeeded in having the booklet withdrawn from circulation. Section 28, in that case, worked. It blocked the distribution of homosexual pornography.
I am particularly concerned that if Section 28 is repealed, there will be nothing to protect young people. Indeed the promotion of "well-being" powers contained in the Local Government Act 2000 seems to give carte blanche to local authorities to spend money on anything that they judge will promote well-being, however that is defined. This will almost certainly include more youth groups.
The repeal of Section 28 is all the more worrying because of the Government's proposals for the Sexual Offences Bill. The Government have decided to give a blanket exemption from facilitating child sex offences for those who claim to be giving sex education. This exemption is in the form of an amendment to Clause 15 of the Sexual Offences Bill currently before your Lordships' House.
Under the amendment a person who gives sex education will, for example, be able to facilitate the showing of pornographic videos to a child or facilitate the commission of sexual acts in front of a child. All this is possible as long as the person who gives sex education says that this was not his intended outcome. That is a perfect defence for someone wishing to corrupt young minds.
A special exemption from the criminal law has never been necessary before. Now it will be. I shudder to think what sort of sex education is envisaged which requires exemption from facilitating a child sex offence.
The noble Lord, Lord Alli, made a comment to which I take offence. I do not just claim to be concerned about protection for children; I do care about the protection of children. The repeal of Section 28 cannot be swapped for government guidance. If protection for young people cannot be put in statute—
Lord Alli: My Lords—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall not give way. I am just finishing. The noble Lord can speak before I sit down. If protection for young people cannot be put in statute to underpin guidance, Clause 28 should be reinstated. To guard against the worst excesses of those who take advantage of young people by peddling inappropriate sex education, parents, and especially children, need the protection of the law.
Lord Alli: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. In no way did I wish to cause her any offence. If I implied that, I apologise unreservedly. But my point is that she really must recognise that she does not have a monopoly on concern for children. There are people all around this House that believe so. On Tuesday night, she said in this Chamber,
"However. I seem to be on my own in the Chamber in seeing protection for children as being absolutely paramount".—[Official Report, 1/4/03; col. 1238.]
1542
That is simply not true. We all seek to protect children. We just have a different view. I listen very carefully to what the noble Baroness says. I listen to her arguments all the time. But, please accept that everyone in this Chamber is trying to do the right thing and that no one has a monopoly on the protection of children.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should like to make two points in response. First, if the noble Lord reads on in Hansard he will know that that was brought to my attention. I recognised that everyone in the Chamber was concerned with the protection of children. But I said that I was alone in seeking protection in the particular context in which I was seeking it.
Secondly, the noble Lord said that people who take another view and who "claim" to be concerned about children do not actually concern themselves with the protection of children. I am simply saying that claim, and I am, concerned about protection for children. That is the only rationale for me speaking in this debate.
7.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, to begin with, I cannot resist taking up the question posed by my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland on, "When were the halcyon days?". I am inclined to suggest that they were, roughly, from 1460 to 1760, which is quite a while ago. However, there were those even then who thought that they came to an end with the beginning of the power of Thomas Cromwell, who continued to load local authorities with what were described expressively as "stacks of statutes". Having picked them up, I can support the description.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on what she said about the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The noble Baroness has a long and distinguished record in that respect. Both she and I have often worked together on the committee. I have no doubt that we shall do so again with great pleasure and, sometimes, I am very glad to say, to great effect.
I wish to say a few words about Section 28. I shall not go into a lengthy debate it, because it has been debated a good deal. I just want to show that the flag is flying in this quarter, as well as in other parts of the House. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, remembers the occasion when Mr Aneurin Bevan described the Conservative Party as "vermin". She may perhaps agree with me that that was not a helpful contribution to the political process—
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will give way. The words used were, "lower than vermin".
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful for that correction. In that case, it was an even less helpful contribution to the political process. It was simply common abuse. It was not a political argument that could be answered. If, for example, Mr Bevan had said

1543
that the Conservative Party "ground the faces of the poor", that would have been a specific assertion that the Conservatives could have set out to refute but you cannot do anything to refute mere abuse. It is not a debating argument; it is not capable of rational discussion. It simply says, "I don't like you". That is no way to conduct political debate.
All of us, both in this House and elsewhere, have our likes and dislikes. We generally find that we conduct our processes in a more civilised way, even if we do not always get up and say so all the time. It seems to me that this is a perfectly fair parallel for Section 28, which forbids local authorities to do something—I genuinely cannot understand what. I do not understand what the word "promote" means in this context. As the legislation has never been taken to court, there is no court case to clarify it. So it forbids local authorities to do something unintelligible, which is genuinely not in their power to do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, explained that she was responsible for transferring power to the governors. She then quoted a large amount of guidance. I cannot help thinking that she slightly overrates the power of the teaching profession. I know myself that it is very limited indeed. If youngsters were brought up on these guidelines, I suspect that they would come out about the most puritanical grown-ups in the country: they would be bored stiff with it. It is not as easy as the noble Baroness suggests. I do not believe that any of us has these sorts of interests.
The function of Section 28 is simply to say, like Mr Aneurin Bevan, "We don't like you". That is not a useful comment to make to people whom we regularly meet socially, with whom we do business, and with whom we sit in the House. People cannot help having feelings. Some of them dislike the most unexpected people. But if we do not conduct our business with ordinary good manners, we really cannot get on.
I also believe that it is part of the function of education that one should understand, at least very roughly, the outlooks of the sort of people one will meet socially. I have in mind a very wide range of people, an increasingly wide range of people. In conversation, one ought to know roughly when one is dropping a brick and when one is treading on people's toes. One ought to know what is likely to give offence. I speak from experience. I arrived at Eton, having never knowingly met a Conservative. So when I talk about unintentionally giving offence, I know what I am talking about. I do not think that that sort of ignorance was good for me. Similarly, I do not believe that the sort of ignorance promoted by Section 28 is good for people.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, I shall try to refocus the attention of the House on the rest of the Bill, so, in the words of my noble friend the Minister, perhaps the eyes can glaze over now. I should, first, declare an interest as the leader of a local authority, and as vice-chairman of another association called SIGOMA, to
1544
which there was an unfortunate reference last time I declared the interest. I hope that Hansard get it right this time.
In the interests of brevity, I shall try to concentrate on the parts of the Bill with which I have some problems. I apologise to my noble friend the Minister for not supporting much of the Bill on Second Reading. I welcome the thoughts expressed in his introduction about freedoms and flexibilities and the desire for a new approach for local authorities. However, the Bill demonstrates the tensions within government and, in fact, much of it demonstrates exactly the opposite. Part 2 is a clear example of the centralising tendency becoming predominant again.
If I heard him correctly, I believe that my noble friend said that he believes that there is a problem in a few authorities as regards their financial administration, and that the cure for it is the catch-all general legislation that will cover authorities. Good heavens, we may not have thought of budget monitoring, or checking that our reserves are all right, and so on! Of course, we have done so. However, my biggest concern is how all this is to be done. By what process will we check what will happen in local authorities as regards meeting the provisions in Part 2? When shall we receive the volumes of regulations, which, presumably, will tell us how we can decide whether our estimates are robust enough to meet the criteria? Which army of civil servants will be created to come and check us?
What is missing from the whole section—which is surprising because it is in Part 1—is the role of the external auditors. It would seem to me that if we can enhance the role of these people, it would be simpler, more effective, and cheaper. I have a mind a solution that could be sensitive to local conditions. The level of reserves in some authorities may need to be higher than in others. An auditor would understand all that. I ask my noble friend to think about that as an option in these huge catch-all regulations.
I turn to Clauses 78 and 79 on revaluing for council tax. The council tax bills that are going out now are based on valuations that are at least 12 years old. I always wonder about this arcane science that can say for a building that was built last year what its value might have been if it had been built in 1991. It must be wonderful to be able to do that.
I remind your Lordships that in 1991 we did not have a very scientific approach to determining valuations. It was a matter of the famous estate agents going around, making a lot of money out of the previous government, checking on properties, looking at a street and saying "Band C", "Band B" or whatever else they decided. They were largely guesstimates.
With any tax based on a valuation, the longer the period between revaluations, the more discredited the tax becomes. That was one of the problems with the old rating system. It took too long to be revised, and it was replaced by the poll tax—a great idea!
I welcome any revaluation, but I ask my noble friend to consider whether 10 years may be too long for periodic revaluations. These days estate agents tell us what is happening to house prices on a quarterly basis.

1545
I am sure that it could be done on an annual basis. We could have a running revaluation programme, which would not involve such huge changes at the end of a 10-year period. We could perhaps use the 10-year revaluation to re-establish a base position, and then move forward again. I hope that my noble friend will also consider that.
I very much support the Government in wishing not only to carry out such a revaluation, but also to revise council tax bands. Some research that I have seen recently shows an unintended consequence of a simple revaluation: the lowest tax bands in all regions do least well out of a revaluation. Even in the areas in the South East that would face an increase in valuation, the lowest levels would pay much more proportionately in increased tax. The lowest levels of tax bands on the whole reflect people's income and ability to pay. We should examine the matter carefully. Even a simple revision of tax bands, by splitting Bands A and H, would eliminate much of this problem.
I wish to speak to Clauses 100 and 101, as leader not only of a council, but of an excellent authority. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, was very modest in not saying that hers is also an excellent authority.
Looking at the clauses, one would think that the localist tendency is in the ascendancy and that we are gaining the ability to have more freedoms and flexibility. But looking at it from another perspective one can see that they are very slow to materialise. They are not supported in all parts of government, even in parts of my noble friend's department.
I should like to quote from a letter—it is not about Wigan, so I can quote it—which reads:
"The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will take this opportunity to congratulate your authority for its efforts in becoming an excellent authority. Though we acknowledge the flexibility under this scheme, we wish to express to excellent authorities that the purpose for which the grant was awarded should not be ignored".
That is a reference to ignoring ring-fencing of grants. If it does not suit government departments, they are not allowing it. If we can have a simple principle—"Invest in the best" —we can move forward the Government's desire to improve public service and provide a model for all local authorities.
Finally, I ask my noble friend to consider an additional clause in the catch-all Part 8. Unlike most organisations, and notably private sector firms, local authorities have no right to sue as corporate bodies, even when they are defamed. I can give an example from my own authority—and my noble friend will understand where it comes from. We are repeatedly accused in writing of moving council tenants to house asylum seekers. Not only is it not true, but it is a highly politically sensitive issue. We have no right—other than trying to correct it in the press—to stop the organisation that continually repeats this untruth. I would not, of course, want a power to limit reasonable criticism of publicly accountable bodies; but there may be occasions when it is necessary to have recourse to the law in the interests of truth. I hope that my noble friend will consider remedying the matter in an additional clause.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Sawyer: My Lords, I welcome the Bill and want to speak on staff issues. I am a member of UNISON, which is an interest in this respect. I want to comment in particular on Clauses 102 and 103. For many years, I have been deeply concerned about the effect which some of the privatisations and contracting out have had on the lowest paid and most vulnerable of local authority employers. I have previously spoken about that in this Chamber. I have urged Members who have listened to my words, or read them in Hansard, to read Polly Toynbee's publication, Hard Work: Life in Low-Pay Britain. That is an excellent documentation of what it is like to be a low-paid worker, providing basic local authority services; cleaning, cooking and care services. Those people have had to suffer dreadful reductions in pay and conditions.
I have also stated that I am ashamed that my Government have introduced many of those changes, but we need to move on. In recent times, discussions between the representatives of low-paid workers and the Government have made improvements. We know that when local authority staff are contracted to a new employer, their local authority terms and conditions of employment transfer with them under TUPE However, I could give experience of staff, for example, in Northern Ireland suffering a 60 per cent cut in their basic pay—a low rate of pay—and a reduction in holiday and sick leave. Concrete examples of that show that the TUPE regulations can provide only temporary protection of terms and conditions, sometimes over a short period of time, depending on how often the contract moves on and how different employers come to provide that service.
Local authority terms and conditions are therefore eroded and are replaced with worse terms and conditions for those involved. Therefore, as the Bill progresses I shall be seeking to persuade the Government and local authorities to secure in their contractual agreements with contractors that the terms and conditions of transferring employees are "the same as" or "no less favourable than" those enjoyed as an employee of the authority. In addition, and most importantly, this contractual clause should apply for the life of the contract and apply to any subsequent employer who takes over the contract. These measures should be specified on the face of the Bill rather than being left to statutory guidance or directions from the Secretary of State.
These standard terms and conditions include pay, annual leave, sick leave, sick pay, maternity leave and maternity pay. I want to make it clear that that would not prevent, or seek to prevent, employers from carrying out reorganisation of work, changing working practices or improving productivity or efficiency.
Clause 103 deals with pensions and is even more difficult. It is a positive step towards statutory protection for pension rights of contracted-out employees. The clause would require local authorities to secure that transferring employees have pension benefits and rights which are,
"the same as, or … broadly comparable to or better than"

1547
those they had as an employee of the authority. It is intended to apply to subsequent contractors as well, which is to be welcomed.
However, as one would expect knowing the difficulties as regards pensions, the evidence and experience of contracted-out staff shows that "broadly comparable" pensions in practice can often mean inferior pensions. For a local authority worker, that is £3,800 a year—not a princely sum and we are certainly not talking about the fat-cat syndrome here. It will be difficult to find a way forward, but moving from broadly comparable pensions to pensions which are "no less favourable than" might be a way of ensuring that such staff do not ultimately receive inferior pensions, which can lead to poverty in later life.
In practice, employers do not achieve the bulk transfer of past service from their local authority pensions, as they are led to expect. They often receive a money-purchase scheme rather than a final salary scheme. Changes to the pension scheme detrimental to the transferred employees are often made during the contract. "Broadly comparable" pension schemes are often capped.
I have raised only three issues. The time is late and there is a great deal of detail to examine as regards terms and conditions. I do not want to do so today. I recognise that in particular on pensions the debate will be difficult, but I want to open up a dialogue and ask the Minister to consider how improvements might be made in those two areas.
7.49 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, looking around the Chamber, I see that we have a wealth of experience in people who have served in local government. Some of them still do so and some are about to give up. I particularly enjoyed the contribution of my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland on its history, which was added to by my noble friend Lord Russell. My noble friend Lady Hamwee outlined the views of those on these Benches, and in principle we support the Bill. It takes us in the right direction, as many noble Lords have commented.
There are three important reasons why we support the Bill. First, it introduces a new prudential capital regime; secondly, it introduces—this awful word—BIDs; and, thirdly, it introduces council tax reforms. I shall refer to these matters in more detail later.
Like other noble Lords, we are not without reservations. Interestingly, the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, who sits on the government Benches, appears to have more reservations than most noble Lords. We are disappointed that the Government have been rather timid in giving freedom to local councils. They have reserved powers to themselves in regard to capping, borrowing and minimum reserves. Other noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Shutt and Lady Hamwee, also referred to this issue. Of particular concern is the fact that, despite being sold as containing less regulation, the Bill gives to central government almost 40 new regulatory powers.
1548
As a party, we have promoted the concept of BIDs for a considerable period of time. I was interested in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. It will be interesting to pursue some of the points he has made when we come to later stages of the Bill.
I received a map showing the location in Britain of the 22 pilot BIDs. As someone who now lives in the North East of England, I was disappointed that I could not see a single pilot north of Hull. It is to be hoped that that will change if the Bill goes ahead because the economy of the North East needs help.
Like others, we support in principle the changes to the council tax, but we do not agree with some of the detail. In his opening, the Minister pointed out that a draft Bill was published and that there was a great deal of consultation. We welcome that. We sincerely hope that the views expressed during those consultations will find their way into the Bill during its passage through the House.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and my noble friend Lord Russell, I am concerned that the Government should look carefully at the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The opening comments of the Minister were very promising in this regard.
The Minister referred to the issue of help for small businesses. There is wide concern in the Chamber that that help may not be as great as he indicated. We shall need to pursue that issue.
In his opening remarks, the Minister was fairly straightforward in regard to Clause 28. We have had reasonable debates in the House on this issue. I sincerely hope that, as the Bill passes through its other stages, we shall be able to deal with it in a rational and reasonable way. I have always believed that this is a very controversial issue which appears to have been dealt with in an unnecessary and unworkable way. I do not dismiss people's concerns, but its time has come. We need to look at other ways of dealing with the concerns of people. We should certainly not deal with them through Clause 28.
In her opening remarks the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, posed a very interesting question. She asked the Minister whether anything further would be added to the Bill as it passed through the House. We shall be interested to see what happens in that regard.
I shall need to go into more detail as regards housing finance, but I agree with some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in relation to that issue.
The noble Baroness referred to council tax, as did many other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland. The real problem with council tax is that it is not related to ability to pay. For a number of years it has been possible for successive Governments to manipulate it in ways which suit whichever party is in power, and its finances. The sooner we can get away from that, the better it will be for all of us.

1549
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford talked in his opening comments about the importance of local government for a healthy democratic society. I strongly believe in that, as I have said several times since I have been in this House. I found it particularly interesting to hear, although many of us know it already, about the role of the Church in dealing with many of the issues in the Bill, especially Section 28.
I wish to highlight some of our concerns on housing matters. I declare an interest as vice-president of the National Housing Federation; I am also a patron of the Empty Homes Agency. I wish to dwell for a moment on empty homes. The agency and I welcome the proposals in the Bill to allow councils to change the way they charge for empty properties. However, councils are allowed to use council tax data. Before we get further with the Bill, will the Minister look at that? The Empty Homes Agency is finding worrying evidence that despite the Government's intention that councils should be able to use the data to help them with their empty property strategies they are still coming up against problems. I ask the Government to do a little more work in this area and respond at a later stage of the Bill.
I am also concerned that the money that will be raised from empty homes will not go to the local authorities. If they are to have good empty property strategies, they need finance for it. What will the Government do with the money that is not going to local authorities?
To a certain extent, I am worried about the provisions on discounts for second homes. The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, talked about this. There will be money from this and the Government have said that they intend to plough it back into affordable housing. I would like to hear from them quite how that will happen.
On housing capital receipts, I shall be briefer than I intended because other people have already talked about this, and I associate myself and my colleagues with their comments. We believe that the principle that the Government can remove capital receipts from local authorities and redistribute resources from one authority to another sets a very dangerous precedent. It weakens local accountability and undermines local authorities' ability to manage their assets.
This part of the Bill seems contrary to the intention to provide more flexibility and freedom for local authorities and to reduce central control. We believe that local authorities should have the freedom to develop locally appropriate policies and solutions. This issue is clearly of great importance in Guildford. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford talked about this, and my honourable friend the Member for Guildford raised it in another place. It is a serious concern. Although the Government's intention is to find more money for really deprived areas, it has been pointed out that many authorities, which appear to be quite well off still have acute problems with housing, homelessness and, as the right reverend Prelate said, with people who are still in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, which the Government say they want to do away with. I am sure we will return to that issue in Committee.
1550
Clauses 40 and 41 introduce new powers to enable the Secretary of State to reduce or extinguish local authority debt and to pay some or all of the premiums that arise from early redemption. We shall go into that matter in more detail at later stages.
There seemed to be some confusion in another place as to whether the Government intended to encourage local councils to transfer their council housing to registered social landlords. Already the Government are spending much money on overhanging debt yet the projected costs for 2002–03 are £500 million. For the following year the projected cost is something like £800 million. When one considers other sums that are being spent on housing that does not seem a sensible way to proceed if we arc concerned about housing. There will be other opportunities to discuss that matter in more detail at later stages.
Had this been a Liberal Democrat Local Government Bill, we would have moved further in freeing up local government and making clear that local government receives its democratic legitimacy and autonomy through the ballot box and not through the gift of central government. We should like to see councils' rights and duties included in a constitutional settlement. We should like to stop central government chipping away at local government powers. We should like to see local authorities made more accountable by giving them more control over their affairs, particularly their ability to raise funds locally. We would replace council tax with a local income tax. That is a fair tax, levied according to ability to pay. Massive savings would be made in collecting it.
At the end of the day we believe that local councils are accountable to the communities which elect them. It is up to local people to decide whether a council is performing well or badly. Central government—I believe that this point was raised earlier and I have raised it before in this Chamber—have a poor record of delivering services. No external body sets their performance standards or is able to intervene when they fail. People will say that it is up to the electorate to make their views known by the way they vote at a general election. Why should not the same principles apply to local government, which has no less a democratic legitimacy than central government?
As I said, the measure is a long way from our vision but nevertheless it moves towards it. I am sure that we shall discuss the issues in the spirit of this House. I am sure that the Bill will emerge from this House a better Bill. We intend to help to improve it.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, it is a privilege to speak at the end of such a stimulating and wide-ranging debate. I should declare an interest. Most noble Lords are probably aware that I am leader of Essex County Council. I speak in support of my noble friend Lady Hanham.
The Bill before us today has well over 100 clauses. It is a long Bill, but it is a Bill that is short on vision and imagination. Will this Bill encourage people to go out and vote in local elections? Will it encourage a new generation of young people to enter politics to

1551
represent their local communities? Will it attract entrepreneurial and dynamic individuals into careers in local government? I fear that the answer to all those questions is no.
Although the Bill has some provisions to commend it, which we shall discuss at later stages, it is basically a timid Bill. It is a strings attached Bill. Nothing in this Bill comes free. Virtually every responsibility given to local government in the Bill is hemmed in with caveats, qualifications and constraints.
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in its evidence to the Select Committee noted that the Bill introduces over 50 regulation or order-making powers for the Secretary of State. In 70 pages of legislation there are 79 references to the Secretary of State's powers. If that is what the Government understand as devolution, they must have their own special dictionary in Whitehall. That point was very much reinforced by several noble Lords, in particular by my noble friend Lady Blatch, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. I hope that the Minister will say more about how the Government intend to respond.
The Select Committee report, published in July last year, made the point sharply when it stated:
"The Government promised to redress the imbalance between central and local government. This Bill fails to achieve that. It makes some small steps in the right direction, but at the same time increases the power of the Secretary of State. Central Government seems to be terrified of trusting local authorities and allowing their independence".
I cannot understand that culture of fear. A wide body of evidence now attests to the quality and capacity of local government.
Sir Andrew Foster, the outgoing controller of the Audit Commission, stated in a recent interview for the Local Government Chronicle that perhaps local government should be saying to central government:
"How well do we run things? How well do you run things? Maybe we could run some of the things you don't run so well".
I shall touch on comprehensive performance assessments later, but, as several noble Lords have pointed out, it would be interesting if the Government were to put their own departments through some comprehensive performance testing. We should take note of statements of this kind. If anyone is in a position to judge objectively the current strengths and weaknesses of local government, it is the controller of the Audit Commission.
There is much ground to cover in the Bill. I shall touch on some of the key issues. I apologise in advance if anything I say has already been covered by noble Lords in the debate.
We welcome the scrapping of credit approvals and the freedom to borrow for capital investment, provided that the debt can be serviced. That is a new freedom to be granted to local authorities. But, as is typical of the Bill, what the Government give with one hand, they take with the other.
First, borrowing levels will have to comply with a "prudential" code drawn up by CIPFA. That is sensible and something with which we can agree. What
1552
we cannot understand is why, having established the mechanism, the Government feel that it will still be necessary to retain powers to control borrowing by an individual authority. Surely that is the purpose of the code. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify why this separate power is needed.
Secondly, the Government can control the level of borrowing by individual authorities by imposing an aggregate limit on total local authority borrowing. That power should also be removed from the Bill. The result would be to provide local authorities with a genuine freedom, one that would be moderated by sensible and proportionate statutory controls through the CIPFA code. On that, I believe all noble Lords agree.
As the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, pointed out, the heavy hand of central government can also be felt in the provisions to do with financial administration. Clause 26 provides the Secretary of State with the power to specify minimum levels of reserves for individual authorities. This power puts local authorities under a degree of legal prescription not applied to any other public body. If it is necessary for the Secretary to intervene in local authorities on the issue, why is it not necessary for similar powers to be exercised in relation to primary care trusts, many of which have larger budgets than local authorities? Similarly, why not target also the host of other non-accountable quangos that deliver services at the local level?
At Second Reading in another place, the Minister, Nick Raynsford, made it clear that this provision was necessary in order to tackle a small number of poorly performing authorities. On 7th January 2003 he stated that,
"a small number of badly managed and poorly performing authorities tarnish the good reputation of local government. It is in everyone's interests that those authorities turn around their performance and strive to match the standard of the best".— [Official Report, Commons, 7/1/03; col. 51.]
He went on to say, at the same column,
"that is why we make no apology for including the part 2 provisions in the Bill".
There are two points of issue here. The first concerns whether adopting sweeping powers for an intervention covering all local authorities is really a proportionate or sensible way of addressing a problem that affects only a tiny minority of authorities. The second is whether such powers will have the effect ascribed to them by the Minister. That was certainly not the view of the Select Committee. The report comments on this matter by saying:
"We did not receive any evidence that, had these particular measures been in place, they could have prevented financial imprudence".
CIPFA has also expressed doubts about the power. It has described the setting of balances as,
"a very local decision and judgement".
I ask the Minister to tell the House how he thinks that the Secretary of State can reach a better judgment about the appropriate level of balances in a local authority than the chief financial officer of that authority, whose duty it is to report on the adequacy of reserves.

1553
Much has been said about the business improvement districts, which I think we can call the sons of my noble friend Lord Jenkin. I would not wish to repeat all the arguments on them, but I ask the Minister to note some of our concerns, which I am sure we are going to discuss in Committee.
Regarding the powers on council tax bands, we support the need for regular revaluation of properties. However, I am told that if the Government go ahead with the revaluation, it will be the first carried out since the war in local government by a Labour government. Every post-war revaluation has been carried out by a Conservative government, so we shall wait and see. We generally welcome it and also the power to change the discount on second homes. But we have reservations about the power to change the number of valuation bands.
In a county such as mine, where average property prices are surging way ahead of rises of income, it will be families of modest resources who will be hit hardest by the introduction of an additional band between G and H. On top of rises in national insurance contributions and the new grant distribution formula that redistributes grant from the South East to the Midlands and the North—we have discussed it several times before— it could be seen as another stealth tax imposed on the south-east of the country.
Clauses 100 and 101 deal with the comprehensive performance assessment. For noble Lords who are not familiar with the process, it may be helpful if I provide some background. Local authorities are already subject to heavy regulation by external inspectorates such as Ofsted for education and the Social Services Inspectorate for social services. We conduct best value reviews which are subject to external scrutiny through the Audit Commission, and the soundness of our finances and corporate governance arrangements is reviewed by external auditors. That is the framework, but I assure noble Lords that there is a great deal more to it. For an authority such as Essex County Council, it adds up to approximately 170 days of inspection every year.
The clauses introduce another scheme of inspection. Under the CPA, the Audit Commission pulls together the information from the various inspectorates to reach a view as to the overall quality of services delivered by an authority. It then comes to the authority to look at the quality of its corporate management—to make a judgment on its corporate capacity. Those two dimensions are married up, put into a black box, and marks out of 48 are produced. I do not need to highlight to noble Lords the painful absurdity of marking out of 48 a democratically elected tier of government such as Essex, serving a population of 1.3 million people and with a budget of £1.2 billion a year.
The corporate capacity element of that exercise is a new part of the inspection process. Last year, when we had our CPA inspection, the team was based in Essex for two weeks. I personally spent 17 hours during that period with the inspectors. The time of senior officers that went into preparing and managing the inspection ran into thousands of hours. I have no doubt that
1554
when the inspectors left they were in a pretty good position to judge the strengths and weaknesses of the council, but that is really not the issue. The issue is whether that is the best use of public money, given the limits on resources to which we are all subject.
I would be interested to know why the Minister thinks that the quality of public services delivered by a local authority and attested to by external regulation should not be used as a proxy for judging corporate capacity. He will no doubt say that the CPA will lead to a reduction of inspections. That is something we could welcome. It would be helpful if he explained why the level of reduction for each category of authority is not in the Bill, and also whether the reduction in inspection activity will relate to all inspectorates—to Ofsted and the SSI as well as to the Audit Commission.
We welcome the power set out in Clause 117 to enable local authorities to hold advisory polls. I would be grateful for the Minister's views as to whether he would consider it appropriate to conduct a poll of the people of Essex about whether the county council should invest its resources in preparing for inspections or the delivery of public services. I should be interested to hear his views.
There are, without question, parts of the Bill that can be welcomed. The new clause introduced by the Government on Report to enable local authorities to retain some of the growth in its business rate revenue in our areas is a proposal that we can broadly welcome. We will obviously scrutinise it well in Committee, as my noble friend Lady Hanham said. We also broadly welcome the new powers to charge and trade.
There are a large number of detailed issues that we will explore in Committee. I should like to discuss housing receipts, which received considerable comment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. We will explore that in Committee.
In a relatively short debate, we have had three major contributions on one small clause, Clause 121, which involves Section 28. We shall no doubt debate that at considerable length at other stages of the Bill.
Central government say that they are committed to local government. They want to provide local authorities with more freedoms and flexibilities. They want to do that, presumably, because they recognise that step changes in the delivery of public services can be made only by releasing local authorities to respond creatively and dynamically to local needs. They cannot do that if they are fettered at every turn and tied up in red tape.
However, anyone who works in local government will tell you that that attitude towards local government certainly does not permeate the whole of Whitehall. A couple of weeks ago, I received, in my capacity as leader of Essex County Council, a letter from the Secretary of State for Education. He said:
"I am very disappointed at the level of your proposed schools budget and I have no doubt that the authority's schools will take a similar view. The proposed budget implies I hat the authority proposes to pass on only 99 per cent of the increase in schools funding".
I particularly like the phrase, "only 99 per cent".

1555
In our grant settlement from government, we received an increase of only £28 million—the lowest of any county. The amount we were required to pass on to schools was £35 million; that is, £7 million more than our total increase in grant. In other words, simply to fulfil that government exhortation, we had to use all our additional grant—ignoring pressures on social services, roads, waste disposal and other services—and put council tax up by 2 per cent to fund that single requirement.
I do not believe that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills could have understood that when he wrote his letter. A democratically elected body, responsible to local people, would be absolutely deficient in its responsibilities if it did not look hard at whether it could fulfil that sort of requirement at a cost that local people could afford. We hear all sorts of noise about the levels of council tax; this is the sort of thing that causes that. We see the freedoms on one side and the control on the other.
Earl Russell: My Lords, has the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, discovered that for the Treasury the proposition that a sum of money is sufficient for the purpose for which it is voted is always a tautology?
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, we note the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
A democratically elected body that is responsible to local people must take the level of council tax into account. That demonstrates how far removed Ministers are from the day-to-day realities of real life, which those of us in local government still face, and the lack of respect that exists in some parts of government for genuine democratic accountability. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
Since 1997 this Government have introduced over 100 parliamentary Bills and over 2,000 sets of regulations that have a direct bearing on the operations, services and functions of local government. Never can there have been so much activity for so little reward. I am very pleased indeed that this Government are committed to deregulation. I cannot imagine how many Bills and regulations they might have passed if they were not.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Rooker tells me that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has made possibly the longest speech in tonight's debate. As noble Lords know, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has an enviable reputation for brevity and being bold and to the point. So my task is to try and ensure that I take no longer than the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. I am sure that noble Lords will be delighted to hear that. However, I am set a very difficult task. I have some 50 sheets of notes and associated points of detail on which questions have been asked. I am unlikely to go through those. If I did there would be some rather depressed souls in your Lordships' Chamber.
1556
However, one thing about today's debate which particularly pleases me has been the breadth of contributions from all sides of the House and the great interest in the very many different aspects of what is a wide-ranging Bill. I think that is a commonly agreed point. Important differences have been expressed during the course of the debate. In particular, I suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, was the gloom and doom merchant from the Opposition Benches, but then I would expect that. He made a speech which sounded terribly similar to a speech I made in the Brighton council chamber some 20 years ago when I was arguing fiercely against the ghastly financial constraints that were then being placed on us by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. Recently, I unearthed a press release which was attached to my speech at the time. There are many ironies in your Lordships' Chamber, but that was one that I particularly enjoyed.
I also enjoyed, for very different reasons, the tease from the noble Lord, Lord Alli, in threatening to go through the great minutiae and detail of the Bill. Sadly, I have to do that job, and it gives me great pleasure because for 20 years and more of my life I have been involved in local government and I have enjoyed it greatly, for it is a very beautiful thing.
As I said, the debate has been very wide-ranging. There is no way in which I can cover all the points raised, but many issues have been raised which deserve an answer. We shall write to noble Lords about any points I do not cover and ensure that an explanation is given. We shall have an opportunity in Committee to pick up very many of those issues in considered detail.
Most emphasis was placed on the desire of all of us to reduce red tape and the burdens placed on local government. I think we all share that common commitment. In welcoming the Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, seized on that point, as did the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Maddock, and I believe they welcomed it. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, was rather more questioning as to whether he thought a new golden era was about to dawn. Nevertheless, he welcomed the Bill too. That shows that we are heading generally in the right direction. After all, I am sure many Members of your Lordships' House would agree that there have been many years when perhaps there has been too much of the heavy hand of central government disposed towards local authorities.
We believe that we are reversing that process. We are proud to be associated with that. There are times when it is absolutely right that the centre should take a firm hold. But we also believe strongly in devolution. I believe that the Bill, with its many deregulatory moves, particularly in the field of finance, is right to move in that general direction.
We have also had an interesting debate on Section 28. I suppose that the most discordant voice on that came, as one would expect, from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who speaks with great passion, even if one does not always agree with her on the subject. I shall resist the temptation to retreat to the fiefdom of

1557
Brighton and Hove and make responsive references to the point she made on that except to say that my children go to local schools. If she was trying to scare me about sex education in the borough in which I live I am afraid she failed. So far as I can see, sex education in the local authority whose services I enjoy seems on the whole to be very well conducted indeed, as it is in most others.
This debate is not about protecting our children in the terms that the noble Baroness has attempted to set out. Repealing Section 28 is important. It is not just totemic. Many noble Lords said that it was symbolic. In 1988, when it was passed into law, many of us in local government felt a great sense of shame that the government of the day decided to visit it upon us. Representing, as I did then, a local authority with a large lesbian and gay community, I was particularly affected by it. It made running services across the board, particularly for those from that community, difficult indeed. They treated us with a great deal more suspicion than perhaps was right and proper. It made our lives very difficult and it painted local government in a way that was not helpful. I am proud that we are associated with repealing that clause. We need to persuade this House of that. It is long overdue.
I shall go through some of the questions raised on specific points and I shall deal with the issues in turn. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked some important questions about the prudential borrowing regime. The prudential borrowing system gives authorities freedom to borrow without government consent if they can afford to service the debt without extra government support. We shall continue to support the major part of local authorities' borrowing programmes and shortly we shall consult on future arrangements for that support. In our view the prudential system will allow extra self-financing investment on top of whatever we, as the Government, support.
The noble Baroness also asked whether we would be able to make draft regulations available on the business rates retention and on the growth incentive element of that. We intend to consult—a strong theme of this piece of legislation—all interested parties on many details of the proposed scheme. We cannot make draft regulations available until that consultation has been completed in the autumn. However, I can give the noble Baroness an assurance that we shall produce a detailed memorandum on our objectives for the scheme for consideration by your Lordships' House.
I have dealt with Part 8—the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, like others, raised that important concern. We shall have the opportunity for greater debate in Committee.
The noble Baroness raised the issue of small 'business rate relief, which has been broadly welcomed. 'We take the view that a balance has to be struck between the small businesses receiving the relief and the larger businesses paying for relief by a supplement on the non-domestic rating multiplier. Under the current scheme the rate bills of larger businesses need to be increased only by less than 2.5 per cent. That
1558
would necessarily increase if the threshold of businesses receiving the relief increased. That is a very important consideration. No doubt the noble Baroness will wish to raise those issues when putting forward her own proposition in an amendment.
She also asked a couple of interesting questions on smaller matters. She asked whether it is our intention to raise a new tax on recycling. No, we have no intention of doing that. She asked about body piercing—we have had a wide-ranging debate extending from body piercing to council tax relief. She asked whether we would bring forward an amendment to licence body-piercing establishments. It is important that issues relating to that are addressed in a collective way. Our intention is that there should be further discussion with colleagues to try to achieve the best way forward on that. Parliamentary time may not allow such a measure to be put into the Bill, but we appreciate the point that she raised.
The noble Baroness also raised a key issue—one that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, also raised—about the involvement of local people in the BIDs process and whether we intended to put that on the face of the Bill. We recognise the importance of support for all local stakeholders in that area. We recognise that that will be vital to the success of BIDs. It is important that local communities are consulted. We question whether the mechanism suggested by the noble Lord is right. However, we look forward to further debate on those issues in Committee and to hearing other noble Lords' contributions. BIDs is an important initiative which the Government strongly support and one that I supported from a local government perspective before we came to government.
I recognise that there is concern about pooled capital receipts. Council housing is, of course, a local asset, locally managed, and so on. But it is also a national asset and the benefits, accrued receipts, and so on, need to be considered in a broader national context. Of course, concerns will be expressed locally about the change but we believe that as a redistributive mechanism it is an entirely fair way to proceed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and a number of noble Lords raised the issue of council tax bands. She asked whether we agreed that there should be new bands and to consider the relative balance between poor and rich in housing. She asked whether it was a new property wealth tax. As we made clear in our White Paper, we shall listen to local government and taxpayers ahead of revaluation. As the noble Baroness will appreciate, the White Paper recognised that making the tax more progressive—for example, by changing the ratios—could have a regressive impact. We have to take careful account of that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether changes to banding would be robust enough, regardless of house prices. We cannot foresee the property market in 2005, or how it will change by 2007 when the new bands will be implemented. But we shall take every sensible step to ensure that the banding scheme is robust to reflect those changes.

1559
We are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, for raising an important issue. She asked whether Welsh local authorities could have the same flexibility as that proposed in Clause 76 for English local authorities on removing or reducing council tax discounts. The matter has been raised with my right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government by the National Assembly for Wales. It is an issue that we shall consider. I give an undertaking today to come back to your Lordships' House at a later stage of the Bill with a decision on whether or not we shall be able to amend the Bill to achieve that objective.
We recognise the important issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, on the transfer of staff. We want to offer assurances to those who may be affected by such changes in the future. I am happy to confirm to the noble Lord that we shall ensure that the provisions covering contracting-out exercises will include the same protection for staff as enjoyed by those in central government and its agencies. They will ensure that if authorities select private or voluntary sector providers, it will be on the basis of their ability to deliver high quality services, not by cutting costs or driving down staff terms and conditions and pensions. I can give that assurance. The Government will be more than happy to continue to have dialogue with the trades unions affected which may have some other outstanding concerns.
I conclude by reiterating that, despite the complex and detailed issues in the Bill, the Bill should be broadly welcomed today not only by your Lordships' House but local government generally. Indeed, the Local Government Association has given the Bill its blessing. In a recent release, I think it said that it believes that the proposals in the Bill represent significant new freedoms for local councils and will help them deliver improved services to their communities. If I were still a local government leader, I should certainly subscribe to that as a commentary. It is also promising that the Confederation of British Industry has put on record its welcome for many aspects of the Bill.
I have enjoyed this afternoon's debate. I have listened with great interest to all that has been said. I apologise to noble Lords to whose questions I have not fully responded. I hope that the House will not just like the Bill but enthusiastically give it a deserved Second Reading. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time.

Congo
8.35 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester The Lord Bishop of Winchester rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response both to the final report of the United Nations Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo and to recent events there.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the All-Party Group on the Great Lakes Region and Genocide Prevention; as
1560
bishop of a diocese with a partner relationship with the Anglican Church in the Congo; and as patron of the Congo Church Association. In those last two capacities, I spent two and a half weeks in the region last October and November at the invitation of the Congolese archbishop and in the company of Congolese—two of those weeks spent in four different locations in eastern Congo. Some 2.5 to 3 million people have died in eastern Congo during the past five years as a result of war, chronic theft and pillage on the grandest scale and the sheer absence of any order and security.
The armed forces of as many as six neighbouring countries have been operating in the DRC in recent years—those of some are still there, together with the forces of their various regional proxy warlords and all sorts of armed groups, bandits and deserters. They include a large number of child soldiers—whether taken from their homes or orphaned. Many hundreds of thousands of people live in the constant fear that a total lack of order and security imposes on them. Many thousands sleep in the bush every night. Many hundreds of thousands are displaced, many of them more than once. In a fertile country, there is widespread hunger. Disease of all sorts is rife. Millions are without any access to medical facilities.
Virtually the whole of the proceeds of the DRC's enormously rich mineral resources are stolen by its neighbours. Tribal and regional conflicts have been manipulated to near-genocidal proportions, especially in Ituri in the north-east, by neighbouring states, or by sections of their armed forces, in their own interests.
On March 5th, in another place, the honourable Member for North Norfolk, Norman Lamb, initiated a debate on Rwanda and the Great Lakes with a detailed and distinguished speech. Ministers and officials from both the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development are, to my knowledge, giving the region significant and consistent attention. I thank them for their courtesy and the time that they have given me, but I share with Mr Lamb the conviction that the issues in question are of a scale and urgency that require from the Government—whether acting alone; in concert with European partners; or at the United Nations—a great deal more than they have yet committed themselves to seeking to deliver, and within a much shorter timescale.
The final report of the UN panel of experts was published last October. It makes shocking reading. Having read it within days of my return from the DRC, I can say that it rings true throughout to what hundreds of ordinary people told me was happening. The panel's reports have exposed in considerable detail—naming names of countries, individuals and companies—the character of the systematic looting and exploitation on a vast scale of the natural resources of the DRC during decades, which continues today. They have established multiple links between that exploitation, the continuing and endemic conflict and the suffering of millions of ordinary Congolese—links that a series of other reports, researched and produced by NGOs and the all-party group, have repeatedly described in recent years.
The final report details the equipping and training by foreign armies of a kaleidoscopic range of militias and warlords and their provoking what have become viciously brutal and destructive tribal conflicts. It notes that even where foreign forces withdraw from DRC territory, they embed proxy governments and criminal networks to ensure that illegal exploitation continues—to the extent that, as paragraph 152 states,
"the war economy operated by the three elite networks operating in the DRC'—
those linked with the armed forces if not with the Governments of Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe—
"dominates the economic activities of much of the Great Lakes region".
It is not surprising that the range of parties named and shamed in that report dispute its findings. The panel notes its uncomfortable relationship with the Porter Commission set up by Uganda to investigate the same range of allegations against its nationals and the UPDF. The panel of experts has been given a further mandate until 24th June to respond to its objectors and to provide the further evidence that some of them, including Her Majesty's Government, have required.
Since 1999, there has been a peace process for the DRC, perseveringly supported by not only South Africa but our own Government. Accords were signed in Pretoria in the middle of last year by the DRC Government—which controls from Kinshasa about two fifths of that whole vast country—Uganda and Rwanda. That process has continued through further rounds of negotiation between the various faction leaders and Kinshasa into the first part of this week.
Seen as a whole, those processes commit Uganda and Rwanda to the complete withdrawal of their armed forces from DRC territory and to ending their support for the range of competing factions that they have fostered and armed over the past 10 or 12 years. The processes promise an administration in Kinshasa in which most of the competing faction leaders will have a stake and will over time be able to exercise government over the whole country. Our own and other governments are poised to offer the range of confidence-building technical and military assistance through which a unified army, police, customs, justice and every other kind of medical and educational service can be developed to provide for the population's security and welfare.
Critically important obstacles have yet to be ironed out. The main players still do not judge that they can safely gather in Kinshasa to begin that intimidatingly large and delicate programme of work. Meanwhile, since the spring of last year, freshly in the last months of 2002, into this year, and then in the past few weeks the forces of some who signed the accords have continued to fight each other. There have been renewed and still-worsening outbreaks of vicious tribal killing, pillage and destruction in Ituri—where millions of already-weakened people are quite beyond the reach of those few NGOs that still have expert and committed personnel in the area. There are well-grounded fears—especially after the expulsion from Bunia on 6th March of the UPC, following the latter's
1562
increasing liaison with the Rwanda-backed RCD-Goma, and the subsequent wave of tribal revenge killings and destruction across the wider area—that Ugandan and Rwandan forces may again clash on Congolese soil. That would very likely wreck the already nearly stalled peace process and set back by years the chances for peace in the DRC arid across the region.
In the face of such a situation, I look forward to hearing from the Minister that the Government will publish—and when it will publish—a detailed response to the conclusions of the UN panel, with a commitment fully to investigate allegations made against UK companies and individuals. Will the Government press Uganda and Rwanda to do the same and press both to respond to the recommendations of the report by the International Crisis Group, The Kivus: The Forgotten Crucible of the Congo Conflict; and press Uganda to publish the report of its Porter Commission and to act on its findings? Will the Government work with others to ensure that the UN, through the Security Council, responds fully and imaginatively to its panel's report? What will happen if, on 24th June when the panel's latest mandate expires, there is still defensive argument about its findings?
On the issue of the availability of arms, and of arms of increasing power and sophistication, I welcome in the Government's export control Bill the inclusion of the DRC among "embargoed destinations" for arms sold from the UK or by UK nationals based elsewhere. But will the Government go further, as the US and others have done, and introduce end-use monitoring backed by real sanctions to ensure that British-made weapons sold to neighbouring countries are not sold on to the DRC?
The UN panel regards as a necessary condition of the success of all its other recommendations, the withdrawal of foreign forces beyond their own borders, together with an end to their arming and supporting a range of Congolese proxy forces. It makes detailed proposals about the tracing and closing off of the channels through which the DRC's minerals, and the wealth that they create, are siphoned into world markets and the pockets of individuals, companies and states. There are questions here for the UK, for the EU and for the UN.
What steps are the Government prepared and intending to take—and in what timescale—to impress these requirements on Rwanda, but also to discourage the Kinshasa Government from arming and supporting groups in the eastern DRC which Rwanda understandably perceives as threats to its security? Are the Government pressing Uganda to withdraw its substantial forces from Ituri where they may, for the moment, be providing some fragile security for at least some of the people, but where their presence is a provocation to Rwanda and promises nothing in the way of a longer-term contribution to the security of the region? What more can be done to reduce the very real risk of conflict within the DRC between these two neighbours?
Uganda recently asked for a "neutral force" to keep the peace in Ituri. But neither Uganda nor Rwanda have been keen to see the UN Force MONUC strengthened, whether in numbers or in mandate. Yet, to many observers—as to many Congolese who spoke with me—it seems imperative that MONUC should be strengthened in both respects urgently and with a stiffening of major power participation and determined leadership, both so that it can be more proactive, flexible and imaginative within its present mandate and so that it deploys very much closer to the Congo's eastern border, and in numbers sufficient to reassure ordinary people by beginning to provide some basic order and security. In these regards, for what are the Government, in concert with others, prepared to press? And in what timescale?
The Ituri Pacification Committee has barely started what could be its critically important work. As a matter of urgency, are the Government seeking to ensure that it is properly resourced and that it has an excellent chairman; and that, among its priorities, it attends to the need for justice to be seen to be done after so much killing and destruction? Within that, proper attention should be paid to the appallingly brutal treatment of women which is increasingly a feature of the conflicts in Ituri and, indeed, much more widely in the DRC.
Finally, will the Government respond positively to the request of the all-party parliamentary group that they publish a regional strategy paper expressing a set of positions and proposals agreed between the FCO and DfID, and initiate a regional conference? Will they develop a common wish-list and a stronger partnership with France, Belgium, and the Netherlands in particular, so as to be able to pursue this whole range of questions effectively, both in the EU and in the UN?
Let no one think that the current concentration on Iraq can justify postponing attention to the crying needs of the DRC and of the Great Lakes region more widely. I end with some words from a comprehensive and profoundly depressing report published last month by Amnesty International under the title, DRC: on the Precipice—the deepening human rights and humanitarian crisis in Ituri:
"The scale of the tragedy in Ituri is appalling, but the situation could worsen, and sharply so … Amnesty International are convinced that a greater sense of urgency is needed on the part of the international community if the possibility of an uncontrollable human rights disaster is to be averted … Without decisive action, there is no end in sight to the tragedy being suffered by the Congolese civil population in Ituri".
I should add that there are signs that the situation further south in the Kivus is moving in the same direction.
8.51 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, we owe the right reverend Prelate much thanks for initiating such an important debate. What pressure can the UN and the world in general exert on the African Union, I wonder, which purports to represent the African countries and to have its own humanitarian
1564
organisations—all the stronger, no doubt, because Libya, by the act of the African Union, has become head of the UNHCR? What about its organs devoted to the promotion of good governance in NePAD? What, in particular, should the UN be urging both President Gaddafi and President Mbeki to do to end President Mugabe's monstrous exploitation through the Zimbabwe army and, indeed, his ministers, of the Congo's assets? What should the UN and the AU be saying to them, and, of course, to Uganda and Rwanda, about the impact of the plunder of a country on the people?
Where, I wonder, do the French stand? They have longstanding local interests, and longstanding local pressures. I have seen very little reference to them in the report. I find that interesting, and shall return to the issue.
I am also concerned about the desperate need for us to address the humanitarian crisis because the displacement of millions of people in that vast country has been internal: they do not count as refugees. Because the UN presence there has been largely to observe and negotiate, there is no safe environment for NGOs, although that has not stopped Médecins Sans Frontières and Merlin, among others, from operating.
I must declare an interest as the patron of a very small charity, Action Congo, which succeeded another, International Care and Relief. For some years, the latter ran a hospital and an agricultural scheme teaching 200,000 Africans to grow food, as well as a primary school—all in a desperately poor area in Manono, a former mining town. There was no work there, no public services, and no infrastructure whatever.
I went to the Congo first in 1959 accredited as Consul to both the French and the Belgian Congo, as it then was. I served there until 1961. I was there for independence; I was there for the mutiny and the collapse of the country. Why, you might ask, was a vast, rich country so wholly unprepared for independence and so utterly without any infrastructure? It is because the Congo was ruled by the Union Miniere, the parastatal bodies, and the Catholic Church. The Union Miniere wanted only workers able to read and write at primary level, so primary education up to the age of 11 was good, though Flemish was perhaps a strange choice of foreign language for a country bordered by anglophone and francophone countries.
There was not one indigenous civil servant when I went to the Congo in 1959, no doctors, no lawyers—indeed, no professional people. There were not even senior NCOs in the Force Publique, which controlled the country and put down fairly frequent tribal wars. The only thing that the Belgians taught effortlessly was corruption. So when after the mutiny the Belgians fled the country there was no infrastructure, no public service, nothing but warring tribes and shifting allegiances.
I had many friends among the leaders, from Lumumba to Mobutu, then a young, brave and honourable man. But successive Congolese governments were like rows of front doors with no

1565
house behind. So when the locusts came in numbers, after years of disorder and loss of hope, the people had no protection, and still do not, other than tribal leaders, each with his own cohort of unpaid and ruthless soldiery only good for despoiling their own people, not protecting them.
I have had a story from missionaries in the Katanga about the return of the brave Congolese army to a particular area which had been devastated by the Tutsi. What did the army do? It was welcomed by the people. It gathered them together and made them take off all their clothes, what they had left to wear. It burnt the clothes, laughed and went away. That is what it did for its own people.
It would have seemed quite natural to Kabila to join with Mugabe and his generals to despoil his own country, so a solution to that problem has to be found. Can the UN do it? Can it, with the EU, force the African Union to do something for good governance and against organised pillage? It sees to me that the Congolese Government is where we have to start. I doubt it, but we must urge the necessity.
It will not be enough to identify all the chief robbers, if they are allowed to continue. For what will be the point of the UN and the EU investing money and resources at one end while the country's life blood is systematically draining away at the other and that continues unchecked? It will not be easy to create an efficient and honest public service after 43 years of chaos. For when the Belgians went in the 1960s everything collapsed. There were no public services. The Congo is a vast, rich and diverse country, with some wonderful people—and some who are irredeemably violent and corrupt.
What has all this to do with the very full and terrible UN report, the follow-up to the first? My object is to urge that, although the report is extremely valuable in identifying the individuals who have conducted the systematic pillage of another African country, we must also consider and fear the long-term effect on the countries which have perpetrated this. I think, for instance, of the Zimbabwe army, which has come to believe, thanks to this experience, that pillage, corruption and brutality are normal, with terrible consequences for its own people when it returns home.
I hope that the men and the organisations named will be publicly called to account, both in the UN and in the EU—-and, indeed, in the Commonwealth. The report should leave European governments no excuse not to sequester their assets where possible. Again, I say that the French are the big question mark.
What action do the British Government intend to take to curtail, if not end, the activities of British subjects and companies? I do not know whether the UN report is based on sufficient proof for action. The UN is in a slightly odd position in that it can freely say things without having to answer for them. That may be a problem. But the UN report appears to be based on sufficient proof for action, and the detail is careful and convincing, particularly in its identification of elite networks and its recognition that there has been, apparently, a great deal of criminal activity.
1566
Will it be possible from the Congo end, I wonder, to make it a condition of any UN or EU help that the new contractual arrangements set up—I refer to paragraph 17 of the report—to continue in the longer term shall be abrogated? For the Government of the Congo are at least as guilty of harming the interests of their own people as the Zimbabwe Government and the Uganda Government. A daunting feature of the report is the complicated international network of companies, involving even Mauritius.
I hope that another area, that of the environment, given the destruction of the valuable timber forests and the impact on animal life, will not be neglected either.
I fear that I am not optimistic about the country's stability, nor about the political will of the outside world—it is a very large task—let alone the local players and their chance of achieving peace. It is not easy to create a public service from nothing. But it is encouraging that the UN has grasped so many nettles with such vigour, and I hope that it will do all Africa some good.I should like to read to your Lordships an account which the intrepid director of Action Congo, who has twice been back to Lubumbashi, once at her own expense, and into the interior, received from one of the workers in Manono. This is an account of what happened in May 1999 when the war came to Manono. The children were on the way to school, the parents on their way to work. Others had left to cultivate their fields 17 kilometres or more out of the city.
"As the war escalated the children on their way to school were not able to return to their homes, and in the same way, their parents were unable to return home to get their children. Parents and children trying to reach their homes were killed by the Rwanda Army and Mobutu rebels fighting with the Army. Others, who found themselves wakening at home, fled naked. The people who were consoling the families whose members had died, left the dead bodies as they were at the entrance to their homes.
The old persons who were not sufficiently strong to flee were abandoned, as were the blind, while the sick who were hospitalised and those who had been operated on the day before the war started, who had not been collected by their families, tried to flee also … one blind woman managed to walk more than 400 kilometres, and finally was helped to arrive at Lubumbashi 750 kilometres from Manono. In view of the Rebels and the Army having taken Manono completely, the military of Zimbabwe, pitying the little children, the old, the blind and the deaf (about 3,000 people in all) took these children and the elderly, etc, and put them into a large Catholic school for their security. The Rwandan military arrived and found the children and the old people in the school. Immediately, they started firing with their heavy guns into the school, and burnt down the school with everyone still living inside it.
Large numbers of the people who fled fell dead on the road from exhaustion, for the lack of food, medicines, shelter and clean water, and on account of sickness, such as malaria".
I shall not continue, but the director received another note a year later, She notes:
"A few months ago, some of the Manono people being desperate to grow food for themselves and fearful of likely death in the Lubumbashi, as well as finding the Lubumbashi cold and therefore causing illness, walked back' to Manono (800 + kilometres). The Rwandan Army there killed them all".
That is what life is like in that large, rich, potentially wonderful country and it is an utter disgrace.
As there is just time, I might tell your Lordships two stories. When I was in the Congo at the independence celebrations, we had representatives from Uganda,

1567
Nigeria, Tanzania and Kenya. I arranged for them all to meet the Congolese ministers. Two nights after they left, when they were facing their future which was still quite rosy, three of the ministers came to see me in the middle of the night. They said, "We wish to become a British colony". I said, "That is rather difficult, because you have now become members of the United Nations and you are an independent country. Why do you want to become a British colony?". They said, "Well, because we have talked to all those others and they have organisation. They have been taught things, they have a government and they know how to run their lives. We have none of that, so we thought we would like it. Will you please ask for this?". I need hardly tell your Lordships that it was not feasible.
Since I am in the business of paying tributes to the British—and why not, passionately believing, as I do, that we were good colonisers?—the country was beginning to get a little uneasy. People were beginning to realise that the future was going to be difficult and strange. The vice-consul in what was then Stanleyville and is now Kisangani sent me a message to say that I was urgently required there and would I go up. So I flew up and it turned out that a delegation of shopkeepers, Cypriots who had fled from Cyprus having committed crimes against the British Army and murdered a few people, had settled in the Congo and were leading a happy and fruitful life because as well as being shopkeepers they were money lenders. They were therefore not popular. They said to me, "We would like you to make representation to arrange to take over this country as a British colony". I asked, "Why?", and they said, "Well, the British know how to run independencies and they know how to run African countries, so we would like you to do this instantly".
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, is not feeling well. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn for five minutes.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 9.5 to 9.10 p.m.]
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I shall conclude with one last story. It is not funny, but it is relevant. Robert Gardiner was a very great Ghanaian who ended his career as the chairman of the Economic Commission for Africa. He was also in charge of UN operations in the Congo for a while. The UN in the Congo at that time was the biggest disaster one could imagine.
I often wonder what would have happened if, after initially agreeing, the UN had not prevented us from training officers for Lumumba. Immediately after the mutiny, when 6,000 Belgians had fled overnight and the country was in turmoil, Lumumba sent Mobutu to me to ask whether the British would train some officers for their army, which was totally out of control. The British government agreed and we cleared it with the United Nations. But, by September, when the army officers were due to go to Britain, a new head of UN operations, Rajeshwar Dayal, had been appointed. He
1568
represented strongly to the Secretary-General in New York that it would be a disaster if the wicked British colonialists were allowed to train their army. Therefore, the aeroplane that was at the airport waiting to take these officers to England was cancelled and they were never trained. That was a sad incident in history.
Robert Gardiner once said to a group of young Africans who were about to become diplomats that the British gave two great things to Africa—the English language and the rule of law. The sad thing is that the Belgians left neither the rule of law nor any kind of infrastructure. The reason for all the trials and tribulations that we are now discussing, and the reason that the Congo—a rich country which is bursting with life, people and vitality—is in such a terrible state, is that it was left with no infrastructure and no rule of law. I hope that somehow, sometime, we will be able to help to restore them. That will be one of the UN's major tasks eventually.
9.12 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Park, who it is always a privilege to follow on these occasions because of her immense knowledge of southern Africa, in the hope that we shall get our act together and do something positive for the people of the DRC in their hour of need, and help them to take advantage of the opportunity arising from the peace agreement which has recently been signed in Sun City.
I join in the thanks that the noble Baroness expressed to the right reverend Prelate. He has given us the first opportunity we have had, in either House, to look at the report of the United Nations panel. In my opinion, it has done an excellent job in exposing the criminal networks that operate under the protection and sponsorship of the various armed groups and of the many countries which have been mentioned, in particular, Zimbabwe, Uganda and Rwanda.
As has been said by both the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, the DRC is potentially an immensely rich country, but the sums of money which are being syphoned off by the gangs which operate under the protection of its neighbours are enormous. In the government-controlled area, for instance, the report states that 5 billion US dollars-worth of assets have been transferred from the state-owned mining sector to the joint Zimbabwe-DRC kleptocracy in the past three years, and that the ZDF was planning to deploy a private military company, under its control, to protect its investment after its troops had withdrawn.
As we have heard before, the key players at the Zimbabwe end of the network are Emmerson Mnangagwa, the Speaker, General Vitalis Zvinavashe, the commander of the ZDF and executive chairman of COSLEG, the joint venture formed between Zimbabwe and the DRC to steal the people's assets, and Air Marshal Perence Shiri, who is said to be engaged in illicit diamond trading in Harare.
The report mentions a number of people living in the UK, and companies either registered here or effectively conducted from this country, which are alleged to be

1569
involved in the theft of resources from the DRC. Oryx Natural Resources, for instance, although registered in the Cayman Islands, is chaired by Dr Issa Al-Kawari, a London-based businessman who is said to manage the finances of the deposed Emir of Qatar.
The panel makes a number of detailed allegations about this company, and recommends placing financial restrictions on it. The company, in turn, has denied all the allegations—as it would—but the panel has given some evidence, particularly in support of the allegation that the 49 per cent interest in Sengamines, which operates a 720 kilometre square mining concession south of Mbuji-Mayi, is held on behalf of OSLEG, the ZDF investment vehicle. According to the Sengamines' website, the state mining company, MIBA, contributed its mining concessions, the DRC a regime favourable to investment, and Oryx the finance and expertise. On this one venture alone, the state has given away a concession said to be worth more than £2 billion, as company officials have told the UN, and received back a shareholding of only 33 per cent.
The problem in getting a comprehensive and transparent investigation of the allegations against Oryx or, indeed, any of the other 12 companies that are named in the report as being in breach of the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises, is that the UN panel has legal privilege, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, has told us, but discussion outside the framework could attract legal proceedings. Oryx has challenged the UN panel to repeat its allegations in some public forum, but at the same time the company says that it is looking for a jurisdiction where the allegations could be tested by legal action taken by the company itself.
I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, on 28th May last year, at col. 1143 of Hansard, whether it was the intention of the Security Council to publish the evidence on which the panel based its findings. I repeat that suggestion now; I gave the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, notice that I would do so. If the documents were made available, either on the UN website or in some other form, together with any comments that the companies and individuals might care to submit, the general public would be able to evaluate the allegations for themselves. I mean by that not the public in this country particularly but in the countries concerned, primarily in the DRC, whose assets are being stolen.
In the case of the UK companies said to have violated the OECD guidelines, I hope the noble Baroness will have time, on some other occasion if not today, to study the suggestions that are made in the paper I sent her on rights and accountability in development. It gives some extremely practical proposals as to how the panel's allegations should be pursued, which would form a suitable model for the next steps to be taken.
I am, I think, the only person in the UK to have formally made a submission to the UK national contact point for observation of the OECD guidelines. I would be very happy to act as intermediary if the panel wishes to have its charges against UK companies
1570
properly considered by the authorities. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness would either facilitate an application to the national contact point for the panel or suggest that it looks for a suitable intermediary in the United Kingdom to make such a submission on its behalf.
The UN panel makes it clear that most of the problems in the east and north of the DRC are caused by foreign intervention, particularly by the evil coalitions of senior military pirates from Zimbabwe, Rwanda and Uganda, with Russian and Lebanese businessmen. Ali the well known villains of the previous report star in these pages as well: John Bredenkamp, the Zimbabwe sanctions-breaker who continues to enjoy his millions here in Britain, in Sunningdale; Victor Bout, to whose gunrunning activities the authorities in the UAE turned a blind eye; and Major General James Kazlimi, who committed perjury before the Porter Commission in Uganda. These people, and their militia allies on the ground, have created a machine systematically to plunder the resources of the country, and to use the local administrations as a further means of extracting wealth from the people while denying them basic services. The Red Cross and other international humanitarian agencies have had to step in and provide clean water in Kisangani, for instance, at the same time as billions of dollars are being siphoned abroad to line the pockets of an evil multinational mafia.
The UN panel makes a number of recommendations, which, so far as I am aware, have not yet been considered by the UN Security Council. The latest resolution, of 20th March, contrasts the progress made at the meeting of Congolese parties in Pretoria on 6th March towards a transitional government for the whole country, and the frightful atrocities in the Ituri area—which we have heard about already—graphically described by Amnesty International in a report published the week before last, to which the right reverend Prelate referred. Bunia, the regional capital, is under the control of the UPC, which, of course, is not a signatory of the Pretoria Agreement.
The Security Council did not address the unanimous demand made by the Pretoria meeting for a UN force to help to guarantee the security of the population during the two-year transition to democratic elections It asked the Secretary-General to increase MONUC's human rights personnel, but I wonder whether that is likely to be effective if nothing is done about the causes. If Kosovo was a threatened major humanitarian catastrophe, the DRC is an actual catastrophe, and a few more human rights monitors are not going to be the answer. It is reported that the Ugandan army has returned to Bunia and intends to stay there until 24th April—the latest date for the coming into operation of an Ituri pacification commission. But the AU's Third Party Verification Mission says that Uganda is in breach of the Lusaka agreement and must withdraw its troops. I think that should be the firm demand of the United Nations and of all the countries which are concerned with the position in the region.
With regard to conflict diamonds, the Interlaken declaration of November last year approved an international certification scheme for rough diamonds, but several of the DRC's neighbours did not sign,

1571
particularly Rwanda, but also Uganda, Sudan and Central African Republic. Would it not be feasible to embody the Kimberley process and its certification scheme in a mandatory Security Council resolution, and, if not, are there any levers that we can use with President Kagame to persuade him to sign?
What was billed as the final session of talks to adopt peace and power-sharing arrangements in the DRC came to an end yesterday with the signing of an agreement by rebel and government leaders on a two-year transitional government leading to democratic elections. Although all the rebel movements were said to have accepted the deal, the Mayi-Mayi immediately voiced objections to it, and at the very same time MONUC premises were being attacked. We echo the UN Secretary-General in thanking President Thabo Mbeki and Sir Ketumile Masire, the facilitator, for the work that they have done so far, but we also agree with him that much the hardest part is yet to come.
9.23 p.m.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester for introducing this very important debate.
It is debates like this that return our attention to some of the most insuperable problems in the world today. It is, indeed, too easy, when there are such pressing events as the war in Iraq, to focus on that alone and forget all the other areas that should demand our attention.
In his profound and wide-ranging account, with great clarity the right reverend Prelate described a desperate situation in which tribal warfare has been fanned and encouraged so that the country can be plundered. As he says, it is an uncontrolled human rights disaster. And yet the UN is playing a key role in exposing that. But, as he says, the UN findings must be followed up and implemented, and this is the challenge that must be put to the Government tonight.
The DRC could hardly be in a worse situation. Genocide reigns supreme, not international law. Contributing to and exploiting that situation are individuals and governments whose real reason for involvement in the country is, as we have heard, to plunder its rich resources.
As we have also heard, yesterday a peace deal was signed in South Africa which includes a new constitution and a power-sharing administration which is supposed to oversee in two years' time the DRC's first democratic elections since 1960. But neither President Joseph Kabila nor the MLC rebel leader personally signed the peace deal. As Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, said, the most difficult times lie ahead. He went on to say that:
"No one must imagine that this deal will implement itself'.
If the deal is to mean anything, it will need to be backed up by international will.
The country is in an appalling state. The BBC's reporter, Mark Dummett, today described for the BBC's "Network Africa" programme the scenes of
1572
utter devastation he witnessed on a 40-kilometre stretch of road out of the regional capital, Bunia. Fresh graves had been dug at the roadside and all the villages he passed had been burnt out. Villagers showed him several mass graves, and that is typical. In many areas, journalists and international monitors cannot visit because of the lack of safety.
The DRC shares many of the problems of other African countries: extreme poverty, HIV/AIDS, high levels of disease—at the moment it is afflicted by an Ebola fever epidemic—poor sanitation, inadequate drinking water supplies, lack of infrastructure and huge levels of ethnic conflict. But it has its special burden. As the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Great Lakes Region and Genocide Prevention put it in its report in November 2002, the DRC is "cursed by riches".
The DRC is rich in mineral reserves. That wealth should lay the foundations for its people's prosperity, but it has had the opposite effect. It has been at the root of many of the country's problems. It has meant enormous strife as other countries and other groups have tried to lay their hands on the DRC's gold, diamonds and other resources. Thus there have been armies in the DRC from Uganda, Rwanda, Angola, Zimbabwe, Namibia and Burundi. Child soldiers have been used on all sides. In some areas, aid workers report that children form the bulk of the armies. The conflict has left 3 million people dead, while disease and abuse are widespread. There are reports of cannibalism.
The UN panel of experts referred to by other speakers in the debate was established in June 2000 to consider the illegal exploitation of natural resources and to consider in particular the link between that exploitation and the continuation of the conflict. The panel concluded that foreign armies were using the conflict as an excuse to continue exploiting resources and that this was taking place, "at an alarming rate". Army commanders, businessmen and governments were all exploiting the situation. It recommended sanctions against both countries and individuals. In October last year, the panel concluded that there had been a multi-billion dollar corporate theft of the country's mineral assets. It pointed to a network of senior military people, businessmen and government officials in the various foreign governments and in the Government of the DRC, acting together to continue that exploitation.
Those groups have not disbanded as the armies withdraw, so that the peace processes still leave in place terrible exploitation. As my honourable friend and colleague in another place, Norman Lamb, asked on 5th March in the debate he led on Rwanda and the Great Lakes region: what is the UK Government's response to that UN report? The right reverend Prelate echoed the question in his remarks.
The UN report recommends travel bans, asset freezing and banking restrictions on those they have identified. Again, as my colleague Norman Lamb asked, and as my noble friend Lord Avebury has expanded on, given the extensive business connections

1573
with this country, what action are the Government taking to follow those recommendations about individuals closely connected to the UK, and what is the time scale for that action?
What action do the Government intend to take against countries involved in the conflict in the Congo in terms of development assistance? The noble Lady, Baroness Amos, said on 4th March:
"In the light of the panel's findings, Her Majesty's Government will consider taking appropriate action where there is clear evidence of wrongdoing".—[Official Report, 4/3/03; col. WA 95.]
Will the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, expand on what was meant by that, when such action might be taken, and what clear evidence is being asked for? Will she now take up the offer of the services of my noble friend Lord Avebury in that regard?
In addition, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, referred to reservists being called up,
"to support operations in Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo".—[Official Report, 4/3/03; col. WA 101.]
Could the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, fill us in on what operations are taking place in the DRC with the assistance of the British Army?
Whatever the role of the British military, it is clearly essential that the United Nations has sufficient resources so that it can play a peacekeeping role. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, gave us in many ways a very pessimistic account based on great experience of the DRC. However, she too would seem to credit the UN as offering the only ray of hope that seems to be on the horizon at the moment. Only with some form of order will it be possible even to begin on the reconstruction of the country, building its infrastructure and setting in place programmes aimed at creating jobs and improving conditions for local populations, especially in relation to education, health and sanitation. That seems far distant in terms of the situation in the DRC at the moment.
At the Labour Party conference in 2001, the Prime Minister described Africa as,
"a scar on the conscience of the world".
As he promised to concentrate on Africa, so he promised to concentrate on Afghanistan. He now says that he will concentrate on Iraq and the Middle East. I have no doubt that he means what he says, but the danger becomes the difficulty of one problem eclipsing another. It is therefore essential that we do not let that happen.
At a time when the UN itself is under much attack and seems almost rent asunder, that the ray of light in the DRC is the result of the UN's actions shows how important it is that we value what the UN can do, and that we ensure that it is further strengthened. The debate is a very sobering reminder of the key role that international law and international bodies must now play.
9.33 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I too congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester on raising this very important issue. I am only sorry that
1574
the debate has taken place so late on a Thursday evening, resulting in two very well informed speakers having to withdraw their names. I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate on an excellent and very moving speech on a tragic subject that is dear to his heart and that of his diocese, which has very close contact with the DRC, Uganda and Rwanda. He presented a chilling picture of the horror taking place in the DRC.
My noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth also knows the Congo very well. She spoke with great authority on the background to the present-day problems and on what life is like today in what was once a very rich country. I always listen very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on such matters. The examples that he gave of how and by whom enormous sums of money are siphoned off were truly shocking. I look forward to the Minister's reply to his important question.
I have been concerned for some time about the apparent failure of Her Majesty's Government to take any serious action in response to the report by the expert panel. The right reverend Prelate said that the dreadful situation is of a scale and urgency that requires much more action than the Government have yet committed themselves to deliver.
According to the UN report, as several noble Lords have pointed out, the humanitarian consequences of what is essentially a financially driven conflict in the Great Lakes region have been horrific:. The panel says that in the five eastern provinces of the DRC alone, the number of deaths directly attributable to the war up to September 2002 was estimated to be between 3 million and 3.5 million people.
In view of recent world events, it is important to bear in mind that the panel was commissioned to carry out its work by no less a body than the Security Council of the United Nations. At this juncture, Her Majesty's Government cannot afford to dismiss lightly recommendations and resolutions that emanate from that council. To be seen to drag their heels, or to take action only unwillingly, weakens the position of the UK when the time comes to criticise the tardy response of other countries to our resolutions. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that the UN is playing a key role in drawing attention to the full horror of the situation in the DRC.
Resolution 1457, which was adopted unanimously by the Security Council on 24th January, gives the panel the mandate to collect information on the,
"actions taken by Governments in response to the panel's recommendations",
and urges all states to conduct their own investigations,
"including, as appropriate through judicial means, in order to clarify credibly the findings of the Panel, taking into account the fact that the Panel, which is not a judicial body, does not have the resources to carry out an investigation whereby these findings can be considered as established facts".

1575
While that resolution is dated January 2003, the panel's process of investigation has been under way since 2000. However, on 4th March, as the noble Baroness said, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, could claim only:
"In the light of the panel's findings, Her Majesty's Government will consider taking appropriate action where there is clear evidence of wrongdoing".—[Official Report, 4/3/03; col. WA 95.]
While Her Majesty's Government appear to have been dithering, the response of some other countries to the report has been admirable. The president of the DRC, Joseph Kabila, suspended several key government officials named in the report, including some of the most powerful figures in his government as long ago as November 2002. He also recalled his envoy in Harare, who had been implicated.
In Uganda, as the right reverend Prelate said, the government commissioned a judge, David Porter, to investigate Ugandan nationals named in the report. His findings were presented to the Ugandan Cabinet in February this year.
By contrast, Her Majesty's Government have apparently not even instigated any serious investigation into the allegations made, still less taken any punitive action. One area that is of very special concern to me is the connection between the illegal activities in the DRC and the ringleaders of the brutal repression that is occurring further south in Zimbabwe. Several noble Lords touched on that. Companies alleged in the report to be involved in underhand deals include Oryx Natural Resources and OSLEG, which have close links to the Zimbabwe national army.
The report demonstrates a very clear involvement by the corrupt regime of Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF and the plunder of the DRC's natural resources. Time and again Ministers have tried to give the impression of despair and that there is so little they can do to influence events in connection with Zimbabwe. But here is an opportunity handed to them on a plate and they have failed to take it.
Annex 2 of the report lists the names of,
"Persons for whom the Panel recommends a travel ban and financial restrictions".
Two of those persons, Thamer al Shanfari and John Bredenkamp, spend time in the United Kingdom and, as has already been said, have business interests here. Annex 3 lists,
"Business enterprises considered by the Panel to be in violation of OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises".
One of those businesses listed, Avient Air, is according to the report, managed by Andrew Smith, a former British Army captain. He is also reputed to operate businesses from within the United Kingdom.
The time has come for Her Majesty's Government to take these matters seriously. We cannot lecture African nations on the need to deal with corruption and illegal business deals if we are not prepared even to investigate well founded allegations that are made against those who operate from within our own
1576
jurisdiction. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House that serious investigation, with a view to punitive action where necessary, is now under way.
9.41 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am very grateful for this stimulating and constructive debate and thank noble Lords for their contributions. I will ensure that any answers to noble Lords' questions that I do not cover tonight are sent in written form. I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester for giving us the opportunity to discuss these topics, and for his important contribution to the very positive role the Churches are playing in the DRC.
The debate has covered not only the important subject of the final report of the UN Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo, but it has also given us an opportunity to debate recent events there that are of concern to noble Lords.
The Lusaka agreement in 1999 effectively brought to an end the conventional fighting between the various Congolese armed groups and their foreign backers. But the foreign armies stayed in the DRC. The no-peace no-war stalemate that ensued, and which has been referred to by many noble Lords, benefited no one except those able to exploit the situation. Many did, including the foreign armies and almost all of the Congolese participants in the conflict. So, too, did the "criminal élites" referred to in the last report of the UN expert panel. Despite the stern strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, to us, in an otherwise excellent contribution, I assure noble Lords that the Government fully support the UN expert panel in its work on the illegal exploitation of the many and varied natural resources which the Democratic Republic of Congo possesses. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, from her great experience of the Congo, mentioned in particular the shameful role of Zimbabwe in that exploitation.
It highlights the need for proper and transparent regulation of the extractive industries of the DRC, which holds the key to the regeneration of the country's economy. The UN expert panel report highlights mismanagement and corruption in the DRC's largest mining operation, Gecamines, which has resulted in a huge slump in the contribution the company has made to the economy.
From once earning some 70 per cent of the DRC's hard currency export earnings, Gecamines' production, so the panel report states, is now at only one-tenth of its former capacity. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also spoke in his powerful contribution about corruption in the mining industry. It beggars belief.
Without that income and with the added cost of a seemingly interminable conflict the DRC could face an enormous economic crisis, even worse than it is at present. So we take very seriously the allegations in the panel's report against the 12 UK-registered companies. The report claims that those companies have been non-compliant with voluntary OECD guidelines on multinational enterprise. We asked for

1577
further information from the panel in November 2002 in order to substantiate the claims that it made. But there has been a technical hitch to which many noble Lords referred, although in terms of complacency, which I refute.
The panel's mandate expired when it submitted its report and it was therefore unable to restart work to produce the information requested until it had been granted a new mandate. With our strong support, the Security Council Resolution 1457 of 24th January 2003 extended the mandate of the panel for a further six months. I am pleased to report that the panel reconvened on 3rd March. We have again asked for information linking British companies and individuals named in the report with illegal exploitation of natural resources. We look forward to receiving the information that we have requested and will then consider taking appropriate action where there is clear evidence of wrongdoing. The UK Government have to act objectively in this matter, but cannot do so without more robust evidence.
This debate is also about the UK Government's reaction to recent events in the DRC. I therefore turn to the situation in the Ituri region in eastern Congo, on which the right reverend Prelate spoke at some length and which has featured in the newspapers recently, and to the peace process more generally. The eastern DRC remains violent and volatile. It is a cause of deep concern. The abuse of human rights in all its aspects, described as a disaster by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, whether it is brutal rape, the use of child soldiers or resource exploitation, is totally unacceptable.
Some of the violence has its own genesis and momentum deeply rooted in the historical, social and ethnic mix of the region. That is particularly true in Ituri, as the right reverend Prelate so strongly described, but also in the Kivus. However, it is fuelled by short-term military and economic interests of local warlords and both Congolese and foreign outsiders. In that respect, the recent outbreak of fighting in the Ituri region between the Ugandan Peoples Defence Force and the Union des Patriotes Congolais (UPC), the newest armed group, is very worrying.
Last year when the Ugandans withdrew their forces from the DRC, we understood that they were asked by the Kinshasa government to stay in Ituri to keep the peace. However, since then, fighting and human rights abuses have continued. We were encouraged in February when President Kabila of the DRC and President Museveni of Uganda signed an agreement under which the remaining Ugandan forces would be withdrawn by 20th March. My noble friend Lady Amos, together with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development, urged President Museveni to stick to his part of the bargain. But the most recent outbreak of fighting could not have been more badly timed. The subsequent reinforcement of Ugandan forces suggested that President Museveni would go back on his commitment. We therefore pressed him to honour his commitment. The Security Council Resolution 1468 of 20th March 2003 called on Uganda to withdraw "without delay". We continue to reiterate that message.
1578
We are also giving urgent attention to a viable and neutral security force for the region. Several noble Lords referred to that. A variety of alternatives are under consideration and we are working closely with our partners in the European Union and UN to agree on the best option. We have also pressed Rwanda to show restraint and not to carry out its threat to reenter the DRC. Law and order must be restored to Ituri, and to the Kivus.
My Government believe that this can be achieved and that there can be an end to the violence and bloodshed.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. Was she going to say something about the Ituri Pacification Commission which has been mentioned by several noble Lords and which the Ugandans said would begin to operate on 24th April? Is that so; and will the Ituri Pacification Commission have a military component which will be strong enough to keep the peace in Bunia?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Lord. I do not have the details in my brief.
It was agreed in Kinshasa that peace could be brought to Ituri quickly, a peace which the international community could help keep. There has very recently been progress on this front.
The signing of the "Global and Inclusive Agreement on Transition in the DRC", which was signed in Pretoria on 17th December last year, as we were reminded by the right reverend Prelate, was a step in the right direction. But it left three main issues unresolved. They were: a new constitution, under which the transitional government would work; security in Kinshasa for members and institutions of the transitional government; and the formation of a new national Army.
On 6th March, in Pretoria, the Congolese parties reached an agreement on the constitution. Negotiations continue on the remaining two issues. This allowed for a final plenary of the Inter-Congolese Dialogue, which concluded yesterday, and which should soon be followed by the formal installation of the transitional government. We look forward very much to this event. I would like here to give tribute to the hard work of those whose efforts have brought about a chance of real peace for the DRC.
As soon as there is an agreed, legitimate transitional government in Kinshasa, we are keen to play our part in helping the Congolese to rebuild the DRC, in the same way as we have been helping the Tanzanians, Ugandans and Rwandans to do so in their countries. We have offered to play our part in enabling the establishment of a reformed national army, drawing on the forces of the Kinshasa Government and the armed groups. We will also be helping with the enormous task of demobilising the tens of thousands of combatants who have taken up arms during the conflict. We have pledged 25 million US dollars over five years to the multi-donor regional demobilisation and reintegration programme in the Great Lakes.

1579
Perhaps I may refer to some of the questions raised. If I do not answer them all, it is because we are running close to time. I shall ensure that all noble Lords receive answers. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester asked when the UK will publish a response to the UN panel's report and whether we shall press Uganda and Rwanda to do the same. We intend to respond to the UN panel's report as soon as the UN provides information that we have requested.
I was also asked what the UN is doing about allegations in the panel report against Uganda, Rwanda and Zimbabwe. We welcome the Porter Commission set up to investigate the allegations made in the UN panel report specifically about Uganda. We await publication of the commission's report with interest. We have encouraged the Rwandan Government to respond positively to the UN panel report. We have limited scope to encourage Zimbabwe to take seriously and respond to the allegations of the panel report.
Where a UK connection is clear, it would be possible to consider action in the light of the nature of such a connection and the strength of the information supplied by the panel during its work during the coming months. Where there is robust evidence, we will take what action we can.
The right reverend Prelate also asked whether Her Majesty's Government will press to strengthen MONUC. We fully support MONUC's activities. If any new mandate is required to bring peace and stability, we would support it. He also asked what the UK is doing to control weapons entering the DRC. We continue to uphold the EU arms embargo imposed in 1993, which bans the export of military equipment from the EU to the DRC, and to examine all export licensing applications against our national criteria and the European Union code of conduct. Similarly, we are upholding the UN embargo on the sale and supply of arms to non-governmental forces in Rwanda, which also applies to the sale and supply of arms to neighbouring states, if they are for use in Rwanda.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, asked whether we would take action on the evidence of the report against UK companies—what sanctions the UK might take. Where there has been a clear breach of UK law, such a breach could be
1580
persecuted—I mean prosecuted; they feel persecuted when they are prosecuted—under the relevant legislation.
Where there is an alleged breach of OECD guidelines, we would review the allegation and take appropriate action. We would also consider other mechanisms and measures to prevent a recurrence and to strengthen control to prevent further illegal or unethical exploitation of natural resources. I shall write to noble Lords about the timescale.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked about UK support for security sector reform in the DRC. A joint DfID/MoD/FCO scoping mission visited the DRC in January to assess how the United Kingdom could contribute to integrating the armed forces in the DRC. We are working with European Union partners to co-ordinate our efforts.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for giving me notice of his question. He asked what steps the Government have taken for allegations of breaches of the OECD guidelines by British companies to be investigated by the national contact point. The national contact point, which is the mediator between the complainant and the company, has been made aware of the UN panel's report. We are ready to take steps when a formal complaint is lodged. Such a complaint would require more evidence than is contained in the UN expert panel's report. I shall write to the noble Lord about publishing evidence. I thank him very much for his offer of mediation with the national contact point; we shall speak to him about that. As the Department of Trade and Industry is the national contact point, perhaps I may suggest that the noble Lord addresses his specific points to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked what the UK was doing specifically about conflict in the DRC. Britain is providing people and money for the military, political and peace observation aspects of the Lusaka peace agreement. I shall enlarge on that to the noble Baroness in writing.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. This has been a very important debate. The DRC—as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said—is such a rich country, with so much that could be going for it. It is a crying shame that there is so much illegal exploitation of that country. I will ensure that noble Lords have complete answers.
House adjourned at ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Water Bill [H.L.]
  (Third Day)
  Thursday, 3rd April 2003.
  The Committee met at a quarter before four of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): Welcome to the Committee on the Water Bill. The usual statement was read out al the beginning of the proceedings of the Committee stage, but perhaps I should remind those who were not here that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, we will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and return after 10 minutes. I believe there will be at least one Division today.
  Clause 19 [Form, contents and effect of licences]:
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 56:
  Page 22, line 21, at end insert—
  "( ) Every licence under this Chapter shall be subject to a duty to use the water abstracted in an efficient manner, so as to further water conservation."
  The noble Baroness said: We believe that the Environment Agency should have the powers to make sure that water that is abstracted is used efficiently. That would enable water conservation to be furthered.
  We have discussed this at length before, but I should particularly like the Minister to address the question of where in the Bill the Government's intention that was so clearly stated in Taking Water Responsibly appears. The relevant part of that document says:
  "the Government intends to bring forward legislation, when Parliamentary time allows, which will enable the Environment Agency to make an enforcement order requiring an abstractor to enter into a water resources management arrangement".
  It is not clear from the Bill whether the Government are still of that mind but have found some reason why that particular duty cannot now be in the Bill; whether they believe that it is in the Bill in another form; or whether it is not in the Bill, in which case we shall feel encouraged to press the amendment at a later stage.
  By supporting the amendment, the Government would simply be returning to their earlier position on the duty of efficient use. Wide support was expressed on Second Reading and earlier during the Committee stage for an efficiency duty. I can only imagine that
  GC 150
  there must be some impediment that the Government have not yet disclosed as to why that duty should not be in the Bill. I beg to move.
  Baroness Byford: I add our support—although perhaps not necessarily to this amendment. I am delighted that the noble Baroness has tabled the amendment, which obviously we support, but if my Amendment No. 3 had been adopted when we began the Committee stage, we would not be having to do what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is rightly trying to do to the best of her ability, which is to put in a requirement for efficiency and water conservation wherever it is relevant. I support the thrust behind the amendment, but we wait to hear what the Minister has to say about whether it is necessary. In principle we certainly support the amendment. We want water to be used as efficiently as possible. Obviously, we wish to see water conserved as well.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): We have had a pretty wide-ranging discussion in the earlier days of Committee about the whole issue of efficiency. In this particular context, the Environment Agency has existing powers. It has the power to impose on any abstraction licence conditions relating to the efficient use of water. The Environment Agency also assesses water efficiency in the grant of every new licence as part of the test of "reasonable requirement". It can also take action to prevent profligate use of water if it should occur. However, all those requirements are clearly tailored to the specific case and give the Environment Agency a right to specific intervention, whereas the general reference to efficiency in the amendment may not be tailored to the individual case. Whatever the general arguments, this is not an appropriate or necessary amendment.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his reply. I shall read it along with his replies to all the other amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and I have tabled on efficiency and then weigh up where further to take the issue. I am still not persuaded that the Government have yet covered the intention expressed in Taking Water Responsibly. I shall return to the issue on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 57:
  Page 22, line 23, at end insert—
  "(6) All licences which were hitherto expressed under section 46(5) of the WRA as remaining in force until revoked, shall from 15th July 2012 state—

  (a) the date on which they take effect, and

  (b) the date on which they expire."

  The noble Baroness said: The amendment stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, who is particularly disappointed that he could not be here to move it himself. He had hoped that we would arrive at it during the previous Committee sitting, but he just missed it, so I am moving it in his name.
  The amendment addresses the need for a mechanism in the Bill for the conversion of permanent licences to time-limited status, to introduce greater flexibility into the licensing system. If the system is to take account of such issues as climate change, we need a level playing field for all licences.
  On Second Reading it was pointed out that Article 11(3)(e) of the EC Water Framework Directive requires abstraction licences to be reviewed periodically to meet the standards of that directive. The amendment is but one example of where a mechanism is needed to enable compliance with the directive in this country. By including it in the Bill we would be doing the Government a service.
  The amendment would simply anticipate the transposition of the Water Framework Directive. It takes account of the fact that the UK needs to address the issue. It would prevent us being open to costly infraction proceedings, as we have been in the past because we have implemented far too slowly. There would then be sufficient notice for licence holders to comply with the Human Rights Act and the amendment would not deprive holders of their right to abstract.
  The amendment cannot be used as a mechanism to revoke or vary licences. It is a modernising amendment to allow the effective management of water resources in the uncertain climatic future. I beg to move.
  Baroness O'Cathain: My Amendment No. 60 is grouped with this, so I should like to speak to it. It is again to do with licences and licence renewal and deals with Clause 20. It would insert a fifth condition—that the presumption of renewal should be accepted—after the previous four. That should be put on the face of the Bill.
  We had a lot of discussion about this last time in Committee. There seemed to be ideas going back and forth and quite a fog about the whole thing. As I read the Bill, the presumption is that a licence will not be renewed.
  In consultation, DEFRA had said that the presumption would be that the licence would be renewed. Government policy, expressed several times, echoed that presumption of renewal, for example in the explanation in the draft Bill in November 2002 and in the consultation exercise in May 2002. How come the Bill now has a presumption of non-renewal?
  Of course, if there is evidence that the people holding the licence are not doing a proper job and if they are not protecting the waters, the underground strata or any fauna or flora dependent on them from serious damage we would not expect the licence to be renewed, provided there was an appeal mechanism. But the onus should be on the Environment Agency to prove that.
  GC 152
  As currently drafted, the burden of proof is on the applicant, which is consistent with a presumption of non-renewal. Clause 13(4) on page 15, line 27, shows what I mean.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Our names are also added to Amendment No. 60. We were thinking along precisely the same lines that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, has outlined in some detail. We strongly support the amendment, because renewal is very important unless there is a good reason to deny it. The reason is clearly closely connected with sustainability of the water supply, which the Environment Agency would obviously take into consideration if it was not going to renew the licence. We wholeheartedly support the amendment.
  Lord Howie of Troon: When I arrived today, I promised the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that I would not speak, but I feel that I have to break my word almost at once in order to support her amendment entirely and wholeheartedly. She is quite right. The onus of proof should be on the agency. I do not doubt that for one minute. The agency has to balance the interests of the environment against those of industry. It is a benign agency, as we know, but it might not always be benign. My experience of it is in relation to coastal erosion, on which it has been adamant in its own views rather than mine.
  The onus of proof should be on the agency. That should not be done by nods and winks, as it is at the moment. It should be on the face of the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, is not offended that I have broken my word so soon.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: After the remarks that I have made in the past, it does not need saying that I support the amendment. I wonder whether the Minister could go into considerable detail on the way in which the system is supposed to work. As I read my noble friend's amendment, it seems to highlight a problem. The Bill talks about a licence, a licence applicant and the possibility of the rejection of a licence. The problems that arise are very rarely going be the result of the actions of one abstractor. Most of the problems that are likely to arise will be the result of the cumulative actions of a whole lot of abstractors. In some cases it may not be possible to enhance flows and the available water resource. The real question is how we administer equitably the problem that is arising as a result of a cumulative effect. That is a very significant issue. We shall need to deal with it and the industry will require considerable assurance on it.
  4 p.m.
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: Perhaps I can help with a few examples of the successful operation of licence renewal in the past. There are about 3,500 time-limited licences in England and Wales, some of which stretch back as far as the 1960s. In the east of the country, water company licences have been time-limited and have been renewed for over 20 years. Very often, those renewals take place in a process of negotiation and small-scale adjustment with

  GC 153
  abstractors, often acting as a group. For example, sometimes groups of farmers come together so that there can be an equitable solution between them. One example was the renewal of a time-limited licence in the Kidderminster area, which enabled a 10 per cent reduction in licensed volumes at the time of renewal. That helped a very water-stressed area but also gave an equitable share of water to meet the needs of the farmers concerned. The NFU was involved in that process of negotiation. That is the sort of renewal process that works well, in those areas in which time-limited licences have operated for some time. In fact, there have been few or no appeals in most of those renewal processes.
  Amendment No. 60 worries me considerably because, at the moment, in making renewals of abstraction licences, the kind of consideration that is taken into account is not simply a burden on the applicant. It is a shared burden between the applicants and the regulatory body. There are four major considerations. First, is the abstraction having an environmental impact and, secondly, is it having an impact on other licensed and legitimate abstractors? Those two assessments are for the regulators to make. Thirdly, information is required from the licence holder about the continuing need for the licence and, fourthly, information is required about evidence of an efficiency programme. The process is balanced between the regulator and the regulated.
  Amendment No. 60 seems to negate Amendment No. 56, which related to water efficiency. The presumption of renewal, which is so clearly predicated on environmental damage in Amendment No. 60, would strangely enough put in secondary place the very thing for which I have just heard so much support—the need to introduce efficient use as a clear factor in the process of both licensing and renewals.
  I hope that my comments have been helpful in giving some examples and background to the way in which the process currently operates, and would continue to operate, under the Bill.
  A further point on Amendment No. 60 is that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, about multiple abstractors. Under the Water Framework Directive, these abstractions will all have a common end date within a catchment area. The process will involve adjustments and negotiation to increase efficiency, to target abstraction to the least environmentally damaging place and to ensure that there is a fair share for everyone, especially in water-stressed areas.
  In our last sitting, we heard of a number of priorities from several Members of the Committee. We heard about priorities for the quarrying industry, the water industry, food production and market gardening. Not everyone can be a priority. In water-stressed areas, the presumption of renewal cannot allow everyone to end up with exactly the same licence as they had before. That process of considering environmental impact, need, efficiency and the impact on other legitimate
  GC 154
  abstractions must be at the centre of the question, and must be equally balanced. Amendment No. 60 would destroy that balance.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The noble Baroness, Lady Young, made a good point. Amendment No. 60 might be strengthened if we added a couple of the clauses to it that she mentioned. There should be a presumption of renewal, not only when it could be shown that there was no serious damage but also subject to efficiency. To that extent, I agree with the noble Baroness.
  There is a difficult balance to strike, given that those who invest in a businesses need certainty, or as much as they can be given in an uncertain world, of how much it will rain. Given the fact that there will be a constant ratcheting-up of efficiency, should the Government choose to accept that that aspect of the Bill should be strengthened and the amendments to that effect are accepted, Amendment No. 60 would be on a much stronger footing. I would be interested in discussing with noble Baronesses. Lady O'Cathain and Lady Byford, how we could amend the amendment further, so that it included the issues of need and efficiency.
  Baroness Byford: My name is linked with the amendment, and I accept the comments of my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. I believe that I must go through the Minister, as I am not allowed to address the noble Baroness, Lady Young, herself on this matter. She said that the present system works well, so the question must be, "Why change it?" That is a clear question, to which we need an answer from the Minister. Are we changing the system because there is something in the Water Framework Directive that means that we have to change it?
  As for the presumption on renewal of licences, we had a long discussion on a previous Committee day, in which we all showed an awareness of the need or desirability that for businesses of whatever size, large or small, there should be a presumption of renewal. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that there would obviously be six-yearly reviews of licences. However, I understand that when regular reviews have happened in the past, it has not necessarily meant that the licence would be withdrawn. There might be a slight fault or something that needed adjusting, and the company may be told of the reasons or the concerns expressed by the operation within which they work. Reviews of consent do not consider removing consent, but usually involve additional constraints on quality, requiring more treatment processes and investment, especially as regards sewerage works. The Environment Agency does not take consent away but considers the way in which the process is working.
  If the Minister will bear with us, we should perhaps spread the debate a little wider, because two things are becoming intertwined. It is no use business being unable to invest or to know where it is going in the long term. If through leakage, pollution or for whatever reasons, the Environment Agency has concerns, surely those concerns are best addressed in the review that is done on a regular basis. It will, I understand, be done

  GC 155
  on a six-yearly basis, but I need clarification on that point. The agency could raise concerns in the review, rather than insisting that presumption of renewal is not in the Bill, as it should be. Otherwise, we are reversing law and making somebody guilty until they prove themselves innocent. We have had that argument at great length with many other Bills. That is one thing that this House is very clear about— innocence is innocence, until the person is proved guilty. I have strong reservations about dismissing the amendment just as it stands at the moment.
  My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith rightly said that a licence granted to one person might have an effect on another person. I accept that, but would it not be possible to adjust to the terms of individual licences, rather than going for complete renewal? Again, I ask through the Minister, because I must. That may have to be done if climatic change happens radically, because renewal would not be possible—it would be an emergency. Perhaps we might consider the matter in that way.
  Since our last sitting, I have been concerned about the question of renewals. I refer especially to infrastructure renewals, especially with regard to those with long-term investments, such as water companies. Conventional accounting methods for water companies,
  "estimate a depreciation charge which is one of the costs of the business. Total costs are then set against the business's income to determine the profit or loss for the financial year concerned.
  Depreciation charges are accumulated in the business's balance sheet where they are set against the replacement costs of the assets to show the net value to the business of its current … assets.
  The depreciation charge is calculated by assessing the asset's remaining life and the costs of replacing it".
  Indeed, in our previous debates, we talked about Victorian infrastructure.
  The information note continues:
  "There are various ways of making these assessments and calculations. Straight-line depreciation divides the replacement cost of an asset by the number of financial years of its expected useful life to the business. This charge is then allocated to each financial year as a measure of the loss of value to the business of the asset during that year".
  I understand that a typical period is normally 15 to 20 years. If I were in a business, I might think that rather a short period, but that is the existing situation.
  If we are to move from a system whereby the presumption of renewal has been in being to one where it is not, that has huge implications not only for the viability of water companies and others that are concerned in quarries, but also to the way in which accounting is done. How can value be assessed? We are referring not to the freehold value of land but to construction work underneath the soil.
  Will the Minister give us a full explanation of the Government's response to the amendment, as so much of it hinges and impinges on future amendments?
  Baroness O'Cathain: I appreciate the comments made by noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Perhaps we might cobble together another amendment on Report,
  GC 156
  which would introduce the efficiency issue. However, the point made by my noble friend Lady Byford is absolutely right. I am standing up to speak only because she did not point out that the cost of water to the consumer would have to increase significantly if the depreciation took place over a shorter number of years. Is that what we want to result from this Bill?
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: The amendment was also tabled under my name. I am interested in what has been said about accounting and write-offs. When I spoke about accounting last week, I said that there was a strong case for a schedule to be produced of write-offs and accounting for different types of investment. Clearly, when there is a water company with major investments of a very expensive type over a long period, the write-off must be over a much longer period. In the case of a bottling plant, one might adopt something different, as the technology would be likely to change more rapidly and the write-off period should be that much greater. Some guidance should be incorporated, and some formula should be drawn up.
  Lord Whitty: In a sense, the two amendments move in opposite directions, which makes it interesting that the Liberal Democrats support them both. The first measure would impose a tighter schedule on time limiting, and the second would make any time limiting, whatever the time, subject to automatic renewal except in very limited circumstances. Given the recent exchange between the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady O'Cathain, about amending the amendment, we may consider a more substantial amendment at a later stage. However, as it stands, renewal would be refused in a limited set of circumstances.
  On Amendment No. 57, the Government want all abstraction licences to be subject to a time limit, over time. However, that is best done on a voluntary basis, and we look to the Environment Agency to encourage existing holders of abstraction licences to move to a time-limited basis voluntarily. If we asked them all to do so at 2012, it would create a huge concentrated burden of work on the Environment Agency, which would have to consider all existing licences all at once. But the kind of compensation issues which relate to renewal are also relevant. Converting an existing abstraction licence to time-limited status could, of itself, raise compensation issues. Therefore, it would not only be an extremely time-consuming exercise; it could also be an extremely expensive one if we were to require a mandatory switch to time limits. The aim of the whole policy is to make time-limited licensing and the new system far more attractive.
  Most of the discussion has been based on Amendment No. 60. In effect, the amendment would limit to a very narrow set of circumstances the area in which the Environment Agency could refuse a licence. As has already been said, the amendment would affect the agency's ability to manage water supplies sustainably. It would not allow it to take into account issues of efficiency. My noble friend Lady Young— actually she is not my noble friend any more; she will know what I mean—pointed out that there is concern

  GC 157
  all round on the issue of efficiency and concern that, one way or another, the Bill should deliver efficiency. Yet, on the issue of renewal, the agency would not be allowed to take efficiency into account if we followed this arrangement.
  The Environment Agency needs to be able to refuse renewal under a wider range of circumstances. But there is not, as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, suggested in her first intervention, a presumption of non-renewal. That is not the case. The policy and the framework of the operation provide us with a clear presumption of renewal provided that the three main tests are met.
  4.15 p.m.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the Minister for giving way. The reality is that if someone had to apply for an extension as if it were a new licence, that would mean that there was no presumption of renewal. That is simple.
  Lord Whitty: I do not believe that it is. I would draw the opposite conclusion if it were that simple. In effect, the agency will be considering the licence in the original terms of the licence and according to the three main tests: namely, renewal of the licence would not mean that environmental sustainability was in question; a requirement that the need for the licence is demonstrated; and a requirement that water abstracted under the licence is being, and will be, used in an efficient manner. Those are the same conditions under which the licence was originally granted. Therefore, the presumption is that, provided the licence has been operated in the manner intended, there will be a renewal. That is the opposite of the conclusion that the noble Baroness derives.
  With regard to the administrative and legal framework arising under the Water Resources Act, it is also true that that is expressed in terms that licences may be granted unless there is a reason not to do so. That, again, makes a presumption of renewal. In fact, if anything, the renewal process is made easier as a result of the Bill.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked why we should make changes. One of the changes is intended to make renewal easier so that we are not required to advertise, we are not required to consider protected rights, and we are not required to consider in a formal way any process.
  I turn to the question of renewal of a single licence being considered in a broader context—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. The abstraction management strategies would themselves look at the totality of the licensing system and, in the long run, as my noble friend Lady Young said, the time limits of the abstraction licences in the same catchment area would be coincidental. Therefore, one could consider the totality. In doing so, one needs to take into account the views not only of the other abstraction licence holders but of stakeholders generally. Therefore, it would be an open and public process.
  GC 158
  It is also true that, to my knowledge—noble Lords may find some obscure example and I challenge them to do so—in any licence procedure where there is a time limit on the licence, the renewal process may be a presumption administratively and policy-wise, but there is no legislative basis for saying that renewal will be a presumption. That suggests that in such a licensing system, there will be a degree of flexibility and discretion and, in particular, the Environment Agency, when considering a particular renewal, will be able to take all those sustainability arguments into account before making a decision. But provided that all the objectives of the Act are met—
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Perhaps l may press the Minister on that point. If he regards the issue of renewal to be so critical to sustainability, I wonder whether Amendment No. 57 does not then become more important in terms of bringing permanent licences into the renewal system. Perhaps, in his reply, he can give me some examples—if there are any— where, over the past, say, five years, licences have been voluntarily converted from permanent to time-limited ones.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I raise a slightly similar point but one that is not quite the same. If we are dealing with the matter of licences and their duration, I believe that a driving licence can now be issued for a very long time. It will be issued until one is either 65 or 70 from about the age of 30.
  Lord Whitty: The noble Lord is correct, although, by the time noble Lords who may be towards the top end of that scale reach the age of 70, certain conditions will relate to the renewal. However, if most other licences are subject to a time limit in the renewal process, there is no presumption written into the primary legislation, but there may well be an administrative and a policy presumption, which is exactly what we are proposing the agency should deliver here. But if it were written in tight terms and, in this case, in very narrow terms on the face oldie Bill, that would not give the agency the flexibility to take these wider sustainability issues into account when considering the renewal of any licence.
  The noble Baroness asked whether there were any examples of voluntary conversion. I do not know that there are any. I stand to be corrected, but we are talking about an entirely new situation. We are moving into a new management system where, desirably, everything would become part of a time-limited licensing system in the long run. My objection to Amendment No. 57 does not lie in its ultimate intention but in the fact that it would concentrate all that administrative effort, with all the potential compensation issues which arise, in the period running up to 2012. That does not seem to be a sensible way to meet that objective.
  I recognise that the industry and potential abstractors will need some clarity in the question of renewal. They will also need to know what reviews can do and what they cannot. The Water Framework Directive requires periodic reviews. We have said that

  GC 159
  there will be six-year reviews. Incidentally, those reviews could lead to a withdrawal of the licence, although the noble Baroness is correct to say that in most circumstances the review process will mean a change in the terms of the licence and a commitment by the licensee. But, in extremis, it could mean a withdrawal of the licence.
  Therefore, a water abstractor must face the possibility that, in certain circumstances, if there is a detrimental environmental effect, the licence might not be renewed or might be withdrawn. That requires a renewal situation in which the Environment Agency has wider and greater flexibility and a greater range of grounds on which to refuse a renewal than would be provided by Amendment No. 60. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will not pursue the amendment in its present form.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I am extremely unhappy with all that. In fact, I shall certainly not press this amendment, but I shall return to the issue on Report with a different amendment. I hope that, before we reach Report stage, the Minister will try to find out why the Government have changed their mind so significantly since the explanation in the draft of November 2002 and the consultation exercise of May 2002.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I believe that when the Minister began his summing up, he said that the Liberal Democrats had taken an opposite position on these two amendments. I do not believe that to be the case. I believe that the Liberal Democrats are looking for the best of all possible worlds.
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: That is a very good philosophy.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I am glad that noble Lords agree with me. When we return to this issue on Report, I believe that, between us, we and the Conservatives will have devised an amendment which will, indeed, introduce the best of all possible worlds into the Bill—at least, in this small but particularly critical area. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 19 agreed to.
  Clause 20 [Limited extension of abstraction licence validity]:
  The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 58:
  Page 22, line 28, leave out "whose term exceeded twelve months but"
  The noble Duke said: In moving Amendment No. 58, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 59. We are still in the throes and machinations of the renewal of licences. Clause 20 implies that it may possibly take the agency longer than three months to determine an application for the renewal of a licence. We are interested to know why licences of less than 12 months
  GC 160
  are excluded and not allowed a limited extension if there is a failure to extend the licence after an application. Can the Government guarantee that there will be no delay in renewing them, or are the holders of such short licences deemed not to require their renewal?
  I turn to Amendment No. 59. The implication of the clause is to transfer the onus of renewal and the burdens of the administrative system of abstraction licensing from the Environment Agency on to the licence holder. This amendment has been tabled at the instigation of the NFU, which is opposing Clause 20 as it moves this burden of responsibility.
  Consequently, we seek to ensure that if a licence has not been renewed by the time of its expiry while an application for the renewal of a licence is ongoing, an abstractor will not lose the right to abstract water and the licence will not lapse. Should the Environment Agency take longer than that to determine a licence, the abstraction will still be able to proceed. I beg to move.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I believe that the amendment is worthy of support. Clearly, one does not want to see a licence run out and then someone who is really dependent on a source of water to be unable to renew access to that water while there is an administrative delay. I consider that to be an undesirable state of affairs and, for that reason, I support the amendment.
  Lord Whitty: Taken together, the amendments would mean that a licence which had been granted for a genuine short-term problem would, in effect, be dealt with for renewal purposes as though it were a long-term licence. That would greatly diminish the attractiveness of giving short-term licences in genuinely short-term situations. It would also impose a substantial administrative burden on the Environment Agency. Explicitly, in effect, Amendment No. 59 would transfer the responsibility for securing the renewal of an expiring short-term licence from the holder of that licence to the agency. That does not seem to me reasonable.
  It would also provide no incentive for applicants to assume responsibility or to take action to ensure that the renewal of their licence was dealt with in a timely manner. It would have the rather undesirable effect of requiring the agency to issue a formal notice of expiry even when a valid application to renew the licence had been submitted in a timely manner.
  The whole point of short-term licences is that they should deal with short-term situations. It does not seem to me sensible to bring short-term licences into a system which is more appropriate for long-term licences, and it might, in certain circumstances, lead to the agency being less flexible in the granting of short-term licences. That would be undesirable because we need that flexibility, but we need it to grant licences which would not then be capable of being rolled on beyond their initial point of necessity.
  4.30 p.m.
  The Duke of Montrose: I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this. It appears, then, that short-term licences will be considered only in emergency situations.
  Lord Whitty: Short-term situations.
  The Duke of Montrose: It is possible that short-term or emergency situations might recur annually. I suppose that the Minister is saying that, in such cases, the agency would perhaps like people to apply for a long-term licence. However, many people will have short-term necessities which might recur annually. They would be interested in how to progress their re-applications so that they can be sure of some sort of continuity. We shall look at what the Minister has said and perhaps return to it.
  Baroness Byford: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, I have a question for the Minister. Will he define "short term", "medium term" and "long term"? As the definitions obviously have implications, it would be helpful to have them.
  Lord Whitty: Most short-term licences are granted for a period of, say, 12 months in order to deal with a situation that might arise. Strictly speaking, the situation could be an emergency in which there is a problem handling the water that is causing damage to the abstractor or to others. Or the situation could involve maintenance lasting several months although it is not strictly speaking an emergency. I am not saying that those licences should never be renewed—there is a process for renewing them—but that that process should not be as complicated or open-ended as the renewal process for long-term licences. Those licences are specifically to deal with shorter-term situations. They should therefore be dealt with in a way that presumes that the situation is short term.
  The Duke of Montrose: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 60:
  Page 23, line 15, at end insert—
  "(5) There shall be a presumption that any licence in respect of which the conditions of this section are met shall be renewed unless the Agency is able to show that revocation is necessary in order to protect any waters or underground strata, or any flora or fauna dependent on them, from serious damage."
  The noble Baroness said: In an earlier answer—I was writing as quickly as I could—the Minister, if I understood him correctly, said that there is currently no legislative presumption in existing licensing. Is that correct? As I am not sure that I heard him correctly, I wanted to check. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: I would say two things. First, in the current system under the Water Resources Act, renewal will be granted unless there is a reason not to do so. In a sense, that is close to a presumption. More generally, I was arguing that I am not aware of any
  GC 162
  statutory licensing system that involves a time-limited licence and a presumption for renewal which—as the amendment proposes—is written into primary legislation. If noble Lords have such an example, I shall consider it. My current legal advice, however, is that there is no such presumption in the terms of this amendment.
  Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister. As I said, I was writing quite quickly and it was difficult to get a full note. I thank him for his response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
  Clause 20 agreed to.
  Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
  Clause 23 [Transfer and apportionment of licences]:
  The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 62:
  Page 28, leave out lines 1 and 2.
  The noble Duke said: Amendment No. 62 is a probing amendment. It would appear that categories of protected rights are defined in new Section 39A(1)(a). The reference to Section 48(1) is given in Butterworth and states:
  "a person who is for the time being the holder of a licence under this Chapter to abstract water shall be taken to have a right to abstract water to the extent authorised by the licence".
  If we remove Sections 34 to 45—so that they shall not apply—we will also remove Section 39 which establishes the obligation to have regard to existing rights and privileges. If the clause stands part, it would appear that the holder of a new licence apportioned from the old one will lose his protected rights. I think that the issue needs to be aired. If it is not, people could proceed with an apportionment but discover too late that they have lost more than they have gained. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: If the licence to be apportioned was an existing licence under the previous legislation, that would have had to have been considered under Sections 34 to 45 during the original grant. The provision under Clause 23 is intended to provide a simple and straightforward administrative division of the licence to ease access or to provide a wider range of abstractors without increasing the total volume of the water to be abstracted. It is intended that the process applied should remain substantially the same as that under the current law. It would be a break-down of the old abstraction licence.
  The substance of the concern about the terms of the licence would already have been met because the old licence would have been granted on certain terms. New licences will be considered properly and thorough)/ in that process. Amendment No. 62 would restore a whole range of considerations that would not really be appropriate. As we are talking about a given volume of water, the point is simply that there will be more abstractors. We would therefore riot need to go through all those processes.

  GC 163
  As for the issue of protected rights, if the apportionment includes the owner of the original licence, that right is retained. We would not get rid of rights protected under the previous legislation. Although the regulations under this part of the clause will have to make that somewhat clearer, I think that the noble Lord's concern is misplaced in that respect.
  The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for his comments. He says that one of those still holding a portion under the apportionment is the original holder and will maintain his rights. However, what happens to the new owners of the new portions of the apportionment? What will they receive?
  Lord Whitty: My understanding is that if it had been granted originally on the basis of that volume of water and that attracted a pre-Water Resources Act-protected right, each of the divisors would be protected under those same terms.
  The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister very much. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 63:
  Page 28, line 20, after "shall" insert ", if the old licence was a full licence,"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
  Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 24 [Claims arising out of water abstraction]:
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 65:
  Page 29, line 31, after ""abstractor")" insert ", such abstraction being subject to licence,"
  The noble Baroness said: I have tabled this amendment in order to probe whether the Government believe that there should be some sort of de minimis limit below which litigation is not necessary, and also to discover whether the Environment Agency, by granting a licence, is giving any sort of assurance against any sort of damage. Clause 24 is rather broadly drafted. As it stands, it might attract a significant amount of trivial litigation. I should like to explore with the Minister the issue of those who abstract water merely for personal use; whether he believes that 20 cubic metres is a small amount; whether he believes that there might be a more appropriate de minimis limit; and whether he believe that that is an issue at all.
  Amendment No. 65 would focus the clause only on those who have an abstraction licence under the Bill and on the particular problem of large-volume abstractions which cause desiccation and subsidence. I beg to move.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I support the amendment so far as it is probing. If he would, I should like the Minister to go into some detail in his response. It is envisaged that someone might be able to sue an abstractor for damages as a result of loss or damage caused by the
  GC 164
  abstraction. However, we are dealing once again with this business of whether the damage was caused by one abstractor or—as I suspect is more often the case—a group of abstractors. That is fair enough. Then, however, we come back to the business of the 20 cubic metre limit per day per licence. However, to use an old cliché which comes from Scotland, I think, many a mickle maketh a muckle. If you have too many people taking 20 cubic metres per day out of a watercourse, eventually someone at the bottom will have a right to sue. So that is a problem.
  There is another problem which I hope the Minister will deal with. If it is licensed abstractors who are causing the damage, would not the Environment Agency as the authorising body for the licence be an accomplice in the action? I therefore wonder whether the suit should involve that agency. It is a very simple and basic point, but it is the sort of point that we should be clear about at this stage. I have therefore raised the point now.
  Lord Whitty: I think that the amendment is based on the presumption that small abstractions cannot cause damage. In general, we do not have a de minimis clause in relation to the ability to sue for damages. Regardless, 20 cubic metres per day is a fair amount of water. One can do damage with that amount of water regardless of whether the abstraction is cumulative to those of neighbours who also have that unlicensed right. So I do not think that it is sensible to exclude the ability to sue for non-licensed abstractors. This clause provides the ability to sue such abstractors. As with any claim for damages, the burden of proof in the courts is of course on the litigant/claimants. There is no intention to put that the other way round. However, I think that it would be odd to exclude the smallest abstractors from the ability to be sued for damages.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for that explanation.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: With respect, the Minister did not respond to my point about whether, if a licensed abstractor was causing the problem, the Environment Agency could in any way be involved in the action.
  Lord Whitty: I ignored the point because it was not particularly relevant to this amendment. The Environment Agency can conceivably be a party to the action only if it has granted a licence for activity that caused the damage. Even then, one would have to show that it had behaved perversely and unreasonably, which is always the case when contemplating action against a public licensing body. That is not relevant to the issue of small abstractors.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 24 agreed to.
  4.45 p.m.
  Clause 25 [Compensation for modification of licence on direction of Secretary of State]:
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 66:
  Page 30, line 34, leave out subsection (2).
  The noble Baroness said: With Amendment No. 66, we come back to an issue that is crucial to many, but particularly to those involved in agriculture. The Minister said, in our previous debates, there was a lot of pleading from quarries, from water businesses, from horticulture, from agriculture or whatever. This amendment addresses the needs of agriculture and horticulture. As the noble Lord knows only too well, farmers are being encouraged to diversify and consider different ways of using the land that have, perhaps, not been tried in the past and, because of problems with disease, to look at rotation, which has been four or five years and, on the whole, is now moving up to a recognised six or seven years.
  The clause would amend Section 61 of the Water Resources Act 1991, reducing from seven years to four years the period of the non-use of a licence after which revocation or variation did not entitle the licence holder to compensation. Furthermore, Clause 17 removes the protected right under the licence, if unused for four years.
  The implication for those who have to manage the land would be that the reduction in the period of nonuse would affect, in particular, the unsupported sectors of the agriculture industry—namely horticulture—that habitually do not use irrigation licences for the seven-year period. There are other sectors of agriculture that would not use a licence on a regular basis as horticulture, in many ways, does.
  If the Bill implemented that reduction in period, it would no longer be commercially viable for many businesses to continue to produce irrigated crops. It would not be possible to reduce a crop rotation to only four years, due to the risk of crop disease such as potato cyst nematode and due to the requirements of contracts made under the Assured Produce programme or with customers such as processors or supermarkets. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, will know that the Government are encouraging better assurance schemes, and I hope, therefore, that he will be sympathetic to the amendment, when I move it.
  Potato growers from various areas, including Humberside and Lincolnshire, have supplied us with examples of the potential implications for their business. The schedules to the Plant Health (Great Britain) Order 1993 provide for the conditions under which the land can be declared free of potato cyst pest. For seed potatoes, DEFRA's guidance that must be adhered to prior to certification states that there should be a rotation period of a full seven years. Furthermore, the European and Mediterranean plant protection organisations provide a standard that should be used for soil testing for such diseases. That standard confirms that there are cases when land should be left free of crops for at least 10 years to ensure that it is disease-free. I have not pushed for 10 years; the clause refers to a period of seven years. With
  GC 166
  regard to the requirement of supermarket contracts, I must say that we have received examples of various contracts from growers, including a supermarket contract for onions that required a six-year rotation.
  We can see no reason for the clause. The seven-year period is reasonable. In earlier debates, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, argued against the fact of leaving unprotected usage up to seven years. She said that it might deny somebody else the right of access to that. The Bill is a check and a balance of how we have regard to one business to another, so I will be interested to hear the Minister's response to it. The Bill should make provision for longer periods to be negotiated, where required. The introduction of any such measure should be delayed to allow agricultural businesses to make necessary adaptations to their business. I beg to move.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Amendment No. 66 also stands in our names. The territory was covered earlier this week in a substantial debate, but I will make a few points to back up what the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said.
  There is no doubt that keeping the period at seven years would allow for effective crop rotation. Four years is too short. Sound rotational practice breaks pest and disease cycles and assists in the maximising of economic yield and the quality of the crop, which is crucial, particularly for supermarket contracts and suchlike. It also reduces the need to use pesticides, fungicides and herbicides and, therefore, reduces pollution. A seven-year licence assists the sustainability of the farming system within a rotation. That is an important point. Increasingly. we want sound crop practice that will result in a quality product. I, too, see no reason why the period is being reduced to four years.
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: A few days ago, we set off at a gallop and—inappropriately—discussed the issue in connection with Amendments Nos. 51 and 64. I shall not take up the Committee's time, but I will refer to what I said then, inappropriately, and I hope that it will be taken into account, appropriately, at this point.
  Lord Whitty: I am sure that the Committee recalls precisely what the noble Baroness said at that point in a complicated evening.
  From the point of view of the Environment Agency, which is responsible for water management, seven years is a long time to allow an unnecessary sleeper licence to operate. The Bill gives a power but does not impose a duty. The clause does not say that the Environment Agency must revoke licences that have not been used for four years, it says that it may do so, in certain circumstances. In doing so, it must be reasonable and take all factors into account. If, for the purposes of water management, rotation, land restoration, soil recovery or disease control, there is a reason why the licence has not been used for more than four years, the Environment Agency should take that into account and would be acting unreasonably, were it to revoke a licence in that knowledge. Were it to act

  GC 167
  so unreasonably, there is a right of appeal, before any licence is revoked. Seven years is a long time for an unnecessary sleeper licence that prevents companies and households from receiving water and, by its existence, prevents the granting of any new licence. It is a long time to deny the Environment Agency access to that water.
  Some of the concerns that have been expressed in this short debate are unfounded. All the situations to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and others referred should be regarded by the Environment Agency as providing good reasons, but there are other situations in which it would be desirable for the Environment Agency to act before the end of seven years, as under current legislation.
  The Duke of Montrose: My memory of the inappropriate discussion that we had the other day may fail me, but, as a farmer, I would like to ask what constitutes non-use in a given year. If a licence holder wished to protect his position, would he be able to turn the whole system on for a day? Would that count as use?
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I might be able to help the Minister by asking a couple of questions. I am sure that his mathematics is better than mine, but he might be slightly at fault. He said that seven years was a long period, but the amendment would simply add another three years to what is suggested.
  Lord Whitty: It is the other way round.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I said that his mathematics was better than mine, so I accept that point.
  The amendment should be borne in mind with the one that we discussed earlier about the ability of farmers to impound water for the purposes of irrigating their land. It is not a case of making one amendment or the other, but, if we made the first amendment, which encouraged the impoundment of winter water, the difficulties that farmers would get into because of their need for so much of the other abstracted water would be reduced, and there would be less pressure for this amendment.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: The Minister maintains that he requires a reduction from seven to four years. He is advocating a catch-all situation, in which those who need a licence for seven years would be equated with those who hold sleeper licences that may, as he said, not be needed. It is important to distinguish between the two requirements. It ought to be possible for those granting a licence to take account of the important aspects that we have discussed.
  Earl Peel: I must add to what the noble Lord has just said. If the Minister is, as he seems to be, minded to proceed with the four-year cycle, one possibility would be for the Bill to make provision for longer periods to be negotiated, where required. Would not that be a reasonable compromise?
  Lord Whitty: The Environment Agency will not be required to take away a licence that has not been used for four years: it will have a power to do so, if, in all reasonable circumstances, it judges that there is unreasonable non-use of the licence that is either causing environmental damage or preventing access to the water for other potential users. The variation issue does not arise. The agency can use the power in those circumstances. The Environment Agency would need to take into account all the issues of horticultural management, if that is the reason for the non-use of the licence.
  In answer the noble Duke's question, I must say that I understand that the position applies if the water has not been used beneficially—the use for which the licence was granted—for that period. Just turning on the tap and letting the water run down the drain would not be using the water, but if it is simply that less water was used or water was used less frequently than was anticipated, that would count as use, if the water were used for the purpose for which the licence was granted.
  Baroness Byford: I am intrigued by the Minister's last comment. How would we know where the water had gone? If someone turns the tap on, the water runs away. It does not matter whether it runs into the ground or wherever. Anyway, I digress, which is naughty of me.
  I thank the Minister for his response. He said "may", which brings us back to my great dislike of giving powers to an agency not under direct government control that it may or may not use. I read the response made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, to the previous debate, so I accept what she said. I indicated that in my opening comments.
  In the circumstances that have existed in the past two to three years, how many times has the agency been hamstrung and been unable to supply water?
  Lord Whitty: I do not know the answer to that question. It might need a longer period to get a proper indication, but, if the information is available, I shall let the noble Baroness have it. We are envisaging a period of greater pressure for water and less supply.
  Baroness Byford: I accept that, but I hope that I have made the point that the agency may not have been required to make such decisions. If we accept that, we are starting to get somewhere.
  There is nothing else that I can add to the debate at this time. The Minister is aware of the strength of feeling on the issue, and he will not be surprised to hear that we wish to return to it at another time. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5 p.m. to 5.9 p.m.]
  Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 67:
  Page 30, line 34, at end insert—
  "(2A) After subsection (4) there is inserted—
  "( ) Subsection (4) above shall not apply while the possibility of the abstraction of water under the licence constitutes part of—

  (a) any water resource management scheme maintained under section 20, 20A or 20B above; or

  (b) any drought plan maintained under section 39B above.""

  The noble Baroness said: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 67, which again is about abstraction licences, particularly sleeper licences, but from a different angle. This is on the management of water supplies for water companies. The point is that, at the moment, water companies are required to produce plans for long-term planning. in a sense, and to take water resources into account. Sleeper licences are part of the overall plan, the reason being that in this country we can go from periods of deluge to periods of drought, but periods of drought do not necessarily occur every four years. In order to safeguard water resources and their supply for the consumer we need the hack-up of provisional sleeper licences.
  On the idea of restricting sleeper licences from seven to four years, or indeed by any other period, we might not be able to produce the water required in a drought period. But the real problem is that, as the licences are already in the plan, companies would have to start new plans excluding sleeper licences. It is the belief that, in order to provide a constant, efficient water service to all consumers, we need sleeper licences to be protected, and we believe that they should be.
  To sum up—I shall be as brief as I can [this is one more aspect of the Bill that concerns me, particularly in view of the fact that it seems that short-term planning reigns and long-term planning is not taken into consideration. I beg to move.
  Baroness Byford: My name is alongside that of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, on the amendment. It is a very serious matter, which I hope that the Government might deal with sympathetically. We are moving into times of uncertain climate change, which puts additional strains on those providing water for us all throughout the country. Just because the water has not been called on in the past, perhaps as the Government hope that it will never be called on in the future, does not mean that we should not plan longterm. My noble friend has expressed the point very clearly, so I do not wish to add to it, except to persuade the Minister that it is a very real problem, which I hope he will deal with sympathetically.
  Lord Whitty: I am being sympathetic in the same way as I was sympathetic to the previous amendment. In a sense, the issue behind it is the same. There is a power to intervene after four years. But, of course, if a sleeper licence is being used for water conservation as part of a water company's long-term plan, that is a reasonable reason why the licence has not been used. The Environment Agency would therefore have to take that into account, just as it would consider the rotational requirements of the horticultural industry that we referred to under the previous amendment.
  GC 170
  If the so-called sleeper licence were part of long-term planning and drought planning, clearly the Environment Agency would be acting unreasonably if it tried to revoke it. The same arguments apply, and there should be no anxiety.
  We are dealing with a situation where unnecessary, unreasonable non-use of a licence causes damage in one form or another. The Environment Agency should have the right to intervene after a period of less than the current seven years. We are not dealing with a situation where sleeper licences are part of a company's long-term plan.
  Baroness Byford: Before my noble friend comes back, the Minister keeps referring to examples of where the agency might have the power, if necessary, to use the licence. What sorts of examples are there of that being a problem? We are not getting such examples at all from the Minister in answer to arty of our questions. With due respect, all he said was that the situation was hypothetical and that he could not answer. A balance must be made. Somebody must carry out a risk assessment on that issue. Will he clarify it for us?
  Baroness O'Cathain: To support my noble friend, sleeper licences do absolutely no damage whatsoever to the environment. All they do is ensure, if there is a drought situation, that we will not have these bowsers, or whatever they call them, on the streets.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: Clearly, if there is no damage to the environment or to access to water, the Environment Agency would be acting unreasonalbly to revoke a licence being used for beneficial purposes.
  The noble Baroness challenges me to think of an example. I am not sure whether this is particularly cogent, but one may have an abstractor abstracting water for an industrial purpose, on which basis it quite reasonably received a licence. That industrial process may have closed down but the abstractor has retained the licence in case another investment took place for which they needed the water. However, the water had not been used for that purpose for four years. 'The result could have been one of two things; either the non-abstraction meant that the water levels were different from those that had been planned or that the abstraction was creating a problem downstream. In those circumstances, the Environment Agency would be acting reasonably in intervening and revoking the licence. The only issue that we are changing is to suggest that it should be able to do so after four rather than seven years. The same degree of reasonableness would apply under the existing legislation.
  Baroness O'Cathain: Is the Minister aware that these are not that type of licence? These licences are part of a water company's water resources plan, which is signed off by Ofwat. Now the Environment Agency will be saying that we cannot have them. They exist and are included in the water resources planning—the management planning of water companies—in order to provide for the situation. I know that there are

  GC 171
  certain parts of the country where these issues will never arise—where there is water coming out of their ears—but there are other parts where they do and they have very serious problems.
  Is the Minister now saying that there should be no planning at all in this country for drought at any time?
  Lord Whitty: That is an absurd conclusion to reach from what I have said. I have said that it would not be reasonable for the Environment Agency to act against a water company if the sleeper licences—if one wants to call them that—were part of a water company's plan. A condition of its licence might be to have the kind of water plan to which the noble Baroness refers. Therefore, the Environment Agency would be managing that licence—if you like—which is held by the water industry in this case, in line with the duties of the Environment Agency on the one hand, but also with the statutory duties of the water company to ensure security of supply of water.
  In those circumstances, there would be no reasonable intervention by the Environment Agency. We are talking here about all abstractions of water— all abstraction licences. There must be a right to intervene for unnecessary non-use of a licence that causes damage or uncertainty in the management of that water. That is all that does. The change is to reduce the period from seven to four years.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for explaining the Government's position. I think he accepts the obvious need to conserve water. Water companies cannot supply people if they do not have a water supply themselves. I wonder whether it would be helpful to the Minister if we took this issue away and perhaps returned with an amendment, or the Government might like to come back with an amendment. Water companies, which are the suppliers of other people, should be protected, much more so than individual businesses that might not use it in the way that the Minister suggests. I am uncertain as to how to proceed. Water companies are hugely important. Without them, none of us—whether individuals or businesses—will be able to draw upon that water. It would be immensely helpful if the Minister could consider the matter.
  Lord Whitty: We have spoken about the circumstances in which this situation would arise. The point is that at the moment these powers arise under existing legislation after seven years. The only new provision is a four-year one.
  I would not be able to give the undertaking the noble Baroness refers to, but I could write down some of the considerations that I have enunciated. I could also consult with my colleagues in order to explain the issue more clearly and to make it clear that the kind of situation the noble Baroness refers to would not be a cause to intervene and revoke a licence in this way.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.20 p.m. to 5.28 p.m.]
  The Duke of Montrose: I now understand that the licence is primarily for a purpose and secondarily for
  GC 172
  a quantity. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, was talking about the sleeper licences that water companies have. Because of the wording of the Bill, if a sleeper licence has not been used for four years, the rights of that licence will be subject to review by the Environment Agency, unless the water company decides to draw a bit of water off under each licence every year.
  Lord Whitty: All I am saying is that the intervention is a power in certain circumstances to be exerted reasonably and with due regard to all the other duties and powers in the Bill by the Environment Agency. Most of the discussion seems to suggest that it would be almost an automatic revocation in those circumstances. That is not the intention. It is a power for the agency to deal with particular situations in which the abstractor was behaving unreasonably by not using the abstraction rights.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the Minister very much and I thank all those who have taken part in the debate. We have had two interruptions for Divisions, so we are somewhat confused at the end of it. I have some feeling that we might be all right without the amendment being on the face of the Bill, but on the other hand we are talking about deeply concerned water companies that have to produce their long-term plans for water resources management. They feel quite threatened by the provision. I shall take the amendment away, but I cannot promise that I shall not come back to it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 68:
  Page 31, line 3, leave out "conditions" and insert "condition"
  The noble Baroness said: Clause 25 allows the Secretary of State to vary abstraction licences without paying compensation for the sake of protecting water availability. We believe that the spirit of the clause is good, but we wish to explore whether the conditions that would be on the face of the Bill, should my amendments not be included, will undermine its effectiveness.
  The clause does not apply to any abstraction licences that currently exist. It will apply only to new licences granted after the Bill becomes law. In other words, it does not apply retrospectively to existing licences. My concern is that licences granted after the Bill comes into effect will not be on a level playing field with those that exist now. The Bill may provide for too long a period during which the variation of licences cannot take place. That may allow unsustainable abstractions to continue at a time when they would be better varied.
  Again, we are in an area of difficult balance. In some circumstances we want long licences so that businesses, water companies and individuals can have certainty when they have abstraction licences. However, variation and flexibility are important. The amendment would deal with those longer licences and

  GC 173
  allow a variation so that the lower limit of water that could be abstracted can be brought into force before the end of the period that the licence has to run for. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: As I understand them, the amendments would make it easier to intervene with long-term licences by reducing the notice period for variation from six years to four years. The whole point of subsection (3) is to provide the ability to have long-term licences that would be longer than the 12 years. They would relate to developments in which the abstractor would need the confidence that they would have access to the water and a reasonable degree of stability in the conditions for abstracting it.
  The six-year period of notice in the Bill is tied into the review frequency of abstraction management strategies. Those strategies would therefore throw up the information on which any variation might be based. It is therefore not particularly logical to reduce that to four years in terms of the basis on which any variation would be proposed. It would increase the uncertainty and the number of licences that could be subject to variation in that way. It is almost the opposite argument to those that have been put on stability and certainty in previous debates. We do not see a reason for it, as the review system is on a six-year cycle.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am not sure that I am quite clear as to why the conditions apply only to licences granted after the Bill comes into effect. I should be grateful if the Minister could reassure me on that detail.
  Lord Whitty: The six-year review applies to all licences. The terms of pre-existing licences will not include this condition, so we are dealing with new types of licence provision rather than retrospectively dealing with old licences.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his reply. I shall read it closely in Hansard. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 69 to 71 not moved.]
  Clause 25 agreed to.
  Clause 26 [Recovery of compensation from new licence-holder]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 72:
  Page 31. line 33, at end insert—
  "( ) the holder of licence A has been informed of the extra efficiencies which would accompany the granting of licence B, has been given 60 working days to devise a means of matching them and thereafter has been unable to convince the Agency of their viability"
  The noble Lord said: The clause deals with the recovery of compensation from a new licence holder. The clause envisages that the new licence holder would pay any compensation that was due to the previous
  GC 174
  licence holder indirectly through the agency—or, at least, the agency would pay the compensation and then recover it from the new licence holder.
  This is a probing amendment to explore exactly the process that is going on. Sections 52 to 54 of the Water Resources Act 1991 set up a system for modifying a licence at the agency's request. Any objections of the Secretary of State can be catered for.
  The clause refers to complete revocation and sets up a new ground for revoking a licence, relating to,
  "greater efficiency in the use of water resources".
  We are talking about a water undertaker, not somebody slinging his hook into a river to extract water for irrigation. We are talking about a serious enterprise. We want to probe what is the exact process. I could envisage a situation in which another water undertaker could devise a zero sum game and, in effect, recycle all the water back into use from the used side back into the supply side. We know that that has happened to a considerable extent and on a number of occasions in some parts of the country. Let us suppose that somebody spots a gap in a particular area and sees that he can do this and as a result reduces the abstraction rate by, let us say, 15 per cent. which might give grounds for the revision of the licence.
  What is the process? If a person with a much more economical process tells the Environment Agency that he is making an application for a particular area because he can reduce the abstraction rate, what then happens? Does the Environment Agency get into a discussion with the existing licence holder? It is an extremely delicate situation. If it does not, does the existing licence holder hold no rights? He might have held the licence and been the water undertaker for 50 years and given perfectly satisfactory service. Does he have no consideration in the process?
  With that background in mind, I thought that we should table the amendment to try to find out whether there is an element of negotiation and if there is, how far it goes and how far it is a negotiation. It might run some danger of getting into conflict with commercial interests that ought otherwise to be private. It is quite a delicate area.
  I have no difficulty with the principle enunciated in the Bill, which is that in that situation, if the agency was required to pay compensation to the previous licence holder, it should reimburse them and the charge would go through the system. I have no difficulty with that, but I am slightly concerned about the process. I wonder whether we are creating vulnerability for water undertakers that is perhaps a little too severe and might give them a degree of uncertainty that we might wish they did not have to suffer. I beg to move.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I should like clarification. We are talking about a licence being revoked and saying that the costs will be passed on to the person who gets the new licence. Who bears the cost of that? Is it the customers? If it is in a particular geographical area, does it mean that, in the interests of the environment,

  GC 175
  the customers in that region are going to have to pay for the Government's policy on the environment in the country as a whole?
  Lord Whitty: This part of the Bill deals with a situation in which the Environment Agency is revoking a licence and granting it to another person. The clause deals with the compensation arrangements. I suppose that eventually the customer would pay for those compensation arrangements, but we would have a more efficient system of delivering water. The judgment has to be made on what is the more efficient way of delivering that water.
  The intention of the amendment is to give the original company, whose licence is to be revoked, not only compensation, but also the right to argue that they can match the efficiencies of water company B. There is obviously some justice in that, but the whole process, which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked about, would involve the Environment Agency in extensive investigation and discussion—call it negotiation if you like—with both the original company and the alternative company before it made any decision on revocation. We expect the agency to explore all the options with the parties concerned before it moves into revocation mode, or into any statutory mode. It may be that voluntary arrangements could be made. The process would involve company A knowing what efficiencies were claimed by an alternative arrangement and being given the chance to match those efficiencies.
  Even after the revocation, there is an appeal system. The noble Lord seems to imply that his amendment would, in effect, provide another appeal system. The appeal system would already be able to take into account the grounds on which the Environment Agency made the judgment in the first place. We do not need what would amount to another appeal system.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I think I am reasonably happy about that. There was no intention of setting up a second appeal system. I was seeking to determine how far the agency could say, "This is the new situation and that is the end of it", or whether there will be negotiation. I think the Minister has confirmed that the Environment Agency would have to explore all the options with the parties involved. That makes it a considerable negotiation.
  The Minister said that greater efficiency in the use of water resources is the criterion—he did not say that it was the exclusive criterion—that the Environment Agency has to use. That causes a little concern because, if it is done regardless of cost, it might be positively disadvantageous for the community. At some point, we must think about the terms of reference. Although I understand that the purpose of the Bill is to have the most efficient possible use of water, a question of economics is wrapped up in it somewhere. I know that people have got used to paying for bottled water in shops at a greater price
  GC 176
  than one would pay for petrol. But if it were coming through the tap in that way, there might be some complaints. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 26 agreed to.
  Clause 27 [Withdrawal of compensation for certain revocations and variations]:
  [Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 27 shall stand part of the Bill?
  5.45 p.m.
  Baroness Byford: We have given notice of our intention to oppose the Question of whether this clause shall stand part of the Bill. The effect of the Bill on some companies is quite large, particularly, in this regard, the National Farmers' Union, which raised its concern with me. It is concerned with the Government's intention to fund compensation for the revocation of abstraction licences until 2012. I understand that the Government's intention may be to fund compensation through the scheme of abstraction licence charges. That means that all abstractors with chargeable licences would fund compensation payments.
  Obviously, the implications of that are that compensation for the revocation of abstraction licences causing environmental damage should not be recovered from other abstraction licence payers' fees. The environment is a public good; therefore, we believe that the public purse should pay. Surely, it should not be left to a small sector, such as a group of abstractors, when the whole community will benefit. The concept of an abstraction licence fee system is that it recuperates the cost of the administration of the licensing system that controls abstraction. If money is to be taken out of the licence fee system to pay for compensation, it may be found that not only are there insufficient funds in the system for that, but it could jeopardise the efficient management of such a system.
  The funding of the Environment Agency also needs to be considered. The Environment Agency's budget is part financed from income raised from the Environment Agency charging schemes, such as the water abstraction licensing system. However, those schemes are subject to the principle of cost recovery, which, if I am right, means that the charges must cover the costs incurred by the agency in running the scheme. We would not consider that payment of compensation comes under this definition of "running" of the abstraction-licensing scheme.
  Furthermore, compensation being paid for water abstraction licence fees can be compared to that of the planning application system. Fees for a planning application are charged in order to cover costs of administration of the application. If the local authority charged the fee for an application but then decided that the application should be revoked, the applicant would be entitled to compensation. However, that compensation does not come from the planning fee scheme, but from general local authority funds.

  GC 177
  I would like the Government to confirm how they intend to pay for the compensation for the revocation of licences. The effect of the amendment would be to retain the current system where compensation is or would be payable from the Government. Section 63(2) of the Water Resources Act 1991 states that if a licence is varied or revoked and compensation is payable by the agency, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales has the power to indemnify the agency. Compensation would therefore be funded from general taxation. This should remain the case. I have two questions for the Minister. First, why are the Government considering changing that? I refer the Minister to our first day in Committee. In reply to a previous debate, the noble Lord said that the Environment Agency's resources figures had increased:
  "The figure has risen from £620 million in 1999 to just short of £800 million this year.—[Official Report, 27/3/03; col. GC47.]
  Secondly, how much of that money will be allocated for this specific purpose?
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: This is a pivotal issue for the Bill. Clearly, grounds to revoke a licence are spelt out in the Bill. It would be appropriate to read one out. Clause 27(1)(d) says that,
  "the ground for revoking or varying the licence is that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the revocation or variation is necessary in order to protect any waters or underground strata, or any flora and fauna dependent on them, from serious damage".
  I recollect that in another context an earlier amendment used similar wording. I believe that paragraph (d) is a sustainable reason.
  On a matter of principle, it may well be unreasonable to pay compensation in those circumstances. One cannot and should not continue receiving compensation if serious damage is being caused. It is illogical to keep paying compensation when substantial damage may be occurring.
  I understand the arguments that have been deployed. However, I recognise that the pleading is to get money out of the public purse in order to ensure that compensation is paid. I would merely comment that the Water Resources Act 1991 was enacted 12 years ago. We now understand much more about global warming and the pressures on the water resource. We must tackle this problem head-on and in a responsible way. That may be by sharing the costs among the users of the water in order to ensure that these very desirable objectives are achieved.
  Lord Whitty: A number of issues have been raised on the general funding. The Environment Agency has a duty to secure the proper use of water resources. Compensation is a payment to that end. The agency has to recover the cost of executing those duties from all abstractors. So the costs of compensation come out of that fund. That was confirmed in our 2001 policy document. Therefore, we are not talking about a general taxation situation. The clause that the noble Baroness seeks to delete limits the number of occasions that compensation would be payable. Therefore, it would reduce the degree to which any charge would fall on other abstractors.
  GC 178
  The noble Baroness asked how much all this would cost. That is currently under review. There will be a consultation paper on it. The clause she seeks to delete would reduce the burden on the Environment Agency's budget because compensation would not be payable in those circumstances. As the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, said, we are talking about a situation where the use of the licence is causing serious damage to water, underground strata, flora and fauna, and so on. There is no particular reason why in future compensation should be paid. That is the clause's intent. By deleting the clause we allow additional compensation to be payable and therefore the problem of that being passed on to other abstractors is greater. I hope, therefore, that we do not pursue the deletion of this clause, either now or at a later stage.
  Earl Peel: I seek some clarification from the Minister. I am still not absolutely certain about the situation. The Environment Agency document on compensation guidelines, which I think is what the noble Lord is referring to, states that because the Environment Agency operates from the principle of cost recovery, that will mean that the licence charges must cover the costs of compensation. Therefore, it goes further than the present situation, which is an intention that licence fees should cover the administrative costs. Is it the noble Lord's intention that the Environment Agency will seek to cover the full costs from the abstraction licensing system?
  Lord Whitty: Yes. In common with the policy on enforcement regimes generally, the total cost of administering those regimes has to be covered.
  Earl Peel: My point is whether it is the Government's intention to cover not only the administration costs but also the costs of compensation if a licence is revoked or amended in any way.
  Lord Whitty: Yes. The compensation is part of the administrative cost.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Clause 27 uses the words "serious damage", whereas in the Environment Act 1995 the words "significant damage" are used. Obviously the context is not exactly the same. Is the Minister confident that "serious damage" is adequately defined, or would "significant damage" achieve more efficiently the purpose sought of protecting those items that need protection?
  Lord Whitty: The definitions of "serious damage" under this clause and elsewhere will be set out in detailed guidance. The assessment would be on that basis. Clearly, if the noble Baroness proposes an amendment, we shall have to deal with it at a later stage. We consider that the reference to "serious" indicates the type of damage of which we are talking, but it would be subject to guidance.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for that. In no way do I propose that those people who deliberately damage the environment should be compensated.

  GC 179
  I hope that the noble Lord accepted that from my remarks. The reason for trying to have a debate on this issue is that the system is currently being changed. I think the Minister will acknowledge that. Therefore, I believe that it was quite right to probe and to ask him to clarify one or two issues.
  Clause 27 agreed to.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 74:
  Before Clause 28, insert the following new clause—
  "GENERAL PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO WATER
  In section 6(2)(b) of the Environment Act 1995 (c. 25), at end insert "in particular the efficient use of water by all abstractors"."
  The noble Baroness said: I do not intend to take up much of the Committee's time with a debate about efficiency. The amendment would insert a clause regarding efficiency in a different place in the Bill, as we seek to find the most appropriate place to introduce this duty. For that reason, I beg to move.
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: I shall follow the admirable example of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and not repeat some of the points made at several significant stages in the Bill about the right place for an efficiency duty. I shall simply say that, for all the reasons already given, efficiency is important and that would seem to be a good place to put in a provision that makes clearer the statutory basis for the promotion of water efficiency within water resources duties as a regulator.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: The Environment Agency is already able to apply conditions such as water efficiency to an abstraction licence. It also must take into account other issues of costs and benefits. Any new duty would have to be consistent with that. This may be one of the more sensible places to consider a duty along these lines. The wording in the amendment referring only to "efficient" would not achieve the purpose. However, I am prepared, particularly in view of the commendably short intervention of the noble Baroness, to take the matter away and, before the next stage, to consider whether we can come forward with anything that would achieve that purpose.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister very much for that reply. I look forward to seeing what the Government produce. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 28 [Water resources management schemes: other abstractors]:
  The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 75:
  Page 32, leave out lines 40 and 41.
  The noble Duke said: This is a probing amendment. There is no reference in the Explanatory Notes to requiring payments. Do the Government have any idea what payments the agency might be required to make; for how much and for how long? Are they likely
  GC 180
  to be or would they be one-off payments? There is such a clause in the Water Resources Act. By putting one in the Bill the Government have opened the door to questions which I suggest should be asked. It is possible that the situations envisaged in 1990–1991, when the Water Resources Act was passing through the House, no longer apply. The clause could be used for all kinds of matters of which this House would not necessarily or readily approve. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: The clause allows the agency to enter into water resource management arrangements with abstractors other than water undertakers. Abstractors accepting those agreements may incur costs. It is reasonable that the agency should have an ability to cover those costs. The amendment would restrict that ability. It would also put the non-water undertakings abstractors at a disadvantage compared with the water undertakings, to whom compensation can be paid under the provisions referred to by the noble Duke.
  If one could not repay those costs, it is unlikely that other abstractors would come forward and take on some management functions as a part of a negotiated agreement with the Environment Agency. Therefore, that would restrict the flexibility of approach to management of water resources as a whole. With that clarification, I hope that the noble Duke will not press the amendment.
  The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for that explanation. In the light of it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 28 agreed to.
  Clause 29 agreed to.
  Clause 30 [Enforcement notices, and related procedures and offences]:
  The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 76:
  Page 35, leave out lines 27 to 31.
  The noble Duke said: This subsection deals with securing compliance with an enforcement notice. The clause already contains various remedies. Why should it be necessary to go to the High Court, with all the expense, delay, extra work and so on? Why not take the offender to an ordinary court, or, as provided for under subsection (3), do the work and then bill him for it? Why is it considered necessary to take powers to go to the High Court?
  Lord Whitty: This is about the enforcement of enforcement notices with which the company concerned has not complied. It would relate to the most serious cases, which would be appropriate for the High Court. Clearly, less serious cases may not be. Proceedings in the High Court will be in situations where significant damage to the environment is being caused which must be stopped as rapidly as possible. Such cases would be rare. I have no doubt that the High Court would ensure that they were. I therefore

  GC 181
  hope that we would not prevent the Environment Agency taking that course in those extreme circumstances.
  The Duke of Montrose: Is it the case, then, that an ordinary court would not have powers to act sufficiently quickly? Is that the problem?
  Lord Whitty: I think that that is one of the problems. I shall write to the noble Duke as to why it is the High Court. We are talking about the most serious incidents which require quick action. I think that the High Court procedure is the appropriate procedure, principally because the High Court can grant an injunction whereas the criminal courts cannot.
  The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for that reply. In the light of it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 30 agreed to.
  Schedule 1 [The Water Services Regulation Authority]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 77:
  Page 121, line 26, leave out "misbehaviour" and insert "inappropriate behaviour"
  The noble Lord said: We are a little concerned about the language in both Schedule 1 and Schedule 2. Schedule 1 deals with the appointment of members of the water services regulation authority, and Schedule 2 with the appointment of the consumer council for water. Our specific concern arises in the same place in both schedules where the Secretary of State—or, as the case may be, the Assembly—may remove someone from office. We have no problem with removing someone on the grounds of "incapacity", but we think that a provision to allow their removal because of "misbehaviour" is perhaps a bit too broad.
  I must say that I cannot help but wonder why I drew this amendment. My notes say that misbehaviour,
  "conjures up short trousers, birthday parties and pulling little girls' pigtails".
  Baroness Byford: I beg your pardon.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Granted. One does wonder whether "misbehaviour" is a suitable word to be used in this context. We think that the words "inappropriate behaviour" would be rather more precise. "Misbehaviour" can comprise so many things. I think that "inappropriate behaviour" would tighten up the definition so that the reasons for removing someone from office will be sufficiently clear for everyone to understand. I do not think that "misbehaviour" is sufficiently clear. I beg to move.
  Lord Borrie: I wonder whether I might intervene as self-appointed monitor of statutory provisions dealing with regulators who in some way go off the rails. There are various Bills, some recently passed by Parliament, which have used exactly the phrase used in the Bill. I am therefore rather surprised at the amendment.
  GC 182
  The words "incapacity or misbehaviour" have long been known to lawyers. They appear in the Courts Act 1971 as the provision for dealing with—if I may put it this way—circuit judges who go off the rails. It appears rather more closely at hand, in the field of utility regulators, in the Utilities Act 2000 and the Enterprise Act 2002. It may be of interest to Members of the Committee to know what a recent Lord Chancellor—namely, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern—commented in 1994 about what "misbehaviour" meant in relation to circuit judges. He said that it could include conviction for drink-driving, any offence involving violence, dishonesty or moral turpitude, behaviour likely to cause offence on religious or racial grounds, or behaviour amounting to sexual harassment.
  "Incapacity and misbehaviour" is a very well-tried phrase and I recommend it to your Lordships. I also recommend that the amendment should be dismissed.
  Lord Whitty: My noble friend makes the case for me.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: It has been worth tabling the amendment if only for the explanation because it has brought a certain amount of joy. But, as a language purist, I could take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, on this. The fact that something has been accepted throughout the whole of history does not mean that it should necessarily continue. But that is a separate issue. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 1 agreed to.
  Clause 34 [Consumer Council for Water]:
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 77A:
  Page 37, line 10, after "undertakers" insert "and licensed water suppliers"
  The noble Baroness said: Clause 34 deals with the establishment of the consumer council for water. The Committee will forgive me if I take some time over this group of amendments because some 29 Liberal Democrat amendments are grouped within this clause, plus one tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and one tabled by us jointly. As they all refer to the consumer council for water and raise a number of points, I decided that we could discuss them in the same, albeit very large, group, but they all concern the consumer council's powers.
  The first group, consisting of Amendments Nos. 77A to 77G, seeks to widen the scope for the consumer council for water from simply "relevant undertakers" to include "licensed water suppliers". I should be grateful if the Minister could say from his point of view why, on the face of the Bill at present, there seems to be a wish to restrict the consumer council to having powers which simply deal with relevant undertakers. It seems to me that if the effort is being made to establish the consumer council, which we certainly welcome very much, it would be useful if its powers went as wide as necessary to gain the confidence of consumers.
  Amendment No. 79A would delete the small but confusing statement,
  "unless the context otherwise requires",
  in subsection (12), which deals with the interests of consumers. This amendment probes what on earth that phrase means. I certainly do not understand what it means and perhaps the Minister could explain it.
  Amendments Nos. 85A to 85D have a purpose similar to that of Amendments Nos. 77A to 77G in that they widen the ability of the consumer council's, in this case, regional committees to establish a relationship between the regional committees and the licensed suppliers and not only undertakers.
  Amendment No. 126 has been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and I shall leave her to speak to it. Amendment No. 127 requires that the wider range, which would include licensed suppliers, gives the consumer council for water more information. We believe that if the consumer council is to be able to fulfil its role in a meaningful way, then it must be able to obtain as much information as it requires from water companies. If a water company fails to comply with a direction from the consumer council to provide information, then the company can be required by the consumer council to give reasons.
  The consumer council for water may then refer the company's refusal to Ofwat to decide whether the company should be ordered to supply the information. I submit that supplying as much information as possible is extremely important to a consumer council for it to be able to fulfil its role. Although the Secretary of State will have a power to make regulations to prescribe a person other than Ofwat to decide whether a water company should be ordered to supply information to the consumer council, it is important that the Bill gives the consumer council as much power as possible. As it stands, the Bill proposes only a restricted power. The boot should be on the other foot; the Government should give us a good reason why they want to restrict the consumer council's powers rather than widening them.
  Amendment No. 129 was tabled by both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, and involves a discussion of the functions and duties of the water authority and the consumer council. The Bill seems to deny the consumer council the right to require the authority to supply information, although it is not an unreasonable right. The amendment would delete the subsection. Amendment No. 130, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, deals with the same point more simply by simply deleting the word "not".
  Amendments Nos. 142 to 145 deal with the issue whether the consumer council can require compensation to be paid to customers. Our amendments are pretty modest, as we would empower it to do so only up to a limit of £5,000. For consumers to have confidence in the consumer council, it needs to have some power of redress that is not too lengthy or bureaucratic. The council will be made up under Nolan rules; it will be a responsible body; and it is reasonable that it should have that power.
  Amendments Nos. 163 to 168 insert the consumer council for water in a number of contexts as a body that the Secretary of State must address. It is symptomatic that, although the Government have taken the good step of creating the consumer council for water, they have failed to include it in an extraordinary number of lists throughout the Bill as a body that needs to be consulted in many situations. I shall list those situations.
  Amendment No. 163 adds the consumer council to the list of bodies that the Secretary of State must consult before making regulations about the quantity threshold requirements for competition. That seems a fairly fundamental area. The threshold requirement for competition, if the Government believe that competition is at all important, is of great significance, and the consumer council should be able to have a view of it.
  Amendment No. 164 adds the council to a long list of bodies to which the Secretary of State must give a copy of a licence or a variation. Surely, if a licence is varied, the consumer council for water would need to know. That omission may simply be a mistake.
  Amendment No. 165 adds the council to a list of those to whom the authority must give a copy of a notice of modifications to a water supply licence. The three amendments give some flavour of the idea that the consumer council will be unable to do its job properly unless it is included in the loop of what is happening in the world of water.
  Amendment No. 166 illustrates the point particularly well that the consumer council is currently not included in the list of people whom the authority must inform about modifications to standard conditions of licences. Of course, it could be argued the council is there for the end-of-tap users and need not be concerned with the standard conditions of licence. Surely, however, the conditions of the licence are important in helping to achieve the things that consumers will be concerned about.
  All these amendments add the consumer council into the chain of information. Amendment No. 168 relates to what happens when the Competition Commission makes a decision after its report. As the Bill stands, there is no requirement for the consumer council to be informed when the Commission makes a decision about matters that concern it.
  The amendments show how much the Bill leaves the consumer council out of the loop. These amendments would include it in the loop. I beg to move.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Carter): It might help the Committee to mention that Amendments Nos. 153 and 155, to which the noble Baroness referred, are in later groups.
  Baroness Byford: I hope I am correct in thinking that Amendments Nos. 154 and 126 are in this group. When we read the Bill, we found to our surprise that it sometimes referred to water companies alone, although the Government want to open competition so that water suppliers will come in. In some circumstances, water suppliers are not included in

  GC 185
  responsibilities or consultation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller explained. That also works against them in some ways. Why should water companies be required to carry costs that the new water suppliers will not have to carry? There seems to be confusion in the Bill, certainly from my reading of it and also, it seems, from that of the noble Baroness. Lady Miller. We need to clarify those aspects very clearly.
  I was formerly a member of the Train Users' Consultative Committee, which became the Rail Users' Consultative Committee, so I have had to handle the kind of thing that the consumer council will have to consider. I suspect that I shall split apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, on the question of how much information the council requires. At the moment, the relevant information goes to Ofwat and will go to the new regulating authority. Wearing the hat that I wore on my previous committee, some of that information may not be relevant to the council. That raises the problem of confidentiality, especially on competitive issues.
  I am struggling to know how to tuck in what I want to say without being ruled out of order by the Lord Chairman or by the Minister, because the grouping of amendments is so huge. I apologise to both noble Lords in advance. There are so many aspects involved and it is unfortunate that so many amendments were grouped together, although they cover the same subject. It would have been easier for the Committee to speak to separate groups, as we did earlier, when the noble Baroness, Lady Young, kindly did not repeat what she had said because we had already been over the argument. In many ways, I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is trying to do.
  Amendment No. 126 would mean that licensed water suppliers would have to give information to the council. That is necessary if the council is to fulfil its obligations under new Section 27A(12)(a), on page 37 of the Bill. The obligations are described in the definition of a "consumer matter" as,
  "any matter connected with the interests of consumers".
  Those interests are defined as,
  "the interests of consumers in relation to … the supply of water by means of a water undertaker's supply system to premises either by water undertakers or (unless the context otherwise requires) licensed water suppliers acting in their capacity as such".
  That relates to new Section 27A(10), which states:
  "The purposes of a regional committee shall be … the provision of advice and information to the Council on consumer matters affecting the areas",
  represented by water undertakers on that committee. My comments apply to Amendment No. 154 as well.
  I find these matters difficult, and other Members of the Committee may wish to contribute. These measures have huge implications. Either water suppliers. having been brought in by the Bill, should be included in all aspects of the Bill, or they should not. Why have they not been? Is there a good reason— perhaps a reason of competition—why they have not been included in regulation or cost bearing? Similarly, is there some reason why they have not been considered and included as consultees? They should be able to get information as regards the council.
  GC 186
  I hope that I have reflected a little on the amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and clarified our position, which may be similar in some ways. At some points, we will disagree. The Bill addresses the situation unevenly.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: For the record, and to inform the noble Baroness, I actually asked for this grouping to be split into at least three groups when I received the draft groupings. That did not happen, and again it did not happen when I asked once more this morning. I then decided to speak to the amendments as one group. Although some of the amendments that I asked to be degrouped were degrouped, these were not.
  Baroness Byford: It is my understanding that it is for the House to decide which groups are taken with which. We try to do that in advance for the ease of the usual channels. However, the Committee may find it easier if we divide up the amendments; I, for one, would find it easier. We would not have to remake our speeches—I believe that we can almost guarantee that. The amendments relate to very different issues. However, I am in the hands of the Committee at this stage.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The House can deal only with the question that is before it at the moment.
  Lord Whitty: Yes, and both noble Baronesses have spoken to the full group. I accept that the amendments are in a big chunk, but they all deal with the powers of the consumer council, so they interrelate.
  I shall give my views on Amendments Nos. 77A to 78A and Amendments Nos. 85A to 85D and then try to break up my speech, because we have already had two speeches referring to the whole grouping. Those amendments are all concerned with the consumer council's regional committees, and seek to allocate licensed water suppliers to them in the same way as occurs with allocation of undertakers.
  One question was: why are licensees being treated differently from water undertakers in general? There is a consumer dimension to that. With the consumers and water undertakers, there is no ability to switch, subject to the very large consumers and competition provision that we provide later in the Bill. On the other hand, the rights of licensees' customers are defined in contracts, and they can switch. The power for consumer protection is of a different order in relation to the customers of monopoly suppliers.
  6.30 p.m.
  Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I realise that we are not talking about domestic customers at this stage. In some ways we are, but in some ways we are not. But the new suppliers will be supplying companies, and presumably the consumer council will want to have regard to them as well. I had assumed that, but perhaps I am wrong.
  Lord Whitty: As I said, the undertakers will virtually be in a monopoly situation region by region, as they

  GC 187
  are now. Some competition is being introduced by the Bill but, in general, commercial and domestic consumers will be faced with a monopoly supplier. In the case of the licensees, there is not a monopoly situation and therefore, as I said, consumer protection is of a different order. Having said that, I believe that we are in a different position in relation to licensees. Indeed, their relations with their consumers will be contract-based.
  However, as the Bill is currently drafted, in principle there is nothing to stop the consumer council from allocating licensed water suppliers to be overseen by a regional committee. Indeed, they may wish to adopt that flexible approach. But I do not believe that it is appropriate to impose that on them because licensed water suppliers will be different from undertakers. Effectively, undertakers are regional companies and their operations relate to their region, whereas, with regard to suppliers, the licensees are not necessarily tied to one part of the country. They may well operate in the supply of water in more than one water company area.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Apart from the fact that consumers who get their water out of their taps must write a cheque or send their credit card details to one company or another, will it make a difference?
  Lord Whitty: Yes, it will make a difference. The nature of the relationship is different and the nature of the balance of market power is also different. But I am now making a distinct point. I am saying that the water companies are, in effect, regionally based operations which are confined to the old water regions. There may be some cross-ownership but, effectively, they are water companies within a region and therefore would relate to a regional committee very easily.
  Suppliers can operate in more than one region and it is therefore not sensible to force the consumer council to allocate them by regional committee. That is the only point that I make at this stage. I made the more general point that consumer protection is a slightly different issue but this group of amendments seeks to say that the licensees should be categorised by region, and that does not seem to be appropriate. However, in some cases it is open to the consumer council to make such categorisation and, in some cases, they may be single-region companies. But that will not be the case in relation to them all.
  Baroness Byford: I was a member of the rural trains committee for the Midlands region and we had different services ranging from Midland Mainline to Central Trains to services for the West Country. However, the committee was there to represent all consumers, and I believe that is the point that between us we are trying to establish. It did not really matter whether a company went through part of our area and into another. Our responsibility—I say this in reference to the council—was to represent the views of everyone who used whatever it happened to be in our
  GC 188
  area. I do not see why there is this "hang up" in the Bill unless there are some things to which I am not privy. I am trying to establish why that has not been included.
  Lord Whitty: I do not really follow the noble Baroness's logic. The structure of the consumer council's regional committees is being defined on the basis of the current structure of company areas. As I said, the relationship with the licensees is somewhat different, but theoretically one could also put them into regional areas. However, if one was obliged to do so, that would cut across the fact that a licensee for supply in the Northumbrian region might also have a licence in the Wessex region. Therefore, it would not be sensible to force such a licensee to be overseen by the Northumbrian regional committee simply because that is where it started out.
  I believe that we must differentiate the treatment of licensees in certain ways, both for principled reasons, in that they are in a different market position, but also for practical reasons, in that they do not operate in the neat regional structure of the old water system.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: As the Minister gives his explanation of each section of amendments, will he say whether his views are also those of WaterVoice and what representations WaterVoice has made to DEFRA about these various issues? After all, it has the greatest expertise in this field at present. Perhaps it knows best how to represent consumers effectively and where the gaps are.
  Lord Whitty: I believe that in some areas we disagree with WaterVoice. I do not have its briefing with me in all respects, but obviously we take its views into account. However, I believe that there is a difference in function. I am not sure on which views of WaterVoice the noble Baroness is asking me to say whether I agree or disagree. Perhaps she will clarify that point first.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Obviously, because I do have a briefing from WaterVoice, my understanding is that it believes strongly that licensed suppliers should also be included in this provision. It believes that that is the best way in which consumer interests can be followed. I am still at a loss to understand why the Government are at such variance with the bodies that represent consumers at present.
  Lord Whitty: I am not saying that the consumer council should not cover licensees. That is not the point that I am making. I am saying that the role of customers in relation to the licensees is different from that of customers in relation to the water companies. But there is no restriction in the Bill—I go along with WaterVoice to this extent—about the council covering licensees as well.
  What I do object to is writing on to the face of the Bill that, in order to cover licensees, we must categorise them by regional committee. That is the only point that I am making at this stage. Most of these amendments relate to the power of the regional committees and simply reflect that. That does not seem

  GC 189
  to me to be a sensible approach. It may be defensible in some cases hut, in many cases, it will not be sensible to try to allocate the licensee companies by region.
  Baroness Byford: I still do not quite understand. From what he has just said, the Minister is virtually inferring that, under the Bill, some people who are supplied by water suppliers rather than by water companies will not have any recourse directly to the council.
  Lord Whitty: I am not saying that. The consumer council can cover licensed suppliers as well. I am saying that the relationship is, by its very nature, different. So far as concerns these amendments, we are only talking about regional structures. It is a practical point; it is not a point of principle.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: It may assist the Minister if we read what he said about this regional issue. Perhaps he would like to move on to some of the other points that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised in our amendments.
  Lord Whitty: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, but we are making a slight meal of what was a relatively simple point. Perhaps that is my fault and I apologise to the Committee.
  Amendments Nos. 142 and, consequently, 148, 149, 150, 152 and 154 relate to the council's role in handling complaints and carrying out investigations and the mechanism for changing the threshold within the Bill but not for changing the role of the council—it would change the size of the competitive sector. We have some sympathy with what is being attempted here. However, I would have concerns if the council thereby became involved with the content of supply contracts between customers and the licensees, as those are essentially a private matter between the two parties.
  Therefore, we need to give some thought as to whether the council should be allowed to require the information set out in Amendments Nos. 126, 127, 129 and 130. We also need to consider naming the council as a compulsory consultee to the exclusion of others. Of course, that does not mean that the council should not become involved in the consultation process. The mechanisms to ensure that that occurs are already in place in the Bill.
  However, if it would be helpful to the Committee, I would be prepared to consider whether we should take further the thoughts behind Amendments Nos. 148, 149, 152 and 154 and the original Amendment No. 142—the batch which deals with complaints handling—and also Amendments Nos. 163 through to 168, which deal primarily with the involvement of the council in the consultation process, and if I consider, without commitment, the issues which lie behind that.
  I hope that I have dealt with most of the amendments. I shall certainly take away those two batches and consider them again. As I indicated, for
  GC 190
  practical rather than principled reasons, I am less sympathetic to the first batch of amendments, which deals with the regionalisation of the approach.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister very much for his reply. If he is to return with the amendments, I am sure that we shall all appreciate them being in smaller groupings. I shall read carefully his reasoning about the regional issue, and I thank him for his remarks on the other amendments. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 77B to 77G not moved.]
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 78:
  Page 37, line 26, at end insert—
  "( ) Without prejudice to subsections (2) to (4). before—

  (a) making a modification to the conditions of an appointment pursuant to section 13 of this Act:

  (b) making a reference to the Competition Commission pursuant to section 14 of this Act;

  (c) giving any approval pursuant to section 143(6) of this Act;

  (d) making any decision which falls within paragraphs (a), (b) or (e) of section 195A of this Act; or

  (e) making any proposal to a relevant undertaker limiting its charges for the supply of water, the provision of sewerage services or the reception, treatment or disposal of trade effluent,

  the Authority, the Secretary of State or the Assembly, as the case may be, shall consult the Council, and shall take into account any views expressed by the Council."
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 78 is concerned with the duty of the water authority to consult the council. We believe that it is a matter of good practice for there to be a statutory requirement that the water authority must give reasons for its key decisions. We believe that generally that happens already, but it is important that water customers as well as water companies and other stakeholders should have a statutory right to be informed by the water authority of the reasons for its decisions which may affect their interests.
  Therefore, our amendment is designed to widen the scope of decisions that the consumer council for water must be consulted upon before the water authority is able to make decisions upon those areas. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: I do not believe that the amendments are necessary. We obviously share the aim that the new consumer council should be able to contribute to water regulation on behalf of consumers in conjunction with the other bodies. However, new Section 27B already contains a requirement for the various bodies to agree to co-operate and, indeed, to record agreement about co-operation in a memorandum. That agreement is more suitable than the wording of these amendments. In the existing memorandum between Ofwat and WaterVoice, there is already an agreement to consult each other on matters involving the exercise of their

  GC 191
  respective functions. I should expect that process to be followed in the new structure, without this form of amendment.
  6.45 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I should also speak to my Amendments Nos. 79 and 80, which are grouped with Amendment No. 78.
  Amendment No. 79 deals with a small but very important point. I believe that the power is currently restricted to consumers of water. The amendment seeks to broaden that to include,
  "parties with whom the undertakers enter into a contractual relationship".
  An example might help the Committee. If a landowner gave an undertaker permission to lay a pipe across her land, she would have a contractual relationship with the undertaker, but she may not be a consumer of his water. She might, for example, have her own private water supply. The purpose of the amendment is to cover people in those circumstances. I believe that the Bill as drafted may be excluding many such circumstances. It is a probing amendment to discover why only the consumers of the undertaker's product should be included.
  Amendment No. 80 goes to the heart of some of the sustainability issues we have discussed. It requires all the authorities, notably the water authority and the consumer council for water,
  "to pay regard to each others' duties of care to society, the environment and the economy".
  At this stage in the afternoon, I do not intend to speak to the amendment at length, save to say that we believe that the spirit of the amendment is very important.
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: I wonder whether I might depart from the admirable shortness of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, on Amendment No. 80 and say a few words about the real importance of sustainable development and the equivalent of that for the consumer council for water. If they are to sing from the same hymn sheet, a symmetry needs to be developed between the economic regulator, the environmental regulator and the consumer council. Research done on behalf of the Government, the regulators and the consumer bodies has shown that the public want the consumer council to address not only price and service issues but water companies' environmental performance and what is being delivered on behalf of consumers in terms of environmental impact. I therefore ask the Minister to consider Amendment No. 80.
  Baroness Byford: I suspect that the Minister will tell us that the amendment is unnecessary as it is already within the Government's brief. However, I, too, have been particularly taken by the amendment. I think that it is true that members of the general public—all of us—have become much more aware of our environment. Although I am not sure that that needs to be included in the Bill, I should certainly hope that
  GC 192
  the consumer council will have high regard to it. If it does not, I would be happy to support this amendment.
  I dissented earlier from the position laid out by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, but she has outlined the information that the companies are required to provide. I would be concerned if the companies thought that that information goes beyond the scope of what they usually provide. Such information should be a basic element of what they should wish to provide to the consumer council. If that is not so, I would associate myself with Amendment No. 80.
  Lord Whitty: I think that we are becoming slightly messy with our procedure. I have already given part of my reply on Amendment No. 80, which we are saying is not necessary because the companies already cooperate. In that process, I probably did not deal adequately with Amendment No. 79, which would look after the contractors working for the water company. I do not think that that is right. I think that the consumer council should look after consumers, not the contractors. As for licensed water suppliers, they could of course be the undertakers' competitors. It would not be right for them to benefit from the consumer protection part of the Bill.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: We could argue some of these points at length. For now, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 78A to 80 not moved.]
  Clause 34 agreed to.
  Schedule 2 [The Consumer Council for Water]:
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth Lord Livsey of Talgarth moved Amendment No. 81:
  Page 124, line 14, at end insert"; or

  (c) reside in a rural area and have a direct relationship with rural interests"

  The noble Lord said: Members of the Committee will note that, regarding appointments to the consumer council, paragraph 1(5) of Schedule 2 provides that one or more person must,
  "have experience of work among, and the special needs of, disabled persons"—
  which is very laudable indeed—and,
  "have or have had a disability".
  The amendment proposes a specific reference to persons in rural areas. We make that proposal on the strength of new Section 27C under Clause 42, on page 48, which is headed "General functions of the Council". New Section 27C refers specifically to the interests of consumers. It states:
  "In considering the interests of consumers, the Council shall have regard to the interests of … individuals who are disabled or chronically sick … individuals of pensionable age … individuals with low incomes; and … individuals residing in rural areas".
  The disability issue was certainly addressed in paragraph 1(5) of the schedule that I quoted.
  In moving this amendment, I am saying that the consumer council should include at least one person living in a rural area who has a direct relationship with rural interests. We believe that various rural water

  GC 193
  issues need to be taken into account. An adequate and reliable source of water is of course absolutely vital for rural residents. It is important also that the regulator and the consumer council are aware of the needs of rural businesses in that specific context.
  The reliable supply of water to small rural housing developments and small rural businesses may require a more extensive infrastructure. In my work in another place, I came across real hardship in rural areas. I know of cases in which proposals to build just three or four more houses could not be agreed because of an inadequate water supply, which was often the result of an inadequate water infrastructure. Furthermore, residents of rural communities were often asked to pay an enormous bill to increase the availability of water. That stultified much rural enterprise and even the viability of rural areas. Younger couples who would have lived and worked in the area did not do so because of inadequate water supplies.
  Although that is a special pleading, it needs to be represented on the consumer council. Rural people will appreciate that point. My experience is that consumer councils dominated by people from urban areas have no idea at all of that type of problem in rural areas. We want to ensure that rural interests are reflected in the business of the consumer council. We should therefore like to amend Schedule 2. We believe that the best place to make the change is in the list of special interest groups to be considered for appointment to the national consumer council or the regional consumer committees. We want to ensure that decision making as it effects the interests of rural consumers is done in an informed way. I beg to move.
  The Duke of Montrose: I speak to Amendment No. 82, which is grouped with Amendment No. 81. Although our amendment follows much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, it is perhaps more specifically geared to the question of agricultural and horticultural use of water. Like the noble Lord, we are grateful to see vulnerable groups listed in Clause 42. Their interests must be taken care of. Here, however, we are dealing with the matter of who should be appointed to the regional consumer committees.
  In this regard, we are specifically considering the fact that, of the 48,000 current licences, 70 per cent are held by farmers or horticulturists, who account for only 1 per cent of actual water use. Nevertheless, water is a vital component for them. By the same token, their interests are vital in considering the overall interests of consumers as regards water. We have therefore tabled Amendment No. 82, which would incorporate the requirement to include rural interests in the list of special interest groups. In fact, the only special interest groups currently mentioned are disabled persons and persons with such experience. Although we may be introducing another specialist group, I think that the it is sufficiently significant to be considered.
  Lord Borrie: I wonder whether I might express some opposition to both amendments. I live in a rural area. Therefore, I fully understand the substantial point of the importance of representation from rural areas on
  GC 194
  bodies such as the consumer council. However, I am bound to say that perhaps the Government themselves have encouraged these amendments by indicating one special group—the disabled—in the Bill. The noble Lord. Lord Livsey, appropriately cited Clause 42, which we have not yet reached, which specifically lists four special interests. The Government have picked out the disabled. These two amendments pick out yet another group: individuals residing in rural areas.
  However, is it not possible for me—especially at my age—to say, "What about individuals of pensionable age?" Although I may not be able to speak from personal experience about individuals on low incomes, I am very conscious indeed that their significance is mentioned in several places in the Bill. Why should they not have representation on the council if they are to be listed for the council in Clause 42?
  My point is that I do not like too much prescript ion of that sort, so that all the members of a consumer council sitting round a table have marks on their forehead to show that one of them is rural, one of them is poor, one of them is disabled and so on. I do not know what size the council will be—I am not sure whether the Minister has said what size it will be—but I dare say that it would be able to cover at least those groups and several other groups too. Appointing people because they come from a particular group is not necessarily a good thing, and we should not lay it down in statute. I recommend that the Committee oppose both amendments.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, mentioned Clause 42. I have tabled some amendments to that clause.
  The remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, provoked me into rising. He described what I have usually had to face from the Minister. The Minister will remember, as will the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, several occasions when we were dealing with Bills relating to local government on which we tried to broaden, shall we say, the range of consultation. Generally speaking, the Minister argued that our propositions were fallacious and that it was unnecessary to broaden the range of consultees because there was no bar to it and the Government would do it and so on. We have had that argument from the Government, but, in this Bill, the Minister falls into his own trap by having a degree of over-specification.
  I support the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, on the matter. In the words of that wretched television programme, "Allo, Allo", I shall say that only once. I hope that I shall not need to say it again.
  Lord Whitty: I am not particularly happy with the amendments, for the very reason that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, gave: once we start a list, we either extend it hugely or, by exclusion, imply that other groups are not of such importance. We end up with an unrepresentative consumer council. The aim of the amendment is to make it more representative. I am not, at this point, persuaded. I am even less persuaded

  GC 195
  by the reference to the agriculture sector. It would be difficult to specify one industry, important though it may be in the context, as needing representation before others.
  The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will recall that, sometimes, I have succumbed to rural arguments and, other times, I have not. For the moment, at least, I object to any addition to the list and am not prepared to look favourably on the amendments.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I commend one or two of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said. Why should there not be pensioners or people on low income on the council? Perhaps, the noble Lord should have tabled an amendment to that effect. We could have had a general debate about the matter.
  I do not accept the arguments that the council might be too big or that people would have marks on their forehead. Water emanates from rural areas, and, often, rural people will barely have a water supply. There may be a well in the back garden, but they may wish to be connected to a mains water supply with a quality of water that may be far superior to what they get out of the well. They deserve that, and there is a health aspect to it.
  My experience is that people in rural areas always lose out. They are always told that they must pay vast sums to be connected to services. The same thing applies to supplies of electricity. Outrageous sums are asked from rural people who want to get connected. In one case, a community of 50 people was asked to contribute to a £750,000 scheme to supply that community. That was an unfair burden, especially as the pipeline ran through that community to the urban areas. That is the sort of thing that goes on. There must be people on the consumer council to represent rural people who know of the existence of such schemes. Urban people turning on their taps every day do not think about people in that situation and cannot imagine being in it.
  Reluctantly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I believe that we will come back to the matter, probably on Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 82 to 84 not moved.]
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 85:
  Page 127, line 1, after "State" insert ", from money collected from the companies holding appointments,"
  The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment designed to sort out the financial arrangements behind the consumer council for water.
  Paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 states:
  "The Secretary of State and the Assembly shall pay to the Council such sums as he or it thinks lit to enable it to meet its expenses".
  As I understand it, existing undertakers pay a sum to the regulator to enable the regulatory functions to be carried out. That is how the regulator is funded at present. Will that still be the case, when the consumer council for water is established?
  In the Explanatory Notes, the Government say that the establishment costs for the consumer council will initially amount to £1 million. It is expected that the long-term increase in costs for the new authority will be marginal and that, anyway, the increased costs, if I have understood the Bill, will be covered by an increase in water company licence fees. I want the Minister to clarify the funding mechanism for the council. Will the allocation of funds for the council come directly from the company licence fees, or will it involve additional expenditure by the Government? Will the Government fund it until the additional revenue starts to come through from the licence fees, at which point it will become, in a sense, self-funding?
  I may have made a meal of it, but the Bill is not clear on that point. Even if the Bill is clear, it is not clear that we have understood it. I hope that the Minister will not mind giving an explanation. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: The Bill provides for what the noble Lord seeks through the amendment. Clause 36, which we are about to discuss, provides that an undertaker's conditions of appointment may require the undertaker to contribute to the set-up and running costs of the consumer council.
  Baroness O'Cathain: Did the Minister say "Clause 36"?
  Lord Whitty: We are talking about Amendment No. 85, but I referred to Clause 36, which provides much of what the noble Lord's amendment would provide.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I apologise to the Minister, but I need some clarification. I saw somewhere that Clause 36 had been withdrawn.
  Baroness Buford: Amendment No. 86 has been withdrawn.
  Baroness O'Cathain: Okay.
  Lord Whitty: The essential point is that the mechanism that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, seeks is already provided for in Clause 36.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful for the explanation. Although it sounded simple, I shall need to study it in order to understand it. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 85A to 85D not moved.]
  Schedule 2 agreed to.
  Clause 35 agreed to.
  Schedule 3 agreed to.
  Clause 36 [Conditions relating to costs of water regulation]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 86A:
  Page 39, line 20, at end insert—
  "( ) The granting of a licence to a water supplier may require the payment by the licence holder of sums relating to any of the expenses mentioned in subsection (3)."
  The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 86A and 87 would put a licensed water supplier on the same footing as a water company. It is peculiar that a licensed water supplier would not have to meet some of the costs that any other water company would have to meet. That may be a misapprehension, and I would be grateful for an explanation, if that is not the case. According to our reading of the Bill, that is not so. Amendments Nos. 86A and 87 would clarify the situation.
  Amendment No. 88 covers a slightly different issue. It is a probing amendment. The amendment says:
  "leave out 'Before section 193' and insert `After section 192'".
  It may just be ignorance, but we are not certain of what I would call the etiquette of placing things in a Bill. The problem is that Section 193 is repealed. I am not sure that it is right to place a section of a Bill before a section of another Bill that is to be repealed. After the Bill is passed, that section will, presumably, cease to exist. If we re-number the whole of the previous Bill, it will make sense, but, otherwise, it will not. We felt that, in the interests of clarity, the phrase "After section 192" was to be preferred to "Before section 193", as Section 193 will not exist after this Bill has come into force. I beg to move.
  Baroness Byford: Before the Minister responds to my noble friend, I must re-state the concerns that I raised earlier about the fact that the water suppliers were not included in some things; this is one of them. It seems unfair that a water company that is required to make payments will be treated differently from a new supplier. The water companies will have to meet huge costs, hut, as far as I can see—unless I have read it wrongly again—that is not required of the new water suppliers. I cannot imagine why. Surely, that is unfair competition. I would like the Minister to explain why that decision has been made.
  Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 86A would make it explicit that the water licensees shared the expenses, but I can reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. Section 17G(1)(b), inserted by Schedule 4, to which the Committee may not yet have paid huge attention, already provides for a water supply licence to require payments to the Secretary of State of such amounts as may be determined, which could fairly include this. The mechanism is already in the Bill.
  I think that I can also reassure the noble Lord with regard to Amendment No. 87. In one sense, Clause 36 provides a transitional power to allow undertakers' existing conditions of employment to be modified. The competition provisions of the Bill are unlikely to come into force before the consumer council is set up. If necessary, licence conditions could reflect from the beginning the need for undertakers to contribute to the council's costs.
  I have an explanation for the point raised by Amendment No. 88, but I shall write to the noble Lord about it.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his non-explanation of Amendment No. 88. I look forward to receiving his letter, which obviously I shall have to study with considerable care.
  On the mechanism that the Minister mentioned in relation to Amendments Nos. 86A and 87, if my memory is correct, he said that the Secretary of State may make charges to licensed suppliers—it is not obligatory. I am aware of the argument about "may" and "shall", but there still seems to be an element of uncertainty about the matter, and we think that it should be certain. We may need to return to the matter. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
  Clause 36 agreed to.
  Clause 37 [Forward work programmes and annual reports]:
  [Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 89:
  Page 41, line 14, at end insert—
  "( ) The Council shall, as soon as is practicable after the end of each financial year, make to the Secretary of State a report (the "annual report" for that year) on

  (a) its activities during the year;

  (b) the progress of the forward work programme for that year; and

  (c) such other matters as the Secretary of State may from time to time require."

  The noble Lord said: The Bill provides that the water service regulatory authority must report annually to the Secretary of State. That is absolutely OK, but we find it slightly odd that, from our reading of the Bill, the consumer council for water does not have to so report. We feel that it should. I am happy to be told that I have misread the Bill because I am quite capable of doing that. By the time one has read such Bills a few times, one sometimes finds oneself in a complete fog. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: Paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 2, at line 25 on page 125, already requires the council to make an annual report.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am very grateful to the Minister. I apologise for not having read the Bill the whole way through with sufficient care and put two and two together. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 37 agreed to.
  Clause 38 [Objectives and duties under WIA]:
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 90:
  Page 42, line 1, at end insert In a sustainable manner"
  The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 91 and 93, which are in the same group. Amendment No. 90 defines the consumer

  GC 199
  objective. Its aim is to take the consumer objective beyond what is suggested in the Bill as being simply a price issue, extending it to include sustainability. The amendment would add the words "in a sustainable manner" to the consumer objective.
  Amendment No. 91 alters subsection (2B), which refers to,
  "the consumer objective mentioned in subsection (2A)(a)",
  which Amendment No. 90 would change. It would change the meaning of that clause from simply protecting the interests of consumers, which might well be taken to be ostensibly keeping the price down, to ensuring,
  "the best sustainable use of the water resource",
  in the interests of consumers. That is important in that it would be inappropriate if the Bill could look at consumer interests only as a matter of price. Consumers are often best served when matters are looked at much more broadly, taking into account other issues; for example, the tax burden consumers must pay when the Government need to clean up the environment.
  Amendment No. 93 refers to special interest groups. In subsection (2C), the Government have chosen to list a number of special interest groups to which the Secretary of State or the authority shall have special regard. We believe that students in full-time education should fall within that group. That is not only because they have very low incomes, as the Government will be aware. If they must pay the same water bills as everyone else, their situation will be worsened further than it already has been by top-up fees. Some of the work done by consumer associations shows that people in that age group suffer particularly badly with regard to water bills. For those reasons, we would like them included in that group. I beg to move.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Amendment No. 90A is included in the same group. I have never quite understood what is sustainable and what is unsustainable—it means different things to different people—so I took a different tack. My amendment would add,
  "in the context of best management of the national water resource".
  We are talking about the objectives of the water services regulatory authority under the Water Industry Act. Subsection (2A) states:
  "The Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Authority, shall exercise and perform the powers and duties mentioned in subsection (1) above in the manner which he or it consider is best calculated—
  "(a) to further the consumer objective".
  The description "consumer objective" is very, very wide. The Bill continues.
  In the first instance, I seek clarification of what the consumer objective is. If the objective is to bear in mind the interests of the consumer as regards the price of water, and if it was then to decide that it was in the best interests of the consumer to keep the price of water down, we could have a situation where
  GC 200
  investment was restricted and water supplies subsequently became vulnerable. The other extreme would be where costs were not judged to be a serious problem; in which case, one could take it to the other extreme and have investment that was unprofitable or not good value for money.
  I wonder whether "the consumer objective" is sufficiently objective for it to merit being put in this way. That is why I think that some other words need to be added to make it better defined and more understandable. This is a small but important point. At the moment, I regard the Bill as deficient, not because it does not cover what needs to be covered, but because it does not set it out sufficiently clearly in points that can be understood.
  Lord Borrie: I wish to latch on to the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. If having the lowest possible price for the current consumer were everything, what he said about sustainability is absolutely right—it would go for nothing. We have already been through Clause 34, which inserts a section in the Water Industry Act. Section 27A(12) states that,
  "'the interests of consumers' means the interests of consumers in relation to—
  (a) the supply of water by means of a water undertaker's supply system to premises".
  And, before even saying that, it states:
  "'consumers' includes both existing and future consumers".
  There is no way in which future consumers could be best served simply by putting every possible emphasis on the lowest price for current consumers.
  Therefore, I am not sure that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is necessary at all. Surely, the "consumer objective" mentioned on line 1 of page 42 must refer back to Section 27A(12) at the bottom of page 37, where we are talking about future consumers as well as existing ones. It is a most important provision.
  Lord Whitty: My noble friend Lord Borrie makes my first point for me. To some extent, the same applies to sustainability, which is written into Clause 38 as a responsibility of the authority. Of course, the other side of the coin of what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, says is that consumers have an interest in matters that are not related or definable under the term sustainability. Therefore, the consumer interest, while it overlaps with sustainable development, is not coterminous with it. Therefore, we wish to ensure that this body will primarily look after the needs of consumers in their broadest sense. If the noble Lord. Lord Dixon-Smith, thinks that that is too broad, so do consumers. It is reasonable that we would not constrain it. I am concerned that his Amendment No. 90A, and to some extent Amendment No. 90, would constrain it unnecessarily.
  On Amendment No. 91, clearly there is a wider range of issues. The Bill is designed to ensure that the Secretary of State takes account of those in defining what consumer interests are, and that should be reflected in the role of the council. I am unclear as to

  GC 201
  why students should be picked out in Amendment No. 93. They are known neither for their use of water nor for drinking it. If they were low paid, they would fall under one of the other categories. So I am afraid that, on all those grounds, I would refuse to add full-time students to the list.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I am disappointed that the Minister does not think that students should be a special case. If they were, they might be encouraged—
  Baroness O'Cathain: To wash.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: However, if the Minister assured me that students were covered under subsection (2C)(c), which provides for individuals with low incomes, I might feel happier about it. Perhaps that definition is already in his mind.
  I believe that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would achieve what I was seeking to do without having the slightly over-used word "sustainable"—I sometimes struggle to avoid using it. He hit on exactly what we are trying to achieve. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that the issue is automatically covered by the reference to "future consumers". If price were the issue, one might
  GC 202
  argue, if parents had to spend less money on water, that one was covering the interests of future consumers.
  However, I hope that the Bill looks at the matter in its wider context. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and I, if we do not feel that the Minister's reply satisfies what we seek to achieve, will be able to get together before Report stage to try to come up with an amendment that better defines the consumer interest. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 90A and 91 not moved.]
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I wish to seek the Committee's opinion. Amendment No. 92 is particularly important to me, and I wish to speak to it at length. Would it be convenient to the Committee if we started with it at the next session?
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I think this may be a convenient moment, by general consent, to adjourn further consideration until Tuesday next at 3.30 p.m.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Cox): The Committee stands adjourned until Tuesday 8th April at 3.30 p.m.
  The Committee adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before eight o'clock.

  Fines Officers
  Fines Officers
  Sexual Offences: Northern Ireland, and England and Wales
  Sexual Offences: Northern Ireland, and England and Wales
  Northern Ireland: Smoking among Civil Servants
  Northern Ireland: Smoking among Civil Servants
  House of Lords: Hereditary Peers' By-election
  House of Lords: Hereditary Peers' By-election
  Political Parties: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
  Political Parties: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
  NASS: Independent Inquiry into Dealings with Landmark
  NASS: Independent Inquiry into Dealings with Landmark
  Prison Service: Corporate and Business Plans
  Prison Service: Corporate and Business Plans
  Market Renewal Pathfinders
  Market Renewal Pathfinders
  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act: Section 55 Decisions
  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act: Section 55 Decisions
  Iraq: Military Action and Humanitarian Law
  Iraq: Military Action and Humanitarian Law
  Africa: UK Diplomatic Representation
  Africa: UK Diplomatic Representation
  Côte d'Ivoire: Northbridge Services Group
  Côte d'Ivoire: Northbridge Services Group
  Ghana: Exemption to EU Arms Embargo
  Ghana: Exemption to EU Arms Embargo
  Regulatory Impact Assessments: Compliance
  Regulatory Impact Assessments: Compliance
  Iraq: Guidance to Civil Servants and Service personnel
  Iraq: Guidance to Civil Servants and Service personnel
  Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
  Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome