Sitting of 16 December 2003

Preamble
the House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR.SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: What representations he has received about the situation in the Côte d'Ivoire; and if he will make a statement. [144040]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs(Mr. Chris Mullin): We remain concerned about the situation in Côte d'Ivoire. We are in regular contact with the parties and key members of the international community, including France and the Economic Community of West African States, ECOWAS.
  Mrs. Gillan: I, too, am concerned about the situation in Côte d'Ivoire. My constituent, who is from that

  1419
  country, came to see me the other day with several of his fellow countrymen. They support the Linas-Marcoussis agreement, despite the fragility of the ceasefire, but believe that France is playing a double game, favouring the rebels and harrying the Government because they have tried to open their markets rather than continuing with the French monopoly. Will the Minister agree to meet my constituent and his colleagues to discuss how the Government can, in my constituent's words, use their influence to ensure that the French do not bully African poor states that choose to open their economies to a wider trade area?
  Mr. Mullin: I do not accept that for a moment. We support the role that the French have played. Their intervention has avoided civil war in the Côte d'Ivoire. The solution is for all sides to implement the Linas-Marcoussis agreement, which addresses the root causes of the crisis. If the hon. Lady wishes to bring constituents to see me to discuss the subject, I would be glad to meet them.
  Tony Cunningham: We have rightly had questions on Zimbabwe, the Côte d'Ivoire and the great lakes area, and attention is focused on Iraq and Afghanistan. However, is not there a danger of taking our eye off the ball on problems like the border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea, which when war broke out in 1998 cost the lives of about—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Colombia
    Lynne Jones: If he will make a statement on compliance by the Colombian Government with commitments made at the London conference in July. [144036]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): Before I answer the question, Mr. Speaker, as you know, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is today paying an important visit to Dublin, and is thus unable to be present for Foreign Office questions. He has given his apologies to you and the Opposition Front Bench, and, through you, to the House.
    The London declaration issued at the meeting in July was an important milestone in the international community's efforts to support Colombia. The Colombian Government assure us that they take seriously the commitments that they made at London, and we look forward to an evaluation of progress up to the end of the year by the working group in Bogota of 10 countries present at the London meeting.
    Lynne Jones: Have not the Colombian Government blatantly ignored the pledge that they gave at the London conference to implement the recommendations of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights? Not only are the Uribe Government giving further judicial powers to the military, but even the President has smeared respected non-governmental organisations as fronts for terrorism, putting the lives of human rights defenders at risk. At the forthcoming donors' conference, will the British Government press for conditions to be attached to the provision of aid to Colombia?
    Mr. Rammell: On that point, in general terms, we are attaching conditions, and have made it clear that our assistance is given with the expectation of an ongoing commitment on the part of the Colombian authorities with regard to human rights. On my hon. Friend's comments on President Uribe's statement about human
    1414
    rights groups, we have always made it clear—and I have done so directly to the Colombian Government and to President Uribe—that if there are concerns about specific human rights groups, they should be dealt with through due legal process, and other human rights groups should not be implicated within that process. Nevertheless, it is important to state that the Colombian Government have assured us that they are committed to tackling paramilitary groups, and some progress is being made. Indeed, recently, army and police officials have been arrested for their alleged links with paramilitaries, and a number of paramilitaries have been captured in recent months, which I very much welcome.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind that the FARC and the ELN have murdered, maimed, kidnapped and dispossessed more people in recent years than all Islamic terrorists put together, or the Irish Republican Army? In those circumstances, the democratically elected Government of President Uribe deserve the full support of the British Government in terms of technical assistance, political assistance, overseas aid and in any other manner that can help to eradicate this cancer from the country, especially as it is propagated thanks to the vile narcotics trade in which these terrorist groups indulge.
    Mr. Rammell: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the cancer of the narcotics trade, which, regardless of whatever political motivation was at the origin of this dispute, is now driving a significant civil war. We support the Government of President Uribe and give assistance. At the same time, however, we make it clear that the critical importance of human rights must be upheld, which we will continue to do.

    Zimbabwe
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: What assessment he has made of the situation in Zimbabwe following the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Nigeria. [144037]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): The Zimbabwe Government's decision to withdraw from the Commonwealth serves only to highlight the increasing isolation of the Mugabe regime. It will do nothing to ease the deepening political, economic and humanitarian crisis. We look forward to welcoming Zimbabwe back into the Commonwealth once there has been a return to democracy and the rule of law.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: While I thank the Minister for that reply, will he not accept the stark reality that the Commonwealth and the developed civilised world have failed the long-suffering people of Zimbabwe? With so much agricultural territory now out of production for the fourth growing season, half the population relying on food aid, people digging up coffins because they need to make ends meet, people living out in the bush without a roof, and young children in tatters begging on street corners, is it not about time that the civilised world took action against this brutal despot, Robert Mugabe?
    Mr. Mullin: I share the hon. Gentleman's
    concern—I am sure that all Members do—at the condition of many

    1415
    people in Zimbabwe, but I am not sure what he is suggesting. Surely he is not suggesting an invasion. It is hard to see where his line of questioning is leading. It is true that the situation in Zimbabwe is dire, but it would be helpful if he were more explicit, because if he has any useful suggestions we would certainly be glad to take them up.
    Kate Hoey: I wonder whether the Minister will consider my suggestion on furthering sanctions against Zimbabwe. Perhaps they should be immediately extended to the wives and children of the 79 people who are already suffering from sanctions.
    Does the Minister not think that it is a good idea that, at last, we have decided to take the issue to the United Nations Security Council to seek a resolution? Even if we do not get a resolution the first time, we will bring the matter into the international arena rather than leaving it as a Commonwealth and African issue.
    Mr. Mullin: The EU sanctions are up for renewal in February, and we will certainly examine ways to extend them. My hon. Friend will know that the Foreign Secretary has said that he does not believe that sanctions should be extended to children.
    There is no point in pursuing a resolution at the UN unless there is a possibility of success. When it has been raised on previous occasions it has fallen to no-action motions. That just helps Mugabe, which we do not want to do.
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: Does the Minister share Archbishop Desmond Tutu's criticism of the South African Government for not supporting sanctions against Zimbabwe? Does he agree with the archbishop's comment that human rights abuses are human rights abuses wherever they take place, and that Africa should not be treated separately from the rest of the world?
    Mr. Mullin: Yes, we share Archbishop Desmond Tutu's concerns. He said that events in Zimbabwe are reprehensible and unacceptable. As the right hon. Gentleman said, human rights are indivisible and apply everywhere, regardless of regimes. The archbishop went on to say that there are not African human rights and human rights for everybody else. We entirely agree that human rights should apply universally.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: What steps are being taken to assist those among Zimbabwe's neighbours who are adversely affected by Zimbabwe's plight because, in particular, they are receiving floods of refugees? I am thinking in particular of Mozambique and Botswana.
    Mr. Mullin: The largest number of refugees are, of course, in South Africa, but they are also in Botswana and Mozambique. We have a large aid programme in Mozambique and a more modest one in Botswana. We also have close relations with South Africa.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Reverting to the point made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), will the Minister be less
    1416
    dismissive of the initiative at the UN? Surely there is something to be said for this country and its allies making it abundantly plain how deeply we despise and deplore this tyrannical regime. Even if some UN members refuse to sign up, should they not be exposed as accessories after the fact?
    Mr. Mullin: We have raised the issue of Zimbabwe with various UN agencies, but such resolutions fall to no-action motions, which gets us nowhere. Nobody is in any doubt about how strongly people in this country feel about events in Zimbabwe and how strongly many people in Zimbabwe feel. We must recognise that internal dynamics will end the regime. It is not possible to run a country for very long when there is 80 per cent. unemployment and 700 per cent. inflation, and when foreigners have to help feed half the people. Inevitably, such a state of affairs must end sooner or later. We must ensure that it ends in a dignified and orderly manner that does not inflict even greater damage to the much put-upon people of Zimbabwe.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: After Abuja, is it not clear that the Government's adoption of the South African policy of quiet diplomacy has been an abject failure? Will they stop pussyfooting and, with the European Union and the US, start genuinely to tighten the screws on Mugabe? Why will they not make sanctions work? We should stop Mugabe and his henchmen from swanning around the world as though there were no sanctions and we should freeze the assets of the despicable business men who still bankroll him. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said, the Government should ask the UN Security Council to put monitors into Zimbabwe. If at first the Security Council says no, they should try, try and try again until it accepts its responsibility. When will they stop walking by on the other side and start taking a lead?
    Mr. Mullin: With all due respect, the right hon. and learned Gentleman demeans himself. He knows very well that there is no policy of quiet diplomacy—goodness me, we could not have been louder or clearer about what we think. Even if we had wanted to adopt a policy of quiet diplomacy, he and hon. Members from all parties would not have allowed us to do that. We should not be under any illusions. Sanctions will not bring an end to the state of affairs because the internal dynamics in Zimbabwe will stop the problem. All the huffing and puffing in the world may give the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfaction but it will achieve nothing. We are interested in doing something that will make a difference.

    Great Lakes Region
    Judy Mallaber: What further help his Department is giving the countries of the Great Lakes region. 144038]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin):Our aim is to build political support for peace and stability in the region. The key to this is the completion

    1417
    of the peace process in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Burundi. Active diplomacy and the support of the international community have been vital factors in resolving these conflicts.
    Judy Mallaber: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. We must see an end to the illegal trade in diamonds and precious commodities that pays for the arms that do so much to sustain conflict in the great lakes and elsewhere. What action will the Government take on the recommendations made by the UN panel of experts on the exploitation of resources in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? What other measures will my hon. Friend and the Government introduce to help to minimise conflict in the region?
    Mr. Mullin: We certainly want an end to the illegal trade in diamonds and other precious commodities, which, as my hon. Friend says, has been responsible for sustaining the conflict. That is why we were keen for the UN panel to be set up. I have convened a meeting tomorrow to discuss how we may take forward the recommendations in the panel's most recent report that apply to us. We are also pressing Rwanda and Uganda to follow up the recommendations that relate to them. The difficulty with taking action against the few British companies that are named in the report is that there is currently insufficient detailed evidence that would enable prosecutions, but we are seeking that.
    Of course, we have played a wide role in Burundi and the Congo. We are contributing a military chief of staff and about £28 million to the military force in eastern Congo that is bringing stability to the region. We made a major contribution—just under £4 million—to help to
    finance the African-led peace forces in Burundi. I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that the key is bringing stability to the Congo. If we can do that, we will manage to stabilise the entire region.

    Gibraltar
    Tim Loughton: If he will make a statement on progress with the Brussels process. [144039]
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): The Government have repeatedly made it clear that there will be no change in Gibraltar's sovereignty without the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The Government's objectives remain to secure a stable and prosperous future for Gibraltar and we will continue our dialogue with Spain and Gibraltar to this end. No date has been set for future Brussels process talks.
    Tim Loughton: Given that 98.5 per cent. of the population of Gibraltar again voted in a referendum against any sharing of sovereignty with the Spanish, that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar has been re-elected with more than 50 per cent. of the vote on that platform, that Gibraltarians will be represented in the European Parliament from next year, and that the Spanish have apparently just negotiated a deal for a sub-Mediterranean tunnel with the Moroccans, with whom they have territorial disputes, will the Minister tell us what progress has been achieved on the availability of the phone lines and health care that the Spanish provide
    1418
    for the Gibraltarians? What progress has been made on the ridiculous business involving having to fly over Spanish territory on Gibraltar flights that cannot land? Such a right would be accorded under treaty to any other member of the EU.
    Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman makes good and fair points. We want Spanish recognition of the 00350 number for Gibraltar, but they are not yet willing to concede that. The Government of Gibraltar have asked us to create a wider overseas territories number of 0044, but the other overseas territories are not interested in that solution. We will continue negotiating with the Spanish and talking to them about the problem. They could send a positive signal to the people of Gibraltar and be helpful on the situation with the telephone lines.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously, the Minister spoke about the Brussels process and we are all aware that Gibraltar celebrates its 300-year anniversary next year. The way in which Spain delivers its constant ultimatums to Gibraltar must be the longest-running sore leg that anyone has ever had. Under the process, would not it be a challenge to celebrate those 300 years by ending the joint talks on sovereignty once and for all? The Minister should tell us what good news he has for Gibraltar and what he will do for those 300-year celebrations next year.
    Mr. MacShane: It is an important anniversary. It reflects the occupation of the Rock by a combined Dutch and British fleet during the Spanish war of succession when France tried to dictate its will to Spain and we stoutly resisted the imposition of what it wanted to do 300 years ago. I am happy to inform the House that the Princess Royal will visit Gibraltar to represent all of us at the historic moment. The Duke of Kent is coming to the service in St. Clement Danes, and the Ministry of Defence and other Departments will participate fully in that important historical anniversary.
    Mr. John Bercow: What about you?
    Mr. MacShane: If I have the chance to visit Gibraltar next year, as I did this year, I shall take it with enormous pleasure.

  Diversity Targets
  Tony Wright: What progress his Department is making towards meeting its diversity targets. [144041]
  The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The Foreign and Commonwealth Office targets for diversity have been met for recruitment and we are making progress on staff already in post.
  Tony Wright: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Why does he think that the Foreign Office is dragging so far behind other Departments in terms of the number of women and ethnic minority people that it employs? More than one in 10 children in our schools are from ethnic minorities, yet half of 1 per cent. of people from ethnic minorities are at senior levels in the Foreign Office. If the Foreign Office really is Britain's face on the world, should not that face be far more representative than it currently is?
  Mr. O'Brien: It should be far more representative than it currently is. That is why we have set realistic targets to make that change. Targets have to be realistically achievable. The Foreign Office started in 1997 from a low base. There were few women, few ethnic minority staff and few disabled people. The Foreign Office promotes internally and it therefore takes time to change things, but we are changing things.
  I am told that until 1972 women had to resign from the Foreign Office on marriage. As a result, we lost a whole generation of ambassadors who would have been
  1420
  in post now. Likewise with ethnic minorities there were restrictions on the employment of persons with parents of certain nationalities, and no effort was made to recruit disabled people. However, things are changing in the Foreign Office. Today there are family friendly policies and flexible working. An FCO nursery started 18 months ago. Promotion is based on skill and competence, not on time served. Likewise we are attracting ethnic minority recruits. We have doubled the number of ethnic minority staff from 3.4 per cent. in 1997 to 6.8 per cent. today. In the B grade, the important grade, it is 8.6 per cent.
  Two ambassadors from ethnic minority communities were recently appointed: Mohammed Chowdry to Bangladesh and Alp Mehmet to Iceland, Britain's first Muslim ambassador. The number of women ambassadors has doubled from nine in 1997 to 18 now. Things are changing in the Foreign Office. The people from ethnic minorities and the women we are recruiting today will be the ambassadors of the future.

  Qatar
  Huw Irranca-Davies: What discussions he has had with representatives of the Amir of Qatar in respect of democracy in Qatar. [144042]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and other British Ministers have had frequent discussions with the Amir and his representatives on the Amir's democratisation programme.
  Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I welcome the advice and assistance that has been given by our colleagues to the Qatar Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that while it is not a matter of one-size-fits-all in terms of democracy, it is always preferential throughout the world not to have rule by tyrants? On that issue, will my hon. Friend enlighten us as to whether Saddam Hussein—we welcome the fact that he was found the other day—is now enjoying the hospitality of Qatar?
  Mr. Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I share his view about the position of tyrants throughout the world. Saddam Hussein is being held under coalition authority in a US facility. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that I shall not comment further on where Saddam Hussein is being held for obvious security reasons. Nevertheless, I share my hon. Friend's view about tyrants. The capture of Saddam is extremely welcome. While being a cause for celebration I think that there is an important opportunity as well to reach out in reconciliation with the Iraqi people, who have suffered so much under Saddam's torture.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Does the Minister accept that Qatar, to a large extent, put itself very much on the line for us as the situation with Saudi Arabia deteriorated in the build up to the recent Gulf conflict? As somebody who has worked in that part of the world in neighbouring Bahrain, I believe that we owe it to the small Gulf states such as Qatar, which stood by

  1421
  us at the crucial moment, to ensure constitutional stability. While democracy is a good aim, the most important thing for people in that part of the world is constitutional stability so that they enjoy the peace that has come naturally from the removal of a terrible tyrant.
  Mr. Rammell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. Like him, I regard Qatar as a firm regional friend and ally. It is important that we make that point clear. It is well worth saying that there has been significant progress within Qatar towards democratisation. It is particularly noteworthy and welcome that Qatar was the first Gulf state to give the vote to women, something we strongly support.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Miss Anne McIntosh: What progress has been made in concluding the intergovernmental conference. [144043]
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): As the Prime Minister made clear in his statement yesterday, the intergovernmental conference did not reach agreement at the weekend. We expect discussions on the timetable of any future negotiations to be taken forward by presidencies next year.
  Miss McIntosh: On 14 May, the Prime Minister said that the
  "European Convention … is necessary to make the accession work."—[Official Report, 14 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 306.]
  Yesterday the Prime Minister told the House that the Nice treaty only takes effect in one year's time. Should not the Government have taken up Berlusconi's suggestion and discussed women and football for the past 22 months, rather than a treaty that in the final analysis was not agreed and was not needed until 2009?
  Mr. MacShane: I am sorry that the hon. Lady, who knows a great deal about Europe, should adopt such a negative tone. There were things in the draft constitutional treaty that we would want to support—enhanced powers for Parliament and the standing chairman of the Council of Ministers representing the nation states of Europe getting the institutional balance right. However, we could not come to an agreement at the weekend, and many of the comments made across Europe that we need a pause and time for reflection are quite right. However, the White Paper that we published on 9 September made the position perfectly clear:
  "If a new Treaty cannot be agreed, or ratified, then the EU would still carry on under its current arrangements; and it would have the same functions as it has today."
  That is from paragraph 26 of the White Paper published on 9 September.
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Given that the dreams of the federalists were shattered at the weekend, and that even now they are talking of taking revenge on Poland and Spain, which could increase the acrimony, is it not time to look at an alternative vision of Europe based on independent democratic states co-
  1422
  operating on the basis of consensus on matters of mutual interest? Is not Britain well placed to introduce such a proposal?
  Mr.MacShane: I am grateful, as always, to my hon. Friend for his robust position on European issues. However, I cannot think of any business in my constituency that would not want to have the rules of the European Union in place to make sure that the single market works, which requires both rules and the means to enforce them. I cannot think of any tourist from my constituency who would not wish to have the E111 systems and other rights that flow from them because the European Union and enforceable rules exist. If my hon. Friend genuinely wishes to return to a Europe not of consensual states but of states bickering, conflicting and putting up barriers and frontiers to everything, that is his vision—it is certainly the Opposition's vision—but it is not what the interests of the British nation demand.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister think that it is sustainable in the long term that Germany, the largest net contributor to the EU budget with a population of 80 million, should have only two more votes in the Council than, say, Poland, which has a population of 40 million and is likely to be a recipient of substantial EU funds?
  Mr. MacShane: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a fair point, but the voters of Bremen, with 500,000 voters in a German Land, have exactly the same number of representatives as the voters of North Rhine-Westphalia, which has 18 million voters, in the German Bundesrat. That is common across the world. Getting the balance right is difficult, and at the weekend we found that one side took one position and another side a different one. We tried to build bridges, which is rather a good thing for Britain to do. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be speaking simply about Germany and the idea that the bigger the population the more power a place should have, but I am not entirely sure that that position will be shared by the rest of Europe.
  Keith Vaz: May I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Prime Minister on the work that they did on the negotiations? However, did the outcome of the summit last weekend result in the best possible position for our Government? If people are unhappy about the way in which matters were discussed and concluded, is it not better to have a pause so that we can effectively start again and make sure that there is even more adequate parliamentary scrutiny? We should also ensure that when we have an agreement everyone sticks to it and accepts it—that is surely the right position for our country.
  Mr. MacShane: As one of my predecessors, my hon. Friend will recall that when the treaties of Amsterdam and Nice were negotiated Opposition Front Benchers said that those treaties would take us into a superstate and there should be a referendum on them. Similarly, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said that the treaty of Maastricht would take us towards a superstate, and Tony Benn, the former

  1423
  right hon. Member for Chesterfield, told us 30 years ago that we were on the way to a superstate. That has not yet happened, but my hon. Friend is right—time to pause and reflect is broadly welcome across the European Union. However, we should be careful that that does not allow those who want to put up new barriers and frontiers against Europe working successfully to start to gain the upper hand and does not assist the Opposition policy of taking us to the exit door of the European Union.
  Angus Robertson: While it is regrettable that certain positive elements of the draft constitution will not come to fruition, will the Minister confirm that the collapse of the intergovernmental conference agreement on the draft constitution will not hold back the accession to the European Union of Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey? Will he commit the UK Government to doing everything in their power to help speed the accession of those three countries?
  Mr. MacShane: The answer is clearly yes. We got good language on Romania and Bulgaria, and we remain a firm and committed supporter of Turkish accession if the criteria are met. However, the House should have no illusions. As Europe becomes fractious, does not move forward and takes time for pause and reflection, there are huge forces in other major European countries opposed to Turkish accession and unhappy with enlargement. Those who continually decry a functioning and effective European Union based on partnership should reflect on what that will do to the hopes that we all have for the accession of the next wave of incoming countries to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  Mike Gapes: Is not the failure to reach agreement this week better than reaching the wrong agreement? Although, unfortunately, disagreements between Poland and Germany in particular, and between other countries, were the principal reason for the failure, the fact that the British Government worked so hard and achieved a great deal of progress shows that we have moved from isolation in 1997 to being central to attaining a long-term solution to such problems. Is that not a defeat for the whingers and Europhobes in the Conservative party?
  Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend is right. It is difficult for the Opposition, with their continual rancid anti-Europeanism from almost every part of the Conservative Benches, to accept the fact that Britain's engagement in the European Union is good for Britain and good for Europe. The Prime Minister's role in seeking to bring different elements of the European Union together was widely recognised over the weekend. Many of the British demands were recognised and would have been in the final constitutional treaty. I am proud of the fact that we are a country engaged in Europe, at the centre of Europe, in Europe and helping to run Europe. Woe betide our nation if the policy of the Conservative party to take us to the exit door of Europe ever became reality.
  Mr. Michael Ancram: The Prime Minister lectured us yesterday on the importance of
  1424
  being on the playing field. Perhaps, but surely not if it means going on scoring own goals; surely not if he has to sell out our right to determine our own asylum and immigration policy; surely not if it means he has to bow to the primacy of the European constitution; and above all, surely not if it means undermining NATO. Why did the Prime Minister, who promised no separate military planning capability for the European defence force, agree to a separate planning cell, which the French rightly boast will grow into something much bigger? When will the Government stop giving away goals and start playing for Britain?
  Mr. MacShane: For the same reason, I imagine, as President Bush welcomed the work of the Prime Minister in securing a good deal on European defence. The notion that our country's or our allies' interests would be served by Britain isolating itself from cooperation with our main defence partners is absurd—a danger to the United States and the rest of Europe. The only thing that concerns everyone in Europe is the fact that there is one major opposition party in this great democracy that is out there on the far right of the anti-European wing. While the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues maintain the position that he expressed again today or the hatred towards Europe that we heard from the Front Bench yesterday, his party will remain permanently out of power.
  Mr. Ancram: The Minister obviously has not been listening to the voices from his own Benches today. He has not exactly had a lot of support. The Prime Minister has accepted that the constitution is not necessary. Why, then, are the Government trying to resurrect it? Is it not clear from the reactions to Saturday's fiasco that our partners in Europe see it, in the words of the Belgian Prime Minister, as
  "the capstone for a federal Europe"?
  Why do the Government not take this golden opportunity to start afresh and to develop a Europe that works for its peoples and not its political elites? Why will they not take their courage in their hands, stand up for British interests and call for the constitution to be scrapped?
  Mr. MacShane: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, the Government set up a special Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference, which has met for three very long sittings. Never before in British history has a treaty been subject to such parliamentary scrutiny while it is under negotiation. Not a single Opposition Front Bencher turned up for any of those sittings, and only three Conservative Members of Parliament out of 160-odd Members bothered to do so. It is that contempt for parliamentary scrutiny on the part of the Opposition that is our worst problem. I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman to come to some of the meetings where Europe is discussed, as he might learn something to his advantage.

  France
  Mr. Wayne David: If he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's bilateral relationship with France. [144044]
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): Bilateral relations with France are good. Last month's

  1425
  UK-French summit showed how we work closely with France on a range of important issues. Next year, we plan to celebrate the centenary of the entente cordiale.
  Mr. David: I thank the Minister for that positive answer. The entente cordiale celebrations will be important, but will he ensure that young people are fully involved in them, as well as Members of this House?
  Mr. MacShane: I am discussing with my opposite number in Paris a joint meeting of the House of Commons and the Assemblùe Nationale. Providing that the proposal gets parliamentary approval, I hope that all hon. Members who want to participate will do so. I am also in discussions with a number of organisations and companies, including Eurostar and Eurotunnel, about bringing together schoolchildren to learn something of our common history. That history goes back a thousand years to when the French invaded and colonised us, but it is necessary that we learn from each other and drop the rather unappealing Francophobic remarks that we hear too often in some of our press and occasionally from the Opposition Benches.
  Mr. John Bercow: Strong bilateral relations between the United Kingdom and France require, among other things, mutual candour and understanding, so perhaps the Minister will answer today the question that the Prime Minister ducked yesterday. What is the difference in meaning between the phrase "ever closer union", which the Foreign Secretary boasted had been dropped from the draft constitution, and the phrase "united ever more closely"?
  Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman demanded candour, but he will remember what Lord Canning said:
  "But of all plagues, good Heaven, thy wrath can send, Save me, oh, save me, from the candid friend."
  However, I will be candid with him: his question had absolutely nothing to do with France. If he reads the statement made yesterday, he will see that the Prime Minister explained the point.

  Afghanistan
  Joan Ruddock: If he will make a statement on the situation in Afghanistan. [144045]
  The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Afghanistan has made progress towards the goals of the Bonn agreement, but much remains to be done. The constitutional Loya Jirga this month is an important opportunity for the people of Afghanistan to create a new constitution. I was in Afghanistan in October and discussed the political process with the Transitional Administration, including President Karzai. That included ensuring a role for women. I also raised a series of other issues, including security.
  Joan Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Will he join me in congratulating Afghan women, who comprise 20 per cent. of the delegates and one vice-chairperson at the Loya Jirga that is currently considering the draft constitution? Is he aware that the
  1426
  committee on women's rights at the Loya Jirga has drawn up a list of amendments that would ensure constitutional equality for women? Does he accept that the international advisers at the Loya Jirga have a duty to ensure that any new constitution complies with CEDAW, the convention on the elimination of discrimination against women, and that Afghan women are at last freed from legalised oppression?
  Mr. O'Brien: I certainly agree that the new constitution should comply with CEDAW. It is of course for the Afghans to decide what is in their constitution—all we can do is advise them. My hon. Friend is entirely right that the constitutional Loya Jirga has at least 95 women among its 450 delegates, a fifth of whom are therefore women. As I look at the array of men—with the exception of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh)—on the Conservative Benches, I am reminded that we have fewer women Members than the Loya Jirga—only 18 per cent. of the House of Commons is female. Before we get holier than thou about these matters, we should bear it in mind that Afghanistan is doing slightly better than us.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the advances in Afghanistan, but does the Minister share my concern about press reports suggesting that Government planning people have been demolishing people's houses to build palaces and Government buildings without rehousing them beforehand?
  Mr. O'Brien: We need to ensure that the Afghans have the ability to run their Government properly, as well as their schools and other institutions, and of course they must do so in a way that respects people's human rights, including the right to have their homes respected.
  David Cairns: My hon. Friend is aware that the United Kingdom is the lead member of the coalition in terms of the counter-narcotics effort in Afghanistan. To that end, will he comment on recent press reports saying that the United States wants to take a much more vigorous approach towards destroying the opium poppy harvest next February? If those reports are true, they will be warmly welcomed in my constituency, where people are getting fed up with the devastating impact of ever cheaper heroin on our communities.
  Mr. O'Brien: We are taking the lead in dealing with the issue of drugs, but the United States is providing enormous assistance in those efforts, and we hope that the US authorities, who have troops in areas of Afghanistan where we do not, will be able to assist the Afghans in eradicating crops wherever possible. It is important that we get this right, and that requires that the British, the Americans and, most particularly, the Afghan authorities should ensure that the drugs policy is effective and delivers.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: Conservative Members very much support the Loya Jirga process that is in train, and hope for a positive outcome.
  Returning to the important matter of heroin production, which was raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns), will the

  1427
  Minister spell out precisely the resources that his Government are putting behind what the US Administration described to me last week in Washington as the weed-whacking programme—the systematic strimming of poppy fields? Is he aware of that programme; when will it start; how many acres does he expect to be eradicated in the first 12 months; and what security will be offered to the teams carrying out that vital work?
  Mr. O'Brien: The detail of how the process of eradication will be carried out is still being discussed on the ground by the Americans, the Afghans and ourselves. It is an enormously important process. The Afghan Government are committed to working with us and the Americans in eliminating opium poppy cultivation over 10 years, but they cannot do it alone. The programme requires sustained commitment by the international community, and that is being provided.

  European Constitution
  Andrew Selous: What the Government's policy is on asylum provisions in the draft European constitution. [144046]
  The Minister for Europe(Mr. Denis MacShane): The draft treaty provides a basis for common rules on asylum to be adopted by qualified majority voting. We will of course retain the right to decide whether to opt in to asylum measures. If the proposal was not in the UK's interests, we would not have signed up to it. The EU-wide database system—Eurodac—and the revised Dublin treaty have helped us to identify and return asylum shoppers to the EU countries where they first arriver or claimed asylum.
  Andrew Selous: I wonder whether the Minister could clear up a little confusion by telling the House what was the purpose of the Leader of the House trying to delete seven sub-paragraphs from article III.167? Those sub-paragraphs dealt with asylum and would have enabled policy on the matter to be decided by a majority of other states. The amendment failed, so I do not understand how the Prime Minister could claim yesterday that
  "we are not giving up the power to set our asylum laws".—[Official Report, 15 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1334.]
  Was that not a vanishing red line that the Government did not even try to win?
  Mr. MacShane: The draft constitutional treaty was not agreed, so the question does not arise, except theoretically.
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Minister now give a reply to my hon. Friend? If all seven of those asylum powers were to be removed from the constitution by the amendment tabled by the then Minister for Europe, why, according to the White Paper, is the issue no longer a red line or even being demanded at the intergovernmental conference? Why have the Government dropped their objections and removed our powers to set our own definitions and details on asylum in any future constitution?
  Mr. MacShane: Under article 63 of the existing treaty, there is a common asylum problem, and we have the right to opt in. We need to work with our partners. The closure of Sangatte would not have been brought about by the Conservatives' anti-European policy; nor would the setting up of our Europe-wide database. This is a theoretical discussion, as I have said, but QMV could have been very helpful to us in terms of advancing common European policy on asylum. If we want other countries to help us with asylum issues relating to returning or transit, it is vital that we should be there to discuss those issues with them. I accept the sincerity of the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) in raising this question. Perhaps when he tabled it, he did not know where things would stand today. This point remains to be debated, because we will not achieve a sensible asylum deal, which is of vital interest to all our constituents, by turning our back on co-operation and partnership with Europe.

  Sierra Leone
  Patrick Mercer: What plans he has for further funding for the special court for Sierra Leone. [144050]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): The UK is committed to the success of the special court for Sierra Leone. The model that has been pursued in Sierra Leone is far more cost-effective than other mechanisms of post-conflict restorative justice that have been established throughout the world. We are the third largest contributor to the court, and we are doing all we can to secure sufficient funds for it. In that regard, we have lobbied more than 45 states to contribute or increase their contributions to the court, and we are considering a range of options to secure funding for it.
  Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, and I am sure that he will join me in praising the work of the special court. Will he assure me, however, that he fully understands the funding crisis that it now faces? Will he also assure me that the year 3 contribution will be brought forward, and that the relocation agreement for the site of the court will be brought forward with some dispatch, so that the important trials that need to take place can do so quickly?
  Mr. Rammell: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman on the importance and role of the court. As I made clear in my opening answer, if we compare this system of post-conflict restorative justice with other mechanisms that have been used throughout the world, we can see that it is a highly cost-effective and realistic mechanism for delivering such justice. We are considering bringing forward the funding, and we are exploring ways of increasing our contribution. We are apprised of the importance of the court and are making strenuous efforts to persuade others to contribute as we are doing.

  Kashmir
  John Mann: If he will make a statement on the prospects for peace in Kashmir. [144051]
  The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien): We welcome the recent ceasefire along the line of control, agreed by both India and Pakistan, to improve their relations. Last week, I visited the line of control and the Kashmiri communities close to it, and the human significance of the ceasefire was clear. I visited a school that had been closed for months following shelling but has now reopened. Shops, too, were reopening. I hope that sustained efforts by both India and Pakistan to address each other's concerns will pave the way for a process aimed at settling all their outstanding differences, including the issue of Kashmir.
  John Mann: Considering our long-standing friendship with both Pakistan and India, and considering that the world's attention has been focused on other areas in recent times, will the Minister assure the House that we will use our unique friendship in every possible way to help to promote the process that is beginning to emerge there, and to ensure that no terrorist of any kind who wishes to break the agreement is given haven in this country?
  Mr. O'Brien: We will use our friendship with both India and Pakistan to try to advance the discussions that are taking place between them. They must work through the process themselves, but we will help wherever we can. Our view on terrorism is well known: it is that terrorism in any circumstances is unacceptable, and we oppose it strongly.
  Hugh Robertson: Given that nuclear instability is one of the most serious threats to world peace, and given that it is most likely to occur between India and Pakistan, can the Minister tell us what progress the Foreign Office has made in connection with the development of a nuclear doctrine between the two countries?
  Mr. O'Brien: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post. I hope that he will enjoy his time there, and that we will enjoy his being there.
  We urge the Governments of both Indian and Pakistan to accede to the non-proliferation and the comprehensive test ban treaties immediately and without conditions. We hope that they will also develop a doctrine on the handling of nuclear weapons that involves a level of controls. We are concerned about the way in which controls are imposed in both India and Pakistan, to some extent. We have discussed the issue with them and there have been substantial improvements, but I am sure they would agree that we can always seek further improvements in nuclear doctrine.

  Zimbabwe
  David Taylor: If he will make a statement on the security situation in Zimbabwe.[144054]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): The security situation in Zimbabwe remains tense. There is currently political and social unrest, coupled with deteriorating economic conditions. Nationwide strikes, "stayaways" and demonstrations earlier this year have led to confrontations with the security forces, violent incidents and arrests. We monitor the security situation closely, and regularly update our travel advice to reflect changing circumstances.
  David Taylor: Robert Mugabe presides over a country in which democracy is dying, the economy is in tatters, and social strife is endemic. Does the Minister agree that following Zimbabwe's withdrawal from the Commonwealth its President will feel even less accountable to the international community, and that consequently human rights and the rule of law will be even more battered? What plans are there to protect the remaining British community from such a maelstrom if it does occur?
  Mr. Mullin: We have contingency plans in case the situation deteriorates further, but they are just that— contingency plans. We see no particular threat at present to the remaining members of the British community in Zimbabwe, although, as my hon. Friend says, the situation is bad and is deteriorating.

  Middle East
  Mr. Tom Harris: When he next expects to visit Israel and the West Bank. [144056]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): The Foreign Secretary has no immediate plans to visit Israel or the West Bank, but he is in frequent contact with members of the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority.
  Mr. Harris: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming Prime Minister Sharon's latest statements to the effect that he is prepared unilaterally to dismantle some Israeli settlements on the West Bank and in Gaza, regardless of the success or otherwise of bilateral talks with the Palestinians? Does he, however, share my concern about the fact that every time we are anywhere near the creation of a viable Palestinian state and a secure Israel, measures and discussions are derailed by terrorist actions on the part of Hamas and Islamic Jihad? What support can the Government give the Palestinians and the Israeli Government to ensure that future talks are not derailed in a similar fashion?
  Mr. Rammell: I welcome any indication of moves in support of the implementation of the road map on either side in this tragic dispute. That means that the Palestinian Authority must take action to tackle terrorism, but also that Israel must fulfil its commitment to freeze all settlement activity and remove settlement outposts. While we understand Israel's legitimate security concerns, I think that the building of a fence on occupied land is unlawful and is not helping.

  Middle East
  Mr. Nick Gibb: If he will make a statement on his policy in the middle east. [144057]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): The Government are fully committed to the clear objective of two states—Israel, and an independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state—living side by side in peace and security. The road map to peace remains the way to achieve this vision, as agreed by the parties and the wider international community, and as underlined in UN Security Council resolution 1515.
  Mr. Gibb: Although we all know that the best option would be one involving no need for a security fence in
  1432
  Israel, does the Minister accept that since its construction there has been a marked decrease in terrorist attacks on Israel, and that most of the 14 suicide bombers who have been caught there in the past three months have come from the southern region of the West Bank, where there is no security fence?
  Mr. Rammell: I fully understand the security concerns of Israel and the Israeli Government, but I do not believe that the building of a wall or fence in occupied territories helps in this regard; nor does the impact on Palestinian communities help to take matters forward. We need movement on both sides: the Palestinian Authority must tackle terrorism, and the Israeli Government must implement their commitments under phase 1 of the road map.

Air Transport
12.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the future of air transport.
Today, I am publishing a White Paper that sets out the strategic framework for development for the next 30 years, against the background of wider developments in air transport. It is necessary to look ahead over a 30-year time scale. It is essential that we plan ahead to meet the pressures that we know we will face as a result of a growing economy, and in a world where people can, and will want to, travel more for business and leisure. Only the Government can provide such a framework to enable everyone to plan ahead.
First, let me set out the context. Air travel remains crucial to our growing economy. Some 200,000 jobs depend on it directly, and some 600,000 indirectly. There has been a fivefold increase in air travel in the last 30 years; indeed, half the population flies at least once a year. The growth in passengers travelling in the low-cost, no-frills sector has been dramatic. Five years ago, just 7 million people flew on low-cost airlines; this year, we expect the number to reach 47 million. A third of the goods that we export by value go by air, and that figure is increasing. Indeed, the amount of air freight at UK airports has doubled since 1990.
The Government recognise the benefits that the expansion of air travel has brought to people's lives and to this country's economy. Its increased affordability has opened up the possibility of travel for many people, and provides the rapid access that is essential to many modern businesses. But we have to balance those benefits against the serious environmental impact of air travel, particularly the growing contribution of aircraft emissions to climate change, and the significant impact that airports can have on those living nearby. That is why the Government remain committed to ensuring that, over time, aviation meets the external costs that it imposes. The White Paper sets out proposals to tackle aviation's greenhouse gas emissions by bringing it within the European Union emissions trading scheme. And the Government will continue to play a major role in seeking to develop new solutions and stronger actions by the appropriate international bodies.
The White Paper also makes it clear that we will legislate to strengthen and clarify the powers to control noise at airports, and to allow us to direct airport operators to levy higher charges on more polluting aircraft. Similar charges in relation to noise have helped to bring about significant noise reductions at the major London airports. But we can, and will, do more to reduce both noise and air pollution.
Some of our major airports are already close to capacity, so failure to allow for increased capacity could have serious economic consequences. But that must be balanced by the need to have regard to the environmental consequences of air travel. Simply building more and more capacity to meet demand is not sustainable. Instead, a balanced approach is required that recognises the importance of air travel to prosperity, but which seeks to reduce and to minimise the impact of airports on those living nearby and on the natural environment.
1434
I should also make it clear that the White Paper cannot, by itself, authorise any particular development, but it does set out a policy framework for future decisions. In the light of the White Paper it is for individual airport operators to bring forward proposals that will then be subject to the usual planning process. The White Paper sets out a strategic framework for the development of airport capacity. It sets out our conclusions for every part of the country and copies will be available from the Vote Office in the usual way; and I have also written to every Member setting out our proposals in more detail.
Let me set out the Government's conclusions. First, in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, there has been a rapid increase in air travel. We support the development of Belfast International airport within its existing boundaries to serve forecast demand. The Northern Ireland authorities should be prepared to review the planning agreement affecting traffic volumes and operational hours at Belfast City airport. They will also want to consider with the Irish Government the future of the City of Derry airport.
In Wales, in conjunction with the Welsh Assembly Government, we have concluded that Cardiff should remain the main airport for south Wales. It has experienced rapid growth, and extra terminal capacity will be needed as well as measures to improve access to the airport by both road and public transport. We also want to see the development of centres of excellence for aircraft maintenance work both in south Wales and the west of Scotland, as well as in the north-east of England and elsewhere.
We received proposals for a new airport in south-east Wales, but we have concluded, for the reasons set out in the White Paper, that they would not be viable. Instead, we prefer to see development at Cardiff and Bristol. Domestic air services make a major contribution to economic development, so the Welsh Assembly Government are to consider new internal services within Wales, potentially supported by public service obligations. They are also looking at setting up a route development fund, similar to the one operated by the Scottish Executive, which could support new services from Wales. We are asking some English regional development agencies to consider similar funds for regional airports.
Because services to London airports, particularly Heathrow and Gatwick, are so important to Northern Ireland, Scotland and the south-west and north of England, we are setting out proposals for imposing public service obligations in well-defined circumstances, to protect landing slots for services that are vital to the continued economic development and prosperity of those areas.
In Scotland, we and the Scottish Executive anticipate that additional runway capacity will be needed in the central belt, probably around 2020, so we propose to safeguard land at Edinburgh for a second runway, together with the associated expansion of terminal buildings. We also recommend that consideration be given to protecting land at Glasgow for a possible new runway; and we also support safeguarding land for terminal expansion. The Scottish Executive have published plans to improve surface access to both Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. The White Paper also

1435
sets out proposals that would allow for continued growth at Aberdeen, Prestwick and Inverness. We see no case for a new airport in central Scotland.
In the north of England, we support the development of additional terminal capacity at Manchester, provided that the noise impacts from increased use of the airport are rigorously controlled. We agree that the airport at Liverpool should expand as projected and the runway be lengthened in the future, subject to the conditions set out in the White Paper. We also support plans for expansion of terminal facilities and runway extensions at Newcastle, Teesside and Leeds-Bradford.
In the midlands, we consulted on the option of a new airport to be built between Coventry and Rugby. I can tell the House that, for reasons set out in the White Paper, we do not support developing that new airport. The Government believe that we should make the best use of existing airport facilities and support the growth of existing regional airports, given their importance to economic development and prosperity. Birmingham airport provides an important regional base for a number of airlines and has an expanding long-haul market. Traffic is set to grow, and we support the case for a second runway at Birmingham, to be built probably around 2016, subject to stringent limits on noise.
East Midlands airport is the third largest freight airport in the United Kingdom and is rapidly establishing itself as the largest dedicated freight airport. We therefore support the projected expansion of both passenger and freight traffic at East Midlands airport. We see no need for a second runway at East Midlands, but we will keep it under review in the light of growth in freight and passenger traffic at the airport. As with other airports, we have set out proposals to establish stringent noise controls and to provide mitigation and compensation in relation to noise, and also to deal with blight.
In the south-west, we support the development of Bristol International airport, including a runway extension and new terminal when needed. However, we do not support the option of a new airport north of Bristol. We also anticipate the need for development of more terminal facilities at Bournemouth, as well as future development at Exeter and Newquay.
In Plymouth, the options, including the case for a new airport east of the city, need to be explored further by the local and regional authorities. Proposals for development at a number of smaller airports throughout the country are also dealt with in the White Paper.
I now turn to the south-east of England. The issue of airport capacity in the south-east is significant for the whole of the country. Although the vast majority of travellers using the main London airports are travelling to or from the south-east, the whole of the United Kingdom depends on the range and frequency of services from those airports.
The pressure on existing capacity is already more severe in the south-east than in the rest of the country. At the same time, it is the most densely populated part of the UK. As a result, the pressures from competing land uses and the likelihood of airport growth affecting people are greater too.
1436
Therefore, we must strike a balance between the undoubted importance to future prosperity and the local environmental impact of development. Again, our first priority is to make the best possible use of existing runways that will provide some much needed capacity. That is why we support proposals to make best use of the existing runways, including development to make the maximum use of a full-length single runway at Luton. However, this will not be enough to meet the pressure that will arise over the next 30 years.
In line with the balanced approach that I have already set out, the Government believe that, over the next 30 years, there should be two new runways in the south-east. The first new runway will need to be completed within a decade, but work also needs to start on planning for a second runway, to be built probably around 2015 to 2020.
I shall now set out our conclusions. First, we consulted on the possibility of building a new airport at Cliffe. I have concluded, taking all relevant factors into account, that we do not support an airport there.
Stansted has seen very substantial growth in passengers in recent years. This year, it is expected to handle nearly 19 million passengers, compared with fewer than 7 million only five years ago. Despite that growth, the number of people significantly affected by noise fell by 70 per cent. between 1998 and 2002. There is likely to continue to be strong growth in demand at Stansted and, at current rates of growth, its runway capacity would be used up within a few years. A second runway at Stansted would provide very substantial runway capacity in the south-east, and generate large economic benefits. However, like any such development, it would have significant local environmental consequences.
The local economy is already set to grow strongly. We believe that the Government's objectives for regional economic development would be complemented by an expansion of Stansted. On balance, we have therefore concluded that the first new runway in the south-east should be developed as soon as possible at Stansted airport, expected to be opening around 2011 or 2012. Surface access will need to be improved and, of course, there will need to be strict environmental controls as set out in the White Paper.
Heathrow is the UK's major hub airport. It competes primarily with major continental airports such as Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris. It enables London and the south-east to compete for investment and growth. In addition, London has one of the strongest local catchment areas for international air travel in the world, especially in the finance and business services sector, which rely on global markets and good international communications. Moreover, Heathrow directly or indirectly supports nearly 100,000 jobs. It is a prime driver of the west London and the Thames valley economy.
Without additional capacity, Heathrow's route network will tend to reduce over time, most likely to the advantage of other international hub airports in northern Europe. There is, therefore, a strong economic case for securing the large economic benefits through the addition of a new runway at Heathrow. However, at the same time, that has to be balanced against the substantial environmental impacts at Heathrow.

1437
Although today's jets are 75 per cent. quieter than in the 1960s, and although the number of people affected by severe noise has reduced over the years, noise impacts at Heathrow are many times worse than at other UK airports. The most difficult issue confronting expansion at Heathrow concerns how to ensure that air quality nearby is kept at acceptable levels, and to achieve compliance with the mandatory air quality limits for nitrogen dioxide that will apply from 2010.
That is why we said last year that development at Heathrow could be considered only if the Government were confident that levels of all relevant pollutants could be consistently contained within EU limits. Having considered all these matters, the Government have concluded that there is a strong case for a third runway at Heathrow, once we can be confident that that key condition in relation to compliance with air quality limits can be met. We judge that there is a substantially better prospect of achieving that condition in the 2015–20 period, provided that we take action now to tackle the nitrogen dioxide problem, which is work that should be done in any event.
Our support is also conditional on measures to ensure that the total area within the 57 dB noise contour should not increase from last year, as well as on improvements to surface access. We will therefore institute immediately with the airport operator, and relevant bodies and agencies, a programme of action to consider how those conditions can be met to enable the addition of a third runway. For the meantime, the White Paper sets out proposals to work up measures to increase capacity at Heathrow using its existing runways, subject to further consultation and strict environmental controls.
At Gatwick, the Government will not seek to overturn the legal agreement that prevented the construction of a second runway there before 2019. However, land will continue to be safeguarded for possible further development at Gatwick in case the conditions attached to a runway at Heathrow cannot be met. The White Paper also sets out stringent environmental conditions that we expect operators to meet and other proposals to limit and mitigate the impacts that aviation has on the environment, including its impact on global warming.
We are setting out proposals for the development of air transport for a generation. It is essential that we plan ahead now: our future prosperity depends on it. The policies set out in the White Paper will support economic prosperity throughout the United Kingdom; will enable people to make flights at reasonable costs; and will control and mitigate the environmental impacts of aviation. I commend this statement to the House.
Mrs. Theresa May: I thank the Secretary of State for prior sight of his statement. This is an important day for the future of our aviation industry, and he is right that important decisions must be taken to set the framework for the industry's future if it is to continue to contribute successfully to the UK economy. But decisions taken today are also crucial for those millions of people who live close to an airport or underneath a flight path, and for the quality of our environment. A difficult balance has to be achieved between competing needs. That is why the Government's decisions need to give clarity and certainty for all involved.
1438
Far from setting a clear way forward for air transport in the UK, today's announcement is a fudge from an incompetent Government, which will deliver only blight to millions of people living around airports across the country. Indeed, anyone living around any of the airports in the south-east is now faced with indefinite uncertainty.
Let us look at the Government's incompetence. They have already been forced by the courts to extend the consultation because they failed at first to include Gatwick in their proposals. The Environmental Audit Committee, noting that the airports consultation did not include a formal environmental impact assessment, went on to say:
"We regard the absence of concise, transparent and strategic integrated appraisals as a major weakness in the consultation documents. The Department's failure in this respect conflicts with its own guidance. As a result it is impossible to assess the overall benefits of different degrees of expansion—or the relative benefits and disbenefits of regional expansion vis-à-vis expansion in the South East".
When Birmingham Airport proposed a new short runway, the Department refused to re-issue consultation documents and include the plan in its public consultation, so the voice of local people on that proposal was not heard. Today the Secretary of State has announced precisely the proposal on which the people of the midlands were not consulted. Does he accept that the Government's failures in the consultation process now make it certain that there will be legal challenge to their decisions, thus blighting the lives of millions of people with years of further uncertainty?
The Government's incompetence is all too clear elsewhere. The Secretary of State says that Heathrow will expand when the emissions problem is solved. But there is nothing in this statement that explains how the Government propose to solve that problem. On page 122 of the White Paper, he says that he has
"no plans for further motorway widening"—
in that area. He also says:
"The solution will need to be based on improvements to public transport."
Can he confirm that he is announcing no improvements to public transport to bring that about?
The Eyre airports inquiries 1981–83 reported on a possible second runway at Stansted, concluding that it
"would be an unprecedented and wholly unacceptable major environmental and visual disaster".
Is the Secretary of State now reversing that judgment and, if so, what has changed to make him do so? [Interruption.] On page 115 of the White Paper, the Secretary of State said that Stansted enjoys—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are unfair to the hon. Lady. She is entitled to put her case to the House—[Interruption.] Order. The Secretary of State was heard; the hon. Lady must be heard.
Mrs. May: On page 115 of the White Paper, the Secretary of State said that Stansted enjoys good transport connections by road and rail. Has he tried them recently?

1439
The Government support a new runway at Stansted where the growth has been in low-cost airlines, yet building the runway would mean putting up charges, thus driving away those low-cost airlines. The Government have said that commercial viability is a hurdle that must be cleared by developments on new or existing airport sites, yet the British Airports Authority has told the Government that an extra runway at Stansted would not be commercially viable without cross-subsidy from Heathrow and Gatwick. BAA may well find either that it cannot fund or that it cannot afford a new runway at Stansted in the near future. Given that the Government are making expansion at Stansted a pre-requisite for expansion of capacity in the south-east, what do they propose to do if the funding is not available?
The Government are proposing a new runway at Stansted which local people do not want, large airlines do not want to use, and low-cost airlines may not be able to afford to use. Just who will use a new runway at Stansted?
Not only have the Government not made the proper assessments on which to base their decisions, but it is clear that their right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. At the same time as the Secretary of State for Transport is proposing a new runway at Stansted, the Deputy Prime Minister wants to build tens of thousands of new homes in the Stansted-M11 corridor. One Department says that it is okay to build a runway because there are not many people in the area, yet another Department says, "Let's put people there".
Lack of joined-up thinking between Departments is one thing, but lack of joined-up thinking within a Department is quite another. Today, the Department for Transport announced plans to increase passenger numbers at Stansted, Birmingham, Heathrow and possibly East Midlands and Gatwick. That will need better roads and railways to get people to and from the airports, yet the same Department for Transport has made no provision for building those roads and railways.
In Birmingham, the Department has shelved plans for an expansion of the M42—the very road that will have to take traffic to and from an expanded Birmingham airport. At peak times, the hard shoulder already has to be put into use. Getting to Birmingham by rail depends primarily on the west coast main line, yet only last week the Government shelved some of the planned improvements on that line. That is not a 10-year transport plan; it is not even a 10-day transport plan.
We need railways before runways. Will the Secretary of State confirm that no provision was made for that work in the 10-year transport plan, that the work needed would cost a total of £30 billion and that the Strategic Rail Authority does not have the money?
We were promised joined-up government; what we have is disjointed government. We were promised an integrated transport policy; what we have is a disintegrating transport system. We were promised decisions for the future of air transport; what we have
1440
from this incompetent Government are years of uncertainty and serious blight on the lives of millions of people.
Mr. Darling: I am sure that I cannot be the only Member of the House who wonders what Conservative policy on airports actually is. I shall not labour the point as I expect that we shall have many occasions to debate those things, but it occurs to me that if the hon. Lady is serious about being in opposition and about providing a credible alternative, she needs a policy on airport development.
The hon. Lady said that we made fudged decisions, yet she then criticised the detail of the decisions that we announced. She cannot have it both ways. This is the first time for about 30 years that a Government have looked at the long-term requirements for air travel, covering the whole country. We held consultations and listened to what people said and then we had to take difficult decisions. As will, I suspect, become apparent in the next hour or so, the decisions are difficult and controversial.
The hon. Lady mentioned Birmingham. I conclude from what she says that she is against expansion there, as she is against a second runway. However, looking ahead to about 2016, we believe that the airport will need a second runway to help it to develop and to help people living in the midlands who fly just as much as people elsewhere.
It would appear that the hon. Lady is against development at Heathrow, too. I listened to what she said about motorway widening and public transport; but at least we are actually spending money on improving public transport. She is against every penny of it.
On Stansted, it is perfectly true that in 1981 fewer than 1 million people were using the airport. Even five years ago, only 7 million people were using it, but this year it will handle 19 million passengers. Anyone who has ever been to Stansted, and I have been there by both road and rail—incidentally, we have just finished major improvement of the road into Stansted airport—will know that the airport is extremely crowded. That brings us to the nub of the hon. Lady's problem, which is, indeed, a problem that we must all face up to. Of course, increased air travel has environmental consequences, especially for people living close to airports; but at the same time, her constituents, my constituents—all our constituents—are, because of their increasing prosperity, choosing to fly more.
I do not say that we should meet all that demand—indeed, we are proposing less than is actually needed according to some views—but we cannot have a situation in which the Government take the easy option, as successive Governments have done in the past, of doing absolutely nothing and hoping for the best. The decisions are difficult and, yes, I have no doubt that there will be legal challenges—lawyers up and down the country will be rubbing their hands even as I speak—but it is the job of the Government to make decisions and to set out a clear strategy for the next generation. That is what we have done.
John Thurso: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for letting me have an advance copy of the statement.

1441
The aviation industry is an important and successful contributor to the British economy, both in its own right and as a key driver of economic growth. However, we live in an age where we all accept that the commercial Imperative must be balanced against environmental costs and social disruption. I therefore give the statement a very cautious welcome, albeit with considerable reservations, because it accepts that approach. I welcome the recognition of the importance of regional airports, especially their ability to take some of the load from the south-east and to help to manage demand.
Will the Secretary of State confirm the Government's commitment to ensuring that aviation meets its external costs, but will he tell us what "over time" means? Are the Government actively working to achieve that aim and when will the Secretary of State set a target date for its achievement? Will he also confirm his acceptance of the polluter pays principle with higher charges for aircraft that pollute more? What is he doing to extend the principle? For example, what is he doing to promote aviation fuel tax, as opposed to air passenger duty? That duty on passengers is equivalent to approximately 10p in aviation tax, yet it provides no incentive for operators to improve environmental performance.
I welcome the announcement that there is to be no airport at Cliffe, although as that was always a non-starter, I suspect that the proposal was a red herring to divert the attention of the environmental lobby. Does he accept our welcome for his statement that simply building more capacity to meet demand is not sustainable? I hope that he will confirm that that commits predict and provide as a policy to the dustbin.
As the Secretary of State said, it is necessary to plan ahead over a 30-year time scale, but has he not missed an opportunity to consider the long-term vision across all modes, particularly with regard to high-speed rail links? Does he accept that the growth in budget airlines is unsustainable and that the budget airline model is fatally flawed until such time as its costs are properly externalised?
Finally, on Heathrow, what assurances can the Secretary of State give that no development will be entertained until a sustainable environmental case has been made? Does he accept that further noise and pollution cannot be imposed on long-suffering residents of the surrounding area? My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) would have made that point had she not been giving the eulogy at a funeral as we speak. Will the Government accept that more could and should be done to manage demand as the essential tool for achieving sustainable growth for our aviation industry?
Mr. Darling: It would have been helpful—although perhaps it is not surprising in the case of the Liberals—if the hon. Gentleman too had a policy for dealing with the problem. The Liberals are in favour of air travel but not airports.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments about regional airports, which are important. On airports in the south-east, it is worth bearing it in mind that about 80 per cent. of people travelling to and from them live in the south-east, so many of their customers are local. He is right that airports outside the south-east are
1442
important. That is why we support development at Birmingham, for example, because if people can fly from Birmingham and not London, that will take some of the pressure off London airports.
I also agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about aviation meeting its costs, which I mentioned in my statement. The polluter pays principle applies to aviation as much as it does to any other sector, but, as he ought to know, aviation fuel taxation is governed by international treaties. The Government have been arguing for some time that aviation ought to meet its costs, and we will continue to do so. Some of the measures that I announced today, such as giving power to airport operators to charge higher landing fees for more polluting aircraft, will be an incentive to airlines to clean up engines. I agree that predict and provide is complete nonsense—bearing it in mind that runways will be built by commercial operators and no one will build a runway on spec, just in case—and it has never been a policy that I have supported.
On rail links, the hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly good point. The channel tunnel rail link has carried 1 million passengers since the first high-speed line was opened in September—thanks to us rescuing it in 1998— and the CTRL now has more than half the travel market between London and Paris. That is an example of how it can help. He should be clear about managing demand, about which we may hear more. I am clear that, over time, aviation must meet its costs like any other sector, but when people talk about managing demand, in many ways they are talking about pricing people off aeroplanes. In that regard, he is getting himself into tricky waters, unless he proposes to march down the check-in queue at Inverness airport saying to people, "I can fly, but you can't."
John McDonnell: This is the first time in 25 years of representing my constituents at local or central Government level that any Government have said no to the automatic expansion of Heathrow airport that has been demanded by the aviation industry. I thank my right hon. Friend for that. Many of my constituents will feel that we have won a decisive battle but not the war. What mechanism will he put in place to ensure the independent assessment of any aviation industry claims that it may have met the environmental conditions that he set out today for further expansion at Heathrow? What process does he envisage for undertaking the review of alternation at Heathrow?
Mr. Darling: There are two points in that. My hon. Friend will know that, following the terminal 5 inquiry, the airport operator, BAA, is already obliged to reduce nitrogen dioxide levels, and that work is in hand to do that. In relation to our evaluation methods, the Department uses a model that is widely accepted as accurate. In any planning inquiry— one would have to take place on a third runway at Heathrow— all the arguments and counter-arguments would be fully tested and explored.
I note my hon. Friend's comments, for which I am grateful, but there is a difficult balance to be struck at Heathrow. Clearly, there are big environmental problems, which is why I do not believe that we can authorise a third runway there now. He will be acutely

1443
aware, as a west London Member, that Heathrow dominates the west London economy and is critical to the whole of UK aviation. That is why it is a difficult decision. In contrast to what the Opposition said, I believe that the Government must face up to such decisions and take them.
Mr. Mark Prisk: The decision to build at Stansted before Heathrow is perverse and will prove unworkable. It will be bad for aviation, bad for the country and bad for the environment. Given that, in 1985, the Government's own inspector concluded that a second runway at Stansted would, to use his words, be an environmental catastrophe, on what evidence is the Secretary of State now reversing that judgment?
Mr. Darling: In 1985, Stansted was used by a very small number of people, and I do not suppose that the inspector, Mr. Eyre, could possibly have foreseen that Stansted would this year handle 19 million passengers—[Interruption.] Hold on. The hon. Gentleman will know, because he knows Stansted airport, that the rise in use of that airport has been dramatic. When I made my statement, I told the House that, looking at the south-east of England, over the next 30 years, it needs two runways. Work needs to start on one now, as, on any view, it would be the end of the decade before the runway was available, and work also needs to start on the second one. If we do not do that, we will end up with increasing pressure to fly that we simply cannot meet. I remind the House that, if only Governments 20 years ago had had the sense to realise the pressures on our road and railway system, we would not have some of the problems that we have today. We need to plan ahead, and if he asks what the grounds are, they are set out in the White Paper.
Mrs. Irene Adams: I congratulate the Secretary of State on having the courage to take the long-term view on aviation. In relation to central Scotland, however, he proposes to safeguard land at Edinburgh airport for future runway and terminal expansion but only recommends that consideration be given to the same at Glasgow. That flies in the face of evidence taken from the CBI, Scottish business, BAA and anyone who was consulted on it. Can he tell me what the terms of that consideration will be? Who will make that consideration, and what is its likely time scale?
Mr. Darling: The position in relation to Glasgow is that Renfrew council, the local planning authority, will be asked to safeguard land for a possible second runway there. In the central belt of Scotland, there will be a need for one additional runway. All the evidence is that pressures will arise at both Edinburgh and Glasgow. On Glasgow, it has become evident since we started consulting that the use of Prestwick has increased dramatically, and that, in effect, the west of Scotland already has two runways, because Prestwick airport is taking traffic away from Glasgow. Whether Glasgow needs a second runway—we are talking about 2020—we do not know. It is sensible to safeguard development
1444
there because it would be foolish to rule it out. In any event, terminal development will be needed at Glasgow because its traffic is likely to grow.
All the signs are that the pressure on Edinburgh airport, which has increased dramatically in the last few years, will grow and grow. Clearly, BAA, which owns both airports, will have to decide what it wants to do. We have arranged in the White Paper that there is facility for expansion at both airports. I do not believe that we need two runways in the centre of Scotland—there is no justification for that—but we do need one. The position in Glasgow is being safeguarded, but what is happening with Prestwick and Glasgow means that there are effectively two runways operating in the west of Scotland now. That was not the case even four or five years ago.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The one thing that we were entitled to expect out of this lengthy and painful process was an end to doubt. Does the Secretary of State realise that he has produced a recipe for confusion and blight? What does he have to say to my constituents near Gatwick who will now not know for possibly a decade whether the airport will be expanded? If he has made a decision about Redhill aerodrome, I would be grateful to hear it because he appears to have ducked and dodged decisions on almost everything else.
Mr. Darling: I will forgive the hon. Gentleman because he cannot possibly have read the whole White Paper in the 40 minutes that it has been available. He will find that the Government do not think that Redhill should be expanded.
The hon. Gentleman will know that land to the south of the existing runway at Gatwick has been safeguarded for some time. That safeguarding must be continued and amended slightly in case there is development, but I made it clear right from the start that I did not think that the 2019 agreement should be overturned, and I confirmed that today. That is pretty certain.
Ms Candy Atherton: How much extra protection will be provided for the residents of Devon and Cornwall by today's announcement, given the economic importance of air links to Newquay and Plymouth?
Mr. Darling: I think that my hon. Friend is asking about PSOs—public service obligations—and as I said in my statement, the White Paper sets out the fact that the Government are prepared to step in to safeguard routes from the parts of the United Kingdom, including south-west England, that are further away from London.
Mr. Francis Maude: It is disappointing that the Government have ruled out the long-term serious option of building new airport capacity on the coast, which is happening in most countries where that possibility exists. I am doubly disappointed that they have not removed the blight and uncertainty from any of the existing London airports—in fact, the problem is being compounded. Although the decision not to overturn the 2019 agreement on Gatwick is welcome, how long will it be before the Heathrow

1445
issue is resolved? Our constituents in West Sussex need the land that is being safeguarded for the housing that is being imposed on West Sussex by the Deputy Prime Minister. How long will it be before the uncertainty can be resolved?
Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman is not exactly clear whether he wants the housing or not—I rather get the impression that he does not. He will know that the land is safeguarded now, that it has been safeguarded for some time and that it will continue to be safeguarded. I am grateful to him for welcoming the fact that we are not going to overturn the 2019 agreement, which would have been wrong. We have examined proposals for the development of coastal and estuarial airports, but, for the reasons set out in the White Paper, we do not think that we can proceed with them.
Mr. Alan Hurst: I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that I am one lawyer who is not rubbing his hands with glee at today's announcement about Stansted. He will be aware of the disappointment and dread caused by the announcement of the expansion. He has already indicated that he is aware of the findings of the public inquiry, which unreservedly damned any second runway. What assessment has he made of the potential profitability of Stansted with a second runway without cross-subsidy from Gatwick and Heathrow?
Mr. Darling: As with any airport development, the private operator must finance airport construction, and, in the case of Stansted, BAA must make such a commercial judgment. I understand that it will say something further in the next few days, but it must decide whether it thinks the figures stack up commercially, and the Government will not step in and do that for it.
On my hon. Friend's first point, I accept what was the case in 1985, but aviation has changed dramatically in the past few years. As I said to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk), even five years ago Stansted had very little traffic; now 19 million people use it. I also repeat the point that, after examining the southeast as a whole—one must examine it as a whole— one sees that it needs two runways in the 30-year period. For the reasons that we have set out, our judgment is that the first runway ought to be at Stansted and the second at Heathrow, provided that Heathrow can meet the conditions that we have set out.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Mr. Speaker, your Deputy, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), and his constituents have, like mine, fought tirelessly against the Stansted expansion. Does the Secretary of State accept that his decision will cause great misery in Essex and east Hertfordshire? How can he explain it to my constituents? It is not a commercial decision—the airlines and BAA have made that clear. It is not an environmental decision—the expansion was described as a catastrophe by the last inspector to examine it—and there is nobody to pay for the infrastructure. Who will pay for the necessary roads and railway links? He gives
1446
no answer. It is not good enough for him to talk about the new slip road because that was promised 10 years ago and it is just a catch-up.
Mr. Darling: The airport will be a commercial decision because BAA is responsible for financing and building it. The Civil Aviation Authority regulates cross-subsidy and similar issues between the London airports. I know what was said in 1985, but I have said to the hon. Gentleman and other Members that a lot has changed in the past 20 years. On surface access, the Government have a responsibility for both road and rail.
The hon. Gentleman raised a general point, which we shall return to time and time again, about what he should say to all his constituents. We must balance the fact that airport development has an environmental impact with the fact that more and more of us, including his constituents, are flying more. Such problems are difficult. When I started this process and said that we must pres ahead, my senior officials told me that all my predecessors had backed off because the issue is difficult. I can well see why previous Secretaries of State have run a mile from this issue, but I would have been shirking my duty if I had not faced up to the difficulties and set out firm proposals to enable people to plan ahead.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The whole House will share with the Secretary of State the much-guarded secret of the expansion of airports in the south-east and welcome the expansion of the regional airports in particular. The reality is that those airports will require flights into Heathrow, which they regard as their lifeline. How will they be protected, will the passenger service obligations be used to ensure that they can fly to Heathrow and what estimate has he made of the cost of not developing Heathrow in the next 10 years? The commercial loss of business to continental airports will be very large. Would he like to tell us what it will be?
Mr. Darling: First, I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about regional airports. I note that she has been entirely consistent because in 1985, which was the last time a Secretary of State came to the Dispatch Box and said anything about airport development, she said the same thing, and she is absolutely right.
The position on Heathrow is that, because of the mandatory requirements relating to nitrogen dioxide, we could not now authorise, approve or support the building of a third runway there. It is clear that, at the moment, a third runway would breach the mandatory NO2 requirements, which is why we believe that work should start on reducing NO2. It should start anyway because we should do everything that we can to reduce it. However, we should keep open the possibility for precisely the reasons that my hon. Friend set out and supports. I made it clear earlier that a third runway at Heathrow could be built provided that we can overcome the problems with air pollution. It would have been wrong for the Government to have said, "Yes, just go ahead now", while ignoring the environmental problems that undoubtedly exist at Heathrow.

1447
On my hon. Friend's general point, nobody should be under any illusions: Heathrow is vital not only to the UK but internationally. It is one of the world's leading airports, which is why, no matter what the difficulties, we must do our level best to resolve those problems.
Mr. David Wilshire: Does the Secretary of State accept that, on Heathrow, "wait and see" is the worst possible answer? My constituents want someone with the courage to say yes or no now. If he were to say yes, he would please just over half my constituents and if he said no, he would satisfy the rest, but instead he will upset them all, especially if he pursues the argument on runway alternation. Uncertainty on Heathrow is bad news. Those who believe that a new runway would safeguard their jobs will worry about redundancy and those who paid a high price for their house will worry that property values might fall. Those who want a better environment will wonder whether they will ever get it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members want to speak, so they should ask only one question.
Mr. Darling: I am not sure which side of the great argument the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) is on. The White Paper says unequivocally that the Government will support the development of a third runway at Heathrow once we are satisfied that it could meet our environmental obligations. That seems pretty clear to me.
Mr. Dennis Turner: Speaking on behalf of the 42 members of the west midlands regional Labour parliamentary group, I congratulate the Secretary of State on his firm rejection of a new airport in Rugby, which we opposed unanimously during the consultation. I warmly welcome his decision on Birmingham International airport because the group believes that that will assist the region to meet demand more locally, to generate benefits for economic development and to minimise environmental impact. Will he acknowledge our thanks from the west midlands and may I wish him a happy Christmas?
Mr. Darling: Let me see if I can answer that difficult question. I think that I find myself in total agreement with my hon. Friend.
Mr. John Taylor: Does the Secretary of State realise that his proposal for Birmingham airport was not one of the four options on which my constituents were consulted? The consultation was therefore a sham and an insult to them, and the decision will be challenged.
Mr. Darling: As I said earlier, I am sure that there would have been the possibility of legal challenges up and down the country whatever we did, so we have to accept that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the expansion of Birmingham airport will be required at some point in the long-term interest of the west midlands and Birmingham itself. It will probably need a
1448
second runway some time after 2016, so the questions will be where that should be and what should be proposed. The proposal that we are prepared to support has the advantage that it suggests a shorter runway than that originally proposed.
Mr. Taylor: It was not one of the options.
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. The proposal represents a better solution, and surely we must all be in the business of providing better solutions for our constituents. If something better is on offer, that is worth looking at.
Mr. David Watts: I welcome my right hon. Friend's support for regional services to Heathrow. He knows that many regional airports have lost their links, so will he consider how to restore links to airports such as Liverpool?
Mr. Darling: Yes, I am aware of that. The Government's first preference is for all services to be provided on a commercial basis because that represents the best way of ensuring their long-term success. As I said earlier, the Government will consider using PSOs, and the White Paper sets out the criteria under which we would decide whether they would be necessary.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Secretary of State's comments on Belfast's airports but may I press him again on Heathrow, because we all recognise its importance? How much of the air quality pollution at Heathrow is due to long taxiing and the fact that planes must fly around for half an hour waiting for a slot?
Mr. Darling: There is no doubt that taxiing, aircraft circling Heathrow and aircraft having to wait a long time to take off contribute to pollution, but they are not the major source of the problem. There is an argument that additional runway capacity would mean that there might be less need for aircraft to run their engines when not taking off, but most of the pollution comes from the airfield itself and associated traffic movement around Heathrow. That is why we need to do more not only to get cleaner engines but to improve public transport links to Heathrow. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) criticised me for not widening the M25 further, but I do not think that it could be widened much further there —for all I know, that is her policy. We must ensure that we bear down on pollution on all fronts, but we should do that anyway for the good of people living in west London.
Mr. David Marshall: I welcome today's deliberate and sensible statement, especially the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow eventually. May I urge the Secretary of State not to allow any slippage and to ensure that the runway is built as soon as the conditions laid down are met, otherwise the UK as a whole will lose out further to Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol as a result of Heathrow's limitations? I also welcome the protection of slots at Heathrow for Anglo-Scottish services, but

1449
will he assure the House that any final decisions on Edinburgh and Glasgow airports will be made on the basis of an absolutely level playing field?
Mr. Darling: Certainly, on the last point, yes. The point that my hon. Friend makes about links between the airports and London is important, so I am sure that he and others will welcome the fact that BMI British Midland yesterday announced a direct flight from Heathrow to Inverness, which British Airways took out of service several years ago, and more flights to Aberdeen. He is right about the risks relating to Heathrow. We have set out our proposals in the White Paper. People have every right to make their views heard on the planning process but I hope that we can make progress quickly for once in this country because otherwise we will pay a heavy price. That has happened with other transport modes, so I do not want it to happen on this matter.
Mr. John Maples: I do not know whether the Secretary of State's decisions about Stansted and Heathrow are right, but he has certainly got the decision on Rugby right. Many of my constituents will be absolutely delighted that the proposal will not be imposed on them, because it would have ruined many aspects of their lives. May I tell him that all of us want a major international airport close to where we live, but not too close, so Birmingham will do just fine?
Mr. Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and agree with him.
Alan Howarth: If evidence emerges to show that the increase in capacity foreshadowed by my right hon. Friend today is insufficient to meet demand for long-haul passenger and cargo traffic, will the Government be willing after all to examine open-mindedly and seriously— without prejudice to the outcome— the benefits for aviation, the economy and the environment of creating a new international airport in south-east Wales complementary to the regional role of Cardiff airport?
Mr. Darling: We looked at the two proposals on south-east Wales and, as I said in my statement, the Government did not feel able to support them for the reasons that are fully set out in the White Paper. The White Paper sets out our view of what is necessary and it would be a trifle premature for me to revisit it only an hour after making my statement. I understand my right hon. Friend's point about development at Llanwern but, based on the information that we have, it is not a realistic option.
Mr. Eric Pickles: The Secretary of State made much play of the economic advantage of air travel and of the numbers at Stansted. Surely the growth at Stansted is due to point-to-point travel and highly subsidised flights. Are we really going to tear up two public inquiries and a royal commission to preserve the economic importance of £7 flights to Prague or Eindhoven? Surely the economic case could be made for a hub operation in the United Kingdom. Given the difficulty that was experienced with
1450
establishing a hub at Gatwick, what makes him think that Stansted would be able to cope? Surely it is more likely that British Airways will decide to move many of its operations to Charles de Gaulle.
Mr. Darling: In relation to the hon. Gentleman's first point, we do not "highly subsidise" airlines. It is interesting that a Conservative Member should criticise the entrepreneurial flair shown by airport operators, and even more surprising that he should call for higher taxation for his constituents. We note that point and no doubt will return to it often.
There is a lot of point-to-point flying at Stansted, but it is increasingly being used as a low-cost hub, with people flying to it and then flying on to other places. I have made my position clear. South-east England needs two runways. The first should be at Stansted for the reasons stated in the White Paper. We also need to consider Heathrow, again for the reasons that we stated.
Ann Keen: I, too, thank my right hon. Friend for taking note of the environmental impact that a third runway would have on my constituents. I acknowledge the work that campaigning groups, in particular the London borough of Hounslow, have done on that. Does he agree that we need to consider the noise impact on schools in the London borough of Hounslow? I would appreciate it if he could meet me to consider ways in which BAA can assist those schools.
Mr. Darling: My colleagues and I have always made it clear that we are happy to meet our colleagues on both sides of the House. That remains the case and I am happy to meet my hon. Friend, who has already expressed her concerns to me about the environmental impact on the area surrounding Heathrow. She recognises that there is a difficult balance to be struck between the importance of Heathrow to her constituents as an employer and economic driver, and the environmental impacts. She has also raised with me the problem of noise, especially as it affects schools and hospitals. Proposals are set out in the White Paper and we are due to consult generally next year on the noise regime at Heathrow.
Pete Wishart: I welcome the announcement that no one Scottish airport will be favoured over any other, but surely many Scottish air services, especially those that go beyond Edinburgh and Glasgow, will be dumped at Stansted. What reassurances has the Secretary of State received that that will not be the case?
Mr. Darling: If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would not use the term "dumped". The last time I was at Stansted, many of our fellow countrymen seemed only too happy to be there, not necessarily because they were bound for Essex, but because they were bound for sunnier climates.
The hon. Gentleman would have been better off making a point on PSOs. He will know from his constituency that there is concern about those. The Government have set out proposals to ensure that there are maintained links and adequate levels of supply between the north and the west so that people there can

1451
get access into the London airports. I am seized of that point, but the hon. Gentleman should be cautious in what he says about Stansted. I know he and his colleagues have a problem with things south of the border, but they are not all bad.
Lynne Jones: What are the Government doing to bring about international agreements on the liberalisation of long-haul traffic to reduce the number of unnecessary international connecting flights, which constitute a large proportion of the throughput at Heathrow airport? Although my right hon. Friend is correct in saying that the taxation regime on aviation fuel for international journeys is subject to international agreement, that is not the case for domestic flights. Will he consider imposing a taxation regime to raise the revenue stream to enable much bigger investment into high-speed rail links?
Mr. Darling: I welcome my hon. Friend's commitment to liberalising markets. I had not realised that that was where she was coming from. I am slightly taken aback, but I think we can all agree on that approach.
The Government are supporting talks between the European Union and the United States to get a genuine open skies agreement across the Atlantic, because that would be hugely beneficial for people on both sides of the ocean. I suspect, however, that it will take time.
My hon. Friend is right that fuel taxation is dealt with by international treaty. We are taking a lead in trying to ensure that aviation does, over time, meet its costs. On domestic flights, my hon. Friend is right up to a point. We charge air passenger duty, for instance, which brings in about £900 million. However, she is no doubt aware that if we acted unilaterally, airlines would go to a more benign regime, from their perspective, to fill up their aircraft and come back. I am not sure that that would be a desirable outcome.
Mr. John Randall: The Secretary of State said that the proposals are for a generation, but for those of us living under the shadow of Heathrow, they will be a blight on another generation. Does he agree that the air quality limits will probably be more stringent in 2015? Will the amber light that he gave to a third runway at Heathrow be for a short runway, as suggested in the consultation, or will it be for something else?
Mr. Darling: It is for a shorter runway. During the consultation process, BAA produced proposals to ensure that the runway does not take as much land as originally planned. On Heathrow itself, more stringent environmental conditions may be in place in future, but I do not know what they will be. I do, however, know what they are for 2010, which is why we have to be cautious.
Like many MPs who represent areas around Heathrow, the hon. Gentleman has to balance the environmental impact with the fact that Heathrow is the major employer in west London. The prosperity of west London and the Thames valley depends on it. Given that Heathrow is in competition with Paris, Amsterdam
1452
and Frankfurt, we must do everything we can to ensure that that airport continues to compete in the future. It is a difficult balance to strike, but we have tried to strike it. I appreciate that the decision will be controversial, but we are doing the right thing both on the environmental front and with regard to the future economy of west London.
Sandra Osborne: I thank the Secretary of State for listening and for recognising so clearly that Glasgow has two airports, one of which is Glasgow Prestwick international airport, which has spare capacity that can and should be utilised. I also welcome his comments on aircraft maintenance. He knows that that is creating many jobs in my constituency and I hope that it will create many more in the future. Has he given consideration in the White Paper to the important role of freight at Glasgow Prestwick international airport?
Mr. Darling: On the last point, I have considered freight. My hon. Friend will know that there has been substantial growth in freight transport at Glasgow, Prestwick and Edinburgh. The three Scottish airports are developing quite a big freight trade.
My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to something that is a problem on the west coast for some of our colleagues. The west of Scotland already has two runways, which is why I said what I did about Glasgow airport to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams). There is no doubt that part of Prestwick's increased traffic is coming out of Glasgow airport. We have to face up to that. It is a quite good thing. My hon. Friend's work, and that of others, in promoting Prestwick has been worth while. The House will remember that not so long ago Prestwick was threatened with closure. It is now doing very well, although the strength of its case has resulted in its being a genuine second west and central Scotland runway.
Norman Baker: I thank the Secretary of State for his announcement on Gatwick, which will be popular in my part of the world. He also mentioned a big expansion of air travel in the UK. On the anticipated effect of his proposals on greenhouse gas emissions, he will know that emissions were expected to double between 1990 and 2010 and, before long, 25 per cent. of CO2 emissions will be from air travel. Will CO2 emissions go up or down as a consequence of his proposals? He says that he wants to ensure that the full environmental costs are met over time. Why is that time not now? What time scale is he applying? Why have the discussion proposals in the aviation and environment paper of March 2003 been kicked into touch for the foreseeable future, on page 41 of the White Paper?
Mr. Darling: In relation to the international discussions, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman when they will he finalised because they depend on international agreement. In common with just about every other country in the world, we are signatories to the convention and have to reach international agreement. In relation to reducing emissions, I said that we will make it a priority in our presidency of the European Union to bring aviation within the European emissions trading scheme. That will be a significant help. I also said that we will introduce legislation to enable airport

1453
operators to impose higher charges for the more polluting aircraft. That will help as well. It has helped with noise already in the London airports. A number of things are being done that I think will reduce aircraft emissions.
The hon. Gentleman and others are right that we must balance the need to ensure that people can travel, because our economy will depend upon it, and the need to ensure that we are alive to the environmental consequences.
Andy King: I thank my right hon. Friend for his clear and categoric statement in the White Paper, at page 92 of which he clearly acknowledges that full account has been taken of the almost uniform opposition to the proposal for a new airport at Rugby, as well as a number of concerns raised in the consultation document. In addition, he refined the options during the consultation, taking into account the concerns of the people of Birmingham. We thank him for his support of Birmingham airport as well. Will he say once again that the Government rule out once and for all the option of that new hub airport in the midlands? Thank you.
Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his thanks. I do not think that I could have made the position any more clear than I did in my statement. I know that he has worked tirelessly against the proposal. Having examined all the evidence and having considered what people had to say, I am clear that the right thing to do was to ensure that we allowed for expansion in the west midlands, but that it should be at Birmingham.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Is the Secretary of State aware that his thought-provoking statement deals with making better use of runway space at Heathrow—not building a new runway but perhaps opting for mixed-mode use, pioneered by British Midland in 1990, which will give much more opportunity for airlines to land without the building of a new runway? Is that what he is proposing in his White Paper? Will he confirm that he will not allow cross-subsidisy from Heathrow to Stansted to finance what Stansted wants to do? Will he ensure that BAA opens to competition any new building of terminals?
Mr. Darling: Cross-subsidy is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority, which regulates these matters. On the mixed-mode operation at Heathrow, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware that there is a limit on air traffic movements. If mixed mode were to be pursued and if the limit were to be breached, there would have to be consultation. I think that a limit was laid down of 480,000 movements. Mixed mode, depending on whether it was peak hour or all the time, would have an impact on that. It would need to be discussed.
Alan Keen: I thank my right hon. Friend and the Government for embarking on a planning exercise. It is a long time since a major industry saw Government involvement in planning. May I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to my constituents, and remind him that there were no page numbers for the Opposition spokesman to quote last
1454
time there was a major expansion at Heathrow because there was no Government involvement, no planning and no consultation? I much appreciate what my right hon. Friend has done this time.
If there is any thought of mixed mode at Heathrow airport, I ask my right hon. Friend to listen to us before deciding to use the northern runway for take-offs to the east for the 25 per cent. of the time that takes place. The Cranford agreement has prevented that for the past 30 to 35 years. It is unacceptable for my constituents in Cranford to have planes taking off over the top of them when they are so close to the end of the runway.
Mr. Darling: As I was saying to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) a few moments ago, partly because mixed mode may well result in an increase in aircraft movements, it will be necessary to consult. I am also aware of the Cranford agreement, which has been in place for a long time. I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. He, like many others, has made representations arising from his concern about the environmental impact. I welcome what he said about the importance of the Government being clear as to where they stand—who knows, we might one day find out where others stand.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I thank the Secretary of State for his unequivocal rejection of Redhill and the claims made for it by the promoters, including the claim that local people were indifferent. Is he aware that that means that I shall not have to pass on to him 6,000 letters, on behalf of about 10,000 of my constituents, which are sitting in my office as part of the consultation process?
May I ask the Secretary of State about the position of Gatwick as the reserve if development at Heathrow cannot go ahead? Has he not opened up the possibility that he will end up with three two-runway London airports as the end product if development at Heathrow is not possible? Will he answer two specific questions? Would it not have been better for that reserve position to be a third runway at Stansted, given that he will in any case have to build the infrastructure to get a second runway at Stansted? Secondly, how long will the people around Gatwick have to wait before they know whether a third runway at Heathrow is feasible?
Mr. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman had had a mirror he would have been fascinated to see the expressions of some of his colleagues sitting behind him. No, we do not think that there should be a third runway at Stansted. As for Gatwick, our position is that we think that in the south-east of England over the next 30 years there needs to be two new runways. That remains our position. In relation to Redhill, I will be extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman if he keeps the 6,000 letters. I think I speak on behalf of my staff at the Department for Transport when I say that they will be even more grateful than me, given that they have already dealt with many thousands of letters. If the hon. Gentleman can see his way to storing the 6,000 letters in his office, I think my staff will be very grateful.

Points of Order
1.46 pm
Mr. Hugh Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last week I tabled a series of written questions, four to the Ministry of Defence and five to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, all of them on specific issues that had been raised by my constituents. They were all due to be answered under the named-day procedure on Monday 15 December. Eight of the nine questions came back with the answer "I will answer shortly." Many of them do not involve particularly complicated issues. Bearing in mind the fact that the House is due to rise in two days' time, can you tell me what action I can take as a Back Bencher to pursue these legitimate concerns on my constituents' behalf?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I can only advise the hon. Gentleman that his point will have been heard and will be on the record. It is to be hoped that the Minister will be able to respond.
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you will know, I am not one who likes in any way to imply criticism of the Chair. However, we have just had a lengthy statement that affects Members in many parts of the country, and there has not been a proper geographical balance in the Members who have been called. I would hope that that could be recorded.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Certainly.
Matthew Green: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. More than 24,000 individual letters were sent to Members from the Halfpenny Green or Wolverhampton business airport in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). No Member from the area was called following the statement, although many of them were standing. Can we not have a future statement on the matter?
Mr. Peter Lilley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that Luton, the first airport in the south-east to which the Secretary of State referred, is the only one that will involve immediate expansion, also the only one that involves approval of a proposal that was not consulted on during the consultation period, it struck me as strange that no Member from that area was called, and that the issue of Luton was not raised. I wonder whether it will be possible to extend at an early date the discussion that has just been terminated.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I realise the importance of the White Paper to many right hon. and hon. Members, but the occupant of the Chair has to protect the rest of the business of the day. There are times when perhaps the Chair will disappoint certain Members. We must protect the business of the day. There will be other opportunities to discuss the points made.

Orders of the Day
  European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill
    New Clause 2

      ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS IN RESPECT OF POSTAL VOTING
      Before making any order under sections 1 and 2 which provides for all-postal voting, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the manner in which the election is conducted (which may or may not be modified by pilot orders under section 2) ensures that—

      all ballot papers returned are accompanied by a verifiable form of identification;

      each elector who has returned a ballot paper is given an acknowledgement by the returning officer;

      in the event of any disruption of postal services on any day or days appointed for voting under the pilot order, alternative collection points for ballot papers are available, and are in any case available and accessible to those who prefer to deliver their ballot papers in person; and

      any recommendation or recommendations of the Electoral Commission to reduce the incidence or possibility of personation or other electoral offences or malpractice are given effect.'.—[Mr. Heath.]

      Brought up, and read the First time. 1.49 pm
      Mr. David Heath: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 5—Additional provisions in respect of postal voting (No.2) —
      '(1) The Secretary of State may not make any order under sections 1 and 2 which provides for all-postal voting unless the chief executive of each of the postal authorities involved has made a written statement that there will be no difficulties with the postal arrangements for the ballot.
      (2) The Secretary of State must place a copy of each statement made in pursuance of subsection (1) in the Library of the House of Commons not less than two months before the election.'.
      Amendment No. 3, in clause 4, page 2, line 39, at end insert—
      '(2A) In the case of all-postal ballots, the Electoral Commission must consult with the postal authorities involved concerning the efficacy of the arrangements.'.
      Mr. Heath: The first group includes new clause 2 which, I am pleased to say, was tabled by Conservative Front Benchers and myself. It deals, first, with the important matter of fraud in an all-postal ballot and, secondly, with the conduct of the postal authorities and their ability to cope with the burden that will be placed on them.
      New clause 2 deals with fraud, which has been a major concern throughout our consideration of the Bill. Some people would say that the postal ballot system is inherently more open to electoral fraud and malpractice

      1457
      than the practice of attending a polling station and casting a vote in person. Indeed, there is evidence, albeit limited, to support that contention. The matter has certainly exercised the Electoral Reform Society, to which I pay tribute for the attention that it has given the Bill and its helpful briefings.
      Joyce Quin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Heath: It is very early in my speech, but certainly.
      Joyce Quin: The hon. Gentleman said that there is evidence of fraud, but could he be more specific? I am certainly not aware of evidence of any fraud in the successful pilots in my own part of the country. People are concerned about fraud, but we need to be specific about it.
      Mr. Heath: The right hon. Lady may wish to read the new report by the Electoral Commission on these matters. It is a simple fact that there have been more prosecutions for fraud—this is not necessarily the case in the all-postal ballot pilots—among people who cast a postal vote than among people who use the ballot box. That does not mean that there is an inherently significant problem with postal voting, but it suggests that precautions should be put in place. Indeed, the first report by the Electoral Commission on the arrangements for postal voting deals extensively with the opportunity for electoral fraud in postal voting, and makes sensible recommendations about ways in which to deal with the problem. Some of those recommendations cannot be implemented without primary legislation, and new clause 2 is an appropriate vehicle to introduce such proposals when the pilot schemes take place.
      In previous discussions on the Bill, we drew attention to the rushed conditions in which such proposals would be introduced. Nevertheless, my supporters—prominent among them the ERS— and I believe that we should introduce more detailed proposals to avoid fraud in an all-postal ballot. The Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) is somewhat complacent about this matter. That is not being unkind to him, as he said in Committee:
      "there are sufficient anti-fraud measures within electoral law to ensure that postal voting can be undertaken with confidence and… it is no more prone to fraud than conventional voting methods." —[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 4 November 2003: c. 130.]
      We disagree, and the Electoral Commission's proposals should be implemented at the earliest opportunity. They should certainly be implemented before a widespread trial of all-postal voting.
      Many Members have drawn attention to the problem of ensuring that the postal ballot is not abused by people living in houses in multiple occupation. It can be abused in a number of ways, including personation. The Minister included welcome proposals in the Bill to define the offence of personation, but they do not entirely answer our concerns. The hon. Gentleman hinted in Committee that he would consider delivery of ballot papers by hand to houses in multiple occupation, to mitigate the risks of votes being harvested. He may
      1458
      wish to tell us how far he has considered the problem and whether he intends to amend the Bill in due course, or to introduce regulations to deal with a matter that we believe should be included in the Bill.
      A basic problem with postal ballots is that it is far more difficult to secure a secret ballot. For a century or more, the secret ballot has been a bulwark against much electoral malpractice. We all accept the facility and utility of postal votes, but they are more open to abuse because they cannot be secret in the same way as polling station ballots, where only one person is permitted to enter the polling booth at a time. The defences against abuse are therefore much stronger at polling stations. There is a particular problem for people with disabilities. Sadly, in our debate we will not have the opportunity properly to consider their position, but one of their principal concerns about the introduction of all-postal ballots is that there will effectively be no secret ballot for them any more. We should be concerned about that.
      Mr. Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman made a valid point about disabled voters' right to secrecy, but is it not the case that, under current arrangements, disabled people already have to forfeit their right to privacy if their polling station does not have disabled access, because they cannot enter it? The option of voting at home will in fact increase their privacy when casting their vote.
      Mr. Heath: I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Polling stations should be accessible to people with disabilities, but sadly some are not. It is normal practice for returning officers to take ballot papers to people whose physical disabilities hinder their mobility, allowing them to cast their vote with whatever secrecy is available in the circumstances. The returning officers then return the ballot papers to the presiding officer at the polling station. The hon. Gentleman's argument does not hold true for people with visual impairment. I have a particular interest in the issue, and systems are, or should be, available, such as templates and so on, to enable people with visual impairment to cast their vote in secrecy. Such arrangements are simply not available in an all-postal ballot.
      My views are shared by the Local Government Association. I ought to declare an interest, although I am not absolutely certain whether I still am an honorary vice-president of the LGA. Like many hon. Members, I was certainly asked to accept such a position, but I am not sure whether my vice-presidency has lapsed. If I am still a vice-president, I declare my interest. The LGA drew attention in its representations to the problem of fraud and believes that
      "there should be a balance between greater accessibility to voting with security and prevention of fraud."
      The association went on to say that it does not believe that
      "all-postal ballots should be rolled out on a mandatory basis to all councils without the Commission's additional recommendations—in particular a move from household to individual registration—being in place

      1459
      That is a significant contribution to the debate, as it effectively comes from the returning officers themselves, as they are represented by the LGA. They acknowledge the difficulties arising from all-postal voting.
      Dr. John Pugh: As my hon. Friend will recognise, there is not only a potential problem of fraud, but a problem in assessing the extent of the fraud. Would he be surprised to learn that I asked a question of the Government as to the extent of electoral fraud allegations in the north-west—what had been reported and what had been investigated—and the answer I received, which was not really an answer, was that that information could be provided only at disproportionate cost?
      2 pm
      Mr. Heath: I am not surprised by what my hon. Friend tells me. The topic has bedevilled our discussions. There are two aspects to the problem. First, people are not aware of the complaints that are being made and the investigations that have taken place, and at best know only about the successful prosecutions that are brought. Secondly, one of our concerns has been that when the Electoral Commission was asked to look into the matter, it was effectively asked to look at instances of complaint, rather than looking ab initio at a poll to see whether there was any evidence of fraud and malpractice, without a complaint having been made. At present, we rely on a complaint being initiated in order to estimate the problem. I accept what my hon. Friend says, and I deplore it.
      My new clause 2 contains some modest proposals to assist in preventing fraud in a postal ballot, and suggests that in the event of postal services being disrupted during an all-postal ballot, there should be contingency plans for polling stations to be available, but that in any case a collection point should be available for those who prefer to put their vote into the hands of a returning officer. I understand that the Minister is considering that, and there is a suggestion that at least one collection point will be available in each area. If that is the case, surely it should be written into the Bill, not left to secondary legislation or to the whims of returning officers. I hope the Minister will make his position plain and say what he intends to happen.
      The other new clause and the amendment in this group deal with the question of whether postal services are adequate for the task of providing for an all-postal ballot on the scale envisaged. Members of the Conservative Front-Bench team will no doubt speak to new clause 5, and I do not wish to pre-empt their proposals. The new clause deals with the situation before the ballot takes place. Amendment No. 3, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and me and is supported by the Conservatives, deals with the Electoral Commission's inquiry after the event and its recommendations for future all-postal ballots. The amendment simply suggests that the postal authorities need to be involved.
      The Electoral Commission has already shown itself to be aware of the need to do that, as evidenced by its new report published the week before last, paragraphs 2.27
      1460
      to 2.30 of which deal with the ability of other agencies to deliver. Paragraph 2.30 refers specifically to the Royal Mail and tells us that
      "Royal Mail's Chief Executive has advised the Commission that Royal Mail is confident of their ability to deliver and return postal ballot papers in any combination of regions"
      and that it has
      "contingency plans for both industrial action or unforeseen interruptions to services".
      I do not always have total confidence in the management of the Royal Mail to deliver what they say they will deliver—"deliver" being the operative word. However, it is clear that there is a degree of confidence on the part of the postal services. Given that we list in the Bill the bodies and organisations that the Electoral Commission is required to consult, the Royal Mail and any alternative postal delivery systems should be part of that consultation. It is slightly surprising that they are not.
      In conclusion, new clause 2 deals with fraud, a matter that is taken seriously by Members in all parts of the House. We do not damn the postal voting system as being necessarily open to fraud, but we are concerned to ensure that the best possible measures are in place to avoid it. New clause 2 also deals with the postal system, which is, potentially at least, the weak link when we have an all-postal ballot over a wide area. That will inevitably be the case when we are dealing with two or three European regions of the country at a single time. Given that Minister's and the Electoral Commission's stated intention is to have national all-postal ballots at some stage in the future, it is important that we get these things right now rather than waiting for a disaster to happen and finding that we have an invalid or improper election of the sort that we would condemn elsewhere in the world.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: Our approach to the Government's proposals in the Bill is that if our electoral system is not broken, we should not try to fix it. We are not obsessed by so-called modernisation, as the Government are on this and many other issues. Many of us believe that, wherever possible, we should carry on with the traditional way of voting that people in this country have been used to for over 100 years. Nevertheless, we want to consider some of the Government's proposals constructively, while subjecting them to scrutiny as we have done in detail in Committee, and trying to improve the protections, particularly against fraud.
      As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made clear, that is the issue dealt with by the two new clauses and the amendment linked with them. As the hon. Gentleman observed, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I support new clause 2 and amendment No. 3, and we have tabled new clause 5. We are particularly concerned about the dangers that fraud may be made easier if the proposals go through unamended. Partly in response to the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), I draw attention to the comment from the Electoral Reform Society that for the first time since the 1872 ballot secrecy legislation, it considers that there is a risk that electoral fraud could occur.
      I shall quote the Electoral Reform Society's words, as it is important that those who read our proceedings be aware of them. Like the hon. Member for Somerton and

      1461
      Frome, I thank the Electoral Reform Society for the helpful views that it expressed to many of us. In its brief for this debate, it states:
      "Corrupt practices on a grand scale have become feasible again for the first time in 130 years. Of course, this is not a guarantee that such events will occur—but the risk is increased".
      There is much further evidence, not only in the Electoral Commission's latest report—which came out only on 8 December, so I forgive the right hon. Lady for not having seen it—but in many of the other research papers produced by the House of Commons Library and by the Local Government Association, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
      Joyce Quin Joyce Quin rose—
      Mr. Hawkins: I shall give way to the right hon. Lady in a moment. She spoke in the debate on Second Reading, so I know of her interest.
      Much of the evidence was publicised at the time of the postal pilots, even on the front pages of some of our national newspapers. There were allegations of fraud, some of which may not have been substantiated, but there were certainly some documented cases of fraud having taken place. The Electoral Reform Society, the Local Government Association and we in the House must take those increased risks seriously. There are particular problems, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, with houses in multiple occupation, the way in which the paperwork is sent, and the verifiability and security—by way of double envelopes—that are needed, in our view, in postal pilots.
      Joyce Quin: The hon. Gentleman's quote from the Electoral Reform Society related to worries about risks and not to evidence. I am prepared to look at any evidence that may exist. He said that if the system was not broke, there was no need to fix it, but huge increases—from, say, 25 per cent. to 60 per cent. in turnout for local elections—show that there was a problem that postal ballots are doing a great deal to address.
      Mr. Hawkins: I disagree with the right hon. Lady's conclusion. I refer her to the Electoral Commission report, which was only issued on 8 December, as I mentioned. In passing, I may say that I was slightly surprised that the Electoral Commission, which has previously been good at immediately sending all its reports to hon. Members who are interested in these matters, did not manage to get that report to us. I am indebted to Library officials, as we so often are, for getting me a photocopy, without which I could not have referred to the issues involved. Under the title "Fraud considerations", paragraph 2.31 states:
      "The Commission takes issues of fraud and the perception of fraud very seriously, and has recommended to Government that additional measures be introduced as part of future all-postal and electronic pilot schemes, to ensure more effective deterrence against, and measuring of, attempted fraud. We note that the Government has included in the Pilots bill a changed offence of personation for the pilot area in line with the previous Commission recommendation."
      1462
      The report goes on to state:
      "The Commission has further stated that all-postal voting should not be made generally available until further measures are introduced. —critically the Commission believes that the introduction of individual registration is a necessary precondition for moving beyond all-postal pilot schemes to full roll-out."
      Mr. Eric Forth: Does my hon. Friend accept that the possibility of intimidation, which has not been mentioned, is relevant? One benefit that our time-honoured system provides is absolute security so that people—let us say that they could mainly be women in this context—can vote in safety in the privacy of the ballot booth. If people will now be expected to fill out voter forms in the home, the office or wherever, there is at least a risk that they could be intimidated by other family members or who knows whom, and we should be very aware of that issue in considering the possibilities.
      Mr. Hawkins: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. The issue to which he refers is one of the reasons why extra elements of security are so vital in relation to postal voting.
      Furthermore—this may help the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West and other hon. Members—the House of Commons research paper on the issues associated with the Bill contains a lot of work on fraud and the danger that it may increase under the Bill. The research paper states:
      "there is concern that personation has taken place at previous elections. A question asked by Lord Greaves in the House of Lords highlighted some areas of concern"
      That question was asked in 1997–98. In relation to the most recent Birmingham city council elections and the postal pilot in Birmingham, the research paper goes on to state:
      "A politician appointed to investigate claims of fraud at this year's Birmingham City Council elections says he has already uncovered 'worrying' evidence pointing towards possible irregularities.
      That comes from somebody who was appointed to look into claims that fraud might have taken place. The document continues:
      "At the heart of the inquiry are claims that postal votes were misused and that organised gangs 'stole' hundreds of votes through personation—falsely claiming to be people on the electoral register."
      Councillor Alden, who is in charge of the inquiry, was hoping to complete it by the end of this month. I have not seen the results, but there is serious concern. Councillor Alden states:
      "There is worrying evidence of a substantial amount of personation in Birmingham over the past few years, where people are impersonating other people at the polling station and voting""
      A report published in The Guardian in September last year also referred to a number of allegations of electoral fraud. The issue has not simply been dreamed up by Opposition Members; it is causing concern throughout the country, and in cities such as Birmingham and Leicester; indeed, what happened in Leicester was one of the cases publicised in the national press.
      2.15 pm
      Mr. Tom Harris: Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) about the difference between the potential for fraud and the reality, the hon. Gentleman may be able to confirm that some of the problems that he has mentioned occurred in traditional polling booth voting and would not arise only in postal voting. The traditional voting arrangements already have potential for a huge amount of deception and fraud, but he seems inordinately concerned about opportunities for fraud in postal voting. Surely, the only reason why fraud has been detected in postal ballots is that no investigations such as those that have been mentioned have occurred in respect of traditional polling. If such investigations took place, there might be evidence to show that fraudulent voting and personation has occurred on some scale throughout the country for more than 100 years.
      Mr. Hawkins: I do not think that the Electoral Reform Society, which has the experts and specialists on this matter, takes that view. In commenting specifically on what happened in the all-postal pilots in the 2003 local elections, it said:
      "Other problems arose as a result of the all-postal pilots. In the past, postal votes were open to council offices in the two days prior to polling day and party observers were able to watch this process providing they had signed a declaration of secrecy. However, with the vast numbers involved in all-postal ballots, councils took the decision to open the ballots as they came in and invited party observers to watch. At this much earlier stage, it was therefore possible for parties to see how they were doing in each ward and effect changes to their campaigning strategy as a result. There needs to be a debate about whether this is a desirable outcome from the move to all-postal ballots or whether the declaration of secrecy should seek to (or even can) bar discussion within a party over their prospects."
      There is not only the personation problem, but the intimidation problem to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred, as well as the secrecy issue. Without being too partisan about those issues, we are genuinely trying to introduce extra elements of security, especially in respect of houses in multiple occupation.
      Mr. Neil Turner: I think that all hon. Members would want to ensure that the secrecy of the ballot was maintained as far as possible. The hon. Gentleman referred to two investigations—one by a councillor and another by The Guardian newspaper. He did not refer, however, to paragraph 2.33 of the Electoral Commission report:
      "As part of our evaluation of pilot schemes the Commission assesses whether the pilot scheme has led to an increase in personation or other electoral malpractice. However, we have no reason to believe that pilot schemes have to date resulted in an increase in the incidence of electoral offences."
      The Electoral Commission was set up specifically to consider such issues in an unbiased way, but its view is that the pilots have not led to any increase in the incidence of the problems that he mentioned.
      Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman refers to what is now paragraph 2.33 on page 13 of the Electoral Commission's report, but if he reads on, he will see that paragraph 2.36 states:
      1464
      "The Commission accepts public perception is that some areas of the United Kingdom appear to be more prone to electoral fraud than others; we have no conclusive evidence this is in fact the case. However such a perception can, and should be, challenged through rigorously audited all-postal pilot schemes."
      The new clauses and amendment suggest that introducing greater security will make the process much safer, so that there is much less risk of fraud and a greater opportunity to conduct auditing.
      I shall now deal specifically with the new clauses and amendment. On new clause 2, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats, but to which we have added our names, we think that verifiability is crucial. We also think that the requirement for acknowledgement by the returning officer is crucial in terms of fraud prevention. I will be very surprised if the Minister is unable to accept the new clause, because it does not harm his legislation in any way, but is something that Conservative Members and the Liberal Democrats feel strongly about.
      Most important is paragraph (c), which would ensure that alternative arrangements are put in place in the event of disruptions to postal services. Like the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, I have many problems with the postal authorities at the moment. I would be straying out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I talked too much about the huge battles in which I am involved—as are many hon. Members on both sides of the House—in attempting to save post offices. I have not been at all impressed by the attitude of the management of the Royal Mail or the Post Office in recent months and years, and I shall continue to pursue those issues over Christmas and the new year.
      Paragraph (d) suggests the implementation of any anti-fraud measures that are recommended by the Electoral Commission: again, it is difficult to see why the Government should oppose that sensible change.
      I very much hope that the Government will accept new clause 2—if not, we shall want to press it.
      I turn to our new clause 5, which would provide further protections in relation to postal voting. Many Members on both sides of the House have huge concerns about the significant deterioration in the service that is provided to all our constituents, particularly in the light of the disruption that was caused by the recent industrial action. Those concerns were most recently ventilated in this Chamber last Thursday in the very good debate on the report on the Post Office by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. We therefore believe that the Bill should contain what one might call a come-back against those who run the postal services, so that the chief executive concerned would have to give this House a clear and unambiguous undertaking that the postal services will be able to provide what is required for an all-postal pilot for a combined European and local election. If we do not have that, the pilot should not go ahead.
      Conservative Members have added their names to Liberal Democrat amendment No. 3, which, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome explained, would require the Electoral Commission to consult the postal authorities after the event. Taken together, our new clause 5 and the Liberal Democrat amendment would provide for consultation with and undertakings from those managing the postal authorities beforehand, as well as a clear report back afterwards, providing belt and braces security for the arrangements.

      1465
      I do not want to repeat the sensible points that were made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. We agree with him on this matter—indeed, if anything we feel even more strongly about its importance. I hope that the Government will heed this crucial group of improvements to the Bill.
      Mr. Alan Hurst: I want to comment on a couple of points, the first of which concerns the risk of impersonation and corruption in the electoral process. Historically, there has not been a major problem in this country since the mid-1920s, when cathedral cities were the most prone to corruption, with the seats of ancient universities coming second. Since then, as far as we can tell, we have been almost corruption-free, and one trusts that we will remain so. The danger area is that of all-postal ballots in places with a high degree of multiple occupation. As those of us who have practised the art of politics over many years know, areas of multiple occupation often have the lowest turnouts in any election. There are all sorts of reasons for that, one of which is that the people who live there tend not to stay for long. The opportunity for the misuse of postal ballots must be much greater in those areas than in established communities. I hope that those who observe such matters will pay attention to whether there is a dramatic change in voting patterns in those high-risk areas.
      My second point concerns the implication that there may have been personation before, under the traditional system, but we did not know about it. I am not necessarily convinced by that. There was always a safeguard in the shape of the party tellers who sat at the entrance of the village hall, town hall or library—normally one from each party, and preferably local to the area in which they were taking down the numbers. They might say, "Wait a moment —they have already been in once before" or, "He moved away several years ago —what is he doing voting here?" That degree of involvement or knowledge can be applied in traditional village hall or town hall voting, but is impossible in an all-postal ballot. We need more information, and I hope that the pilot schemes will provide it.
      Angela Watkinson: New clause 2 would introduce some essential safeguards to the security and confidentiality of the postal voting process. All-postal voting was piloted in the London borough of Havering in the last local elections. There was an increase in turnout, so the experiment was successful in that respect. However, I have reservations about making voting easy for people who would otherwise not bother to do so. Postal voting is already available to anybody who is motivated enough to ask for it—it is no longer necessary to specify the reason. Anybody who is unable to get to a polling station because he is disabled, working, on holiday, ill, or for any other reason is already eligible for a postal vote. Now, we are spoon-feeding people who cannot be bothered to vote. Instead, we should meet the challenge by increasing people's interest so that they are motivated to take the trouble to vote.
      In Havering, several serious flaws in the voting arrangements became apparent during the election period: the new clause seeks to address those. Paragraph (a) would require all ballot papers to be accompanied by
      1466
      by a verifiable form of identification. That was one of the main difficulties that arose. Electors were sent by post a ballot paper, a declaration of identity and the necessary instructions, together with one envelope in which to return to the town hall both their ballot paper marked with their choice of candidate and their declaration of identity. A significant number of electors objected to that one-envelope system on the grounds that the person opening the envelope and separating the two pieces of paper could see how they had voted. Indeed, it was possible. It is impossible to know whether anyone took advantage of this opportunity or not, but the important point is that the opportunity existed and that the confidentiality of the voting process was compromised as a result.(
      The separation of ballot papers from declarations of identity is a necessary procedure, as the ballot papers have to be put into a ballot box for transfer to —in Havering's case —the Electoral Commission for the count. I urge the Minister to ensure that a two-envelope system is always used in any future postal ballot, so that it would be possible to ensure that each ballot paper is accompanied by the requisite declaration of identity, but that no ballot paper could be linked to any identified elector.
      Mr. Tom Harris: The new clause refers to the return of ballot papers accompanied by a "verifiable form" of identification. That suggests to me not the simple declaration that I am who I say I am, but a document that says who I am, such as a passport or a driving licence. What is the hon. Lady's understanding of that term?
      Angela Watkinson: My understanding is that it is a declaration of identity. I am sure that the new clause does not propose that people should post their precious passports or other documents that could easily be lost. I received significant numbers of complaints from electors who did not wish anybody to be able to see how they had voted. I am sure that given the volume of post nobody had the slightest interest, but the point is that it was possible for that to happen.
      2.30 pm
      Mr. Heath: The Electoral Commission has produced its own recommendation that individual registration is a necessary precondition for rolling out the scheme. That is one form of verifiable identification.
      Angela Watkinson: It is essential that electors be able to have total confidence in the confidentiality of the voting process. In all-postal ballots, unlike voting in the traditional way at a polling station, electors cannot witness their ballot paper being put into a sealed ballot box. New clause 2(b) would require acknowledgements to be sent to electors for returned ballot papers. This would help to overcome the doubts of many electors that they would have no way of knowing whether their ballot papers had been received at the town hall. Indeed, given the number of items of post that are acknowledged routinely to go missing, it is reasonable to assume that some ballot papers might not arrive at their intended destination.
      I personally have had several items of post go missing this year—that I know about. One was correctly addressed and had a first class stamp on it. It arrived in

      1467
      perfect condition, undamaged and not dog-eared or showing any signs of having been on a long and difficult journey, three months after it had been posted at a point about 10 miles away. Another item of post was sent to me from this House to my home address just before the summer recess, and I am still waiting for it to arrive. It has disappeared into a black hole. Delays of that kind involving election documents would deprive electors of their vote, and that is a serious matter.
      The same problem would apply to the receipt by voters of their blank ballot papers and acknowledgements of their completed ballot papers. I received a number of complaints during the election period from people who had not received their ballot paper from the town hall. On inquiring at the town hall, they had been told that it had been sent to them. There was no form of appeal, and no way of obtaining a duplicate ballot paper. Often, time was too short to do anything about that. Wrong delivery is another complication. Some people redirect mail if it is wrongly delivered through their letter box, but not everyone takes the trouble to do so. Some wrongly delivered items therefore end up in kitchen waste bins, never to be seen again, and it is difficult to see how that problem could be overcome.
      New clause 2(c) requires arrangements to be made for the personal delivery of ballot papers for those electors who prefer that, or in the event of a disruption of postal services. I hope that the Minister will agree that this is a sensible requirement for contingency arrangements which should be included in this Bill. One collection point in each constituency would not be enough, particularly in rural areas, or in areas in which elderly voters prefer to stick to the traditional voting method that they have always used. Many of them like to go to a familiar polling station, and they resent having to change the way in which they vote. That option should be available to them.
      Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend will be relieved to know that this point was raised in Committee. She will also have noticed from the amendment paper today that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have tabled new clause 6, although it was not selected for debate because the matter had already been dealt with in Committee. The new clause dealt with the preservation of the traditional methods of voting. My hon. Friend will also be aware that I quoted her when we debated the issue in Committee.
      Angela Watkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful contribution.
      New clause 2(d) provides for the reduction of opportunities for personation and other forms of malpractice that postal voting makes much easier. Every precaution possible must be taken to protect the confidentiality of the vote, to ensure the security of the transfer of votes from one place to another, whether by post or motor vehicle, and to ensure that nobody is either influenced or intimidated in relation to the way in which they vote, or deprived of their vote, or able to vote more than once. We must also ensure that the person casting the vote is the person who is entitled to do so.
      1468
      The Electoral Reform Society supports those views, and does not believe that the Bill will be in a form that is ready to be introduced until every possible means has been used to combat potential fraud, because of the various issues that I have just raised. Too many uncertainties exist at the moment for all-postal ballots to be introduced without resolving the opportunities for fraud, and the Bill should not proceed until that has been done.
      Mr. Tom Harris: My hon. Friend the Minister will be relieved to hear that I intend to make only a few brief points. First, I would like to respond to the heartfelt and genuine view expressed by the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) that it is necessary to maintain traditional polling practices because some voters, particularly older people, have gone to the same polling station year after year and want to maintain that practice. However, the problem lies not with our older voters, who will always come out and vote; it lies with our younger voters—people aged 18 upwards—who do not vote and whom we need to persuade to vote. Senior citizens have a great sense of civic responsibility and need no extra encouragement to vote. They already understand their responsibilities. It is younger voters to whom we need to introduce new forms of voting because they have shown time and again that they are reluctant to vote. We need to deal with that problem.
      Mr. Forth: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that apathy and indifference are themselves political acts, and that it is perfectly legitimate for a citizen of whatever age, young or old, not to vote because they are not interested or do not think it worth while, or because it is, in their view, a bit difficult to do so? One of the great dangers inherent in the obsession with making it easier to vote is that people may in the end undervalue the process rather than value it fully.
      Mr. Harris: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and I have some sympathy with it. My problem with the general approach to making the political system more engaging and relevant is that there is a danger of putting certain issues on the back burner. We are trying to introduce a fairly radical measure to encourage higher turnout in the short term. I am sure that he would approve of more strategic measures to engage people of all ages and classes politically and to encourage them to become more involved in the political process. Unfortunately, I do not think that that is going to happen in the short term. We need to come up with some shorter-term measures to find out whether it is possible to increase engagement. That may not happen as a result of the Bill, and we will then have to go back to the drawing board. I support the Bill, however, because it provides us with an opportunity to see whether this innovation will work.
      I draw the House's attention briefly to a point that I raised with the hon. Member for Upminster about new clause 2, which proposes that
      "all ballot papers returned are accompanied by a verifiable form of identification".
      I accept what she said about the verification of identity, but, technically, that is not what the new clause refers to. It refers to a "verifiable form of identification", and I do not believe that that could apply to a simple statement

      1469
      claiming that I am who I am. A form of identification is a document proving that a person has a particular identity, not that they are claiming to have that identity. On that basis, the House must reject new clause 2.
      I am intrigued by new clause 5. It proposes:
      "The Secretary of State may not make any order under sections 1 and 2 which provides for all-postal voting unless the chief executive of each of the postal authorities involved has made a written statement that there will be no difficulties with the postal arrangements for the ballot."
      I wonder how the House would react if the chief executives of a commercially run organisation were to write to the Minister before an all-postal ballot—and the letters published in the House of Commons Library—stating that they were incapable of carrying out the duties for which their companies were being well subsidised by the public purse. I intend no disrespect to the chief executives involved, but if any of them thought that there were a possibility that even one in 10,000 of the ballot papers would go missing and wrote to the Minister to say, "Hold on, don't have this all-postal ballot because I cannot guarantee that one in 10,000 ballot papers will not go missing", it would undermine the commercial viability of the organisation concerned.
      Mr. Hawkins: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that, when we are talking about the postal services being used for the vital purpose of voting in elections, those who hold those exalted positions should be able to be held to account by the House? Is that not what we are here for?
      Mr. Harris: Absolutely, but the postal services are there to provide a day-to-day service on behalf of citizens to the best of their ability, and, I would hope, to a high standard, regardless of whether it is Christmas and there is extra demand or of whether there is a 100 per cent. postal ballot. It should not be necessary for the chief executive of such an organisation to claim in advance that it is, after all, capable of doing the job that it was established to do.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): I agree with much of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris). We should encourage people to vote, and furthermore we should remove any physical obstacles that might prevent them from exercising their democratic right to voice their preferences. That is at the heart of our proposals. New clause 2, however, would prevent all-postal ballots from taking place until the establishment of certain security and contingency measures. An identical amendment was tabled in Committee, but was not reached.
      We do not need contingency measures in the Bill, because adequate provision can be made in the detailed pilot order mentioned in clause 2. I do not deny that we need extra measures to combat fraud, but they belong in the pilot order.
      Mr. Forth: Some of us would prefer provision to be made in the Bill, but can we take what the Minister has just said as a guarantee that it will be made in full in delegated legislation?
      Mr. Leslie: We certainly intend the pilot order to contain anti-fraud measures, supplementing those
      1470
      already in the Bill. It should be borne in mind that the Bill already contains two clauses dealing specifically with personation outside the polling station and extending the time in which prosecution is possible, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be supplementary provisions in the order.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) mentioned houses in multiple occupation. I assure him that we will consider hand delivery to certain areas if there is evidence of a problem. We have not closed our minds to the need for all people to receive the ballot papers to which they are entitled in as reasonable a way as possible.
      Mr. Christopher Chope: A university hall of residence, for instance, may contain 150 students in separate rooms. Is the Minister suggesting that the election officer will hand deliver to each student?
      Mr. Leslie: I hope that that will not be necessary—I have considerable faith in the workings of the postal service—but if there is evidence of a failure the regional returning officers will take account of it and consider hand delivery if that proves necessary. I do not think that that will be the norm, though. It has not been the norm under the existing postal voting arrangements—many students and others in houses in multiple occupation already apply for and are granted postal votes through the postal authorities.
      New clause 2 suggests that a "verifiable form of identification" accompany each vote cast. Unlike the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) and like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart, I understood that to mean that the ballot paper should be accompanied by, for example, a passport or driving licence, or perhaps a gas or electricity bill. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome suggested sotto voce that it was actually a reference to individualised registration, which is something we are considering. Certainly, if we are to extend all-postal voting permanently, we shall need to ensure that we can act in such a way if it proves necessary.
      2.45 pm
      Mr. Heath: Let me be less sotto voce. Unfortunately, we do not have the opportunity to provide explanatory notes with new clauses. If pre-registration of identity were adopted, a document to that effect could accompany a ballot paper.
      Mr. Leslie: As I said, we are considering the Electoral Commission's proposal for individual registration, and that may well be possible. However, I do not think that either the verifiable form of identification suggested in the new clause or the extra criterion proposed by the hon. Gentleman is necessary. Under our proposed arrangements, voters will already be required to verify their identities by signing a security statement. It is difficult to see what difference providing another form of identification would make, and how the system would be administered.
      Mr. Hawkins: May I ask a question about houses in multiple occupation and the Minister's response to the

      1471
      hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst)? The Electoral Reform Society's latest brief, which expresses concern to many hon. Members on both sides of the House, challenges the Government on that score. It suggests that the potential problem is not limited to HMOs and student halls of residence, and that even in single family households votes might be "harvested" by a head of household choosing to vote on behalf of everyone in that household. What the society, and Conservative Members, want to know is this: what safeguards against that risk do the Government propose?
      Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman is challenging not just all-postal voting, but the principle that has for a long time enabled people to exercise their right to vote via the post. I do not believe that any system is beyond criticism, but that also applies to conventional polling station voting. No doubt all hon. Members could dream up a series of theoretical scenarios involving potential fraudulence, but I know of no evidence of any significant problem involving "harvesting". If we have evidence of a particularly pernicious problem we will certainly consider action, but in the absence of such evidence that would be a somewhat academic exercise.
      Mr. Forth: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Leslie: I want to make some progress but I will give way briefly.
      Mr. Forth: At its simplest, my argument is as follows. It is unlikely that I could persuade someone at a polling station that I was Mrs. Forth; it is much more likely that I could use her ballot paper and vote by post on her behalf. The onus is on those who argue for increased postal voting to provide much more reassurance that what is impossible at a polling station will be equally impossible by post.
      Mr. Leslie: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says but it does not affect what I said to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). Anyone can imagine any number of possible scenarios, but in practice we must act on the evidence we have, and I see no evidence of a problem in that regard.
      The new clause also proposes that all voters should receive acknowledgments. They are not sent under the traditional arrangements for postal voting, and in the case of all-postal voting such a system would prove both costly and burdensome. Surely it is more sensible to ensure that ballot papers are delivered correctly in the first place. Our work with the postal authorities and returning officers will minimise the potential for fraud and lost ballot papers.
      Richard Younger-Ross: The example that the Conservatives quoted in respect of personation is a good one. The Minister said that there is no evidence, but there are other examples of postal election fraud—involving care homes—that returning officers are concerned about. Indeed, there are many examples of care home owners having tampered with the
      1472
      postal vote system on behalf of their residents. What safeguards is the Minister going to provide in that regard?
      Mr. Leslie: As I have said, we should proceed on the basis of evidence, and if the hon. Gentleman has some I should be more than happy to look at it.
      Richard Younger-Ross: What about St. Ives?
      Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman says "St. Ives", but perhaps he could be a bit more specific and write to me. That would help us to look into the matter.
      New clause 2 refers to drop-off points and active polling stations, to which people can still physically go to place their ballot. Such provision is already planned, and I can assure the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that, as a minimum, returning officers will be required to provide at least one supported drop-off point in each local authority district. However, they will have discretion to provide more drop-off points in places suitable for local people, if doing so is appropriate to the particular locality. The hon. Member for Upminster was seeking that level of flexibility. At supported drop-off points, voters will be able to complete and deposit their ballot papers in an environment similar to that of a traditional polling station. They will also have access to trained election officials.
      The final part of new clause 2 would give automatic effect to any Electoral Commission recommendation on reducing personation or other electoral fraud. That would not be appropriate. Constitutionally, it would not be appropriate to hand over our law-making powers to the commission, as it cannot be held accountable in the same way as Ministers can. Although the commission's advice is extremely valuable, the Government will always want to consider the recommendations in the broader scheme of things, and to make decisions accountable to Parliament. The Bill's two provisions relating to electoral offences stem from commission recommendations. They provide a safe and secure basis on which to undertake the pilot, in addition to existing electoral law provisions and the further arrangements that, as I have already undertaken, will be detailed in the pilot order.
      Mr. Hawkins: It would be helpful, given the Minister's undertakings in relation to pilot orders, if he confirmed that each and every pilot order would have to be fully debated by this House. Am I right in that understanding?
      Mr. Leslie: We shall come in due course to amendments that the hon. Gentleman tabled in respect of parliamentary scrutiny of such orders. The main order is by statutory instrument, but the same is not true of the pilot order. That remains our intention, but we will debate the issue later.
      New clause 5 would require that the chief executive of the postal authorities make a statement
      "that there will be no difficulties with the postal arrangements",
      and amendment No. 3 would require the Electoral Commission to consult the postal authorities on the efficacy of postal voting arrangements. My

      1473
      Department's officials are in continuing dialogue with the Royal Mail and are confident of the strength of both general and contingency arrangements. In addition, returning officers will already have their own local relationship with the Royal Mail. The Government will, however, do all that they can to facilitate meetings, or to assist with any additional arrangements that may need to be put in place as part of the pilots. All that is extremely important, in order to ensure that the best locally targeted services are provided. However, it is difficult to see what additional value a written statement from a chief executive would provide. Surely the focus should instead be on providing the most secure and reliable service on the ground. I do not believe that such a statement would add particular value, so I hope that the House will reject the proposal.
      On amendment No. 3, the Electoral Commission and the postal authorities already have a role in reporting on and scrutinising postal arrangements. The amendment is not needed to allow that to happen. The commission seeks the input of the Royal Mail in providing guidance to returning officers on local election pilots. It also seeks the comments of Royal Mail and of Postcomm on the conduct of pilots, as part of the post-election evaluation. Moreover, the commission's general functions are set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and its functions in relation to local election pilots are described in the Representation of the People Act 2000. The provision in clause 4 mirrors closely that in the latter Act, which contains no provision of the type suggested in the amendment; nor does the Bill require it.
      It is therefore clear that, although the result that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome seeks through amendment No. 3 is a positive one, the amendment is not required in order to achieve it. There is a danger that we become too prescriptive in what we ask the Electoral Commission to do. Although it is important that we supply a framework of issues for it to consider, we must also allow it flexibility in its work. The best approach is not to list exhaustively every last thing that the commission must consider and report on. I hope that I have provided a comprehensive study of the new clauses and the amendment, and that the House will resist them.
      Mr. Heath: This has been an extremely useful debate, which has illustrated that hon. Members on both sides of the House share a genuine desire to prevent electoral fraud in every instance. Many are concerned that all-postal ballots provide further opportunities—let us put it no stronger than that—for fraud and malpractice. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) for his comments. I was slightly concerned when he said that the hotbeds of personation are cathedral cities and ancient universities. Having been brought up in one and having attended the other, I feel personally indicted by his comments.[Interruption.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the level of conversation could be reduced somewhat. It is rather difficult to hear the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Heath: I am most grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      The comments of the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) about her experiences in the borough of Havering, along with the comments of the
      1474
      hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), illustrate the problems that we face; indeed, the same can be said of the interventions of other Members. I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) takes a real and genuine interest in these matters. His construction of the intention behind my new clause is not the same as mine, but we shall simply have to differ on that.
      I want to concentrate on what the Minister said by way of reply. He has given us some cause for comfort. He said that something—we know not what—will be introduced as part of the pilot orders that will go some way towards satisfying our concerns about fraudulent practices in postal schemes.
      Mr. Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, if the House is not going to be able to study the pilot order when it is introduced, it is rather difficult for him, me and our colleagues to accept what the Minister says by way of promises for the future?
      Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Electoral Commission is in many ways our lodestone on these matters. Paragraph 2.31 of its report clearly states:
      "The Commission takes issues of fraud and the perception of fraud very seriously, and has recommended to Government that additional measures be introduced as part of future all-postal and electronic pilot schemes, to ensure more effective deterrence against, and measuring of, attempted fraud."
      That is what we are all saying. Paragraph 2.32 states:
      "The Commission has further stated that all-postal voting should not be made generally available until further measures are introduced—critically the Commission believes that the introduction of individual registration is a necessary precondition for moving beyond all-postal pilot schemes to full roll-out.'"
      I contend that, on a scale involving more than one European region, we are very close to full roll-out. If the commission has genuine concerns about the existing arrangements for postal ballots, it is incumbent on this House to deal with the matter. I agree with the Minister that it is not the commission's determination that matters; what matters is our determination to agree with the commission. That is why I invite the House to agree with the commission's views this afternoon.
      The hon. Member for Surrey Heath has said that he is even more supportive of my new clause than I am. How he measures that I do not know but, as I wrote it, I defy him to display greater enthusiasm for it in the Lobby than me. Indeed, I invite all hon. Members on both sides of the House to show that they will not put up with corrupt practices, or the potential for them, in our electoral system. That is what new clause 2 would go some way towards preventing.
      Question put,That the clause be read a Second time:
      The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 291.

      Division No.10]

      [2:59 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Baker, Norman

      Allan, Richard

      Baldry, Tony

      Amess, David

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Barrett, John

      Atkinson, David (Bour"mth E)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Bacon, Richard

      Bercow, John

      1475

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Boswell, Tim

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Brady, Graham

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Brazier, Julian

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Lamb, Norman

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Lansley, Andrew

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Burt, Alistair

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Butterfill, John

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Lidington, David

      Cameron, David

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Cash, William

      Loughton, Tim

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Barnet)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Chidgey, David

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Chope, Christopher

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Clappison, James

      Malins, Humfrey

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Maples, John

      Collins, Tim

      Mates, Michael

      Conway, Derek

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Mercer, Patrick

      Cotter, Brian

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton)

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Coldfield)

      Curry, rh David

      Moore, Michael

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Norman, Archie

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Duncan Smith, rh lain

      Öpik, Lembit

      Evans, Nigel

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fabricant, Michael

      Paterson, Owen

      Fallon, Michael

      Pickles, Eric

      Flight, Howard

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Flook, Adrian

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

      Forth, rh Eric

      Dinefwr)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Francois, Mark

      Pugh, Dr. John

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Randall, John

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Redwood, rh John

      Gidley, Sandra

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Rendel, David

      Goodman, Paul

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

      Grayling, Chris

      M-Kent)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Greenway, John

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Grieve, Dominic

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Gummer, rh John

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hague, rh William

      Selous, Andrew

      Hammond, Philip

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hawkins, Nick

      Simmonds, Mark

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Heald. Oliver

      Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns &

      Heath, David

      Kincardine)

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Hendry, Charles

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Holmes, Paul

      Steen, Anthony

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Streeter, Gary

      Howard, rh Michael

      Stunell, Andrew

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Swire, Hugo (EDevon)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Syms, Robert

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Keetch, Paul

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

      Teather, Sarah

      Inverness)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      1476

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Willetts, David

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Willis, Phil

      Viggers, Peter

      Wilshire, David

      Walter, Robert

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas

      Watkinson, Angela

      (Macclesfield)

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Wishart, Pete

      Weir, Michael

      Young, rh Sir George

      Whittingdale, John

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wiggin, Bill

      Richard Younger-Ross and

      Wilkinson, John

      Mr. Mark Field

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Cousins, Jim

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Crausby, David

      Alexander, Douglas

      Cruddas, Jon

      Allen, Graham

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      (Copeland)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Austin, John

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Baird, Vera

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Barnes, Harry

      David, Wayne

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Davidson, Ian

      Battle, John

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Beard, Nigel

      Dawson, Hilton

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Bennett, Andrew

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Berry, Roger

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Betts, Clive

      Doran, Frank

      Blackman, Liz

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Blizzard, Bob

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Edwards, Huw

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Efford, Clive

      Brennan, Kevin

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Browne, Desmond

      Etherington, Bill

      Bryant, Chris

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Fisher, Mark

      Burden, Richard

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Burgon, Colin

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Burnham, Andy

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Follett, Barbara

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Cairns, David

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      & Rye)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Caplin, Ivor

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Casale, Roger

      Gerrard, Neil

      Caton, Martin

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Challen, Colin

      Gilroy, Linda

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Chaytor, David

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clapham, Michael

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Grogan, John

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

      Hain, rh Peter

      Pentlands)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

      Hanson, David

      Chryston)

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clelland, David

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Rhymney)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Healey, John

      Coleman, Iain

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Colman, Tony

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hendrick, Mark

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hepburn, Stephen

      1477

      Heppell, John

      Marshall, David (Glasgow

      Hermon, Lady

      Shettleston)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Martlew, Eric

      Heyes, David

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hinchliffe, David

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Hodge, Margaret

      Miliband, David

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Miller, Andrew

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Mole, Chris

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Moran, Margaret

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Morgan, Julie

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

      Morley, Elliot

      Sefton E)

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mountford, Kali

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mudie, George

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Mullin, Chris

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Illsley, Eric

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Highgate)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Olner, Bill

      Jenkins, Brian

      Organ, Diana

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

      Perham, Linda

      Hatfield)

      Picking, Anne

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      plaskitt, James

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Prentice, Gordon

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kemp, Fraser

      Purchase, Ken

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Purnell, James

      Kidney, David

      Quia rh Joyce

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Quinn, Lawrie

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

      Lepper, David

      Bellshill)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Robertson, John (Glasgow

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Anniesland)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Ruane, Chris

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Ruddock, Joan

      Linton, Martin

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of

      Love, Andrew

      Chester)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Salter, Martin

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sawford, Phil

      McCabe, Stephen

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McCafferty, Chris

      Sheerman, Barry

      MacDonald, Calum

      Sheridan, Jim

      McDonnell, John

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      MacDougall, John

      Short, rh Clare

      McFall, John

      Singh, Marsha

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Skinner, Dennis

      McIsaac, Shona

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

      McKechin, Ann

      Lunesdale)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      MacShane, Denis

      Soley, Clive

      McWilliam, John

      Southworth, Helen

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Mallaber, Judy

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Stevenson, George

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E &

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Lochaber)

      1478

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Watts, David

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      White, Brian

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wills, Michael

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Winnick, David

      Timms, Stephen

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      C)

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Trickett, Jon

      Woolas, Phil

      Truswell, Paul

      Worthington, Tony

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

      Yarmouth)

      Kemptown)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Gillian Merron and

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Mr. Jim Murphy

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 3

      Additional provisions in respect of electronic voting
      'Before making any order under sections 1 and 2 which provides for electronic voting, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the manner in which the election is conducted (which may or may not be modified by pilot orders under section 2) ensures that—

      (a) all votes cast are accompanied by a verifiable form of identification;

      (b) each elector who has cast a vote is given an acknowledgement by the returning officer;

      (c) systems are in place to allow for a re-count should it be necessary;

      (d) systems are in place to ensure that any vote cast by electronic means can be traced to its source in the event of challenge; and

      (e) any recommendation or recommendations of the Electoral Commission to reduce the incidence or possibility of personation or other electoral offences or malpractice are given effect.'.—[Mr. Heath.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Heath: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      New clause 4—Conduct of elections under a pilot order—
      'Any pilot order made under section 2 may make provision for—

      (a) all-postal voting; or

      (b) any combination of postal voting and voting in person at a polling station;

      but may not make provision for any other manner of conducting an election.'.
      New clause 7—Matters not to be included in pilots—
      'No pilot may include any use of voting electronically by computer, mobile telephone, SMS, text or any other form of e-voting.'.
      Mr. Heath: The debate now moves from postal voting to all-electronic voting. New clause 3 was tabled prior to

      1479
      the recent report from the Electoral Commission. As with the provisions in new clause 2 in relation to postal voting, new clause 3 would introduce new safeguards for electronic voting.
      Electronic voting raises even more pertinent questions about fraud prevention than does the use of postal ballot papers. However, I tabled new clause 4 after the publication of the Electoral Commission report, and to some extent it supersedes new clause 3. I am grateful for the support given to new clause 4 by Conservative Front-Bench Members.
      3.15 pm
      New clause 4 makes it clear that we feel that electronic voting should not form part of the pilot schemes to be held under the Bill, for the simple reason that it has been rejected in the Electoral Commission report. Paragraph 3.20 states:
      "The Commission is not able to recommend that any region is suitable to undertake an e-enabled pilot scheme, as we believe that no region is ready for such innovation at this stage in the development of the electoral modernisation programme."
      Moreover, paragraph 3.21 states:
      "The Commission acknowledges that there is some enthusiasm for electronic voting to feature in a 2004 pilot scheme but also that there is a recognition of the risks involved. We have come to the view that there is insufficient time available for all necessary development work to take place for the elections in June."
      New clause 4 is one of two litmus tests before the Government this afternoon. Much has been said about the Electoral Commission's importance, impartiality and independence, and about how it has looked at these matters in depth. The Minister has said, quite properly, that it is Ministers who first propose legislation, and then in the end determine what is included in a Bill. However, we have said all along that it would be improper for Ministers to overrule the independent advice of the Electoral Commission, unless they have extremely good reasons for doing so. Moreover, they must be able to explain any such reasons to the satisfaction of the House.
      I do not believe that the Government have any grounds on which to reject the Electoral Commission's findings, which in effect underwrite the concerns expressed in Committee. The test is whether the Government will accept the Electoral Commission's clear recommendation. If they exclude it from the Bill, we need to know on what grounds they have made their determination, and for what reason.
      I shall not detain the House on these new clauses, as I suspect that the battle has been won. I believe that our concerns have been recognised, and that the Government will accept the Electoral Commission's recommendation. I do not know whether they will accept new clause 4. I hope that they do, but they may continue to resist it on the ground that they will take a decision on it at some nebulous point in the future.
      We must wait and see what the Minister has to say on that score. I shall return to the matter if his response is inadequate. It is not my intention to press new clause 3 to a Division at the end of this short debate, but I shall certainly ask the House to divide on new clause 4, which would, in effect, put the Electoral Commission's
      1480
      recommendation into action. That recommendation is the only right and proper position for the Government and Parliament to take.
      Mr. Hurst: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister has read the report by the Electoral Commission and he will have heard what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has said on the issue, which may be supported by other hon. Members. While there is some evidence—it is not overwhelming, but it is considerable—that all-postal ballots increase turnout in local elections to about 50 per cent., some 40 years ago that would have been regarded as par for the course in ordinary elections. My father was a borough councillor and was often elected or defeated on turnouts of about 60 per cent. in local elections. These days, we might think that such figures represented progress in a general election.
      There may be a case for all-postal voting, but there is probably no case for new-fangled electronic techniques, which many people—including one or two Members of Parliament—may not fully understand. Therefore, we would create two classes of elector: those who know about such things and those who do not. One of the problems caused by juggling around with the electoral process is that it creates uncertainty. I have read a helpful Library paper on turnout in various pilot schemes and I cast my eye over one or two of the tables reproduced in it. One of them gave the figures for spoiled ballot papers, and the largest number spoiled by voting for more than one candidate or for no candidate occurred in 2001, 1997 and 1979. Those were all years in which there was another election held alongside the general election, which created natural confusion in the minds of some people. Thus, the number of spoiled ballot papers rose dramatically, compared with other occasions.
      I do not wish to labour the point too strongly, but we must be mindful that if we alter the mechanism of voting—the way we vote—we may change the decisions that the electorate make. If we make it easier for those who have electronic equipment to vote and more confusing for those who are unused to electronic equipment to vote, the result may be different from what it would have been had we not taken those steps. All those issues need to be considered with great care.
      We have yet to reach the ultimate test for postal voting, which would be its application in a general election. It would take a courageous Government, of whichever party, to take that decision, because it would almost certainly create a different result to the old system. However, it is only when that step is taken that we will see whether all-postal voting, or anything other than ballot-box voting, increases turnout. In limited pilots, such as local government elections or European elections, we might only be raising the number of those who vote to the levels of general elections, and the changes in the voting system might not make any difference in a general election. The only final test would be applying the system to a general election and we may need to think long and hard before we take that step. Meanwhile, if we should beware of anything we should beware of electronic voting, which could distort the result of an election.
      Mr. Hawkins: As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has said, this group contains new

      1481
      clause 3, tabled by the Liberal Democrats before the Electoral Commission report was published, and new clause 4, which supersedes new clause 3 and to which we have added our names. We had added our names before we saw the report, which pleased me because it showed that we realised which of the new clauses was going further in our direction.
      The group also contains new clause 7, which we tabled. I anticipate that the Minister will be able to be helpful, in the light of the Electoral Commission ruling out e-voting for next year's pilot, but even if he were able to convince the Liberal Democrats not to press new clause 4, I would wish to press new clause 7. We want a total ban on e-voting included in the Bill, because we have no enthusiasm whatever for it.
      I said earlier that the Conservative party sees no need for so-called modernisation, which would spoil our traditional election methods. We can see some case for some expansion in postal voting, although many of my hon. Friends have taken the view that the changes that have already been made—which allow people who want postal votes to obtain them easily—are as far as we need to go. However, with some reluctance, we have accepted the possible need for further pilot schemes for postal voting, but in our opposition to e-voting we go even further than the Electoral Commission, which says that regions are not yet ready for it. We are delighted that the Electoral Commission has come to that conclusion, because all the evidence of technical people that e-voting systems are not secure reinforces it. We want to make clear our complete opposition to e-voting being included in the Bill. It would demean elections to start treating them as though people were voting in a television game show such as "Big Brother"— [Interruption.]
      Mr. Leslie: I know that the hon. Gentleman will have the courtesy to hear what I have to say before he decides definitely to press new clause 7 to a vote.
      Mr. Hawkins: Of course I will give the Minister that courtesy, but unless my ears deceive me, I thought I heard the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary saying, "Hear, hear" to some of the things that I said about "Big Brother". If I am getting support even from the PPS, it reinforces the strength of my views.
      We do think that the issue is vital, and I shall explain why. When it comes to e-voting, had the Government proceeded with their original plans—as they gave every indication of doing when the Bill was in Committee—one region would have had voting by telephone, by text messaging or so-called SMS voting, via digital television and via the internet. As the region that might have adopted e-voting would also have been an all-postal one, voting electronically in a polling station would not have been relevant.
      3.30 pm
      As I said, my party is not in favour of e-voting, not only for the European election but generally. As the Electoral Commission has come to the view that there
      "is insufficient time available for all necessary development work to take place for the elections in June 2004",
      1482
      we are reinforced in our opposition. The commission continued:
      "Although local election electronic pilots have been delivered in less than six months, we believe that the scale of a regional pilot presents a higher level of complexity…when assessed against the criteria no region would be suitable to conduct an electronic voting pilot."
      The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made that point clear.
      One of our many objections to e-voting is that, apart from the fact that it demeans elections—I very much welcome the views just expressed by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) from the Government Back Benches—in the few pilots that have been held it has not had a significant effect on turnout. The Electoral Commission's evaluation of the 2002 electronic voting pilots noted that
      "the findings suggest that the advent of new technology did not inspire the electorate to vote in significantly greater numbers than would otherwise have been the case…there is no strong pattern of improved turnout."
      That quotation comes from page 62 of the commission's report, "Modernising Elections", published in August 2002.
      Even if one accepted the Government's criteria and agreed that the proposals might be a way of overcoming voter apathy, a view expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) in response to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) when we were discussing the need to give young people extra reasons to vote, I cannot see that the e-voting pilots have in any way encouraged young people to vote.
      Mr. Tom Harris: Is the hon. Gentleman's opposition to e-voting solely related to the Bill or is it a point of principle with no time limit? In other words, is he simply opposed to e-voting? The reason for my question is this: since the congestion charge was introduced I have regularly paid it by text, which is a fantastically accurate and efficient system, and I imagine that at some point in the future—not next year, but within the next 10 years or so—most people will think that is a perfectly natural way of casting their vote.
      Mr. Hawkins: I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman, especially on his congestion charge example. I continue to receive letters from throughout my constituency and to read many horror stories in the newspapers with descriptions of how people with vehicles such as vintage cars, which have never left the garage, are being wrongly charged by Capita. There are also cases where people fraudulently use number plates, so I do not think that the example is a good one.
      I am about to go into our objections to e-voting in more detail as it is important to put such things on the record, but to answer the hon. Gentleman's direct question, they are not restricted only to the Bill. We take the view that e-voting is demeaning of the whole election process. However, the strongest reason for our objection to e-voting, not only for the Bill but for the immediately foreseeable future, is that IT experts say that the system is not yet secure against the danger of electoral fraud.
      Our objection might not remain for ever, but we shall certainly maintain it for the foreseeable future. While IT experts say that the system is not secure and the

      1483
      Electoral Commission expresses concerns, my party cannot envisage being ready to welcome e-voting in the immediate future. There are two aspects at this stage: the practical points relating to the views of the Electoral Commission and to IT security; and the issues of principle. I hope that that is sufficient answer to the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
      Before one could possibly contemplate substantial e-voting developments, one would have to address the issues that have cropped up not merely in this country but elsewhere. We are hugely concerned about security. The hon. Gentleman and other Members may be interested to learn that I have some professional expertise in e-security. Before I was a Member of the House, I worked as a corporate lawyer at a senior level in the credit card industry, and during my 11½ years in this place I have continued to take a great interest in electronic security measures. Quite apart from my Front-Bench duties, I am personally interested in the issue.
      Under the small-scale electronic voting pilots that have taken place, important information, such as pin numbers for e-voting, has been sent to voters by what the Electoral Commission conceded could be insecure means; for example, postcards that give the pin numbers could be read by someone else in a house of multiple occupation. The internet can also be insecure. Many Members have suffered from such problems in their offices and both the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart and I have raised points of order about the insecurity of the parliamentary data and video network. Although we were reassured that such problems would not recur, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that not long after we raised the matter, the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) experienced similar problems in his constituency when information from the Government was being sent to a hairdresser in Blyth Valley instead of to him. So there are even concerns about the e-security of the House. The internet is therefore notoriously insecure and vulnerable to attack.
      There has also been significant controversy in the United States about the reliability and lack of security of e-voting machines. Companies in the USA that make the machines have refused independent scrutiny of their software for commercial reasons, raising concerns that there could be security flaws that have not been identified through proper testing. The technology correspondent for The Times, David Rowan, has remarked that
      "the commercial companies supplying the technology for UK election pilots say that security is their priority. But growing evidence is emerging that some of these companies have covered up security flaws in the past…If Mr Blair insists on rushing towards e-voting, he must ensure that any software companies awarded contracts make their computer code available for independent scrutiny, and that every time a computerised vote is cast a paper copy is printed to let voters know that ballots have been recorded as intended…It will take just one security breach to undermine public confidence irreparably".
      That is from The Times on 2 December…only a fortnight ago.
      Dr. Pugh: The hon. Gentleman's comments are extraordinarily valuable. Does not the American
      1484
      experience also demonstrate, however, that these machines have a strange predisposition to award a greater number of votes to the Republicans than opinion polls show?
      Mr. Hawkins: I was going to come to the so-called hanging chads controversy, and I know that the hon. Gentleman, in the main part of his remarks, supported the concerns that we are expressing.
      Another expert, Dr. Ben Fairweather, a research fellow at De Montfort university in Leicester's centre for computing and social responsibility, has said:
      "I have seen most, if not all of the pilot schemes demonstrated, and have spotted substantial flaws with some of them…There are serious worries about SMS voting. Operators can discard text messages if their systems are busy. Also people are obliged to key in long sequences to vote by text. It's a pale imitation of a cross on a piece of paper. Electronic voting in general has not reached maturity".
      That was taken from a publication called The Register on 31 July this year.
      The Foundation for Information Policy Research has asserted that election integrity can be assured only if e-voting machines produce a paper audit trail that can be verified by voters and later by election scrutineers. It remarked in The Register in May this year that
      "the only safe way to allow electronic voting is through machines controlled by election officials that produce an auditable paper trail. Anything else is an invitation for fraud to hackers and virus writers around the world and could destroy public confidence in our elections. It's always a bad idea to look for technical fixes to social problems. Election turnout would be increased if citizens were convinced their vote would make a difference. Simply computerising the current system is unlikely to achieve this".
      …[Interruption.] The Opposition say, "Hear, hear," to that. As the son of two research scientists, may I say that I agree totally that it is always a bad idea to look for technical fixes to social problems?
      Most significantly, the Electoral Reform Society, the independent experts on these matters, has asserted that
      "the fact is that e-voting, whether by telephone, internet, digital TV or text messaging, does not raise turnouts in any significant way…We are concerned that any form of remote voting is potentially more open to abuse than polling station voting".
      That is the basis of one of our most significant concerns.
      Even the Local Government Association has maintained that
      "we have concerns about e-voting on a regional basis, particularly in the short space of time between now and the next elections. A failed e-voting pilot in 2004 could jeopardise this being seen as a realistic development for the future".
      Even if the Opposition agreed with the Local Government Association that that might be a helpful development for the future—which we do not—if even it says that a failed e-voting pilot could happen and could jeopardise that, that shows how bad an idea it would be.
      Angela Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that just one of the difficulties is that e-voting could only ever be an option alongside other types of voting, because it could never be ensured that everybody had access to a computer? Many people now use the people's highway in libraries, which presents its own difficulties. The selection of methods of voting during an e-voting pilot would make the audit trial to which he has just referred very difficult.
      Mr. Hawkins: As always, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. One of our

      1485
      concerns is that some of the voters who believe in the traditional method of voting, which has been tried and tested over more than 100 years, might be put off by feeling that their votes were being devalued in some way if they could not get access to a mobile phone or the internet. Ultimately, pilots will not tackle the general problem of voter apathy, as even Cabinet Ministers in this Government agree. On 26 April 2002, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills told Public Finance:
      "Generally, I don't think the experiments are the answer".
      If Cabinet Ministers do not believe that the experiments are the answer, the Government would be wrong to pursue them.
      Finally, I want to quote The Guardian—not my regular reading, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On 17 April, the IT journalist Bill Thompson wrote:
      "I do not think it is possible to design an e-voting system that can be guaranteed secure against a concerted and well-funded attack… The Government's continued obsession with e-voting in its many forms, especially voting over the internet, is a perfect illustration of how style has triumphed over substance. Instead of finding ways to make people believe that voting actually matters, they want to reduce it to the level of texting a friend or buying a book online".
      Hear, hear to that. That is why we are so strongly against the experiments.
      When the Minister stands up, I hope that he will accept both new clause 4, to which my hon. Friends and I have added our names, and new clause 7. If they are included in the Bill, we will at least know that we will not be faced by such experiments and that the Government have conceded that all the points that we made in Committee and on Second Reading were right. We were right and the Government were wrong. The Electoral Commission now agrees with us that the security for the use of technology is not ready. The Electoral Reform Society and all those experts also agree with us. I hope that the Government will accept new clauses 4 and 7.
      Mr. Leslie: We have heard that new clauses 3, 4 and 7 would prevent e-voting pilots from taking place unless certain security and contingency measures are in place. Similar amendments were tabled in Standing Committee, but they were not debated. It may be helpful if I set out our latest thinking.
      Electronic voting methods have been used successfully at the local level in nine authorities in 2002 and in 17 authorities in 2003. Overall, electronic voting did not significantly increase voter turnout, but it provided people with greater choice in how they voted. In e-pilot areas where traditional polling stations were open, more than one fifth of voters chose to vote by electronic means. Electronic voting therefore remains a key part of our longer-term plan to provide people with greater choice and access, reflecting their lifestyles and circumstances.
      The Electoral Commission's view is that at this stage in the development of the electoral modernisation programme, no region is yet ready as a whole to pilot electronic channels. Although we still believe that such a pilot could have been both successful and valuable, the commission's advice is clear, and we are inclined to accept it. I can therefore inform the hon. Gentleman that the Government do not intend to proceed with electronic voting at next year's European and combined elections.
      1486
      We recognise that our decision will be disappointing for those who are especially keen on electronic voting. The local authorities that have successfully piloted e-voting will, no doubt, regret that e-voting will not go ahead. However, we remain committed to the development of e-voting channels and will continue to work with local authorities and others to pilot those methods at future local elections. Our aim remains that there should be a multi-channelled, e-enabled general election some time after 2006. However, we have always been clear that we will not rush the implementation of e-voting, which we know is the reasonable concern of Government and Opposition Members. If it takes longer to develop, test and secure e-voting channels, so be it.
      Although the Government remain committed to electronic voting in the long term, we do not intend to rush its implementation. Given that I have said that we intend to pilot solely all-postal voting at next year's European and combined local elections, it is clear that new clauses 3,4 and 7 are superfluous and that their aim has been satisfied sufficiently by my comments and the decision not to proceed with electronic voting. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) will withdraw the new clause.
      3.45 pm
      Mr. Heath: Let me say at the outset that I welcome what the Minister says. I do not have a neurotic opposition to e-voting. Indeed, it was trialled in the South Somerset district council area, which includes my constituency. Although it had little apparent benefit for voter turnout, it provided voters with a further option, as the Minister rightly said.
      I opposed including electronic voting in the pilots because the technology is not yet available to make it safe and resistant to fraud. Although I shall not repeat all the arguments that have been made, it is absolutely crucial to have not only verifiable systems of identification that are not open to abuse, a proper audit trail that allows people to trace from where a vote was cast and a recapped facility, which is not available under the present system yet is critical to the integrity of the process, but public confidence in the system. Such confidence would have been put at risk by rushing ahead with the proposals.
      As the Minister said, some people will be disappointed by the Electoral Commission's conclusions. Disabled voters, whom I mentioned previously, will be disappointed because e-voting would have allowed them to cast their votes in confidence, which they cannot do by other means. They will be disappointed that further proposals have not come forward. Nevertheless, our reasoned conclusion must be that the technology is not yet right and that it would be improper to introduce e-voting on a wide scale until we are assured that that has been addressed.
      Although I welcome the Minister's response, I fail to understand why the Bill makes provision potentially to permit a form of voting that he does not intend to be used. The House is responsible for the legislation before

      1487
      it rather than ministerial assurances on secondary legislation, so consonant with the Minister's assurances, it would be entirely appropriate to make the Bill fit the circumstances, which is why I shall press new clause 4 to a Division. However, I shall not press new clause 3, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 4

      CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS UNDER A PILOT ORDER
      Any pilot order made under section 2 may make provision for—

      (a) all-postal voting; or

      (b) any combination of postal voting and voting in person at a polling station;

      but may not make provision for any other manner of conducting an election:. —[Mr. Heath.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time: —
      The House divided:Ayes 185. Noes 296.

      Division No.11]

      [3:48 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Allan, Richard

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Amess, David

      Doughty, Sue

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Duncan Smith, rh lain

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Evans, Nigel

      Bacon, Richard

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Baker, Norman

      Fabricant, Michael

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Fallon, Michael

      Barrett, John

      Field, Mark (Cities of London &

      Beggs, Roy (EAntrim)

      Westminster)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Flight, Howard

      Bellingham, Henry

      Flook, Adrian

      Bercow, John

      Forth, rh Eric

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Francois, Mark

      Boswell, Tim

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Brady, Graham

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Brazier, Julian

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Goodman, Paul

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Grayling, Chris

      Burnside, David

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Burt, Alistair

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Butterfill, John

      Greenway, John

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Grieve, Dominic

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Gummer, rh John

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Hague, rh William

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Hammond, Philip

      Cash, William

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

      Abingdon)

      Barnet)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Chidgey, David

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Chops, Christopher

      Heald, Oliver

      Clappison, James

      Heath, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hendry, Charles

      Collins, Tim

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Conway, Derek

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Cotter, Brian

      Holmes, Paul

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Curry, rh David

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      1488

      Hunter, Andrew

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

      Jenkin, Bernard

      M-Kent)

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Keetch, Paul

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

      Ruffley, David

      Inverness)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Salmond, Alex

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Sanders, Adrian

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Selous, Andrew

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Shepherd, Richard

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Simmonds, Mark

      Lamb, Norman

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns &

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Kincardine)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Lidington, David

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Streeter, Gary

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Stunell, Andrew

      Loughton, Tim

      Swayne, Desmond

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Swire, Hugo (EDevon)

      Mcintosh, Miss Anne

      Syms, Robert

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Maclean, rh David

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Teather, Sarah

      Maples, John

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Mercer, Patrick

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Coldfield)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Moore, Michael

      Viggers, Peter

      Moss, Malcolm

      Walter, Robert

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Waterson, Nigel

      Norman, Archie

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Weir, Michael

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Whittingdale, John

      Öpik, Lembit

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Ottaway, Richard

      Wiggin, Bill

      Wilkinson, John

      Page, Richard

      Willetts, David

      Paterson, Owen

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Pickles, Eric

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Willis, Phil

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

      Wilshire, David

      Dinefwr)

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas

      Pugh, Dr. John

      (Macclesfield)

      Randall, John

      Wishart, Pete

      Redwood, rh John

      Young, rh Sir George

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Rendel, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Robathan, Andrew

      Angela Watkinson and

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Richard Younger-Ross

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bell, Stuart

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Ainger, Nick

      Berry, Roger

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Betts, Clive

      Allen, Graham

      Blackman, Liz

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Blizzard, Bob

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Austin, John

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Baird, Vera

      Brennan, Kevin

      Banks, Tony

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

      Barnes, Harry

      Wallsend)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Battle, John

      Browne, Desmond

      Bayley, Hugh

      Bryant, Chris

      Beard, Nigel

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Burden, Richard

      1489

      Burgon, Colin

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Burnham, Andy

      Grogan, John

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Hain, rh Peter

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Cairns, David

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hanson, David

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Caplin, Ivor

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Casale, Roger

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

      Caton, Martin

      Rhymney)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Healey, John

      Challen, Colin

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Chaytor, David

      Hendrick, Mark

      Clapham, Michael

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Heppell, John

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

      Hermon, Lady

      Pentlands)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Heyes, David

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

      Hinchliffe, David

      Chryston)

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Clelland, David

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Coaker, Vernon

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Coleman, Iain

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

      Colman, Tony

      Sefton E)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Crausby, David

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Illsley, Eric

      Cummings, John

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      (Copeland)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Highgate)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jamieson, David

      David, Wayne

      Jenkins, Brian

      Davidson, Ian

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Hatfield)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Denham, rh John

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Doran, Frank

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Edwards, Huw

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Efford, Clive

      Kemp, Fraser

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Kidney, David

      Etherington, Bill

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Fisher, Mark

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Flint, Caroline

      Leslie, Christopher

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Follett, Barbara

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Linton, Martin

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

      Love, Andrew

      &Rye)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Gerrard, Neil

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      McCabe, Stephen

      Gilroy, Linda

      McCafferty, Chris

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      MacDougall, John

      1490

      McFall, John

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Chester)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McKechin, Ann

      Salter, Martin

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sawford, Phil

      MacShane, Denis

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McWilliam, John

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mallaber, Judy

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Short, rh Clare

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Singh, Marsha

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

      Marshall, David (Glasgow

      Lunesdale)

      Shettleston)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Soley, Clive

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Southworth, Helen

      Michael, rh Alun

      Spellar, rh John

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Squire, Rachel

      Miliband, David

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Miller, Andrew

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Stevenson, George

      Mole, Chris

      Stewart, David (Inverness E &

      Moran, Margaret

      Lochaber)

      Morgan, Julie

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Mountford, Kali

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mudie, George

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mullin, Chris

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Timms, Stephen

      Olner, Bill

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Trickett, Jon

      Organ, Diana

      Truswell, Paul

      Perham, Linda

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Picking, Anne

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Plaskitt, James

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Pound, Stephen

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

      Watts, David

      E)

      White, Brian

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Purchase, Ken

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Purnell, James

      Wills, Michael

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Winnick, David

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

      Quinn, Lawrie

      C)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Woolas, Phil

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Worthington, Tony

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

      Bellshill)

      Yarmouth)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Anniesland)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

      NW)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ruane, Chris

      Gillian Merron and

      Ruddock, Joan

      Mr. Jim Murphy

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 1

      PILOTING CONDUCT AT EUROPEAN AND LOCAL ELECTIONS
      Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 4, after 'must', insert—

      1491
      ',if a three-quarters majority of the local authorities in the area covered by the pilot agree,'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 1, in page 1, line 18, at end insert—
      '(4A) The Secretary of State must not make an order under this section specifying a region unless he has first satisfied himself that the region meets the criteria identified by the Electoral Commission for inclusion as a pilot region.'.
      No. 6, in page 1, line 18, at end insert
      '(4A) The Secretary of State must not make an order under this section specifying a region which the Electoral Commission has identified as—

      (a) not suitable for a pilot scheme; or

      (b) a region for which the Commission does not feel able to make a positive recommendation as to its suitability.'.

      No. 12, in page 1, line 19, leave out subsection (5).
      No. 13, in page 2, line 3, at end insert—

      '(c) Scotland;

      (b) North East.'.

      No. 14, in page 2, line 3, at end insert—

      '(c) any region which borders Scotland;

      (d) any two regions with a common boundary.'.

      Mr. Hawkins: This group of amendments includes amendment No. 8, tabled by me and my right hon. and hon. Friends, amendments Nos. 1 and 6, which were tabled by the Liberal Democrats, and amendments Nos. 12 to 14, which we tabled. Naturally, I shall do the Minister the courtesy of listening to what he has to say, but I anticipate that, with the leave of the House, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and I will seek two separate Divisions, on amendments Nos. 8 and 6. However, we will hear what the Minister says before we make a final decision.
      We made it clear on Second Reading that we were very suspicious about the fact that the Government had lined up massed ranks of Labour Back Benchers from Scotland and from the north-west of England in particular, who were pressing for those two areas to have pilot schemes. Also, the Government had lined up several Labour Members from the midlands, who said that there should not be pilots in that region. If that was intended by the Labour Government or by those Back Benchers to put pressure on the Electoral Commission to recommend Scotland or the north-west of England, I am glad to observe that the tactic has not worked.
      Mr. Tom Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hawkins: I shall certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman, whom I entirely absolve of any suspicion that I might have. He has always taken, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome rightly said, an intelligent interest in these matters and did so in Committee.
      The reason why we were pleased is that, last week, after the Government must have done most of their planning for Report and Third Reading, the Electoral Commission suddenly recommended not Scotland or the north-west, but the east midlands, which I do not
      1492
      recall any Government Back Benchers calling for, and the north-east, which one or two Labour Members, including the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), supported on Second Reading.
      Mr. Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that those Members who, on Second Reading and in Committee, called for particular areas to be used as a pilot for 100 per cent. postal voting did so only because they were invited to do so by the party Whips? Does he accept that that is an insult to those hon. Members who were accurately reflecting the views of their constituents? By exempting me from his accusation, he does not get himself off the hook.
      Mr. Hawkins: I repeat that I exempt the hon. Gentleman. The debate was constructed in a peculiar way last time, and I was by no means the only hon. Member to comment on it at the time.
      Mr. Andrew Miller: Given the hon. Gentleman's experience in the north-west, and given that I am sure that he recognises the success of the pilot in Chorley, does he agree that there is merit in expanding from that successful pilot to a wider area, including the north-west? Does he agree that the commissioner should take into account the wishes of local people, who prompted some of us to submit evidence?
      Mr. Hawkins: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's second point. If any Member of Parliament submits evidence to the Electoral Commission, it should be taken into account, and I am sure that it was. On his first point, which was about the north-west in particular, I shall quote to him the Electoral Commission report from last week.
      Mr. Forth: Before my hon. Friend does that, is he not curious about the identity of the local people who are being quoted by Labour Members? Might it not be interesting if we were told who those local people were? Are they average punters? Are they voters who are in some way dissatisfied? Might they just be—I almost hesitate to mention this to my hon. Friend—political activists who see some advantage in a particular disposition? Has he any information about that?
      Mr. Hawkins: I rather think that my right hon. Friend is right. Let me cite what the Electoral Commission says about the north-west, which might increase his concern about the suggestion from a number of Labour Members that the north-west was an appropriate area in which to hold a pilot.
      As one of its specific reasons for not choosing the north-west, the Electoral Commission, in paragraph 2.84 on page 19 of its report of 8 December, states:
      "There have been several allegations of electoral fraud in the North West in recent years. These have centred around interference with postal votes or intimidatory procurement of proxy votes in conventional elections. Some of these investigations could proceed to court in early 2004; this would be likely to produce unfavourable publicity about the security of postal voting."

      1493
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred to intimidation earlier. I am sure that he will agree that when the Electoral Commission, which the Government set up under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, refers to the issues that I have cited as a reason for not choosing the north-west, it is an important matter.
      David Taylor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing especially sinister in the fact that relatively few submissions were received from people in the east midlands, which has been chosen as one of the two regions. The rationale is well laid out in the document. The east midlands is the third smallest region in England and has a small number of coincident local authority elections on polling day. It has had successful pilots in recent times and supportive local authorities. We are happy about that.
      Mr. Hawkins: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is happy, but the regions have not been chosen yet. He referred to a recommendation to the Government. We would be perfectly content if only one region were finally chosen for an all-postal pilot. I do not think that any Labour Back Bencher would be safe to assume that the Government were necessarily going to agree with what the Electoral Commission recommended.
      Mr. David Watts: St. Helens was involved in a pilot scheme last year, and we saw take-up double. Most hon. Members would think that that was a good thing. However, I find it strange that the Electoral Commission should say that fraud is one of the reasons why it has not chosen the north-west when that relates to the old system. The hon. Gentleman was talking about the old system, not the new one. When the Electoral Commission considered the pilot schemes, it said that it saw no evidence of fraud. Why should my voters be discriminated against in the way that it proposes?
      Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman could address that point to the Electoral Commission. Perhaps he has already written to it, but he can certainly do so again. The issue is a point for the commission; I was merely quoting its report.
      Joyce Quin: The hon. Gentleman recognised that I spoke in favour of the north-east as a pilot region. I am glad that that is the recommendation. In response to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I can say that I pressed the case for the northeast because my constituents in both the Gateshead and Sunderland parts of my area had experienced the benefits of all-postal voting and made their points strongly. That is what motivated me, as I am sure it motivated my hon. Friends.
      Mr. Hawkins: I am delighted that the right hon. Lady conducted a substantial survey, as it were, of her constituents and was reflecting that in her remarks. I would be interested to see a copy of the survey, if she would be kind enough to send it to me, showing her constituents' views. That might be an answer to the interesting concern expressed by my right hon. Friend
      1494
      the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, which might be dealt with if we could see that Labour Members had commissioned and done their surveys.
      Mr. Leslie: It could be sent by text message.
      Mr. Hawkins: I do not think that it would be possible to send the survey by text message, as the Minister mischievously suggests, because it would be far too long—an issue that arose when we discussed problems with text voting in the previous debate.
      Mr. Forth: I hope that no one would dream of attempting to provide me with information by any sort of text message, as I would be incapable of receiving such a message and even less interested were someone to attempt to send one. I would say, "Hard copy only", not only to my hon. Friend, but to the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin).
      May I ask my hon. Friend not to be too seduced by what Labour Members, including even the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West say, until we can set the matter in context? We each have roughly 70,000 voters. I would want to see what proportion of that 70,000 had expressed wild abandoned enthusiasm for the pilots before I got too carried away.
      Mr. Hawkins: My right hon. Friend anticipates me. I look forward to seeing the surveys, which I, too, would prefer to receive as hard copy. When we see all the surveys carried out by Labour Back Benchers, we will find what proportion of their electorates want the pilots or whether a relatively small number of people have been expressing their views.
      On amendment No. 8, we believe that it is vital that three quarters of all the local authorities that have individual returning officers, including acting returning officers, should agree to conduct pilots. That is a reasonable amount, and not a bare majority. The Electoral Commission talks throughout its report about the crucial importance of considering the views not of the regional returning officers, but of the local returning officers in each local authority area. It is those people whose views are most important. Unless at least three-quarters of local authorities support the pilot, as our amendment would require, it should not go ahead.
      4.15 pm
      We shall hear in due course from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, but I understand that the Liberal Democrats' amendment No. 1 is replaced by their amendment No. 6. Of those two alternative versions of new subsection (4A), Conservative Members prefer amendment No. 6, which is why we added our names to that amendment, but not to amendment No. 1.
      John Robertson Glasgow,: The hon. Gentleman suggests that if more than half the returning officers in Scotland have said that they would like an all-postal ballot, there should be one. That is indeed what they have said.
      Mr. Hawkins: The figure in my amendment is not more than half: it is three-quarters. The hon. Gentleman

      1495
      may well be right—I have not seen all the responses from the returning officers in Scotland—but his problem is that the Electoral Commission, for the good reasons that we can all read in its report, recommended against Scotland.
      John Robertson: But the Electoral Reform Society came out in favour of Scotland by saying that it should be a pilot area for the simple reason that it has only one election on that day. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Hawkins: I hear the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome expressing doubt about that. I am sure that he will give us his views in a moment. The problem for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) is that the Electoral Commission, which is advising his party's Government, came out against Scotland, for good and compelling reasons.
      Amendment No. 12 queries whether there is good reason for ruling out London as a possible pilot area. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) raised that matter in the Chamber previously, I touched on it in Committee, and we thought that it was worth debating again. We are not surprised by any ideas that the Government have about London elections, given the peculiar things that have been happening recently, with the Labour party ignoring its own rules and allowing back into membership someone who was thrown out for five years.
      Amendment No. 13 suggests that we rule out Scotland or the north-east as pilot areas. I tabled it before I had seen the Electoral Commission's recommendations, and wondered subsequently whether I should take out the north-east, but decided not to do so. Conservative Members have always opposed having Scotland as a pilot—now, the Electoral Commission agrees—and there are no advantages in having pilots in two regions that border one another. For example, it may lead to confusion in relation to the media and political advertising. I found the Electoral Commission's assessment of that issue strange in one or two respects. Table 6 on page 15 of its report is headed, "Ease of organising discrete media opportunities in selected European Parliamentary regions". The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland will be pleased to see that Scotland is at the top of the table in relation to radio and the regional press. The north-east is third in relation to radio and second in relation to regional press—I can see some logic in that—but I had to query the whole basis of the analysis when I saw that Wales was down at the bottom in eighth place out of nine. Having spent a lot of time in different parts of the UK, it seems to me that Wales has a thriving and discrete regional press, and I cannot understand how it could possibly be described as having a less discrete regional press than the west midlands, the east midlands or the eastern area. That seemed bizarre and made me wonder whether one could believe the rest of the order given. Wales should certainly have been ahead of the west midlands, the east midlands and the eastern area.
      Amendment No. 14 returns to a point that we raised on Second Reading and in Committee, when we suggested that any region bordering Scotland would be
      1496
      inappropriate for the pilots because any region with common boundaries would be inappropriate. One reason for that relates to media coverage. I have many friends who live in the borders, both on the Scottish and English sides. Television and radio broadcasts are often received on both sides of the border, as is press coverage. The Electoral Commission has talked about some of the difficulties involved in that, and it is difficult to see how one could avoid the electors becoming confused in those circumstances. If electors in the same election are told that on one side of the border voting will take place in one way and on the other side in a different way, many of them will be confused. That could damage the prospects for participation.
      Mr. Tom Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman genuinely believe that people living in the north of England do not know whether they live in Scotland or England? That would appear to be the only basis for confusion in a postal vote.
      Mr. Hawkins: With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman is accusing me of putting forward an oversimplified argument. It is not that people do not know whether they live in Scotland or England but that they will be confused about a European election in which people will use one voting method on one side of the border and another method on the other. I am not the only one expressing these concerns; the Electoral Commission has talked about the dangers of people being confused if the media cross borders and there are different methods of voting.
      Mr. Watts: In Merseyside, we had a pilot scheme in St. Helens. It did not confuse the voters in Knowsley or Wirral, who were capable of making their own decisions about how and when to vote. If there was no confusion there, why should there be confusion in other areas?
      Mr. Hawkins: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Electoral Commission's concerns. In a small postal pilot that is heavily advertised in one part of Merseyside such as St. Helens, it is possible to say to the electorate, "This is something new and different", but to hold a regional pilot in a European election with the media broadcasting across regional boundaries will cause problems. It is not just me who says so—the Electoral Commission believes that, too.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham) (Con): I support my hon. Friend's argument by mentioning Berwick-upon-Tweed, which is a classic example of a large community situated right on the border. Its football team plays in the Scottish league, and it receives media broadcasts from both sides of the border. It would be deeply confusing to receive different messages.
      Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend reinforces my point.
      I have outlined the concerns that we have expressed in this group of amendments.
      John Robertson: The Electoral Commission talks about the areas that it considers should be chosen and describes in detail those that should be chosen, in order of merit, if the first two are not chosen. Of course, Scotland heads that group. One might think that,

      1497
      according to those criteria, Scotland should not be chosen, and I would agree. However, I have investigated what the returning officers in Scotland think about this. I have received a lot of help from several of them who, unfortunately, have to remain nameless because they are independently employed to do their job. I have it on good authority that it is not just more than half of them but nearly all of them who favour an all-postal ballot that would meet the criteria of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). Why, then, has the Electoral Commission said that the Scottish regions should be excluded? It is because of resources.
      All returning officers have always complained about resources at every election, but it should be understood that resources will be available in the pilot areas. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister not to exclude Scotland, which meets all the criteria kindly supplied by the Opposition. Consideration should be given to areas where only one election is happening.
      Much was made of the fact that parts of Scotland are very rural and do not have postal deliveries every day. Surely it is not beyond the Post Office to organise more than one delivery each day, or even every other day, during an election—especially given that only one political party seems to want to enfranchise people. The English nationalists, known as the Tories, and the Scottish nationalists, known as the tartan Tories—along with their friends the Liberal Democrats—seem to want to ensure that we do not get a proper turnout. Why is that? Why should we not want people to go out and vote? Why should we want to put obstacles in their way? It was said on Second Reading that an increase of between 10 and 12 per cent. in the voting figures resulted from voting by postal ballot.
      Pete Wishart: I must put the hon. Gentleman right, as he clearly did not follow what I said in Committee. I too want Scotland to be an all-postal voting pilot area, and was surprised and disappointed to find that the commission had excluded it, but surely he appreciates the commission's concerns. It is a question not just of resources but of a lack of experience. There have been only three pilot local government postal ballots in Scotland.
      John Robertson: I apologise. The hon. Gentleman agreed with us that Scotland should have a postal ballot. However, I do not agree that lack of experience should prevent people from doing something. The Electoral Commission makes that point in its report. After all, how are people to gain experience? Should they decide not to do something because it sounds like a bad idea?
      Pete Wishart: Yes.
      John Robertson: I am sorry, but I believe that Scotland more than fulfils the criteria, especially those identified by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. If my hon. Friend the Minister has not made a decision, or if he is swivelling in any particular direction, I ask him to consider Scotland. It is an important part of the United Kingdom, and it is important for the Scottish people, like those in every other area, to be given the chance of a pilot.
      Mr. Heath: Most of the arguments on Second
      1498
      Reading concerned the principle of whether there should be pilot regions. We heard cogent arguments, which have not gone away, about the possible creation of an uneven election in which some had heard all the campaigning of each party while others voted without having had that opportunity. There was a general feeling that a disparate pattern of voting would be created.
      The amendments deal with recommendations on which pilot regions should be chosen and for what reasons. I think that my amendments Nos. 1 and 6 go to the heart of the issue—although I would say that, wouldn't I? —and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) for supporting amendment No. 6. As he correctly surmised, it was tabled after the publication of the commission's report, whereas amendment No. 1 was tabled before it. Amendment No. 6 proposes the inclusion of the commission's recommendations in the Bill. I should tell Members on both sides of the House that in this matter, the commission is the one firm rock on which we should depend. Whether or not we like what it says, it should not be for politicians, with their own interests at heart, to seek to persuade the Minister to overrule the commission.
      4.30 pm
      In considering the previous group of amendments, I said that there were two tests that the Minister had to pass this afternoon. He has passed one by withdrawing the electronic voting provision, and I have some confidence that he will pass the other one as well. However, it remains to be seen whether he will accept the commission's advice.
      Mr. Watts: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the prospect of half the voters in St. Helens not voting in the forthcoming European and local elections should outweigh any practical problems that may occur with the introduction of all-postal ballots? Frankly, I am amazed that people who supposedly support the democratic system want to deprive my voters of the opportunity to cast their vote in the way they want, which is the most effective way.
      Mr. Heath: I cannot understand what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. No one is deprived of such a vote—every single elector in his constituency, if they wish to do so, can vote by a postal ballot. [Interruption.]He says that they will not, but why not? They have the opportunity to do so. It is not a question of depriving people of a vote. If that is what he really believes, he should not support the Bill. Instead, he should introduce a private Member's Bill that would establish all-postal ballots on all occasions in all areas at all times. That is the only logical conclusion.[Interruption.]He is nodding, so that must be what he wants. I am sorry, but the Minister will be disappointed, because he has lost one of his supporters. The hon. Gentleman wants a conclusion that is quite different from that which the Minister is offering in the Bill.
      Mr. Watts: It is not a question of what I want; the point is that, according to the commission's finding on

      1499
      all-postal pilots, such voting is what the commission wants. It says that most people thought this a very positive move. In my case, the vote nearly doubled, and the national average is some 15 to 20 per cent. It is not only me who wants all-postal voting; so does the commission, which is why I find the recommendations so very strange.
      Mr. Heath: I am sorry to disabuse the hon. Gentleman, but the commission has set down clear criteria that it has followed to their logical conclusion, and it has made recommendations accordingly. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) believes that Scotland should be included irrespective of what is said. In an intervention on the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), he said that the commission had clearly supported the inclusion of Scotland. I do not know which part of the commission's conclusion that it feels unable to recommend that Scotland is suitable to undertake a pilot scheme in 2004 he does not understand, but in the circumstances that seems pretty explicit to me.
      John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman obviously misheard me; I was talking about the conclusion of the Electoral Reform Society.
      Mr. Heath: In that case, I accept the hon. Gentleman's clarification and I apologise for misquoting him; I did indeed mishear him. In fact, the commission came up with not one but 10 different reasons why Scotland should not be included at this stage. I shall not take a subjective view as to whether Scotland should be included. In fact, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath will perhaps recall, I criticised him in Committee for wanting to exclude Scotland from the Bill, which he still wishes to do so. One of his amendments would have excluded Scotland on the ground that it has universities and rural areas, and that those are debarring factors. He was wrong to try to exclude Scotland from consideration.
      The Electoral Commission has been given a job to do and it has done it. It has produced a recommendation that I did not anticipate. In its view, just two electoral regions are appropriate for pilots this year: the north-east and the east midlands.
      Angela Watkinson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that the only thing preventing the electorate of St. Helen's, North from voting is the individual electors who choose not to vote? There is nothing impeding them from voting either through the ballot box or by availing themselves of the opportunity to use postal votes, which are available to anyone for various reasons. The electors take a political decision, for whatever reason, not to vote.
      Mr. Heath: I have to say that I partly agree with the hon. Lady. We hear about the supposed great successes at getting 30 or 40 per cent. of the electorate to vote, but
      1500
      that should be compared with the turnout in constituencies where votes matter in a general election, such as my own—
      John Robertson: In every constituency.
      Mr. Heath: I wish it was in every constituency, but I am afraid that that is not the case. It is only in the marginal constituencies where people feel their votes make a difference. We should, of course, encourage voting by whatever method, but I am not sure that the argument of the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) is realistic.
      Joyce Quinrose—
      Mr. Heath: I give way to the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), who I am sure will have something relevant to say.
      Joyce Quin: The hon. Gentleman mentioned percentages of 30 and 40 per cent., but I must point out that in local elections in my area, the vote increased to 60 per cent. in non-marginal wards. That represents a huge difference.
      Mr. Heath: The right hon. Lady is right that local pilots for postal ballots are worth having. As I explained on Second Reading, a pilot scheme in my area brought about similar results in the local elections—
      Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Heath: May I deal with the first intervention first? The postal voting went up considerably in my area, but the same effect was not reflected in electronic voting. I have never tried to argue that there is no case for postal voting. I argue quite differently in respect of European elections, as I am sure the right hon. Lady would accept.
      Mr. Hawkins: Although the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) talks about a good experience in her constituency, the hon. Gentleman will remember that we debated in Committee the implications of a controversial by-election in the London borough of Lewisham where the seat changed hands. The turnout hardly increased at all, so not all the evidence goes the same way. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is concerned, as I am, that the enthusiasm for one postal pilot might quickly wane and be followed by the lower turnouts that are often seen in local government elections.
      Mr. Heath: I am also aware of the by-election where, as I recall, the Liberal Democrats won the seat from Labour. The hon. Gentleman is right that the turnout did not go up, so the experience is patchy, but that does not negate the value of the experiment. The argument is not about the concept of postal voting and its application in the pilot areas under previous enactments, but about its relevance to nationwide elections through its application in certain areas.
      To that end, my amendment No. 6 is surely one that the Minister cannot possibly resist. The litmus test is whether he accepts the advice of the Electoral

      1501
      Commission. If so, he will have to acknowledge that two areas were accepted and that the others were rejected as either unsuitable or, in the words of the Electoral Commission, as regions
      "for which the Commission does not feel able to make a positive recommendation as to its suitability."
      Those precise words are incorporated into amendment No. 6.
      Let me say a few brief words about other amendments in the group. We have kept together quite well during the passage of the Bill so far, but I have to part company with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath on some of the amendments in the group. I hope that I do so in a spirit of good will, but we differ on some matters.
      Amendment No. 8 is the lead amendment, on which we may divide the House. I have three criticisms. First, I am not sure that "a three-quarters majority" is clearly expressed. Secondly, I am concerned that the amendment mentions the majority of
      "the local authorities in the area",
      without clarifying whether that means principal local authorities, or authorities with electoral responsibilities or, as it clearly means in the context of the Bill, every local authority including every parish council and, in the case of Wales, community council, which cannot be a sensible proposition.
      Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman would be right if the amendment could be taken to mean every single local authority. I accept his criticism that, if there is a shortcoming in the drafting of the amendment, it is that. However, I made it clear when I spoke to the amendment that it refers to local authorities that have a returning officer. That is what the Electoral Commission reports talk about. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is what was clearly intended.
      Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Were we in Committee, I would accept his contention, but the Bill has reached Report stage, and will leave the House in the form that we determine now. We will return to this debate when we discuss amendment No.25, in a later group. In that amendment, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath proposes to remove the word "relevant" from clause 4, even though that word is used to identify local authorities with electoral responsibilities. There is therefore more than a technical problem with this amendment.
      In addition, the proposed benchmark of 75 per cent. also gives me cause for concern. I note that the Electoral Commission reports the figure in the north-east as being 74 per cent. That may change as a result of the Minister's announcement today. We do not know when that temperature was taken, and we need to be more explicit than the amendment suggests.
      For all those reasons, I cannot support the amendment. Like the Electoral Commission, however, I accept the principle that local authorities, and returning offices in particular, need to be consulted. They must be kept onside if the experiments are to work, and that is one of the criteria that has caused several potential pilot regions to be excluded.
      The hon. Member for Surrey Heath knows that I have difficulties with amendments Nos. 12 to 14. He wants London to be included again in the pilot regions,
      1502
      whereas I think that the mayoral elections mean that there are good and sensible reasons why London should not be used in a pilot. The hon. Gentleman also wants to exclude Scotland—for reasons that I still do not understand—and the north-east, on the ground that it is near Scotland. That does not seem an adequate reason for exclusion.
      In case we did not get the message the first time, amendment No. 14 talks about
      "any region which borders Scotland"
      and
      "any two regions with a common boundary."
      I was going to test the hon. Member for Surrey Heath on that in Committee, but never got the opportunity. Once the south-west has been excluded because of Gibraltar, and London because it is London, and Scotland because of the hon. Gentleman's definition, it is difficult to find three regions of which two do not have a common boundary.
      Mr. Hawkins: It is only two now.
      Mr. Heath: Until the Minister speaks and tells us that he has confined himself to two, we cannot be certain. There is a real problem with the geographical proposition in the amendment, although I guess that it had a proper basis in the initial stages.
      John Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman think it possible that the Opposition's anti-Scottish sentiment stems from the fact that people in Scotland will not vote for them?
      Mr. Heath: That is demonstrably true, time after time. Most importantly, people in Scotland will not vote for Conservative candidates on a first-past-the-post system. However, I think that there must be deeper reasons for the Conservative party's phobia about anything to do with the north. The phobia is not now confined to places north of the border; anywhere north of the Wash appears to be suspect in the eyes of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. But let us set that aside for the moment.
      In Committee, we debated the question of media areas, and whether it is possible to run discrete campaigns in areas that are not discrete. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath said that Wales was a discrete media area. However, people in parts of Somerset receive S4C, much to their upset, as they want to watch rugby being played in Bath rather than in Llanelli. In addition, there is also press intrusion in the north, as I believe that both the Liverpool Echo and the Liverpool Daily Post have high circulations in north Wales. So perhaps the Electoral Commission's assessment of the matter is not wrong.
      The crucial point is that the Minister should pass the test of agreeing to the views of the Electoral Commission, without any outside pressure or noises off or anybody saying that he has to take a political view. His job as Minister, especially in his most prestigious Department, is to take an impartial and judicious view of what is proposed and to implement it in legislation. I am confident that he will do so by accepting amendment No. 6, on which I intend to divide the House if I have the opportunity and if the Minister gives me insufficient assurances.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Neil Turner: When the Electoral Commission consulted on this issue—the report is the result of that consultation—it put forward nine criteria from the Government and five of its own which, it said, it had distilled into four. The first was the number and type of local authorities, the second was the number and type of local elections, the third was experience—which was thought to be important, but not essentialߞthe fourth was whether the media could conduct a discrete public information campaign, and the fifth was the enthusiasm of regional and local electoral returning officers. People might have some doubts about the efficacy of the recommendations of a commission that enumerates four criteria and enunciates five, but we should pass over that.
      The Electoral Commission did not take into account, but should have done, the lessons learned from the pilot. The whole point of a pilot exercise is to learn lessons from it, so that one can decide whether they should be applied more generally. The lessons of the pilot should have been taken into account when determining the criteria.
      Instead of taking the judgments of the Electoral Commission at face value, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) wants us to do, we should judge them against its own criteria. If we do that, it is clear that the north-east scores highly on almost all the criteria, and I would have no difficulty in making the north-east one of the pilot areas. However, the second recommendation is the east midlands and we should consider that more closely. The first criterion is the number of local authorities. The Electoral Commission says, in paragraph 2.119 of the report
      "it is our view that a region with many small authorities would not be suited to running a pilot scheme in 2004."
      The east midlands has 40 local authorities, of which 36 are small district councils, but that has not been taken into account in the recommendations.
      The second criterion is the number and type of elections, but the east midlands will have only six. We will not learn much if the pilots run in only six local authorities. The third criterion is experience, but only three out of the 40 local authorities have had experience in the past. On the fourth criterionߞthe ease with which local media could run a discrete information campaignߞthe east midlands comes seventh for radio and fifth for the regional press. On the fifth criterion, the regional electoral returning officer says that he does not want a pilot scheme. He is quoted as saying:
      "I would not want our region put forward ahead of those who are actively seeking to be chosen".
      However, the local electoral returning officers have made a case for being included.
      The case for the east midlands to be selected for the pilot is poor when judged against the Electoral Commission's own criteria.
      Dr. Pugh: Is the premise of the hon. Gentleman's argument that we, as politically motivated individuals, can better apply the criteria developed by the Electoral Commission than it can itself?
      Mr. Turner: Yes. This is no dens ex machina giving judgments on tablets of stone. We can surely make
      1504
      criticisms of the commission. Its judgments may be incorrect—as may those of the House—although that may be more likely in the case of the commission, as it may be less aware of the political situation.
      Pete Wishart: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should have an electoral commission on the Electoral Commission to ensure that it acts properly according to his good judgment. If we take the route that he suggests, what is the point of the Electoral Commission?
      Mr. Turner: No, I do not want an electoral commission on the Electoral Commission, because Parliament should make the judgments. The commission gives us advice but we make the judgments. Parliament decides those issues.
      John Robertson: It would appear that my hon. Friend's region is similar to mine, as in my region, too, only the people at the top were consulted and not the electoral returning officers for the whole area. Does he agree that in his area, as in mine, a vast majority of them are in favour of postal ballots?
      Mr. Turner: I shall develop that argument later, if my hon. Friend will permit me, although I do want to talk about Scotland now. It is only fair that if we make judgments, based on the evidence of the Electoral Commission, about one region, we should make judgments about all of them.
      In Scotland there are 32 unitary authorities that have weighty electoral experience, so that is a strong reason for holding a pilot, yet no local elections will be held there. Some people might think that is a good thing, but I do not. Our learning experience will be limited if mixed elections are not held. The commission found that only a few by-elections had been held in Scotland, so experience of the pilot systems was very limited. The score on media, however, was excellent. Scotland was at the top of the list.
      To return to the point made on several occasions by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), a letter purportedly from the electoral returning officers in all 32 authorities states that they do not want the proposed system, yet he seems to have evidence that a substantial majority want it. Again, that raises questions about the judgment of the Electoral Commission and gives us a good reason to question its recommendations.
      In Yorkshire and the Humber, the commission found that there was a reasonably large number and type of local authorities and elections, including whole-council metropolitan elections, so we shall learn a substantial amount from that region. However, there was limited experience of pilot systems in elections, only half the number that have been held in the north-west. On the media, the area comes fifth for radio and seventh for the press. On electoral returning officers, the commission noted in recommendation 2.117 that
      "it is clear that Returning Officers would strongly prefer not to be involved in any all-postal pilot at the combined elections in 2004."
      Electoral returning officers in Yorkshire and the Humber do not want the proposed system.

      1505
      In the north-west, there is a wide variation in the number and type of authority. Various elections, including whole-council elections for the metropolitan authorities, take place at the same time. Experience of running pilots was second only to the north-east. On media, the region was fourth for radio and third for the press. The electoral returning officers have made a good case for going ahead with the proposals.
      We have to balance the risks relating to the number of elections with the enthusiasm of the returning officers. They are the people who will ensure that the election is properly carried out, and if they are enthusiastic, the risk of having whole-council elections at the same time in metropolitan authorities will be substantially reduced. We need to take that point on board.
      I am extremely disappointed that the Electoral Commission has come to conclusions that its evidence does not merit. Earlier in the debate, the Minister said that it was for him to make decisions on advice from the commission. To paraphrase my hon. Friend's words, he said that we are not giving the commission the right to make decisions and that that is the right of Parliament and of the Government. I hope that he will consider that point.
      Mr. Miller: Is it not the case that the commission acknowledges that the north-west has conducted a wide range of pilots? There is no criticism whatever in the report of the conduct of those pilots. The criticism levelled by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) has nothing to do with the process that we are currently debating.
      Mr. Turner: My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
      I want to wind up with one last point. Members from the north-west gave good reasons on Second Reading as to why their's should be one of the regions chosen. We talked about its diversity in terms of geography, economics, finances, social range and rural and urban areas. That argument could also be made for both the north-east and Scotland. If the regions are judged against the Electoral Commission's criteria—apart from the fact that those criteria do not include learning—then I hope that the Minister will reject the east midlands and come to his own conclusions on the basis of merit, rather than following the flawed conclusions of the Electoral Commission.
      Mr. Forth: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner), because he is the first contributor to today's debate who has not displayed nauseating sycophancy towards the commission, as everybody else seems to feel obliged to do.
      I am one of those old-fashioned people—hon. Members will be astonished to hearߞwho is suspicious of the proliferation of commissions. We get ourselves into the most awful difficulty when we set up these bodies, appoint to them people who are sometimes great and good and more often than not who are neither, get from them a self-justifying flow of recommendations, most of which are probably unnecessary but are produced by commissions to justify their existence, and are put in the invidious position of having to respond to them. The hon. Member for Wigan has put his finger on the dilemma.
      1506
      I do not accept the argument put in some of the amendments that have been tabled that if we set up the commission and it comes forward with recommendations, we must accept them, because the people on the commission are wonderful, splendid, impartial and knowledgeable, and since we are politicians we cannot make a judgment on matters political. That seems to be the thrust of some of the arguments that I have heard this afternoon. My preference would be to get rid of all these dreadful institutions and to take responsibility to ourselves, as we used to do in the good old daysߞto use the parliamentary process and the governmental process to consider and produce options, to make decisions and to stand by them. The electorate will judge our decisionsߞthose of them who take the trouble to turn out, a problem to which I will refer in a moment.
      As part of today's debate, I hope that some of us will think about whether we want these commissions in our lives. They are bureaucracies, they are appointed by politicians, they then make trouble for politicians, and I doubt very much whether they carry forward the quality of life or the quality of politics in our society today. For that reason, I do not feel obliged in any way to accept what this or that commission has recommended, and I follow the hon. Member for Wigan happily in saying that we should be robust enough, as should the Ministerߞknowing him as I think I do, he will be ߞto make our governmental, parliamentary decision, stand by it and be judged by it.
      My other point is that, sadly, I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) in his attempt to draw London back into this ghastly process. I was happy when I saw in the Bill that London was to be excluded. The voters of London are perfectly capable of making their own decision, with the existing provisions, as to whether they want to vote. It is not unreasonable to ask someone to go to their nearest polling station and to make their choice, in the traditional way, on a ballot paper. That is not an obstacle put in the way of their voting. In fact, it is patronising to suggest that voters are now so dumb, idle or venal that they cannot be bothered to stir themselves to vote in a polling station on a ballot paper. The arguments involved with this Bill come close to making the patronising accusation against our voters that they are incapable of voting in the traditional way. My view is that voters are perfectly capable of making the judgment and the effortߞsmall that it isߞto exert the privilege of casting a vote.
      5 pm
      The issue is important for millions, perhaps billions, of people around the world, many of whom have given their lives for the chance to vote. In this country, we are complacently saying that our citizenry cannot even bestir themselves to walk a few hundred yards down the road to a polling station to cast a vote in a ballot. If that is our judgment, what on earth are we saying about our voters? The business about "Can't we give it to them on a plate? Can't we almost bribe them? Can't we make it so easy for them that they might almost do it by accident?" strikes me as patronising in the extreme.
      I am glad that the Bill excludes London from the pilots. Proud as I am to represent a London constituency, I am confident that the voters of Bromley

      1507
      and Chislehurst, and indeed London as a whole, are perfectly capable of exerting their judgments, walking to the polling station and casting their votes. If Government Members are suggesting that their voters are so awful that they cannot even do that, they are not as in touch with their voters as they like to suggest.
      Mr. Watts: Government Members who support postal voting do so for factual reasons. They know that postal voting increases turnout. If postal voting increases turnout, it makes the system more democratic. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that anything that increases turnout must be good for democracy?
      Mr. Forth: I do not agree. That is an assumption that everybody makes and it is regarded as unchallengeable, but I am challenging it. A simple increase in turnout does not increase the quality of the democratic process. If pushed, I could almost suggest the opposite: the quality of the vote cast in the traditional way is possibly higher than one cast in an easier voting process. I do not accept the assumption.
      Pete Wishart: Does the right hon. Gentleman envisage any type of voting other than the traditional one of going to a polling station and casting a vote in a ballot?
      Mr. Forth: No, I do not. Our traditional method has stood the test of time extremely well. It combines a degree of confidentiality—for example, we touched earlier on the risk of intimidation in the postal voting system—with a little degree of effort, which is in itself a very good thing. At its best, it provides a degree of integrity in the voting process that we should all welcome.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman understands the procedures of the House very well and I am reluctant to stop him. However, he will appreciate that he must not get into a Second Reading debate. The amendments are reasonably precise.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should not have allowed myself to be led down those paths, but you know how enthusiastic I am to try to help Members when they want to challenge my assertions. I will draw my remarks to a conclusion.
      Those are the reasons why I will not follow those who want slavishly to follow the commission, why I support the original wording of the Bill and why, on this occasion, I sadly cannot support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath, which seeks to draw London back into the morass.
      Mr. Tom Harris: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made two comments in his contribution that I would like to refer to. He made the accusation once again that Government Members hope to pilot all-postal voting schemes for party political advantage. I said this in Committee, I shall say it again now and I am sure that I reflect my hon. Friends' views: we believe that a net increase in participation in the
      1508
      democratic process is a good thing of itself, regardless of which party may or may not benefit. If there is a 100 per cent. postal vote in Scotland next June, I do not believe that the end result in terms of seats obtained by each party will be any different from what it would otherwise have been. The political process will have been improved, however, if we involve more people than would vote under a traditional voting system. I will depart from that point now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it should be reserved for Third Reading.
      The hon. Gentleman made what was almost a throwaway remark as he finished his speech by saying that he disagreed with one of the Electoral Commission's recommendations—I cannot remember his exact words, but I am sure that he can check them in Hansard—but he contradicted his own argument. I totally agree with what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said about the Electoral Commission. The commission makes recommendations; it does not pass down edicts from on high. We are the elected representatives of the people of this country and we are in the democratic Chamber in which decisions are taken on whether to instigate pilots for 100 per cent. postal voting or any other matter. The Electoral Commission provides advice but it does not tell the House what to do.
      In Committee, I pointed out to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that although the Electoral Commission's criteria were important, many were subjective and could not be assessed simply through a tick-box exercise. There will sometimes be a question of judgment when deciding whether criteria have been met, so the Electoral Commission cannot be allowed to have the final say on such matters. We have a Minister and elected Members of Parliament so that we may take the advice that the Electoral Commission is paid to provide and base our judgments on that.
      I do not have an especially dogmatic view on whether Scotland should be a pilot area, although I hope that it will be. If evidence were to show that Scotland's political process would not benefit from all-postal ballots, I would accept the Government's view. I shall press the case for a pilot in Scotland because I believe that Scotland meets the necessary criteria, but I shall not take a dogmatic approach. We all have our constituency and regional interests—I am no different—but I accept that arguments must be made for selecting specific areas. The arguments for Scotland have already been made, but I am prepared to listen to opposite views.
      The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) admitted that the drafting of amendment No. 8 leaves something to be desired. He mentioned chief executives rather than local authorities several times in his speech, although the amendment makes reference to local authorities. It is one thing to accept the view of a chief executive who has professional experience and judgment and is appointed as an objective and apolitical member of staff by the political establishment—a local authority—but a chief executive's view is in no way equivalent to that of a local authority. A local authority may adopt a view at a meeting of a full council after the ruling Labour, Conservative or Liberal group has met in caucus to decide the view to take forward to the council meeting. A chief executive's view, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned on several occasions, is the personal opinion of a senior council official, so the view

      1509
      of a chief executive could not be considered to be an equivalent alternative to that of a local authority. If the hon. Gentleman had intended the amendment to relate to chief executives, he should have used the words "chief executives" rather than "local authorities".
      Mr. Hawkins: It is conventional that a chief executive is the returning officer or acting returning officer for many elections, although I accept that that is not the case in all local authorities. Many local authorities also have electoral officers, but the person who performs the role of returning officer or acting returning officer is frequently the chief executive—I assume that the situation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and other parts of Scotland is the same as that in England. The amendment refers to local authorities, but if he examines the Electoral Commission's report, he will find that it refers to local returning officers, who may or may not be chief executives.
      Mr. Harris: I accept that explanation, but the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer and has been a Member of the House for longer than me, so he knows that we must be specific when drafting legislation rather than assuming that those who will interpret a law in many years' time will refer back to an Electoral Commission report.
      I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath for once again entertaining us with his views on Scotland. He made the highly entertaining argument in Committee that Scotland should not be chosen as a pilot area because it has lots of students and farmland. He was challenged to name a region apart from London that did not have rural areas and was unable to do so. His latest argument is not only that Scotland should be excluded from a pilot area, but that any bit of land that touches Scotland should not be used as a pilot area. I want to take offence, but he has been so generous and courteous to me that I am sure his comments are in no way anti-Scottish.
      The hon. Gentleman's idea is remarkable. Is voter confusion really so prevalent in those parts of England that border Scotland? I am happy to give way to him if he can tell me how many voters in Carlisle thought they had a vote in the Scottish Parliament elections in May this year, because that is what he is arguing. I can imagine the scene. Someone in Carlisle is watching Border television news and hears the announcement that a postal ballot is to be held in Scotland, so he says to his wife, "We must have a vote then", while she argues, "No, we live in England." The hon. Gentleman's new argument is up there with the idea that we should not give Scots a postal ballot because there are too many students in Scotland.
      I am disappointed that the Electoral Commission decided that Scotland was not eligible or should not be chosen as a pilot area for an all-postal vote. I like to think that the Government and my hon. Friend the Minister will give the Electoral Commission's proposals the serious consideration they deserve, but that they will, at the end of the day, make a judgment that is worthy of the House and the Government.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris). I will not involve myself in the politics of the borders. As someone
      1510
      who represents a seat on the English side of the border, I am aware of the long history of antipathy between the two sides, which I am sure does not continue today.
      I chide the hon. Gentleman for being nit-picking about amendment No. 8. Although it may not be 100 per cent. technically, I can let him into a little secret. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) will not mind if I reveal that we will probably not win when we press the amendment to a vote. The purpose of the amendment is to have a serious debate on the views of local authorities. That is important. I hope that the Minister will help me with that when he responds.
      One problem that local authorities face in the northeast, which will be a pilot area, is the cost of the operation. My district council of Tynedale and others in the region are small rural district councils. We do not have the staff or the ability to have the large-scale mailing that is required for the postal ballot. They will have to employ mailing houses, if that is possible bearing in mind the security implications, to do the job for them, which will be costly. We will not know about that in detail until the Electoral Commission pronounces on it, but the issue is important for local council tax payers in the north-east.
      I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in what he said about the Electoral Commission. We set up such bodies, but all the Electoral Commission has done is bombard us with a huge number of expensively produced documents, which have made elections more complicated. What it is trying to do, and what it may succeed in doing, is to take the politics out of elections. People do not turn out to vote because they are turned off by politics and politicians. If we want people to vote in larger numbers, and we do, we have to make elections interesting.
      I represent the only Conservative constituency in the north-east. The Labour party in the north-east thought that it should be a target and drafted everyone in. Ministers, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) and the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) had to dress up in red shirts and sit cross legged on a muddy pitch with the Deputy Prime Minister. The Labour party thought that it had a chance of getting my scalp. As you see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it did not and I remain a Member of this place. The turnout in my constituency was the second highest in England, being more than 70 per cent. Other turnouts in the north-east were down to slightly more than 50 per cent. In Glasgow, it was less than 50 per cent. People will vote when there is a reason. They will go to the polling station if politics is made interesting.
      5.15 pm
      My criticism of the postal voting system and of what the Electoral Commission is doing is that politics will be made more boring. In the north-east, we will have a job to stimulate interest in the European elections. The difficulty for the people of the north-east is that our campaign will be completely out of step with that of the national campaign. As the national campaign reaches a crescendo a day or two before polling day, our votes in the north-east will have been cast. People will receive

      1511
      their voting slips—I do not know when the Electoral Commission will rule on this—about 10 days, a fortnight, or three weeks before the election. They may decide to vote there and then, or they may decide to put the slip in the bin there and then. Later, as the national campaign starts, with television coverage, for example, they will start to become interested. They may then discover that they voted for the wrong party or that they threw their ballot paper away.
      We shall have a lacklustre campaign because it will have no national backing. It will be an entirely local campaign. That may be satisfactory in local government elections but, while postal voting may encourage turnout, if our campaign in the north-east is not as exciting as the national campaign, that will discourage voting. I suspect that the net result will be little gain for the north-east of England.
      I ask the Minister to ensure that proper assistance is given to local authorities, which will face difficulties. Will he please arrange, if possible, that individual voters can deliver their votes at the last minute rather than have to put them in the post several days in advance? That is the only thing that will give some of them an opportunity to see the national campaign come to a conclusion before they make up their minds for which party they should vote.
      Mr. Leslie: We have had a useful and thorough debate on the selection of regions. Before I address each amendment in turn relating to the selection of regions for elections pilots, I shall set out the Government's intentions, having now received the advice that we requested from the Electoral Commission.
      The Electoral Commission was asked to recommend up to three regions or nations that might he able to pilot all-postal voting, and which of those regions would be most suitable to include an e-enabled element. It published its recommendations on 8 December, concluding that the north-east is most suitable, followed by the east midlands. The commission then ranked a number of other regions
      "which could be potentially suitable"
      but for which it felt unable to make a positive recommendation. Those regions, ranked in order of potential suitability, are Scotland, Yorkshire and the Humber, the north-west and the west midlands. The commission concluded that the remaining regions are not suitable for a pilot in time for the June 2004 elections. Moreover. it recommended that the Government do not include an e-enabled element in any of the pilot schemes. The Government are immensely grateful to the commission for conducting such a thorough and sophisticated study on that issue, ranking the regions against the criteria.
      I mentioned earlier in the debate our acceptance of the commission's recommendation not to proceed with any electronic voting on a regional scale in the June 2004 elections. We remain keen, however, to proceed with all-postal voting in three regions. In scaling up towards a multi-channel general election after 2006, we believe that pressing ahead with a wider range and variation of piloting provides the best opportunity to learn lessons and to develop capabilities in new electoral techniques. I
      1512
      can therefore announce that we intend to pilot all-postal voting in the north-east and the east midlands, and that we are also minded to proceed with all-postal voting in a third region or nation.
      The commission has been helpful in saying that
      "there are a number of other regions which could potentially be suitable for conducting an all-postal pilot scheme."
      The Government will consider in more detail each of the potential candidates with a view to announcing the location of the third all-postal pilot in the coming weeks. There are good grounds for further consideration of several suitable regions, and it is right not to rush into a decision on the third pilot, given the advice from the Electoral Commission. For example, although Scotland is well placed as a location for a pilot because it has no local elections, returning officers voiced reservations that require consideration. We therefore intend to discuss the issues raised by the Scottish returning officers with them over the coming weeks to see if their concerns can be ameliorated and any difficulties ironed out.
      The Electoral Commission also took into consideration the preferences of returning officers in different parts of regions such as Yorkshire and the Humber and the north-west. Further scrutiny by my Department of those issues will now take place, so that we can conclude which third all-postal voting pilot will proceed. The Electoral Commission regards that as consistent with its report and recommendations. All-postal voting in the north-east, east midlands and a third region or nation will not only improve the turnout in those areas but give voters a more convenient method of expressing their democratic choice in the June elections. The Electoral Commission will report on the lessons learned from those pilots, so that in future those new opportunities can be rolled out on a wider scale.
      Joyce Quin:I warmly welcome what my hon. Friend said about the north-east. A strong case was made on the basis of the numerous pilots that have already taken place in the region, and there will be a warm welcome for what he has said in regard to my local districts of Sunderland and Gateshead.
      Mr. Leslie: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments. She has campaigned hard for the north-east, and I am glad that we have been able to make that decision, subject to the legislation. She has been vociferously keen for that decision to be made.
      John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for not excluding Scotland, but can he assure me that all 32 returning officers in Scotland will be approached and asked about its suitability for a postal ballot, rather than the decision being left to one person?
      Mr. Leslie: As I said earlier, it is right to investigate further the findings and advice of the Electoral Commission about Scotland. It ranked Scotland highly as a suitable candidate, but was unable to make a positive recommendation. However, we want to have three pilots and, over the coming weeks, we shall seek the views of returning officers to see whether there is a substantive case for their nation or region, whether there are obstacles, and whether those problems are surmountable.
      Pete Wishart: The Minister cannot leave us hanging like this. Will he tell us which other electoral areas he is

      1513
      considering, and can he confirm that Scotland is now back in the frame as a pilot for all-postal voting? What is the time scale, as elections are now only a few months away? How quickly will we find out who will be next?
      Mr. Forth: Soon
      Mr. Leslie: As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, we hope to conclude soon which region or nation will be the third choice for our pilots. The decision has to be made relatively swiftly over the coming weeks, as I said. The Electoral Commission set out in its report which regions and nations are suitable, and we are proceeding in line with the nature and architecture of its advice, which is the right and proper way to proceed.
      Mr. Hawkins: The Minister obviously feels under pressure from the large number of Labour Back Benchers representing Scottish constituencies, but when he and his colleagues are considering their decision, will they bear in mind the fact that the Electoral Commission, a creature of his Government, said that the regional returning officer for Scotland has informed it that there is insufficient time available to put in place the necessary mechanisms to deliver an all-postal pilot in Scotland with any reasonable guarantee of success? We will strongly oppose any suggestion by the Government that Scotland would be appropriate, as it would fly in the face of that rejection by the regional returning officer.
      Mr. Leslie: I hope the hon. Gentleman will refrain from becoming too rhetorical on the matter. As I said, it is necessary now to investigate the views of the returning officers more thoroughly, as the Electoral Commission suggested in the report. May I correct a mistake that the hon. Gentleman made? It is not my Electoral Commission or the Government's Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission is accountable to the House as a whole through the Speaker's Committee. I believe that it is widely respected and independent.
      Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend has presented himself with a dilemma—a judgment of Solomon. When he makes his judgment, will he consider carefully the advice from the Electoral Commission about the success of pilots conducted in the north-west of England, and in particular the diversity of that region, which makes it ideally suited for conducting continued pilots?
      Mr. Leslie: As I said, all-postal voting may be possible in a number of other regions. We are considering the matter further, so that we can conclude in a proper and reasonable manner which region or nation should be the third choice. The advice in respect of the north-west, as in respect of Yorkshire and the Humber and in respect of Scotland, is clear in the Electoral Commission report, which we will consider as a matter of urgency
      Mr. Watts: If, at the end of my hon. Friend's consultations with the regions and after investigating the merits of each case, he comes to the conclusion that more than three regions could go ahead, why should not
      1514
      four or possibly five be selected? Will he reconsider the total number if the criteria are met by more than three regions?
      Mr. Leslie: I understand the eagerness of many hon. Members for all-postal voting. The Electoral Commission recommended that eventually all local elections be all-postal. I am reluctant to move further than three regions or nations for all-postal ballots in the June 2004 elections, not just for practical administrative reasons, but for economic and budgetary reasons.
      Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I have caught most of the debate; I was not in the Chamber earlier. The Minister says that he is still considering Scotland. He asked the Electoral Commission to consider it. It said no. He told us that the Electoral Commission is independent, so will the decision be a political one?
      Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman should have been in the Chamber listening to the debate throughout, like other hon. Members. Let me quote from page 4 of the Electoral Commission's report. The commission advises—incidentally, it does advise, and Government and Parliament decide—
      "We believe that there are a number of other regions which could potentially be suitable for conducting an all-postal pilot scheme. However, we do not feel able to make a positive recommendation on their suitability following our assessment of them against the criteria."
      It is that middle group that we will scrutinise in more detail, along the lines recommended by the commission.
      Mr. Tom Harris: My hon. Friend mentioned that the local authorities in Scotland will be consulted before a firm decision is made about a postal vote in Scotland. May I offer him some help and tell him that all my colleagues on the Government Benches from Scottish constituencies would be more than willing to contribute to that consultation, if he is looking for advice from the representatives? I am sure that Members of Parliament from the Opposition Benches, including the Scottish National party, which supports the measure, would also be willing to meet the Minister to persuade him of the right course. I am sure that that would apply to every Scottish Conservative Member of Parliament as well.
      Mr. Leslie: I intend to make a decision relatively quickly on which third region or nation we wish to select. It is important that we have wide-ranging consultations, but I want to reach a decision relatively swiftly, and I hope that we will be able to make an announcement fairly quickly.
      Mr. Alex Salmond: rose—
      Mr. Heath Mr. Heath rose—
      Mr. Leslie: I wish to make further progress but, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has not been present in the debate until recently, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome.
      Mr. Heath: Given that the Minister said that he is effectively overruling the clear advice of the Electoral

      1515
      Commission, is he asking the Electoral Commission to apply the same criteria to this repechage, and if so, how does he suppose the commission will come to a different conclusion? If he is not asking it to apply different criteria, why does he not say now that he will admit Scotland irrespective of its advice, so that everyone knows where they are?
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Leslie: We are genuinely considering the matter along the lines of the process followed by the Electoral Commission, which has recommended that there should be three all-postal pilot regions. Given that framework, who would suggest that we should do anything but investigate further the other regions that the commission said were potentially suitable, although it could not make a positive recommendation about them? That is a reasonable and practical way forward, and I hope that the House will accept it.
      Mr. Salmond: I think that the Minister is doing exactly the right thing—[Interruption.] Do not be surprised at my saying that. I feel a sense of bewilderment about why Scotland cannot technically proceed with a postal ballot if it meets many of the criteria. Is the postal service in Scotland so inadequate in comparison with postal services elsewhere that it could not deal with the ballot? I think that he is correct to examine the matter more fully and to satisfy himself. There is a lot of support for proceeding with Scotland as a pilot area if that is technically possible.
      Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is perfectly possible that Scotland could have an all-postal pilot, as could a number of regions in England. It is important to look further into that matter along the lines suggested by the Electoral Commission, and that is precisely what I shall do in the coming weeks.
      The amendments are similar to those tabled in Committee. I ask hon. Members to resist them, not least as they would jeopardise the proposal for all-postal voting in the north-east, the east midlands and a third region or nation. Amendment No. 8 would require three quarters of local authorities to consent to piloting. It would be wrong to pick an arbitrary threshold, as that would be convoluted and against the spirit of pressing forward with wider-scale piloting. It is true that the capacity and willingness of local authorities and returning officers are important, and we have considered those matters carefully. However, what is proposed is different from giving local authorities an effective veto over proceedings. It is in the national interest to scale up all-postal voting in order to improve access to democracy for the whole population. It would be inappropriate to allow local authorities to veto such plans.
      The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) asked about funding. If we had had more time, I would have given an assurance that there would be no additional financial burdens on local authorities, as I did in Committee.
      Amendments Nos. 1 and 6 would involve proceeding only where all the Electoral Commission criteria were fully satisfied. We have now indicated our interim
      1516
      decision, which is consistent with the advice given by the Electoral Commission, which indicated that it had no objection to our proposals for the north-east, the east midlands and a potential third area. Indeed, it provided its advice in ranked order to enable that precise way forward to be taken. The amendments are defective to the extent that they seem to regard the criteria as quasi-scientific, rather than as broader factors such as population and geographical size requiring consideration, which is how they must be considered.
      In line with comments by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris), it would be wrong to alter the role of the Electoral Commission de facto by making it the decision maker rather than the adviser, as the amendments imply that it should be. It has given us advice, but it is for the Government to decide and to be accountable to Parliament for our decision.
      Amendment No. 12 would allow pilots to occur in the region to be combined with Gibraltar—the Electoral Commission has recommended the south-west—and in London. As I said in Committee, there is added complexity in London because of the nature of the various local and mayoral electoral systems, which will require particular administrative effort in June. The south-west should not be eligible because of the special circumstances of any combination with Gibraltar, should that recommendation be adopted, given the new arrangements necessary for including voters from so far away. There has never before been integration of those electoral arrangements on such a scale. In any case, the Electoral Commission's separate consideration of the south-west indicated that that region is unsuitable for holding a pilot next year.
      Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 would, strangely, exclude Scotland and anybody vaguely near it. No arguments of substance have been advanced in support of that ridiculous proposition. It would be perverse to penalise Scotland and its neighbouring regions by ruling them out and, particularly in the case of the north-east, it would go entirely against the recommendations of the Electoral Commission. We are reaching conclusions on the question of location. The recommendations of the Electoral Commission are important, and we are taking heed of its advice to work hard on identifying the third pilot area as soon as possible. I hope that the House will welcome the approach taken by the Government and reject the amendment.
      Mr. Hawkins: I can be brief. The Minister has made it clear that, as we feared all along, the fix is going in. Despite the fact that the Electoral Commission did not recommend Scotland and that the regional returning officer said that it is clearly not ready, the Minister is foreshadowing his decision to bow to the strongly expressed views of Labour Back Benchers. Important issues are involved in our amendment No. 8 and Liberal Democrat amendment No. 6, to which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have added our names. I suspect that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) will seek a separate Division on amendment No. 6. I seek to press amendment No. 8.
      Question put,That the amendment be made: —
      The House divided:Ayes 135, Noes 357.

      Division No.12]

      [5:35 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Amess, David

      Lidington, David

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Mcintosh, Miss Anne

      Bacon, Richard

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Barker, Gregory

      Maclean, rh David

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Bellingham, Henry

      Mates, Michael

      Bercow, John

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Mercer, Patrick

      Blunt, Crispin

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

      Boswell, Tim

      Coldfield)

      Brady, Graham

      Moss, Malcolm

      Brazier, Julian

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Norman, Archie

      Burns, Simon

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Burnside, David

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Burt, Alistair

      Ottaway, Richard

      Butterfill, John

      Page, Richard

      Cameron, David

      Paterson, Owen

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

      Pickles, Eric

      Barnet)

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Clappison, James

      Randall, John

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Redwood, rh John

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Robathan, Andrew

      Collins, Tim

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

      Conway, Derek

      M-Kent)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Curry, rh David

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Ruffley, David

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Selous, Andrew

      Duncan Smith, rh lain

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Evans, Nigel

      Shepherd, Richard

      Fabricant, Michael

      Simmonds, Mark

      Fallon, Michael

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Flight, Howard

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Flook, Adrian

      Soames, Nicholas

      Forth, rh Eric

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Francois, Mark

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Garnier, Edward

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Spring, Richard

      Goodman, Paul

      Steen, Anthony

      Greenway, John

      Streeter, Gary

      Gummer, rh John

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hague, rh William

      Swire, Hugo (EDevon)

      Hammond, Philip

      Syms, Robert

      Hawkins, Nick

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Heald, Oliver

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Tredinnick, David

      Hendry, Charles

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Hermon, Lady

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Viggers, Peter

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Walter, Robert

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Whittingdale, John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Wilkinson, John

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Wilshire, David

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      (Macclesfield)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Young, rh Sir George

      Lansley, Andrew

      Leigh, Edward

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Angela Watkinson and

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Mr. Mark Field

      1518

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cooper, Yvette

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Ainger, Nick

      Cotter, Brian

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Cousins, Jim

      Alexander, Douglas

      Cranston, Ross

      Allan, Richard

      Crausby, David

      Allen, Graham

      Cruddas, Jon

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cummings, John

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

      Austin, John

      (Copeland)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Baird, Vera

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Baker, Norman

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Banks, Tony

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Barnes, Harry

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Barrett, John

      David, Wayne

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Davidson, Ian

      Battle, John

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Beard, Nigel

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Dawson, Hilton

      Berth, rh A. J.

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bennett, Andrew

      Denham, rh John

      Berry, Roger

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Betts, Clive

      Dismore, Andrew

      Blackman, Liz

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Doran, Frank

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Doughty, Sue

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Wallsend)

      Edwards, Huw

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Efford, Clive

      Browne, Desmond

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Bryant, Chris

      Etherington, Bill

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Burden, Richard

      Farrelly, Paul

      Burgon, Colin

      Fisher, Mark

      Burstow, Paul

      Fitzpatirick, Jim

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Cairns, David

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Follett, Barbara

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

      Casale, Roger

      & Rye)

      Caton, Martin

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Gapes, Mike (llfordS)

      Challen, Colin

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Chaytor, David

      Gerrard, Neil

      Chidgey, David

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Clapham, Michael

      Gidley, Sandra

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Pentlands)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

      Grogan, John

      Chryston)

      Hain, rh Peter

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clelland, David

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hancock, Mike

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hanson, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Coleman, Iain

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

      Colman, Tony

      Rhymney)

      Connarty, Michael

      Healey, John

      1519

      Heath, David

      McIsaac, Shona

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      McKechin, Ann

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hendrick, Mark

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hepburn, Stephen

      MacShane, Denis

      Hesford, Stephen

      McWilliam, John

      Heyes, David

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hodge, Margaret

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Holmes, Paul

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Shettleston)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Martlew, Eric

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Sefton E)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Miliband, David

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Miller, Andrew

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Mole, Chris

      Hutton, rh John

      Moore, Michael

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Moran, Margaret

      Illsley, Eric

      Morgan, Julie

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Morley, Elliot

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Mullin, Chris

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Highgate)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jamieson, David

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Jenkins, Brian

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hatfield)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Organ, Diana

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Perham, Linda

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Picking, Anne

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Plaskitt, James

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Pound, Stephen

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

      Keetch, Paul

      E)

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

      Prescott, rh John

      Inverness)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

      Kidney, David

      Dinefwr)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Purchase, Ken

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Purnell, James

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Lamb, Norman

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Linton, Martin

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Bellshill)

      Love, Andrew

      Rendel, David

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Anniesland)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

      McCabe, Stephen

      NW)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Ruane, Chris

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Ruddock, Joan

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of

      MacDougall, John

      Chester)

      McFall, John

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Salmond, Alex

      1520

      Sanders, Adrian

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Trickett, Jon

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Truswell, Paul

      Sawford, Phil

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

      Sheerman, Barry

      Kemptown)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Singh, Marsha

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Finsbury)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Lunesdale)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Watts, David

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns &

      Weir, Michael

      Kincardine)

      White, Brian

      Soley, Clive

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Southworth, Helen

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Spellar, rh John

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Squire, Rachel

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Stevenson, George

      Willis, Phil

      Stewart, David (Inverness E &

      Wills, Michael

      Lochaber)

      Winnick, David

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

      C)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Wishart, Pete

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Woodward, Shaun

      Stunell, Andrew

      Woolas, Phil

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Worthington, Tony

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Yarmouth)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Teather, Sarah

      Wyatt, Derek

      Thurso, John

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Timms, Stephen

      Tipping, Paddy

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Gillian Merron

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 6, in page 1, line 18, at end insert:
      '(4A) The Secretary of state must not make an order under this section specifying a region which the Electoral Commission has identified as—

      (a) not suitable for a pilot scheme; or

      (b) a region for which the Commission does not feel able to make a positive recommendation as to its sutablility.;—[Mr. Heath].

      Question put, That the amendment be made;—
      The House divided:Ayes 181, Noes 304.

      Division No. 13]

      [5:50 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Allan, Richard

      Bercow, John

      Amess, David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Blunt, Crispin

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Boswell, Tim

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Brady, Graham

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Bacon, Richard

      Brazier, Julian

      Baker, Norman

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Barker, Gregory

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Barrett, John

      Burns, Simon

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Burnside, David

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Burstow, Paul

      1521

      Burt, Alistair

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Butterfill, John

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Maclean, rh David

      Cameron, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Mates, Michael

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Barnet)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Chidgey, David

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

      Chope, Christopher

      Coldfield)

      Clappison, James

      Moore, Michael

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Collins, Tim

      Norman, Archie

      Conway, Derek

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Cotter, Brian

      Öpik, Lembit

      Curry, rh David

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Page, Richard

      Doughty, Sue

      Paterson, Owen

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Pickles, Eric

      Evans, Nigel

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Fabricant, Michael

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Fallon, Michael

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Flight, Howard

      Randall, John

      Flook, Adrian

      Redwood, rh John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Francois, Mark

      Rendel, David

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Garnier, Edward

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      M-Kent)

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry

      Gidley, Sandra

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Goodman, Paul

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Grayling, Chris

      Ruffley, David

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Greenway, John

      Selous, Andrew

      Gummer, rh John

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Hague, rh William

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hammond, Philip

      Simmonds, Mark

      Hancock, Mike

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns &

      Heald, Oliver

      Kincardine)

      Heath, David

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hendry, Charles

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Hermon, Lady

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Spring, Richard

      Holmes, Paul

      Steen, Anthony

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Streeter, Gary

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hunter, Andrew

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Syms, Robert

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Keetch, Paul

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

      Teather, Sarah

      Inverness)

      Thurso, John

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Tredinnick, David

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Lamb, Norman

      Viggers, Peter

      Lansley, Andrew

      Walter, Robert

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Leigh, Edward

      Watkinson, Angela

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Whittingdale, John

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Wiggin, Bill

      Lidington, David

      Wilkinson, John

      1522

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Willis, Phil

      Wilshire, David

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas

      Richard Younger-Ross and

      (Macclesfield)

      Mr. Mark Field

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      (Copeland)

      Ainger, Nick

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Alexander, Douglas

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Allen, Graham

      David, Wayne

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Davidson, Ian

      Austin, John

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Baird, Vera

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Banks, Tony

      Dawson, Hilton

      Barnes, Harry

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Denham, rh John

      Battle, John

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dismore, Andrew

      Beard, Nigel

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Bennett, Andrew

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Berry, Roger

      Doran, Frank

      Betts, Clive

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Blackman, Liz

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Edwards, Huw

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Efford, Clive

      Brennan, Kevin

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Wallsend)

      Etherington, Bill

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Browne, Desmond

      Farrelly, Paul

      Bryant, Chris

      Fisher, Mark

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Fitzpatirick, Jim

      Burden, Richard

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Burgon, Colin

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Cairns, David

      Follett, Barbara

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

      Casale, Roqer

      & Rye)

      Caton, Martin

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Gapes, Mike (llford S)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Challen, Colin

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Chapman, Ben (WirralS)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Chaytor, David

      Gilroy, Linda

      Clapham, Michael

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Pentlands)

      Grogan, John

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hain, rh Peter

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Chryston)

      Hanson, David

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clelland, David

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Rhymney)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Healey, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Coleman, Iain

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Colman, Tony

      Hendrick, Mark

      Connarty, Michael

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cousins, Jim

      Heyes, David

      Cranston, Ross

      Hinchliffe, David

      Crausby, David

      Hodge, Margaret

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Cummings, John

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      1523

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Moran, Margaret

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Morgan, Julie

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Morley, Elliot

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

      Mullin, Chris

      Sefton E)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Hutton, rh John

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Illsley, Eric

      O'Hara, Edward

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Olner, Bill

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Organ, Diana

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

      Perham, Linda

      Highgate)

      Picking, Anne

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jamieson, David

      Plaskitt, James

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Pound, Stephen

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

      Hatfield)

      E)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Prescott, rh John

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dinefwr)

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Purchase, Ken

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Purnell, James

      Kidney, David

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Quinn, Lawrie

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Bellshill)

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Linton, Martin

      Robertson, John (Glasgow

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Anniesland)

      Love, Andrew

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      NW)

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Ruane, Chris

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Ruddock, Joan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of

      McCabe, Stephen

      Chester)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Salmond, Alex

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Salter, Martin

      MacDonald, Calum

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      MacDougall, John

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McFall, John

      Sawford, Phil

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sheerman, Barry

      McKechin, Ann

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McNamara, Kevin

      Singh, Marsha

      McWilliam, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

      Mallaber, Judy

      Finsbury)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Lunesdale)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Shettleston)

      Soley, Clive

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Southworth, Helen

      Martlew, Eric

      Spellar, rh John

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Squire, Rachel

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Merron, Gillian

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Michael, rh Alun

      Stevenson, George

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Stewart, David (Inverness E &

      Miliband, David

      Lochaber)

      Miller, Andrew

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Mole, Chris

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      1524

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Timms, Stephen

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Wills, Michael

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Winnick, David

      Trickett, Jon

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

      Truswell, Paul

      C)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Wishart, Pete Woodward, Shaun

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

      Woolas, Phil

      Kemptown)

      Worthington, Tony

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Yarmouth)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Wyatt, Derek

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Watts, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Weir, Michael

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      White, Brian

      Charlotte Atkins

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 2

      PILOT ORDER
      Amendment made: No. 50, in page 2, line 14 at end insert —
      `(3A) The pilot order must make provision requiring the returning officer to provide (before the close of the poll at the election) polling progress information.

      (a) to such persons or organisations as are specified in the order or are of such descriptions as are so specified, and

      (b) at such times and in such circumstances as are so specified.

      (3B) Polling progress information is information as to the electors by whom it appears to the returning officer at the time the information is provided that a vote has been cast.
      (3C) For the purposes of subsection (3B) the returning officer must be taken not to have seen the contents of any ballot paper.
      (3D) The returning officer is the person who is described as such in the order.' — [Mr. Leslie.]

    Clause 4

      ELECTORAL COMMISSION REPORT
      Amendments made: No. 4, in page 3, line 5 leave out `voters' and insert 'electors'.
      No. 48, in page 3, line 18 at end insert —
      '() The report must also include an assessment as to the following matters relating to the requirement by virtue of section 2 to provide polling progress information

      (a) its effect on the campaigning of candidates and political parties;

      (b) the use made by candidates and political parties of the information;

      (c) the views of electors and political parties about the provision of the information (including views as to its effect on turnout of voters and use of the information by candidates and political parties);

      (d) its effect on the conduct and administration of the election.'

      No. 49, in page 3, line 22 [Clause 4], leave out 'voters' and insert 'electors'.— [Mr. Leslie.]
      Mr. Michael Ancram: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. A

      1525
      remarkable piece of news is running on BBC television at the moment. It reports that the Prime Minister has revealed in an interview with the British Forces Broadcasting Service that there is massive evidence of systems of laboratories throughout Iraq that could have produced weapons of mass destruction. He has also talked about programmes for the building of intercontinental ballistic missiles. I raise this matter because although I understand that the statement is based on the Iraq survey group's interim report, it goes a good deal further than anything that the House has been told. If true, the news is very significant and the Prime Minister should surely have told the House before broadcasting it. Has the Prime Minister asked your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to come to the House and make a statement on the matter?
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, these issues were extremely controversial, both before the commencement of military action against Iraq and during the hostilities. They have continued to be of controversy, not least given the inquiry being conducted by Lord Hutton. Is not it appropriate that the House of Commons should be advised about these matters before anyone else?
      Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Following the points already made, can you confirm that Mr. Speaker has repeatedly ruled from the Chair that announcements such as this should be made to the House first? Can you therefore ask whether urgent inquiries can now be sent from this Chamber to No. 10 to determine whether the Prime Minister has spoken in the way suggested? If he has, can he be invited—very strongly—to come to the House of Commons promptly, in order that he may tell us what on earth is going on?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Obviously, the Chair knows nothing of these broadcasts or their content. The Chair can say that there has been no request from No. 10 for permission to make a statement. These are obviously serious matters, and they have been heard by Government Front-Bench Members. I remind hon. Members that the Prime Minister is due to answer questions in this House tomorrow.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      6.5 pm
      Mr. Leslie: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      Many hon. Members have contributed significantly during the Bill's passage through the House, especially by effective scrutiny in Committee. It is also worth commenting briefly on several other initiatives as we conclude the consideration of the Bill. First, I wish to put on record my appreciation of all members of the Committee, especially those who have also contributed to the debate today, for generating useful ideas and assisting the development of policy.
      One example is the amendment that has just been agreed unanimously, to change the part of the Bill that relates to the definition of a voter or elector. The
      1526
      amendment was originally tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and affects the terms as defined in the Representation of the People Act 2000. The change that has now been agreed will extend the duty of local authorities so that when assisting the Electoral Commission they may be required not only to assist in the ascertaining of the views of those who have actually voted, but those eligible to vote and who chose not to vote. A consequential change has also been made to the nature of the Electoral Commission's report. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion and I am glad that we have been able to accept it.
      Members from all the parties who took part in the debate in Committee—the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish nationalists, as well as Labour Members— made several helpful suggestions about how the marked register or— in legal terms— the polling progress information should be piloted in the case of all-postal ballots. Many hon. Members spoke of the need to provide political parties and candidates with an electoral register marked to show who had cast their ballot in the all-postal process, to be provided prior to the close of poll. Amendments were tabled and the Government have been able to accept them. That is the right way forward.
      My Department has been in contact with representatives of all the main political parties and electoral administrators about the form that a marked register should take and how it could practicably be produced. The conclusion was that it should not take the form of an electoral register marked to show those who have cast a ballot, but instead be provided as a list of those who have returned an envelope purporting to contain a ballot paper, thus enabling worries about human rights, secrecy and privacy to be overcome. Parties would then cross-reference the list with their own copies of the electoral register. That was the clear preference of all parties and the favoured mechanism of regional returning officers. The purpose of the change— which has now been made— is to state explicitly in the Bill the principle that the information will be provided and to make clear the obligation on electoral administrators.
      The rationale behind this Bill is simple: we need to modernise our electoral systems so that the public as a whole can express their democratic choice more easily and conveniently. There has been much discussion recently about the levels of participation in our political process, reflecting the sense that the turnout at elections is too low and needs attention. While there are no doubt deeper undercurrents that create voter apathy or fatigue— the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has mentioned some of them— some practical and achievable steps can be taken now to make the process of voting more amenable and suitable to modern ways of life.
      I have announced today the Government's intention to extend the process, begun some time ago, of trialling new and innovative voting mechanisms, extending the scale now from the local to a regional level. All-postal voting is of benefit not just to those with difficulties physically getting to a polling station— those with disabilities or the elderly— but is of positive convenience to the wider population as well.
      Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: In Committee, the Minister assured me that we would see a dialogue between the Electoral Commission and the organisations that represent those with disabilities. Will he assure the House that he will take up any recommendations from the commission on people with disabilities?
      Mr. Leslie: I can assure the hon. Lady that we have continued that dialogue, not only with the Electoral Commission but with organisations representing disabled people and elderly people. A number of initiatives may need to be included in the pilot order; for example, in relation to a device to assist visually impaired people to vote. The debate on those matters, in which she took part, was useful in developing policy.
      At the local election pilots so far undertaken, all-postal balloting ran at nearly 50 per cent. turnout, compared with an average of 33 per cent. where conventional arrangements applied. That illustrates the likely impact of the removal of some of the physical obstacles that lie between the voter and the ballot box. We propose to pilot all-postal voting in the north-east of England and the east midlands. I hope, too, that a third region or nation will be identified over the coming few weeks, following conclusion of the considerations advised of the Electoral Commission.
      The Government recognise that all-postal voting is not a panacea for all the problems of voter participation in our democracy. Nevertheless, it is surely right to take steps where we can on practical and popular improvements to make voting more accessible and simpler. All of us in Parliament have an interest in ensuring that our democracy remains healthy and that elected representatives have a clear mandate from their constituents to act. The Bill represents an important step forward in that objective and I commend it to the House.
      6.11 pm
      Mr. Hawkins: As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said on Second Reading, this is not a very good Bill. It is a bit of a mess. It started as a mess, and has been made worse by the Government's great surprise last week when they did not receive the response that they expected and wanted from the Electoral Commission. They did not receive the response they wanted on the number of regions; the commission recommended only two, not three. Indeed, the commission went further and said that there could be only one pilot region. On page 25 of its report of 8 December, the commission states:
      "Should the Government be minded to provide for only one pilot scheme in 2004, the Commission recommends that it provides for an all-postal pilot in the North East."
      Clearly, as we have been suggesting, the Government could end up with only one pilot region.
      During the last substantive debate on amendments, the Minister gave the game away. As I said then, and as we feared when I wound up on Second Reading, it is clear that the fix will be put back. We expect that the Government will bow to the demands of all their Back Benchers who represent Scottish constituencies and announce that the region will be Scotland. If they do, they will be flying in the face of the Electoral
      1528
      Commission's recommendations. Not only has the regional returning officer said that he does not think that Scotland would be an appropriate place for a postal pilot—although the Minister chose to quote selectively from the commission's report—but the commission's conclusions are even more strongly against the idea.
      Section 3.8 on page 26 of the report states:
      "The Regional Returning Officer for Scotland has submitted to the Commission, on behalf of himself and all 31 Local Returning Officers, that: having carefully considered the opportunity to conduct an all-postal ballot for the European Election in June 2004, we"—
      that is all the returning officers—
      "have concluded that the success of an all-postal ballot cannot be guaranteed—Returning Officers feel that the lateness of the proposal and the difficulties which this brings to planning and contracting are significantly more important than many of the questions posed in the Consultation Paper.
      This conclusion is based on very real fears that the necessary infrastructure, which would be required to support the process, cannot be delivered in time to ensure that the election could be conducted properly.
      The risks are identified and commented upon in this response. We believe that these risks are cumulative and centre upon concerns over: the legislative timetable; the general lack of experience in Scotland of all-postal ballots; the lack of time available for forward planning; the recent busy electoral history in Scotland; issues relating to the security of the ballot; possible problems of delivery and return of ballot papers; the very significant staffing implications of an all-postal ballot; concerns about the ability of suppliers to deliver effectively; lack of time to test critical computer systems; and resources to plan for and deliver the election."
      That is the regional returning officer for Scotland setting out his objections on behalf of all 31 local returning officers.
      I wanted to put those comments on record on behalf of my party because those present earlier who listened to the contributions of some Scottish Members—who, perhaps significantly, have not stayed for Third Reading—might have got the impression that local returning officers took a different view from the regional returning officer. It is made absolutely clear in the report of the Electoral Commission—which the Government set up—that the regional returning officer was writing on his behalf and on that of all 31 local returning officers. If the Government were to go ahead and soon or quickly—as the Minister variously put it—announce that Scotland was suitable, they would be flying in the face of all those detailed objections. I do not overstate the case by saying that the Opposition would regard that as a constitutional outrage and a recipe for disaster.
      The Electoral Commission therefore concludes, in the light of all those factors, that those issues remain unresolved and must be addressed before any decision to designate Scotland a pilot region. We are talking about elections in June 2004, so there is no way that all those serious concerns could possibly be addressed in time.
      Mr. Leslie indicated dissent
      Mr. Hawkins: If the Minister thinks otherwise, I would be interested to hear shortly how that can be done. If he wants to set out how he would answer all those detailed bullet points, I will take an intervention.
      Mr. Leslie: I understand the hon. Gentleman's excitement but surely it is worth looking into the points raised by the returning officers further to see whether they can be overcome. Is that not reasonable?
      Mr. Hawkins: No, because the Government set up the Electoral Commission. I agree respectfully with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said about commissions and I will say more in a moment. If the commission does not give the answer that the Government want and expect, they seek to undermine it and go back on its recommendations. We are talking about an election in only six months' time. The Electoral Commission, all the returning officers and the regional returning officer say clearly that these matters cannot be dealt with in time, and they say it, if I may say so, in spades.
      The Minister conceded finally that everything that Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members said about e-voting in Committee and on Second Reading was correct. The Electoral Commission has supported us, and the Government have had to abandon their previous obsession with so-called e-voting. Unfortunately, they have not abandoned their other obsession with so-called modernisation. Today, the Minister added a further abuse of the English language with what he described as a multi-channel general election after 2006. I do not know what that neologism is supposed to mean. Whatever it is, I suspect that Conservative Members will dislike it intensely. I am getting almost to the stage at which when I hear a Minister—he is one of the worst offenders—trot out yet again their dreary mantra of modernisation I want to reach for a revolver or a sick bag.
      Mr. Forth: Perhaps the Minister had in mind reality elections, in which all the candidates go into some horrible room, and people are invited to telephone in and throw them out one by one.
      Mr. Hawkins: That reminds me of the old-fashioned balloon debate in a university or school debating society, in which people would vote to decide who should be thrown out. We know that every time the Prime Minister has a reshuffle he indulges in a political version of the balloon debate in deciding who has been slavishly loyal enough to stay in the Government's balloon and who must be thrown out. It is the same with modernisation as with some of the Government's other obsessive buzzwords such as "sustainability". The Government believe that anything that is old must be bad. Conservatives, however, believe in our parliamentary and electoral traditions. We say that the reason that they are old and have survived is that they work—they are tried, tested and true. We strongly agree with the basis of the Electoral Reform Society's concerns about the Bill, which they have repeated before Third Reading to assist all hon. Members. It clearly has great concerns about issues such as the misuse of postal
      1530
      ballots in houses in multiple occupation and student halls of residence, and even cases in which the head of a household could purport to vote on behalf of everybody in that household.
      I hope that the my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will acquit me of what he called nauseating sycophancy towards the Electoral Commission, because I strongly agree with him that the Government keep setting up such commissions, which is a recipe for constant flux. Once there is a commission, it will always make recommendations and it will always want to change things. It would be far better if we said that the reason why our electoral traditions have survived is because they work.
      On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone made several important points, which I shall touch on because they are equally relevant to Third Reading. The Opposition believe that the decline in turnout for European elections, which the Government are concerned about, is at least partly because of the introduction of the party list system under the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999, which abolished first-past-the-post voting in European elections.
      In our view, the decline is also because of the centralising, remote and bureaucratic process of further and deeper European integration. Perhaps the fact that last weekend's European Commission summit to try to draw up a new European constitution collapsed is a welcome sign that the European position is now collapsing under the weight of its own inadequacies and internal inconsistencies. There is certainly the problem that issues to do with further European integration will undermine trust and respect in the political system, and a referendum on any future constitution that may emerge from any future summit will be absolutely essential. We believe that we should return to first-past-the-post voting in European elections. If that were the Government's proposal today, instead of all the nonsense in the Bill, it would increase turnout in European elections, which the Government say is the object of the exercise.
      When my hon. Friend the Member for Stone spoke on Second Reading, he drew attention to the fact that the European Scrutiny Committee—which has a Labour majority and is a chaired by a Labour Member, the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) —urged the House to reintroduce first-past-the-post voting for European elections. We sought to introduce such a proposal in Committee. First past the post is the only system that maintains the immediate link between a representative and his or her constituency. That is particularly important now that we have these enormous, so-called European regions, which may have up to 6 million voters.
      The evidence on all-postal voting is mixed. In some areas, it has undoubtedly increased turnout, which is why we have not, as a party, opposed all the Government's proposals for all-postal voting. When examining the Bill, it is right to point out that the evidence is contradictory. In the Hackney all-postal pilot, turnout actually fell by 3 per cent., and in

      1531
      Greenwich it dropped by 0.4 per cent. Some of the postal pilots have not worked well even to increase turnout, which the Government say that they want to do.
      Our concerns about fraud and the dangers of personation remain. As the Electoral Reform Society has said, the chances of large-scale fraud are now back with us for the first time in 130 years—for the first time since the ballot reforms in 1872, there is serious concern about large-scale fraud. If the Government had not dropped their e-voting pilot plans this afternoon, we would be even more concerned that there would be large-scale attempts to distort a ballot by hacking into insecure computer systems. I am glad that the Government have belatedly listened to us and the Liberal Democrats and dropped those proposals.
      Many senior police officers—some of whom I have spoken to—including Detective Chief Superintendent Dave Churchill, the head of West Midlands police major fraud unit, remain concerned that postal voting systems have too few major checks or controls to ensure that the true identity of the voter can be relied upon. The Bill contains too little protection for the security of the ballot, which is why we tabled amendments to provide for greater protection.
      The security of the postal system gives rise to several questions and it might be relevant to mention the strange saga on which I briefly touched earlier. Although I have received hard copies of most Electoral Commission documents in good time by post, there was one that I did not receive, so I had to get it from the helpful people in the Library. Perhaps I did not receive it because of the pressures on the Christmas post, but if even a shadow Minister cannot get a hard copy of a relevant document in time for a debate, despite the fact that it was issued a week before, how can we be certain that the postal system will be able to run an effective all-postal ballot in an area as large as a European constituency?
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) expressed worry about potential problems in rural parts of north-east England such as his constituency. If the north-east is selected for all-postal pilots—the Government are likely to accept the Electoral Commission's recommendations on that—the area might be out of synchronisation with the rest of the national campaign. Problems such as the way in which the media will cover the election are set out in the commission's report and despite the fact that the northeast and midlands have been recommended for pilots, it does not say that all the problems have been solved.
      I agree with the worries expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member Bromley and Chislehurst and my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham and for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). There should be more delivery points in the postal system. Given that the Bill will impose all-postal pilots on local authorities that might not wish to participate, it is important for there to be delivery points in each local government ward so that people who wish to vote by post will be able to drop off their ballot envelopes by hand in a secure location that is convenient for them. There is a danger that there might be strike action by Post Office workers, which has happened throughout the country in recent months and years, so there are genuine worries about the reliability
      1532
      Of the postal service. Indeed, militant unions could regard the fact that an election depended on the postal service as a good excuse to try to blackmail the Government of the day, which would cause a real problem.
      We are also worried that, according to Postwatch, figures that were issued at the end of January 2001, an average of 1,500 items of mail are lost every week across every parliamentary constituency. I received a letter in the post only today from a constituent with whom I correspond regularly. She said that she wrote to me during the last postal dispute in London, but I have not received her letter. That situation confirms the examples that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster cited earlier.
      We did not have time to discuss amendment No. 26 because of the earlier Divisions. Conservative Members believe that the Government should make it clear that local authorities will be fully funded for all the costs of all-postal elections. Many small local authorities, such as those in my area and Tynedale council, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, are in danger of being left seriously out of pocket because the Government keep loading more obligations on such authorities without providing the funds to pay for them.
      Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is raising several perfectly reasonable concerns about the practicality of all-postal ballots, but the stuff about people being open to blackmail from militant trade unions is grossly offensive to postal workers. What is the difference between his argument and the situation if people were to refuse to deliver polling cards or man polling stations? He is going into the realms of fantasy.
      Mr. Hawkins: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right, but let us wait and see what happens when we have the all-postal pilots. The situation for polling cards is different. All hon. Members will be familiar with canvassing electors who say that they have not received their polling cards. Under the traditional system, we tell them that they can go to the polling station because if they can prove their name and address, the officials will accept that and give them a ballot paper. However, if ballot papers are delivered only through the post, electors who do not receive them will be deprived of their right to vote.
      Although we have tried to improve the Bill and the Government have belatedly accepted several of the things that we said—we welcome the changes that they have made—we remain worried about it. We do not think that it will improve elections. In the light of what the Minister said about ignoring some of the Electoral Commission recommendations and proceeding with three pilots instead of two, we believe that we are right to mark our disapproval by voting against Third Reading.
      6.29 pm
      Mr. Heath: There are times when Governments need to introduce legislation in haste because of events. It is rarely good legislation. A habit is forming in the

      1533
      Department for Constitutional Affairs that also existed in its predecessor, of introducing legislation in haste when there is no need and when they have failed to predict or accommodate within their legislative plans the deadlines determined by the electoral timetable. This is one of those occasions. Nevertheless, our consideration of the Bill, especially in Committee, has been good. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House who were involved in that, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and for Southport (Dr. Pugh). He has sat patiently waiting to contribute to the debate and I hope that he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Progress has been made. The Government accepted my amendment No. 4, which they took over and called their own by adding the Minister's name to those who tabled it. I thank him for that because it improves the Bill. I am also grateful for his consideration of marked registers, which we pursued in Committee. He has accepted that they are in the interests of all parties and his proposal for them is sensible.
      I am grateful to the Electoral Commission for knocking on the head the idea of a mixed all-postal and electronic election. We still have grave concerns about the efficacy of voting by electronic means and the avoidance of fraud. Those concerns have been strengthened rather than eliminated by the Electoral Commission. I am glad that the Minister has ruled out mixed voting for the pilots.
      I wanted us to make more progress on fraud, personation and so on. The commission's proposals are good and need to be implemented. Although the Minister gave us vague assurances, they will be considered further in another place. The key concern for many people is whether the integrity of the ballot is maintained in all-postal elections. That is not only a problem for houses in multiple occupation. In general, there is a problem with the secrecy of the ballot and the ways in which it is more likely to be subject to malpractice than voting in person.
      I am grateful to the Minister for his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole on people with disabilities. I hope that that work will continue and bear fruit so that everyone is properly involved in our electoral process.
      There are some key problems. I have said all along that I am not intrinsically against novel forms of voting. There are cases for exploring ways of making the voting process better and more accessible to our electorate, but that process must be beyond challenge and reproach. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) nods, but I disagree with his argument that the Electoral Commission has no role to play. We need a degree of external arbitration on what is beyond reproach if Ministers are to introduce proposals for the House to consider, as they have done. In this case, they have decided that the north-east and east midlands should hold the pilots. I do not accept the premise behind the Bill, but I do accept that recommendation. If that is the conclusion of the Electoral Commission, those areas should hold the pilots.
      The Minister is not satisfied with that. He wants a third region. As I said, if he is not changing the criteria that the Electoral Commission uses, it is bound to come to the same conclusion. In that case, he will have to override its decision for his own reasons, which he must
      1534
      give. If, on the other hand, he had accepted our amendment, he could have asked the Electoral Commission to do more work in those areas to ascertain whether it could come to a positive recommendation. The right approach would have been to say, "When you come forward with a positive recommendation for a third region, we shall adopt it, but we must have that recommendation."
      In the present circumstances, the Minister will do far better by just accepting the runner up, as it were Scotland—and be done with it. Any other solution that the Minister comes forward with will be unacceptable. It will appear to be a gerrymander, whether it is or not and that is the problem that the Minister faces.
      I have not entirely supported the Bill. My colleagues and I opposed it on Second Reading and we will oppose it on Third Reading. We do so because we do not believe that there should be pilots on such a scale in a national election. It is a sensible and reasoned proposition that when there is a national election or an international election, in the case of European elections, every voter in the country should be voting on the same basis, not with some voters in full possession of the facts as they are elicited during the election campaign and some not. Some electors should not have easier access to the ballot than others. There should he consistency. That is our key objection to the proposal. What the Minister said in the course of our considerations has not changed that fact. For that reason I recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends oppose the Bill on Third Reading.
      6.36 pm
      Joyce Quin: I welcome the Bill and I shall briefly explain why. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the way in which he has presented the Government's case throughout our proceedings, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee.
      I naturally wish to express my pleasure that the northeast has been recommended by the Electoral Commission as one of the pilot regions, and that the Minister has accepted that recommendation, which reflects the scale of the pilots at local elections that we have already conducted in the north-east. I think I am right in saying that the north-east is the only region where more than half the local authorities have already been involved in all-postal pilots.
      The experiments have been extremely successful. Returning officers and others who have been involved in conducting such elections have not encountered the problems and genuine fears—I accept that they are genuine—that have been expressed by a number of Members during our proceedings. I accept that with all-postal elections candidates conduct themselves and campaigns are run in a somewhat different way. However, in our local experiments it has been possible to cast one's vote right up to the last day either at the civic centre or at some other designated point. It is true that even with all-postal ballots it is possible to vote fairly late in the proceedings.
      I listened carefully to the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) about the difference in the national campaign when compared with others. However, we must recognise that local elections are often affected by national issues. Some issues that are relevant at local elections are relevant to

      1535
      local authorities throughout the country—issues relating to council tax, for example. They may be similar from one local authority area to another even though a particular local authority may be participating in a pilot and another local authority with similar issues may not. I do not think those obstacles are insuperable. If we were talking, as I hope we shall be, about rolling out on a more extensive scale, we would have to think of the consequences in terms of campaigning overall.
      I reaffirm how popular the experiment in my area has been with voters. In parts of my area we have had the experiments now for three consecutive years. Like all Members at local election time, I canvas, knock on doors, and speak to people on the doorstep. The reaction to postal voting has been extremely positive, and I do not believe that we should stick with a traditional way of voting just for the sake of it. Many people, particularly in households where both partners are working, have stressed the fact that the all-postal system fits much better with their lifestyle. Of course, people may know in advance that they are going to find it difficult to get to the polling station, perhaps because both partners are working, or because they work long or unsocial hours. At the same time, my constituents warmly welcome an automatic entitlement to a postal vote. In parts of my constituency, people are used to the postal system, which they have used for three consecutive years, so there would be resentment if we went back to what they consider an old-fashioned and less convenient way of voting.
      For all those reasons, I am very pleased indeed that the north-east was selected as a pilot for the experiment. I agree that we need to learn from our experience and evaluate carefully what happens in the elections, but I encourage the Government to think innovatively about voting systems. They should not be deflected by the doom and gloom that we have heard in our proceedings, because in my experience it is not borne out by reality.
      6.41 pm
      Angela Watkinson: I have listened with great interest to the debate. When our debates started this afternoon, I was opposed to the Bill in principle because of my experience in the most recent local elections of the postal ballot pilot in Havering, which threw up a range of difficulties. I hoped that, during the debate I would gain confidence that those difficulties could be overcome. but having heard Members' contributions, I remain opposed to the Bill.
      The pilot in Havering threw up problems with the postal service, such as the non-receipt by electors of ballot papers and the difficulties of getting duplicates. In Havering, the one-envelope system was a particular problem, because a lot of electors resented having to put their declaration of identity in the same envelope as their ballot paper on the grounds of lack of confidentiality. The person who opened the envelope could link the ballot paper to the elector's identity, which was wholly unsatisfactory. There was also the problem of finding out whether completed ballot papers had been received at the town hall. A significant number of voters contacted me to ask how they could be certain that the town hall had received their ballot paper. In fact, there is no way of knowing. If we acknowledge the large
      1536
      amount of post that goes astray every year, we must assume that a certain proportion of ballot papers do not reach their destination.
      In principle, an all-postal ballot is a bad thing, because it removes choice from the elector. Anybody who wants a postal vote can have one. In the past, it has been necessary to give a reason, such as going on holiday, work commitments or illness. Now, however, anybody who wishes to vote by post can do so if they submit an application. Nobody is therefore denied a postal vote if they want one.
      David Taylor: The hon. Lady posed a rhetorical question when she asked how people can know that their absent voter ballot has reached the count. The marked register is a public document and is available for inspection after the electoral process is complete.
      Angela Watkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which highlights my point. By the time a voter has discovered that their vote has not been received, it is too late. It is certainly possible to find out whether a vote has been recorded, but only after the election has taken place.
      Choice should remain. If people wish to vote in the traditional way at a polling station, they should still be able to do so, but if they wish to have a postal vote, they should have one. That is preferable to choice being removed from people who wish to vote in person.
      I shall say a few words about electronic voting, about which I would be extremely concerned. Highly sophisticated hackers, the introduction of viruses and the opportunities for personation mean that secure and confidential electronic voting is a long way off. I for one would never wish to vote by electronic means, because I would have no confidence at all in that system. It would have to be part of a mixed method system, because one could not guarantee that everybody had access to a computer. Those who had access to a computer at home or in their local library—those are two different methods, for a start—could vote electronically, while others would vote by post or in person at polling stations. That would make the system extremely complicated.
      I take issue with the aim of the Bill. If I understand it correctly, the aim is to increase voter participation, which in itself is desirable. The proposals are aimed at non-voters, but people who do not vote choose not to vote. Nobody prevents them from voting. One can hardly say that voting is a complicated, onerous or difficult task. It is a simple matter to go to a polling station, and it is very simple to ask for a postal vote if anybody wants one. To make the process even simpler is wrong in concept.
      If people need to be spoon-fed their ballot papers, they are not motivated to make a choice of who they want to vote for. They must have some personal motivation to participate in an election. The proposal is one step away from knocking on somebody's door, putting a pen in their hand, taking the ballot paper and putting it in the ballot box for them. People must take some responsibility for themselves. Making an election simpler is wrong in concept.
      Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend is making an important point. Does she agree that when we look

      1537
      around the world and see many other countries where people are still fighting and dying for the right to vote in the traditional way, it is rather ridiculous that, because of their obsession with modern technology, the Government want to demean and get rid of a system that people elsewhere in the world desperately want—a democracy that is tried and tested, and which has worked for many hundreds of years in this country?
      Angela Watkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which highlights the situation in this country. We live in a free democratic country where everybody has the right and the opportunity to vote. If they do not take it, that is their choice. It is up to politicians to motivate people to use their vote by giving them reasons to think that that is important and makes a difference, not to make it so easy for them that they do not have to make any effort at all. If people cannot be bothered to vote, if it is too much trouble for them to ask for a postal ballot paper or to go to a polling station, it is their responsibility, not the Government's.
      6.48 pm
      Dr. Pugh: I rise for three purposes: first, to express my strong support in principle for postal voting, for entirely selfish reasons—it saves me a great deal of energy on election day if more and more people vote by post; secondly, to express support for the Electoral Commission's conclusions, although I do not tend to make a habit of that; and thirdly, to urge the Minister to resist other siren voices from the north-west and the erroneous idea that the north-west would be a good target for the pilots.
      I accept entirely that there have been successful pilots in places such as Chorley and St. Helen's, and I accept entirely that there has been an increased level of participation in those elections. That is well documented. However, there are specific reasons this time for not choosing the north-west. The Electoral Commission is right in its decision, not because there is no need to increase participation—there clearly is; not because north-west people are not ready for modernity—they clearly are; and not because it would affect the political balance—the figures last time showed that it did not.
      There are specific circumstances in the north-west in 2004 that make the region a bad choice. There is a real risk that the success of the north-west pilot in 2003 will not be replicated in the whole of the north-west in 2004. What was true in Chorley in 2003 may not generally be true of the whole of the north-west subsequently. The axiom "Chorley today, the world tomorrow" will not necessarily hold in this case.
      I should like to give a rationale for that. The bulk of the elections in the north-west will be in the big mets and unitaries. That is where most people will vote. Very large numbers of the politically disconnected reside in those areas. Eighteen of the biggest councils in the north-west happen to have all-up council elections. That will occur in all the mets. It is the product of a completely coincidental process in terms of the periodic boundary reviews. Unusually, across the north-west people will vote in June and not May; for three councillors, not one; in two elections, not one; and under two voting systems, not one. Adding many people's first encounter with a postal voting system will produce a recipe for a degree of chaos, as novelty will be piled upon novelty.
      1538
      My judgment—I think it is a fair one —is that, because of the complexity involved in this year's elections, people in the north-west will need more help than usual from polling clerks. A large number of people will be outfaced by the sheer size of the ballot paper and the various notes that will need to accompany it. Those who are least politically literate will have more problems. People in ethnic communities, for example, or those who have problems of social disadvantage may be most deterred by that scenario and by the bulk of paper. If one's introduction to the postal voting system is complex, but will not be replicated the following year, when a more simple procedure will be in place, it will not be a good basis for a pilot.
      That is not just my judgment. Obviously, it is only a guesstimate on my part. but I have taken the trouble to write to a good number of chief returning officers in the mets who face the problem that I have described. In most, but not all, cases, they anticipate problems not for themselves—they are capable and competent administrators —but for the people who have to fill in the voting slips.
      I wish to make one final point that is more delicate in some respects. In urban boroughs, including some in the north-west in particular, serious concerns have been expressed about electoral fraud. Much of what is said is based on anecdote, even though the Electoral Commission refers to it in its report, and much of it features in the media. I thought it would be very helpful to have some positive and exact statistics, so I took the trouble to write to the Government asking how many allegations of electoral fraud in postal voting in local elections in the north-west had been reported or investigated in the past 10 years. I thought that, if they were going to propose the north-west as a pilot region, they would definitely know the answer to that question. The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire replied:
      "Information on electoral fraud at elections is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost."— [Official Report, 6 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 793W.]
      The fact that the Minister and the ministerial team do not know the answer to that question adds to uncertainty and to the prima facie case that the northwest is not the best area for a pilot. If he were to choose the north-west, which would run contrary to all the evidence that has been presented and to the recommendation of the Electoral Commission, the suspicion would be that the explanation was entirely political.
      6.53 pm
      Mr. Forth: I want to join my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) in challenging the underlying presumption behind the Bill, which seems to be something like this: it is terribly difficult, awkward and challenging to cast a vote in our democratic system, so we must help these poor voters, who find the whole thing overwhelmingly difficult, and make it much easier for them to vote.
      In my view, that is a patently absurd proposition. Our electoral system is tried and tested, and elegantly simple. Although the existing system is not foolproof, I suggest that if we are worried about personation or fraud within it, it should be relatively easy to deal with them. The

      1539
      Government's underlying presumption is extremely patronising to our voters. I am partly astonished by and partly in admiration of Labour Members who find themselves able to stand up in this Chamber and imply that their voters are almost incapable of meeting the challenge of the apparently extraordinarily difficult electoral system that they face.
      I do not share that presumption. I believe that our system is a proper and tried and tested one and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster said, it is perfectly reasonable to expect someone to exercise the privilege of voting by going to their local polling station and casting a vote on a ballot paper. That is not an obstacle—it is perfectly proper and appropriate in a modern, sophisticated democracy. We are, after all, talking about people whom we assume to be educated, if they wish to be knowledgeable, and who certainly have access to a wide range of information through the media.
      The whole presumption behind the Bill is wrong and open to challenge, and it is cloaked in the word "modernisation", which some of us have come to detest, and which the Government trot out on every occasion to imply that modern is better. I challenge that assumption. Particularly when one is involved in tinkering with an electoral system, the burden of proof must be on those who wish to make the change, because the alternative methods are in many ways open to doubt and suspicion.
      Mr. Salmond: If it had been left to the Conservative party, most of our electorates would never have got the vote in the first place. Although we cannot be sure about such things, I am pretty certain that if the right hon. Gentleman had sat on the Conservative Benches throughout the 20th century, he would have opposed every extension of the franchise.
      Mr. Forth: I am tempted to respond to the hon. Gentleman, but I will not.
      I want to identify the Electoral Commission as one of the villains of the piece. The Government are fond of setting up such bureaucracies consisting of bodies of people, who, let us not forget, are appointed by the Government, and whose self-justificatory mission is to produce endless proposals for change. The Government pick the proposals up, put the modernisation label on them, and patronise the electorate by saying, "This is something to which we must all agree in the name of democracy." That approach does not hold up. We lived without the Electoral Commission for a long time, and we could certainly do so again: I hope that my party has the courage to say that and to pledge itself to do something about it.
      Any self-respecting Government should be perfectly capable of examining the electoral system from time to time and making proposals that are put to the test of the parliamentary process to see whether they survive. We do not need a commission that is set up allegedly to be impartial, only for the Minister—rightly, in my opinion—to exercise his political judgment to say, "Thank you very much for that, but we are not going to do it anyway; or we are going to do something rather different." That challenges the whole basis of the commission.
      1540
      Many of the problems of the postal vote were highlighted today. We do not yet have anything like a satisfactory solution to the problem of personation, which was mentioned several times. To my mind, however, the more difficult and challenging problem is that of intimidation, which was hardly mentioned. We all know that our present system is about as secure as one can get. An individual who feels in any way vulnerable knows that they can go into the security of the polling station and cast their vote in absolute secrecy: on that they can rely. That is not the case if a ballot paper is posted to them, because that makes them vulnerable to intervention or intimidation by some other person, be it a member of the family or another person in a house in multiple occupation. That should give us pause for thought. I have not heard anyone give even the beginnings of an answer to the problem; until that happens, I will remain utterly unconvinced that the way forward suggested in the Bill is appropriate. Surely we cannot ask our voters, especially those who may be vulnerable to intimidation, to move from a secure system to a potentially insecure system without having made any attempt at reassurance.
      The Bill is deeply flawed. The reasons that have been given for it are invalid; the role of the Electoral Commission is one that I deprecate; and I am sorry to say that the alleged solutions for which the Government are responsible are inappropriate, poorly thought out and in many ways counterproductive. I hope that the House will reject it.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time: —
      The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 166.

      Division No.14]

      [6:59 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bryant, Chris

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Ainger, Nick

      Burden, Richard

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Burgon, Colin

      Alexander, Douglas

      Burnham, Andy

      Allen, Graham

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cairns, David

      Austin, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Baird, Vera

      Caton, Martin

      Banks, Tony

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Barnes, Harry

      Challen, Colin

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Battle, John

      Chaytor. David

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clapham, Michael

      Beard, Nigel

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Pentlands)

      Bell, Stuart

      Clark, Paul (Cillingham)

      Benn, rh Hilary

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

      Bennett, Andrew

      Chryston)

      Berry, Roger

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Betts, Clive

      Clelland, David

      Blackman, Liz

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Colman, Tony

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Connarty, Michael

      Brennan, Kevin

      Cousins, Jim

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

      Cranston, Ross

      Wallsend)

      Crausby, David

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Browne, Desmond

      Cummings, John

      1541

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      (Copeland)

      Hutton, rh John

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Illsley, Eric

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      David, Wayne

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

      Davidson, Ian

      Highgate)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jamieson, David

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Denham, rh John

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Hatfield)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Donohoe, Brian H,

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Doran, Frank

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Edwards, Huw

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

      Efford, Clive

      Inverness)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kidney, David

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Etherington, Bill

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Fisher, Mark

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Follett, Barbara

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      & Rye)

      Linton, Martin

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Gapes, Mike (llford S)

      Love, Andrew

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gilroy, Linda

      McCabe, Stephen

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Grogan, John

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McDonnell, John

      Hanson, David

      MacDougall, John

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      McFall, John

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

      McIsaac, Shona

      Rhymney)

      McKechin, Ann

      Healey, John

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McWilliam, John

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hermon, Lady

      Mann, John (Basset/aw)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Heyes, David

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow

      Hinchliffe, David

      Shettleston)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Merron, Gillian

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Miliband, David

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

      Miller, Andrew

      Sefton E)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mole, Chris

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Moran, Margaret

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Morgan, Julie

      1542

      Morley, Elliot

      Soley, Clive

      Mountford, Kali

      Southworth, Helen

      Mudie, George

      Spellar, rh John

      Mullin, Chris

      Squire, Rachel

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stevenson, George

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Stewart, David (Inverness E &

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Lochaber)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      O'Hara, Edward

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Olner, Bill

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Organ, Diana

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Perham, Linda

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Picking, Anne

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Plaskitt, James

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Pound, Stephen

      Timms, Stephen

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

      Tipping, Paddy

      E)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Trickett, Jon

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

      Truswell, Paul

      Dinefwr)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

      Kemptown)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Purnell, James

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Tvnan Bill (Hamilton Si

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Bellshill)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Robertson, John (Glasgow

      Watts, David

      Anniesland)

      White, Brian

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      NW)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Chester)

      Wills, Michael

      Salmond, Alex

      Winnick, David

      Salter, Martin

      Winterton. Ms Rosie (Doncaster

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      C)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wishart, Pete

      Sawford, Phil

      Woodward, Shaun

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Woolas, Phil

      Sheerman, Barry

      Worthington, Tony

      Sheridan, Jim

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

      Singh, Marsha

      Yarmouth)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Finsbury)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

      Lunesdale)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Joan Ryan and

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Vernon Coaker

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Boswell, Tim

      Allan, Richard

      Brady, Graham

      Amess, David

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Brazier, Julian

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Bacon, Richard

      Burns, Simon

      Baker, Norman

      Burnside, David

      Barker, Gregory

      Burstow, Paul

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Burt, Alistair

      Barrett, John

      Butterfill, John

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Bellingham, Henry

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Bercow, John

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Barnet)

      1543

      Chidgey, David

      Maclean, rh David

      Chope, Christopher

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Clappison, James

      Malins, Humfrey

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Mercer, Patrick

      Collins, Tim

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Norman, Archie

      Cotter, Brian

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Page, Richard

      Doughty, Sue

      Paterson, Owen

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Pickles, Eric

      Duncan Smith, rh lain

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Evans, Nigel

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Randall, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Redwood, rh John

      Field, Mark (Cities of London &

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Westminster)

      Rendel, David

      Flight, Howard

      Robathan, Andrew

      Flook, Adrian

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

      Forth, rh Eric

      M-Kent)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Francois, Mark

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Garnier, Edward

      Ruffley, David

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Gidley, Sandra

      Selous, Andrew

      Grayling, Chris

      Shepherd, Richard

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Greenway, John

      Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns &

      Gummer, rh John

      Kincardine)

      Hague, rh William

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Hammond, Philip

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hancock, Mike

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Hawkins, Nick

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Heald, Oliver

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Heath, David

      Spring, Richard

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Steen, Anthony

      Hendry, Charles

      Streeter, Gary

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Syms, Robert

      Holmes, Paul

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Hunter, Andrew

      Teather, Sarah

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Thurso, John

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Tredinnick, David

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Keetch, Paul

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Viggers, Peter

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Walter, Robert

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Waterson, Nigel

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Whittingdale, John

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Wiggin, Bill

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Wilkinson, John

      Lamb, Norman

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Willis, Phil

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Wilshire, David

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      (Macclesfield)

      Lidington, David

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Mcintosh, Miss Anne

      Angela Watkinson and

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Richard Younger-Ross

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With the leave of the House, I shall put motions 2, 3 and 4 together.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  That the draft International Fund for Agricultural Development (Sixth Replenishment) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 30th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
  EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES
  That the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 3rd December, be approved.

  EXTRADITION
  That the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 1 Territories) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 3rd December, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  EXTRADITION
  That the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 3rd December, be approved. — [Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
  Hon. Members Hon. Members: No.
  Division deferred until 12.30 pm on Wednesday 17 December.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put motions 6, 7 and 8 together.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  EXTRADITION
  That the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 3 Territories) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 3rd December, be approved.
  That the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Police Powers: Code of Practice) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 3rd December, be approved.

  BROADCASTING
  That this House approves the Amendment [Cm 6075] dated 4th December 2003 to the Agreement [Cm 3152] dated 25th January 1996, (as amended by the Amendment [Cm 4797] dated 3rd July 2000) between the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the British Broadcasting Corporation, which was laid before this House on 8th December. — [Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  Question agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put motions 9 and 10 together.

COMMITTEES

  PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
  Ordered,
  That Mr John Lyons be discharged from the Select Committee on Public Administration and Mrs Anne Campbell be added.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
  Ordered,
  That Mr Andrew Rosindell be discharged from the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and Mr Eric Forth be added.— [Mr. Jim Murphy.]

  CHILD TRUST FUNDS BILL (PROGRAMME)(NO. 2)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
  That the Order of 15th December 2003 (Child Trust Funds Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
  In paragraph 2 (conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee), for "15th January" substitute "20th January".— [Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Eritrea
  7.14 pm
  Tony Cunningham: I wish to present a petition bearing the signatures of about 5,000 people who are British Eritreans, members of the Eritrean community in the United Kingdom and friends of Eritrea.
  In 1998 there was a border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Those are two of the six poorest countries in the world. That particular border dispute developed into a war which cost the lives of about 180,000 people, probably putting back the development of both countries by about 20 years.
  When the war was over—it reminds me of similar sentiment at the end of the first world war—people said that it must never be allowed to happen again. Yet the border dispute rumbles on. There is at least a threat of further hostilities. We need a speedy resolution to the dispute so that both nations, after a war that has destroyed so many lives, can move on and rebuild.
  The petition states:
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take steps to discourage Ethiopia from pursuing the path of war. The Petitioners further request that the House of Commons urge the Government to advocate strict international sanctions in accordance with the UN Charter, in order to prevent the violation of the sovereignty of Eritrea and of the basic tenets of the UN Charter and International Law.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Green Burials
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton: My debate tonight deals with one of the last great taboos of modern society—death. However, I do not intend to be morbid or depressing tonight. Instead, I want to look at one of the most visionary ideas, which translates into a service that has helped many people already in my constituency, and offers hope, joy and comfort at the most difficult time of any person's life— the moment they lose someone close to them.
  A year ago, I received a letter from a constituent, Mrs. Daphne Hubery, whose husband, George, had died of cancer in 1999 at the age of 77. He was cared for in the last few days of his life at the wonderful St. Gemma's hospice in my constituency, and after his death, his wife, Daphne, picked up a leaflet at the hospice about "green burials". Not knowing anything about the subject, she telephoned the name on the leaflet—John Bradfield—and so began her involvement in one of the most innovative public service projects that I have ever come across.
  The Prime Minister said a few years ago that
  "social pioneers could deliver modern public service"
  under a new Labour Government, so John Bradfield, a qualified social worker living in Harrogate, took up the challenge, which, in his words aims to
  "create new mechanisms to ensure that modern services are delivered in the new millennium."
  The phrase "green burial" has been around for a while. Indeed, the late George Harrison chose to be buried in that way. I shall go on to explain what the phrase actually means, but John Bradfield wrote the definitive book on it, entitled "Green Burial: the do-it-yourself guide to law and practice".
  Daphne Hubery did not want the traditional funeral service for her husband George. She spoke to John Bradfield and went to visit Gertrude's Pasture, in Scotton near Harrogate, just a few miles north of their Leeds home. She fell in love with that wildlife and nature reserve and decided that it was where George should be buried, and that she, her friends and family would dig the grave and perform the funeral themselves.
  The funeral service took place in the chapel of rest at St. Gemma's hospice. Daphne and George's children and four young grandchildren came to this celebration of George's life. Daphne told me that arranging the funeral without undertakers made her "feel empowered". She said that for her grandchildren the service she organized
  "took away the fear of death".
  Gertrude's Pasture is a three-and-a-half acre site in the beautiful countryside in Scotton, near Knaresborough and Harrogate—about 15 miles north of Leeds. It is one of the few sites in the country where a type of beetle known as the "May bug" proliferates during, unsurprisingly, the month of May. It attracts the rare noctule bat, a protected species that has a wing span of up to 14 in, making it the largest form of British bat.
  Gertrude Martin donated that land as a nature reserve in 1989 to the Alice Barker Welfare and Wildlife Trust, one of whose trustees is John Bradfield. The trust's registered office is in Harrogate. After her death,

  1547
  Gertrude gave her cottage to the trust as well, so that people could stay there for respite and enjoy the nature reserve itself. The land also accommodates the great crested newt, another protected species, which uses some of the grave structures to nest in. Placing permission was given by Harrogate borough council for use as a burial ground for up to 50 graves in 1995.
  Once the 50 plots were used up, the trust applied for further planning permission. Unfortunately, however, this time it ran into resistance from the planning authority, which is Harrogate borough council.
  Last Tuesday, 9 December, councillors from Harrogate heard the application for the site to be used for up to 1,000 more green burials, which would mean that it had a long-term future as a green burial ground. In spite of a carefully written report and application, permission was refused, mainly on the grounds that the authority could not control the frequency of burials on that site, and that permission for 1,000 graves might have meant that there would be up to "20 burials a day", resulting in traffic chaos. That is highly unlikely, given the average of one burial a month over the past four years, and the projection in the application of an average of one per week.
  According to the report in last Friday's Yorkshire Post, Harrogate planning officer Neville Watson told councillors that expansion of the site for 1,000 burials,
  "would have a adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area".
  Moreover, committee chairman Councillor John Smith told the newspaper:
  "If the area was used for burials at the present rate, the expanded burial ground could be open for up to 500 years."
  That is a slight contrast to the claim of 20 burials a day.
  Councillors were also worried, as I have mentioned, about the traffic implications, even though the site currently generates very little traffic indeed. It seems strange that traffic did not figure in the discussions in relation to an industrial estate on the other side of the village of Scotton. I am told that highways officers raised no objections to that application.
  I am very concerned that this project could now come to an end because of the hostile and highly conservative attitudes of local elected councillors, who have failed to see the wider benefits of a public service that does so much to help the bereaved and their families cope with the death of a loved one. I shall certainly support the trust in its appeal against this narrow-minded, bureaucratic and ill-thought-out decision.
  I turn now to the wider aspects of this matter: the work of the Welfare and Wildlife Trust, Gertrude's Pasture, and John Bradfield himself. I have said that I consider him a visionary in an area of work that is little discussed and on which there is little public policy. However, it is something that we will all go through at some time or other during our lifetimes. John is a strong believer in the new Labour philosophy of "joined-up Government"—a phrase coined by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle). He believes that people are "ambushed by death", and that hospitals never prepare families for the anguish and emotional pain of bereavement.
  1548
  What the trust has done is to show how joined-up thinking in public services can be possible. Not only is a loved one buried in a beautiful place that is a wildlife reserve, but bereavement counselling can take place as part of the process of digging the grave and organising the funeral. I am not trying to put funeral directors out of business. There will always be plenty of work for them, but what I have seen and what constituents have told me convinces me that this is an idea that really works. However, it finds obstacles to its continuation at every turn, be they bureaucratic, unimaginative or just plain obstructive.
  When Sue Thorp's husband Mike died of cancer in 1995, she was able to start grieving immediately, knowing that he had seen Gertrude's Pasture and had even decided where on the site he wanted to be buried. She gained huge comfort from knowing that they had made the decision jointly, and that their daughter Jessica. who was then just two and a half years old, has since visited the grave on many occasions—even decorating it with thyme plants and encouraging the great crested newts to nest there.
  I visited the site in February this year, and was greatly impressed by the way it was managed and the tranquillity that it offered. What I saw, even in that bleak month, was a beautiful piece of Yorkshire countryside where the dead really could rest in peace and where the pain of death for surviving families could be ameliorated by the care and understanding offered by John Bradfield and the trust.
  I decided then to take up the campaign, on behalf of many of my constituents, even though the site is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). She is aware that I am taking up the issue and holding this debate tonight. As I have said. the trust's registered office is in Harrogate, and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) fully supports what I am saying this evening.
  When I walked around Gertrude's Pasture last February I came across the grave of Linda Biran, an active member of my constituency Labour party until cancer struck her down in April 2000. Her grave was marked like all the others with a flat stone on the ground. I knew that she had wanted a green burial and here she was. Her husband, Dr. Len Biran, fully supports the work of the trust and has spoken to me today to offer his encouragement.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister, in his response to the debate, will be able to offer hope to the many citizens of this country—including many of my constituents—who are not people of faith and who might choose the option of a green burial when their time comes. It will mean co-ordination between Departments responsible for planning and health, the Home Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Although this debate is specifically about the planning issues, I hope that he will feel able to pass on to colleagues in those Departments the message that if joined-up government is to mean anything, it should mean the encouragement of visionary services such as Gertrude's Pasture, not their discouragement by over-bureaucratic local planning authorities for what appear to be spurious reasons.
  Given the fact that there will be an appeal, I know that the Minister cannot comment on the specifics of this application, but I hope that he will feel able to consider

  1549
  a planning policy guideline that will give support to such services. Unfortunately, like taxes, death is a part of life from which there is no escape. People like John Bradfield have shown us how we can cope with the death of those we love. I hope that our Government will listen to what he has to say.
  7.27 pm
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) on securing this debate. He is the only Member who has ever raised the issue of green burials with my Department, and I have, therefore, listened with singular interest to the matters that he has highlighted in the debate. He spoke eloquently, even movingly, and made a strong case for a more joined-up approach across Departments and public services on the matter. I will certainly reflect on the case that he made.
  I believe that it would be helpful if I were to contribute to the debate by setting out the current planning position regarding green burials. Although burial principally occurs in purpose-designed cemeteries or churchyards, there are some exceptions. Families with large estates have routinely built a mausoleum or similar building on their land, for the burial of family members. Historically, it has doubtless been the case that some individuals have been buried in farmland and others in gardens, but the practice has not been widely noticed.
  More recently, such burials have received a degree of media attention and it is believed that numbers have increased. Some of that has been due to the promotional activities of the Natural Death Centre, a charity formed to support a less formalised routine for funerals, as well as a more positive approach to death in general. It provides advice on green burials.
  Those who opt for a green burial feel there are significant advantages to that form of burial. They argue that it allows them to organise a very personal funeral, in which they maintain total control. It is also argued that there are financial and environmental benefits from the practice. However, the complexities of carrying out a green burial may also be significant, although those vary according to the location. First, it is essential that permission to complete a burial be obtained if the landowner of the ground is not directly involved in the planning of the funeral. Secondly, any individual or mortgage company that has an interest in the property needs also to be notified. Thirdly, it should be borne in mind that access to the grave may be denied or restricted by change of ownership.
  Most locations for such so-called green burials fall into two categories: on farmland and in a garden. Farmland locations are rarely overlooked and so will not offend neighbours or the public at large. The gravesite should be on land with a deep water table and be sufficient distance from watercourses so as not to pose a pollution threat. Electrical or other services must obviously be avoided.
  With regard to planning permissions on such sites, a limited number of burials over a period of time may not constitute a change of use and no planning approval would thus be necessary. Recent local authority certificates of lawfulness have decided that planning
  1550
  permission is not required for the non-commercial burial on private land of a limited number of family members, friends or other members of a household. However, it has to be said that those decisions have not so far been tested in the courts. Exceeding a "limited number" of burials may require planning approval for use as a cemetery or for mixed use if farming is also to continue.
  Safety in the excavation of the grave is a further consideration, as is the requirement to leave a sufficient depth of soil—3 ft—over the body. If it is intended to fence or mark the grave with a memorial, planning permission may be required. In effect, a single burial in a farm situation can proceed without an approach to, or the approval of, any council or other official organisation.
  Garden burials, however, are complicated by the proximity of neighbours who may object to a burial in their close vicinity and may be offended by the sight of a coffin or body. There may be legal issues and there are, of course, issues of relationships but otherwise the considerations that apply to farm burials are broadly similar. The particular difficulty in garden locations is the likely reduction of the property value owing to the presence of a grave, or even the deterrent value of the presence of a grave to any sale at all.
  Two major concerns influence that choice of burial. The first is the possibility of a future exhumation and burial elsewhere; there are legal means, in other words a restrictive covenant, whereby it may be possible to ensure that the grave remains untouched but they would involve costs and other uncertainties. Secondly, it is clearly the case that details of the burial will not be officially recorded, as they would be in a cemetery. None the less, it appears that there is a statutory requirement for the landowner to maintain a register of burials, even if only in the form of a note, preferably showing the location, in the event that the grave is disturbed by building or excavation works at some stage in the future. The Home Office recommends that it be lodged with the deed of the property. In addition, a certificate for burial issued by a coroner or registrar of births and deaths must be obtained and returned to the registrar by the person arranging the burial.
  I now turn to the circumstances in which planning regulations come into force: the locations where more than a limited number of private non-commercial burials are occurring or proposed. Cemeteries and graveyards, except those ancillary to a church, and burial grounds, including green burial sites, are classified under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 as sui generis. Accordingly, any change of use would require planning permission.
  Although a single burial or a limited number of burials over a period of time may not constitute a change of use requiring planning approval, exceeding the limited number of burials may require planning approval for change of use to a cemetery or burial ground. In such circumstances, local authorities have the responsibility of deciding what uses the land may be put to and assessing the potential impact of that development. That is done through the local plan-making process and planning applications will be decided in accordance with such plans.

  1551
  Although it may be argued that woodland or green burials would have little impact on the countryside, it is for the local planning authority to determine where a change of use has occurred or will occur and whether to grant planning permission. Of course, the local planning authority will treat each application on its merits, on a case-by-case basis. Members of the public have an opportunity to contribute their views once an application has been registered, and the local planning authority has a duty to publicise the application.
  When a planning application for development relating to the use of land as a cemetery is received, the local planning authority also has to consult the Environment Agency and to take into account any informal advice it proffers. The agency's concern would be the possible environmental consequences for underlying aquifers and for nearby watercourses,
  1552
  springs and boreholes. The granting of permission for development should be consistent with agricultural, countryside, environmental, greenbelt and other national planning policy guidance, unless there are material and compelling planning reasons to do otherwise.
  Let me conclude by saying that I have been aware of the situation regarding the burial ground at Gertrude's Pasture in Scotton, Harrogate, and I understand that it has a complicated history. However, since, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, this matter is now likely to be subject to appeal, he will understand that in my quasi-judicial capacity as a Planning Minister I am unable to comment further. I am sincerely grateful to him for raising these interesting issues, and I leave him with the assurance that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister continues to keep these matters under review.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Eight o'clock

Preamble
SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON in the Chair]

Supreme Court
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned. —[Mr. Heppell.]
9.30 am
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I am pleased to have secured this debate. I was greatly assisted in my deliberations by the investigation, and the evidence taken during it, carried out by the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I understand that the Committee is due to sit at 10 o'clock this morning, which may account in part for the sparse attendance in the Chamber.
I started with a clear view on several matters relating to the topic, but then I read the evidence received by the Select Committee from several erudite and learned sources and found myself questioning some of the simplest and most straightforward aspects of the proposal. I mention that because it is important to put it on the record that the subject is of immense constitutional significance.
Ever since Montesquieu wrote his seminal work, "De l'esprit des lois", there has been fairly widespread acceptance of the desirability of separating powers among the three pillars of the state: the judiciary, the Executive and the legislature. In our own way, we have managed in the United Kingdom's constitution to respect that principle, but our acceptance of it has sometimes been muddled and messy. The office of the Lord Chancellor and the House of Lords as an appellate court is perhaps one of the best examples of that muddle.
I do not know whether lofty legal principles or lofty legal personnel first spurred the Prime Minister to embark on his consultation in June, but I suspect that it was the latter rather than the former. My one reservation about consultation on the proposal, which I broadly favour, is that we might be biting off more than we can chew because a number of substantial issues that could be considered are not being considered, or are in danger of not being considered properly. My basic thesis is that I would rather get it right than get it quick. I am concerned that a rush to legislate in such an important sphere will, if we do not get the legislation right, have profound and severe implications.
My approach to the subject arises principally from my concerns relating to the position of Scots law. I wish to register my mild irritation that the Advocate-General, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland are not in the Chamber for this debate. I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), is here, and I am sure that he is more than equal to the task of answering any questions that I shall ask, but the matter will have a profound effect on the conduct of Scottish business here. Despite
182WH
that, the Scotland Office, notwithstanding its continuing substantial presence in Dover house, cannot find the time or personnel to attend. Frankly, that is not good enough.
The separation of judicial business from the House of Lords is welcome, although in evidence to the Select Committee, Lord Hope of Craighead said that being able to mix with MPs and other peers and to walk the corridors of Westminster was an important way for him to stay in touch. That is an interesting perspective from a man who is an exceptionally capable judge, and whose father and, I think, grandfather were also judges, and who, notwithstanding his immense talent, typifies the sort of person who becomes a judge. That is how he stays in touch. I feel that I am in danger of being out of touch when I am in Westminster and I go home to my constituency to get in touch, but it is all a matter of perspective. In passing, I point out that if we are to get the judges out of the House of Lords, the Church of England bishops must surely be the next to go.
Principally, I shall discuss the Scottish aspects of a supreme court, but there are two issues of wider importance that I would like to touch on first: the appointment of members of the supreme court and whether a broader range of constitutional issues should be within the court's remit or jurisdiction. Who appoints judges to the supreme court strikes at the heart of the independence of the judiciary. People have struggled for centuries with the question. who judges the judges? Time has moved on and now we have to ask who appoints the members of the independent appointment commission. The Government seek to pursue a policy that involves minimal change, whereby the Prime Minister, following consultation with the First Minister in Scotland and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland, will make suggestions on appointments to Her Majesty. Concerns have been expressed that that formalises a process that gives the Executive undue influence in judicial appointments. If judges can be appointed by the Executive in that way, there is a question about their overall independence.
I commend to the Minister the proposals made in response to the Government's consultation by the Law Society of Scotland, which opposes the direct line of appointment from the Prime Minister to the sovereign. It suggests that the chair of the Judicial Appointments Board in Scotland. the Commissioner for Judicial Appointments for Northern Ireland and the chair of the Commission for Judicial Appointments in England and Wales, together with three supreme court judges, should be appointed as members of an appointments panel. My initial concern about that proposal was that it might tend to continue the self-perpetuating appointment of small "c" conservative men by small "c" conservative men, but, in fact, if one applies to that process the Nolan principles of openness and transparency, there is a great deal to be said for it. It balances the need for independence on the one hand with the obvious need for that degree of transparency that we now seek in all public appointments. If the three supreme court judges were, as a matter of fact, if not of law, drawn from each of the jurisdictions in the British Isles, we would have on the appointments commission two members from Scotland, two from England and Wales and two from Northern Ireland. That would go some way to addressing some concerns that have been expressed

183WH
north of the border and, no doubt, in Northern Ireland that the proposed system will, in effect, be an English court.
The important question of the constitutional matters that might come before the supreme court is not properly considered by the Government's consultation paper. When one speaks of a supreme court, one of course immediately brings to mind the model in the United States, where the Supreme Court exists primarily to adjudicate on questions of constitutional propriety. However, there is now a very strong case for saying that a stronger role could be given to the judiciary in the United Kingdom, especially in respect of the implementation of human rights legislation.
At present, Acts of the Scottish Parliament can be struck down by the courts on the ground of their noncompliance with the Human Rights Act 1998, whereas Acts of the UK Parliament can only be made the subject of a guidance note advising of a lack of compliance with the 1998 Act. That is an obvious difference between the two systems. To my mind, the 1998 Act introduces to United Kingdom law, probably for the first time, the notion of a hierarchy of legislation. The idea that ordinary legislation, if I may call it that, can be struck out by human rights legislation is fairly novel, especially to the constitutional practices and theories that have been followed south of the border.
The proposed supreme court is of huge importance, as it would represent a significant shift in the balance of power between the judiciary on one hand and Parliament and the Executive on the other. It requires more substantial and careful consideration than it has so far been given with the somewhat rushed nature of the consultation. At the same time, however, the measure is necessary. If it is not in the Bill to be introduced early next year, it will almost certainly be in a Queen's Speech two, three or four years down the line—or at some stage. There is an inevitability about it. The fact that an Act of the Scottish Parliament can be struck out by a court puts a foot in the door. If we go down that road, however, the power that we give the judiciary must be very carefully prescribed and defined. It is a missed opportunity that the Government's consultation process does not allow that to be done in the time scale set.
The other point of some significance for me as a Scot is the current practice whereby devolution issues come from Scottish courts to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Like many Scottish lawyers, I viewed that with great suspicion at first because, in effect, it brought Scottish criminal cases within the jurisdiction of a court in London, which had never been the practice hitherto. However, having observed it for the past six years, I have to say that it has worked well.
None the less, the Government should exercise caution before they move from a position in which such cases go to the Privy Council to one in which they are placed under the jurisdiction of the supreme court. The Minister may be aware that Lord Hope of Craighead made a very good point in his evidence to the Select Committee: there is a degree of flexibility in the composition of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that allows extra, almost ad hoc, judges to be imported from north of the border to sit on such cases.
184WH
That arrangement has worked exceptionally well. As things stand, the supreme court would not have that degree of flexibility. For that reason if for no other, the retention of devolution issues within the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is devoutly to be encouraged.
A number of items of Scottish business arise from consideration of a supreme court. I am interested in the view of Lord Hope of Craighead on one matter, and I will be very interested to know what advice the Minister has had on it. I quote from Lord Hope's answer to question 300, which is on page 13 of the transcript of evidence to the Select Committee, which I understood was to be placed in the Library or the Vote Office. He says that
"the whole issue of Scottish participation in the new court is a matter which is devolved, because, if you look at Section 126 of the Scotland Act, the whole of Scots private law and criminal law is a matter for the Scottish Parliament unless it touches on reserved matters. That suggests to me that what we are talking about, when we are talking about a final court of appeal in Scottish cases, is an amendment of the Court of Session Act, which is a Scottish Act, which really is under the supervision of the Parliament. Certainly it will be dealt with by a Sewel motion, which would require a vote in Edinburgh, but the ideal position would be for the matter to be debated fully by the Members of the Scottish Parliament."
Does that coincide with the Minister's understanding of the situation? Does the measure constitute an amendment to the Court of Session Act, and will it be taken from the Scottish Parliament by way of a Sewel motion, or dealt with by the Scottish Parliament under its own powers? The Minister may wonder what will happen to the Government's time scale if the Scottish Parliament declines to pass such a Sewel motion. I find it more than slightly alarming that we have reached the middle of December and an issue of that fundamental importance does not appear to have been dealt with, at least in public.
Lord Hope of Craighead also raised several practical considerations—I hesitate to call them objections. He made the point that situating a supreme court close to the Strand and the Inns of Court would send a rather poor message to those of us who are not subject to the law of England and Wales, as it would appear somehow to subsume Scottish business within the greater mass of English and Welsh business. Given the difficulties experienced by my colleagues in Edinburgh, I hesitate to suggest the creation of a new building, but there is a lot to be said for keeping the supreme court closer to this place than to the Strand, and wherever it is, it should not be seen as an adjunct to the English and Welsh system.
Mr. David Heath: Would my hon. Friend consider the Middlesex guildhall, a building close to here, an appropriate place, given that it would symbolise proximity to the UK Parliament?
Mr. Carmichael: I shall not get drawn into a debate on the relative merits of different buildings at this stage. Apart from anything else, besides the Palace of Westminster, its surrounding satellites and my flat in Kennington, I do not really know many buildings in London, such is the nature of the life that we lead, but I am sure that the Middlesex guildhall is delightful.

185WH
In passing, I wonder why the supreme court has to be in London at all. Why are we pulling yet another aspect of Government business into London? I am sure that Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Belfast or Cardiff could easily provide suitable facilities. Why should there be an assumption that the court comes to the capital? I merely float that idea, but if we are to start with a blank sheet of paper-apparently we are—why not take advantage of that? If we are looking for value for money and best value, as we are encouraged to do, surely best value would be found in the property market elsewhere in the country.
Substantial concern has also been expressed about the proposed administration of the supreme court by the Court Service of England and Wales. That would be an unfortunate signal to send to the rest of the country. Again, if the court is to be seen as truly independent, it has to be independent in all its structures. It would be a missed opportunity if the supreme court were seen to be dependent on the court system in England and Wales.
I turn to the question of the business that would be justiciable by the supreme court. At present, all civil cases relating to statute or Scottish civil law can go from Scotland to the House of Lords; there is no right of appeal to the House of Lords on criminal matters. Devolution issues can be taken to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. We should perhaps consider the matter afresh. My gut instinct is to say that the present arrangement works pretty well. I do not favour the repatriation of common law civil cases to the Court of Session in Edinburgh; that is unnecessary and undesirable. Taking statutory law but not common law cases to the supreme court artificially divides the law and is unhelpful.
Interestingly, some thinking north of the border says that there is a case for taking Scottish criminal cases to the supreme court on appeal. I can see some advantage to that, but I remain to be convinced that Scots criminal law, which is a much smaller branch compared with the totality of Scots civil law, could survive being subsumed in that way. The principles of Scots civil law are broadly similar to those south of the border, particularly in relation to cases that go to the House of Lords, which tend to be the larger commercial cases. In an article in The Scots Law Times on 31 October, Professor George Gretton described the procedure as
"a mere historical anomaly that few would seek to defend."
However, it is an historical anomaly that has worked rather well. I would not close the door on bringing appeals from criminal cases to the supreme court, but I would require further persuasion. That is another issue that might have been considered by a fuller and lengthier consultation period, but it will not be done properly now.
I am aware that others wish to speak. I am pleased that we are at last seeing some meaningful reform of the conduct of judicial business within the House of Lords. I hope that the Minister will take it from one who is broadly supportive of the Government's aims that there are big issues to consider and there are still opportunities to do things better.
Mr. Dominic Grieve:rose—
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Order. I see the shadow Attorney-General rising. It is not entirely appropriate for him, as an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, to participate in the debate.
Mr. Grieve: indicated dissent
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I have the hon Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) down to speak for the Opposition. Clearly, the shadow Attorney-General can intervene, but, prior to taking further advice, I am not prepared to call him in the debate.
Mr. Grieve: On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. I ask you to take advice, because I wish to participate in the debate. I shall stand corrected by any ruling you may give, but my understanding is that, as a Member, I am entitled to participate, and I wish to do so.
Mr. Alan Duncan: Further to that point of order, Sir Nicholas. It may assist you in appreciating the structure of the Opposition Front-Bench team if I were to explain that I am the official spokesman on this issue. Given the fluid structure of the Opposition, my hon. Friend the shadow Attorney-General would speak as if from the Back Benches. Therefore, I trust that you will see fit to call him, as I am the official Opposition spokesman for the purpose of this debate.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is always extremely courteous, but what he has said about how the Opposition organise their Front Bench is not the business of or a matter for the Chair. I shall take further advice, but I intend now to call the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing).
9.56 am
Annabelle Ewing: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I am pleased to be called to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on securing this extremely important debate, which neither the UK Government in London nor the Government in Edinburgh appear to want to have in their own time—at least, not to date. I am not entirely sure whether I am required to declare an interest, but I am a qualified Scots lawyer and, hence, a member of the Law Society of Scotland.
Mr. Carmichael: I believe that the hon. Lady is required to make such a declaration. Perhaps I, too, should have made such a declaration, but I did not because I do not hold a practising certificate, although I am an enrolled solicitor.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman's courtesy is noted.
Annabelle Ewing: I felt that I should make that declaration, as I do hold a full practising certificate, although I am not practising at present.

187WH
I also join the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland in noting with some astonishment and, indeed, dismay that no Scotland Office Minister is here today, nor is the Advocate-General for Scotland or any Scottish Labour Back Bencher. That speaks for itself and for their commitment to uphold the integrity of Scots law.
As far as Scotland is concerned, the proposals for a supreme court represent a missed opportunity to end the 18th century anomaly whereby final appellate jurisdiction in civil cases in Scotland lies south of the border. As we have heard, the final appellate jurisdiction over Scots criminal law, leaving aside the particular instances of devolution cases, lies with the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland and not, thankfully, the House of Lords. Therefore, the question must be posed as to why in post-devolution Scotland the final right of appeal in civil cases should lie south of the border.
Both the announcement and the substance of the proposals to create a new supreme court with jurisdiction in Scotland attracted fairly strong criticism from those in senior legal circles in Scotland. Of course, the announcement followed the Prime Minister's botched reshuffle in June and was preceded by no consultation whatever with the Scottish First Minister, Scottish Executive Ministers or the Scottish Parliament. I raised the matter in a point of order in the Chamber on 1 July and argued that that cavalier approach to Scots law showed breathtaking contempt on the part of the Prime Minister towards the Scottish Parliament and democracy.
On the lack of prior consultation, Scotland's estimable First Minister said simply that there was "absolutely no reason whatsoever" for the Prime Minister to have consulted him on such a major constitutional change. That speaks volumes about the limited length to which the estimable First Minister is prepared to go to stand up for the Scots legal system and the interests of his country.
Mr. Grieve: The hon. Lady will appreciate that the First Minister was in good company. The Secretary of the Cabinet was given 20 minutes' notice of that proposal, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales was not informed about it and no member of the judiciary was informed—nor were the Law Officers.
Annabelle Ewing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is correct in saying that the way that the proposals were dealt with—their announcement and the prior consultation—was a disgrace. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that in his winding-up speech.
Many concerns have been raised by senior legal figures in Scotland on the substance of the proposals for a UK supreme court. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to Lord Hope of Craighead—a senior Scottish Law Lord—who raised serious concerns at the outset about whether the proposals would fall foul of the treaty of Union of 1707. Those concerns were raised in the light of the fact that Scottish cases could be heard on appeal south of the border only in a court that was entirely separate from the English legal system.
As the Minister will be aware, that key issue was the nub of the response by the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh to the Department for Constitutional Affairs
188WH
consultation paper. The Faculty of Advocates concluded that the proposals were both unconstitutional and unlawful in their present form. That conclusion has been widely regarded in Scotland as a devastating critique of the proposals and was based on the fact that they did not meet the requirements of the Act of Union. Indeed, they contain no provision for the new supreme court to be run, administered and—importantly—funded separately from the DCA, which is also responsible for the administration of legal services in England and Wales. That is the key issue—the nub of the matter.
The Government may not have realised initially that the treaty of Union of 1707 had implications for their proposals. They may not have been aware of that issue—indeed, they may prefer to regard it as unimportant—but it remains the key constitutional matter regarding the application of the proposals to Scotland. Aside from the constitutional implications, that raises the question whether the proposals would be in breach of the Act of Union if they go ahead in their current form, which is the view of senior legal figures in Scotland. What validity would a judgment handed down by that new body have in Scotland, when the Government have clearly breached the founding constitutional document setting up the Union between Scotland and England? The fact that the UK Government and the Government in Edinburgh do not appear to have grasped that key constitutional dilemma is difficult to fathom and alarming.
I had the great pleasure of attending the Scottish Grand Committee on 12 November 2003, along with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, whom I hear muttering. Nevertheless, it is always a pleasure to attend that Committee. During that sitting, the Secretary of State for Scotland replied to the debate on constitutional arrangements for Scotland. I shall quote the whole of his enlightening statement:
"The question of who pays for the supreme court and whether the money comes through the Department for Constitutional Affairs would. perhaps, be of extreme interest in a rarefied debate in the Court of Session, or somewhere similar. In practical terms, however, for money to come to a particular organisation, it must go through one Department or another. There is no escaping that." —[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 12 November 2003; c. 25.]
That statement, by no less a person than the Secretary of State for Scotland, reflects a breathtaking lack of understanding of the key constitutional issues involved. Thank goodness that, in the absence of the Government, we in Scotland have defenders of the integrity of Scots law and strong voices in the legal profession that are prepared to stand up and be counted.
For the record, we in the Scottish National party are in favour of the general principle of the separation of the judiciary from the Executive and legislature. Of course, as democrats, we are also in favour of a written constitution and a Bill of Rights for our citizens.
As far as Scots law is concerned, the proposals represent a missed opportunity. The renowned and well-respected professor of Scots law at Edinburgh university recently described the present system of sending final civil appeals to the House of Lords as "crazy". He went on:
"I've always thought that civil appeals should be decided in Scottish courts... A UK supreme court should only be for constitutional issues."

189WH
That quote was taken from the Holyrood magazine of 6 October 2003. 1 entirely agree with Professor Black's statement, with the proviso that, on Scotland's regaining the normal status of independence, the UK supreme court will have no writ whatever over constitutional matters or anything else in Scotland.
In conclusion, in post-devolution Scotland, the 18th century anomaly of final appellate jurisdiction in civil cases lying south of the border should be brought to a timely close.
10.6 am
Mr. David Heath: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on securing this debate, which is a valuable curtain-raiser to the Government's proposals. Oddly enough, we have not yet had the opportunity to debate them either on the Floor of the House or in Westminster Hall. Clearly, there are some big issues on which we should at least express some view before we move to legislation, which, I suspect, may not be far away in the new year.
In constitutional terms, nothing could be more significant than the Government's proposals for the supreme court. I suspect that that was lost on the Prime Minister when he made the initial announcement; things were not thought through. A matter of such importance should not be essayed on the back of a rather botched reshuffle and the need to move one Secretary of State into another role.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland started the debate in a high tone of academic brilliance—as is his habit—with a reference to Montesquieu. He is quite right that the concept of the separation of powers, although not explicit in the British constitution as it is in the constitutions of other countries with comparable jurisdictions, is nevertheless a theme that has been well understood by jurists, politicians and the general public. That makes anomalous the position in this country, where a single individual sits as a member of the Cabinet, the Executive and the legislature and as head of the judiciary. That point has been raised many times.
My hon. Friend said that on the whole that system has worked okay. I am inclined to agree, although, in history, there have been many examples of Lord Chancellors who were anything but impartial in their political outlook and in the actions that they undertook. At times, the post has thrown the question of the role of the Lord Chancellor into very sharp relief.
Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heath: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has returned to the Back Benches, although I hope not on a permanent basis.
Mr. Grieve: I thought that I was on the Back Benches anyway, because I did not think that this Chamber had a Front Bench and Back Benches as Committees do.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the past 50 years, no questions have been raised about the impartiality of judicial appointments made by Lord Chancellors, whether they are from one party or another?
Mr. Heath: I am inclined to agree. I am trying to remember whether there have been problems with
190WH
judicial appointments, but I do not believe that there have. However, that does not alter the fact that it is a constitutional anomaly—I would say, to use the mildest terms, a constitutional outrage—to have that mixing of roles in the Cabinet embodied in the present post of Lord Chancellor. We have argued that for a long time. Indeed, we have argued that case in the face of blank rejection from the Government in previous years. I recall several occasions on which the point was put to Ministers occupying the post held by the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), only for it to be met with the blank assertion that all was well and the Lord Chancellor right. It is difficult to reconcile that with the present policy direction, but I welcome the change in tone.
If the Government are right in principle, why have they made such an unholy mess of the process, which, frankly, is what they have done? This fundamental reform to our constitution and legal system has been introduced in such a manner that it has caused the maximum upset, disagreement and loss of confidence. That is extraordinary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland concentrated, for obvious reasons, on some Scottish aspects of the proposals. That is the right thing to do from his point of view, and he will forgive me for not being as expert in those aspects as he or the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing). I agree that it is odd that the Advocate-General for Scotland did not feel that examining this matter might be a profitable use of her time. I know that she is busily engaged in her duties; we regularly discover that at Advocate-General's questions. However, I had hoped that she might spare a little time from her busy day to understand more fully the concerns of hon. Members about the Scottish aspects of the supreme court.
There is a fundamental issue. Is this going to be a supreme court of England and Wales or a supreme court of the United Kingdom? The Government's proposal is that it will be a supreme court of the UK. If that is the case, why were discussions not opened at an early stage to examine the consequences for Scotland? Scotland has a separate legal identity and system. If the supreme court is established, it will have an appellate function on matters that come in some instances from the High Court of Justiciary and in others from the Court of Session, but it is unclear whether that can be effected without primary legislation being passed in the Scottish Parliament. I tend to the view that that will be needed. If so, it surely would have been better to examine those consequences in depth before embarking on over-hasty legislation.
That haste is at the core of many objections that have been raised. It is deplorable that splits have now occurred among the Law Lords on this issue: it is sad that the Government have been unable to take with them the highest echelons of the judiciary in England and Wales or in Scotland or in Northern Ireland. One of the first problems was the haste to which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) referred. The Lord Chief Justice was not consulted before the proposals were brought forward. It is deplorable that the Lord Chief Justice was not given the opportunity of expressing a view on those matters before they were announced. Indeed, as we recall, the original

191WH
announcement was that the Lord Chancellor's post no longer existed. A few hours later, we discovered that it did, because otherwise the House of Lords could not sit. So we have the spectacle of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs having to don a wig and sit on the Woolsack in the full post of the Lord High Chancellor, despite having disavowed it only a matter of hours earlier.
Mr. Grieve: Let me enlighten the hon. Gentleman further; there was a famous e-mail in which the Lord Chief Justice, on hearing what happened, told his brother judges that he felt that, in the circumstances, he had to take over as head of the judiciary. When that reached the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, as he then was, he was rather upset, and said, "No, no, no; I'm still head of the judiciary." It was only at that point that the Secretary of State decided that it was inevitable that he would have to maintain the title of Lord Chancellor. That is the extent to which the Government have messed up the system through complete arrogance and lack of consultation.
Mr. Heath: I tend to agree. It reminds me of the shooting of President Reagan, and of Al Haig not being able to decide whether he was in charge of the country. He first said that he was, and then that he was not. The matters that we are discussing do not have quite the same consequences for the freedom of the western world, but it is none the less important to decide who is in charge of the judiciary.
I do not accept the second argument against the supreme court, which is simply one of reaction. It is the view that everything works okay so we have no need to reform or change—a traditional Conservative position. The role of the Lord Chancellor was unacceptable, and I see great merit in a supreme court. I would not die in a ditch to preserve the term of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. If one were to ask average citizens what a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary was concerned with, they would have some difficulty in identifying the fact that the title referred to the supreme appellate court of England and Wales—and of the United Kingdom, in some cases. The term "supreme court" is not new, of course; in fact, there is a question about what we do with the existing supreme court's nomenclature: it is, of course, the higher court in England and Wales. Nevertheless, there is a strong argument for moving forward.
There is a more substantial argument about judicial independence, and that has to be grasped. Under the proposals, the role of the Lord Chancellor as the underwriter of judicial independence in the Cabinet has effectively been lost, and that has to be replaced, whether by statute, as I attempted to do through amendments to legislation in the last Session, or by other means. We have to ensure, in the absence of a written constitution, that the concept of judicial independence is clearly delineated. It is just too easy for senior Ministers to get on their high horses and start judge-bashing—they do it with monotonous regularity—and undermining the concept of judicial independence.
A less valuable argument is that judges rather like sitting in the House of Lords. I noted the references to
192WH
Lord Hope of Craighead and his evidence; he thought it was rather a good idea to mix with the common people in the House of Lords to gain life experience. I do not think that that is a good enough reason. There is an argument for what we have—an appointed part of the House of Lords—although I hope, for heaven's sake, that we do not continue to have that because I would like an elected second Chamber. However, if we have an appointed section, there is a case for making sure that retired Law Lords or lords from the supreme court are appointed, because the value of their judicial experience is evident. There is no obvious reason why a sitting judge should be a Member of our second Chamber.
I must draw my remarks to a close, but there are still a number of unanswered questions about the appointments system. I am concerned that the Government are attempting to preserve an influence in the appointment of the judiciary that their rhetoric suggests they wish to remove. That needs to be looked at closely.
There is the issue of funding the supreme court. I agree that it should have independent funding, and I believe that that has to be ring-fenced from the generality of English and Welsh courts. I particularly take the point made by Scots colleagues that, if it is to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the courts of England and Wales, it will have less value as a supreme court of Scotland.
Premises are important, and the betting seems to be on Somerset house. There are various reasons why that is not the ideal solution. I had not appreciated the strength of feeling in Scotland against placing the supreme court so clearly within the purview of the English and Welsh court system because of its proximity not only to the Royal Courts of Justice, but to the Inns of Court. As a genuine suggestion, I believe that the Middlesex guildhall would be a suitable place; it looks out across Parliament square at the Houses of Parliament, yet it represents the independence of the judiciary. I hope that that suggestion will be seriously considered.
Lastly, there is the question of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I do not accept that it must be preserved simply as a last court of appeal for those countries in the Commonwealth, principally, to which we provide that service. Logic suggests that if we have root-and-branch reform, we should lose it, gain a single appellate body-the supreme court—and make it available to other people. We must take into account the suggestion for a panel of judges that can support the supreme court in matters of Scots law, where appropriate, and on matters involving jurisdictions that look to Britain for their final court of appeal.
The problem is that we have a rushed proposal with huge consequences that has not been thought through. It emanated from a Prime Minister who was trying to carry out a reshuffle on the back of an envelope rather than considering the constitutional round and putting forward sensible proposals that we would support. In its present form, we have serious questions about it.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Before I call the next speaker, may I help the House? First, I apologise for the rather confused structure of this very important debate in Westminster Hall. There has been a lack of

193WH
communication between the authorities in the House, resulting in this important debate taking place when the Constitutional Affairs Committee is meeting upstairs. I hope that the authorities will take note and ensure that it does not happen again. I am sure that the Minister will take that on board.
Secondly, in so far as Members can sit where they like here, this is a more informal Chamber than the main Chamber of the House. Perhaps the atmosphere is less confrontational, but I must say to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) that the rules of the House apply in Westminster Hall as they apply in the House. In the House, we do not have two Front-Bench spokesmen. Quite exceptionally, because of the time that is available, and without setting any precedent, I am prepared to call the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) as a Back-Bench Member to participate in the debate.
10.24 am
Mr. Dominic Grieve: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. It was not my intention to sow confusion on proper procedure. However, if this situation helps to clarify matters, it will have been helpful.
One merit of the post that I hold in my party is that I am asked to engage in independent thinking; I thought it might therefore be useful if I were to participate in the debate. The subject is of interest to me, as a practising barrister; however, I am also a pragmatist. If somebody were to propose to me that improvements could be made to the judicial system, I would be prepared to listen and, as it might turn out, to work with the Government to try to achieve a satisfactory outcome.
The proposals we are discussing started off in a most extraordinary fashion—extraordinary because of the way in which the Government launched the reform as a diktat back in the summer. They pronounced on the form that they wanted, did so without any prior consultation or warning, including with those parties most intimately connected with the situation, and tried to implement the proposals in a way that was total nonsense: they were impossible to implement because the post of Lord Chancellor could not be abolished without primary legislation. Serious questions were raised about the underlying motive behind the Government's proposals.
I listened care fully to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and I congratulate him on prompting this debate and. in particular, on his comments about Scotland. From his participation in debates, I know of his expertise. He raised important issues that we are going to have to consider. I hope that he will forgive me for widening the scope a little to one or two other matters.
The hon. Gentleman started by referring to the doctrine of the separation of powers and Montesquieu. As I am half French, I have some interest in that doctrine. Constitutionally, I do not believe that it has ever existed in this country. It is a philosophical principle that has been widely adopted on the continent and that undoubtedly commands and deserves respect. It is something that we must take into account in deciding what arrangements to have here. However, it is worth pointing out that in the country where Montesquieu lived, wrote and died, and where his
194WH
maxims are applied as far as possible, it is the unfortunate truth that, far from the public perceiving that there is a true separation of powers between the judiciary and the Executive, there is a widespread perception that the Executive can influence judicial decisions.
In a country that, on the face of it, has put the relevant structures in place, not a week goes by without the newspapers reporting instances of examining magistrates having been placed under improper pressure during their conduct of investigations in a judicial capacity. There are also allegations that the French court system comes under political influence. I make that point because we need to contrast it with the bizarre, archaic, curious system that we have in this country. I have never come across allegations of political bias against the judiciary in this country, especially the higher judiciary, about the way in which they make their decisions, notwithstanding the fact that the Law Lords sit in an assembly.
I read what the Government had to say in their reform document. The preamble—I always pay some attention to preambles—is a woolly piece of writing. For example, it says:
"The considerable growth of judicial review in recent years has inevitably brought the judges more into the political eye. It is essential that our systems do all that they can to minimise the danger that judges' decisions could be perceived to be politically motivated."
The growth of human rights legislation makes almost inevitable the risk of political motivation being attributed to judges being realised. That will continue irrespective of whether there is an Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. We have a lot of evidence already that, with the changes to Kilmuir rules, judges are being obliged to speak out more frequently and to justify their decisions. That worries me; I am not sure that it is desirable. If I had to choose between that and a senior judiciary whose members have the ability occasionally to participate, with great restraint, in debate in the House of Lords, I would prefer the old arrangement.
The Government then tell us in the preamble:
"It is not always understood that the decisions of the 'House of Lords' are in practice decisions of the Appellate Committee and that non-judicial members of the House never take part in the judgments."
I have to say to the Minister: come off it. I have never heard it suggested that decisions taken by the Appellate Committee are taken by the House of Lords generally. That is a fantasy, yet it is the fantasy that underpins the preamble on which the Government build their arguments.
Towards the end of the preamble. the following statement is made:
"In proposing that the time has come to change these arrangements, no criticism is intended of the way in which the members of either Committee have discharged their functions. Nor have there been any accusations of actual bias in either the appointments to either body or their judgments … The arrangements have served us well in the past. Nonetheless, the Government has come to the conclusion that the present position is no longer sustainable."
I am prepared to accept that it is no longer sustainable, but I need more persuasion than is contained in this document that that is the case.

195WH
What will be the consequences of the proposals? The House of Lords might be turned into a supreme court. The expression "supreme court" is wrong, and I think that the Government are halfway to acknowledging that. We cannot have a supreme court in this country because the court system is not the supreme body, as is the case in the United States. If a supreme court exists anywhere, it is in this Parliament. If the Law Lords are set into a separate body and are unable to take their seats in Parliament, the cross-fertilisation between them and senior Members of the legislature will be lost. I suspect that that is one of the ingredients that has made the independence of the judiciary from the Executive so successful in this country.
What mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that that independence can continue? The risk to the judiciary's independence comes not from the legislature but from the power of the Executive, who manipulate the media by making hostile pronouncements on judicial decisions that are intended to influence the judiciary thereafter. The great protection that the judiciary has always had in that respect comes from the office of Lord Chancellor, because he takes the judge's oath and he is a judge within Government. It is a unique institution that has served this country very well. The office of Lord Chancellor might need to be reformed: if he does not sit as a judge but still takes the judicial oath, the independence of the judiciary would be strengthened, whereas the Government's proposals raise a great fear that it might be weakened.
Cost is a small matter in the context of the totality of the Government's proposals. I accept the comments of Lord Bingham of Cornhill that the Law Lords are under-resourced. Apart from judicial salaries, they cost about £600,000 a year and recoup £400,000. In administrative terms, therefore, the cost to the taxpayer of this extraordinary court with a worldwide reputation is £200,000 per annum.
One thing we can guarantee—everything might be shoved off to Somerset house. I can tell the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that Middlesex guildhall has already been ruled out. My understanding—the Minister might tell me more about it is that Middlesex guildhall is a grade 1 listed building and its main court would have to be changed, because as currently constituted it is wholly unsuitable for the Appellate Committee's sittings. The hallmark of the Appellate Committee is that it has informality. The Minister might not have been to have a look at Middlesex guildhall, but I assure him that its main court has everything except informality; it is a very grand room. Therefore, there are cost implications. We are entitled to know whether we are going to get value for money, or whether we will spend £50 million on building a new court complex with many hundreds of thousands of pounds of running costs.
If the Government want to introduce changes that command widespread acceptance, they must start arguing from basic premises about the basic philosophical ideas underlying the proposals. Saying, "We have an idea and you can provide a few steers on the detail," is not enough. I am unconvinced of the need for the changes, although I am open to be convinced. However, one thing is clear: a system that has served us
196WH
very well for a long time does not need to be changed overnight—there is no urgency. If the Government would like to start the process properly, we might end up with a satisfactory outcome.
10.35 am
Mr. Alan Duncan: Sir Nicholas, thank you for your earlier guidance on how this Chamber works. It showed the confusion that can arise when established practices are disturbed and was a microcosmic and useful example to us in our debate today.
All of us thank the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) for securing the debate. It was mentioned earlier, and all hon. Members can see, that the proposal for a supreme court was born of a botched reshuffle. It came out of the blue —none of us knew that it was coming. It is as if the Government were forced to make the proposal by accident, on the back of ill thought out proposals for the reform of the upper House. Although the Government's stated objective is to make the upper House more democratic and representative, perversely they want to appoint all its Members and, doubly paradoxically, they want to remove the Law Lords.
There has been no debate. There is no consensus. As a former Law Lord said in The Spectator:
"I can understand the argument that the Lord Chancellor as a member of the executive should not sit as a judge"
incidentally, we Conservatives can, too—
"But I can see no reason at all why the law lords, who are not members of the executive, should not sit as members of the Upper House."
The Liberal Democrat view was expressed in the upper House by their spokesman Lord Goodhart, who said, as if with a flick of the hand, that the proposals would
"do no more than put an end to what is now an historic anomaly." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 September 2003; Vol. 652, c. 129.]
His analysis is wrong. The present arrangement is, perhaps, anomalous in some respects—although I would challenge that—but it is fundamentally wrong to say that the proposals would simply put an end to that anomaly and formalise the position. In fact, they would do much more.
Perhaps across this horseshoe Chamber there is a fundamental political difference in our approach to change. For a socialist, a clean sheet of paper and abstract thinking are permissible. A conservative, however, prefers evolution, rather than revolution, in any change that we oversee. We believe in tests of practicality, rather than mere conformity to abstract thinking, and although we are always happy to make changes, we prefer them to be made gradually. Teachers have commented on many a student's great proposals by saying, "Well, that might work in theory, but it does not work in practice." The House of Lords and the existing judicial system work in practice, but not in theory. We regard that as an adequate reason for retention.
The proposed changes are based on a flawed concept. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) touched on that. They made a distinction—which exists—between the independence of the judiciary and

197WH
the separation of powers. However, there is confusion in this debate around the Government's defence of their reforms. Although they claim that the changes are about the judiciary's independence, they deploy arguments about the separation of powers. Let me quote a Law Lord, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, who encapsulates so much of our thinking in two paragraphs:
"It is important not to confuse the United Kingdom's constitutional principle of the independence of the judiciary with the United States of America's principle of the separation of powers."
One might mention Montesquieu at that point. Lord Hobhouse continues:
"The latter is a doctrine based on a mistaken analysis of the British constitution developed by French thinkers in the 18th century. It involves the complete and balanced separation of all three branches of Government —the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary —from each other. Thus in the United States, the President and other members of the Executive are debarred from being members of the legislature whereas in the United Kingdom the position is the reverse. It is the serious flaw of the Consultation Paper that insofar as it adopts any constitutional principle, it appears to choose the doctrine of the separation of powers not the independence of the judiciary."
As such, the entire project is, intellectually, profoundly flawed. Lord Hobhouse says:
"It is convenient, at this stage, to mention"
a matter that has
"been used to justify the proposal and … shaped some of the questions asked."
That is
"the level of public understanding of the existing structure. The general public are often ignorant of the structure of the court system and, in particular, by the terminology used. Some still believe that an appeal to the House of Lords is determined by the political peers. If this is the cause of the Department's concerns, the correct solution is clear and long overdue. There should be a better education, and dissemination of information, concerning the British constitution. This lack of knowledge and the solution lie in the hands of the Executive and are not a reason for introducing potentially damaging constitutional changes."
So says Lord Hobhouse, even though our young, vibrant and no doubt intellectually acute Minister jeers.
Another aspect of the argument is supposedly the untenable position of the Lord Chancellor. One argument subliminally deployed but never properly put is that his having multiple roles is somehow inconsistent with the convention on human rights. I contend that that is not true. It is the responsibility of the Minister to challenge my contention if he believes that I am wrong. The Lord Chancellor sits in a judicial capacity extremely rarely. It has never been suggested formally that that contravenes the convention on human rights. In any event, it would be part of the Conservative party's proposals that the Lord Chancellor, while retaining his existing position, should cease to sit in any judicial capacity.
Far worse than any supposed conflict now is the danger that may lie ahead if the Government's proposals go through. Ultimately, it is what they are proposing rather than anything that exists now that could lead to the politicisation of the judiciary. At the moment, it has a reputation of total independence. Paradoxically, that independence is well guarded by the
198WH
Lord Chancellor in his peculiar hydra-headed role. If anyone doubts that, I ask —the Government may be slightly uncomfortable about this —that if we want an inquiry, to whom do we turn first but a judge? That is because of judges' well-established reputation of independence, which by the middle of January the Government may have cause to regret.
What could really politicise the judiciary are the notions that the Government embrace in their criteria for appointment. They say that judges must be representative —not a judicial notion, but a political one. I shall paraphrase an argument put in another place by Lord Mayhew. He said that he did not want his surgeon to be representative and did not care about his background; he wanted him to be good at cutting him up and sewing him back up again. So it is, in a slightly different professional capacity, with a judge. Judges are not there to be representative; they are there to apply and interpret the law. The Minister scoffs at that, but he has to put a clear argument as to why judges have to be representative; merely sneering at my argument will not suffice.
I alluded to the Liberal Democrats' view. Essentially, they argued in another place that the proposals are simply about removing an anomaly and giving the judiciary good facilities. However, let me quote from an interesting article in the Financial Times that cites his honour George Dobry:
"The only practical reasons for the immediate abolition of the appellate committee of the House of Lords are that its position as part of the House of Lords has 'inevitably limited the resources that can be made available to it'".
It is not clear what this means and there is no detailed discussion in the consultation paper of the resources that are thought to be needed. Nor is there any evaluation of the need compared with other priorities for the court service.
No case is made out for treating the reform of the House of Lords in its judicial capacity as a matter of particular priority."
As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said, the existing system costs only about £200,000 a year, net. In suggesting evolution rather than revolution, we would say that if judges need a bit more money, support and better accommodation, let them have it. What they do not need is a whole new edifice and budget under a new structure, as the Government propose. As George Dobry QC points out, there is no assessment of other competing priorities. If there is another, better priority, it is that we should have a proper commercial court in London. If the Government want to spend money on improving the court system at this level, we should have a commercial court before we have a supreme court.
The legal community is astounded and perturbed by the Government's agenda. The sudden end to the post of Lord Chancellor —albeit delayed, it would seem —an end to Queen's Counsels, a questionable system of judicial appointments and the setting up of a supreme court have caused great turmoil in the legal community. I urge that community to have the confidence to make its voice clear in challenging what the Government are doing, as many of its members are already doing. We will certainly try to pitch the debate at a higher level than has the Prime Minister, who degraded it when he said in the Chamber that the aim was to get rid of the man in tights. The debate must be pitched much higher.

199WH
The Prime Minister is undertaking yet another piece of what I would describe as teenage radicalism, which will give the British legal system a new building, but will not deliver better justice. The Law Lords have served this country expertly for centuries, but the Government seem prepared to restructure them and consign their existing structure to the history books. The Prime Minister seems to think that anything old is bad. He does not understand that it has probably become old because it is good. His arguments in favour of judicial independence are vacuous when that independence already exists and has done for ages. The plan will not secure the independence of the judiciary; it will lead to its eventual politicisation. We all say, spare us from that.
10.46 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on securing the debate. I regret the fact that the House authorities did not find it possible to have the sitting of the Constitutional Affairs Committee at a time that did not coincide with this debate in Westminster Hall.
Annabelle Ewing: Will the Minister give way on that point?
Mr. Leslie: No, because I have many substantive points on which to comment. There are some significant constitutional issues and it is important that we have an opportunity to debate them completely, certainly before legislation is considered by the House.
Our proposals on the supreme court have been sent out for consultation, and the core proposals were made in the consultation paper. It stated that the Appellate Committee should be taken out of the House of Lords and set up as a separate free-standing supreme court, taking with it all its current functions; the devolution jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be transferred to the new supreme court; and the sitting Law Lords should become the first members of the new supreme court.
The consultation paper sought views on those issues and related matters, such as whether holders of high judicial office should cease to sit and vote in the House of Lords while actively sitting as judges; whether we should take the opportunity to separate the judiciary from the legislature by removing all the judiciary from the House of Lords; the number of permanent members that the court should have; how to secure proper representation from all three jurisdictions; how to develop a transparent appointments process; what the qualifications for membership of the court should be; and whether the court should sit in panels or with all the members together on every case. I intend to address many of those points individually.
The consultation period closed on 7 November and we received more than 160 responses, which we shall carefully consider when finalising our proposals for reform. I expect to announce our final policy early in the new year. A number of those who responded, not least hon. Members here today —including the hon. Member
200WH
for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—have asked what the rationale is for the creation of a supreme court, and why it is so important for us to create one now. The answer is simple: this is a modern democracy that needs constitutional arrangements that meet the demands of this century. We can no longer continue with arrangements that have evolved over such a long period and, in the case of the Appellate Committee, were largely put in place nearly 130 years ago.
Mr. Grieve: This is all fascinating, but the Minister's peroration does not explain —I am prepared to be convinced—why the present arrangements would be unworkable in future. Indeed, the Government's own consultation document does not do that, and the subject has never been debated or put to the electorate in a manifesto. Will he explain, if he can, the philosophical problem that underpins the Government's main decision, because that must be the starting point of the debate?
Mr. Leslie: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, unlike many other hon. Members, cannot see the glaringly obvious. If we are to ensure that our judicial system meets the requirement of independence that would be expected by any mature democracy, the blurring of judicial, Executive and legislative responsibilities must be brought to an end. That is the simple principle.
Mr. Duncan: Why?
Mr. Leslie: Saying that we need reform does not imply criticism of the Law Lords or dissatisfaction with the quality of their work. They are respected the world over for their expertise and have always acted with the utmost integrity and honesty. There has never been any question that they do not act impartially or are not objective.
Mr. Duncan: Exactly.
Mr. Leslie: Nevertheless, the Law Lords have had to find a means of dealing with the constitutional difficulties of their position, which is the point that I am trying to communicate clearly to hon. Members. The Law Lords' solution has been to impose a self-denying ordinance that they will neither speak nor vote in the House of Lords on matters that might come before them in their judicial capacity. However, is not the fact that they have to limit the extent to which they can participate in the business of legislating the clearest signal that something is wrong with the arrangements? If they feel it necessary to impose a self-denying ordinance to clarify the fact that they do not have any dealings in the legislative business of the House, it follows that the present arrangements, which allow for potential conflicts of interest, are flawed.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: This really will not do. The Minister is merely asserting things while paying tribute to the House of Lords instead of answering the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). We are asking

201WH
for the philosophical underpinning for what the Government are doing. Mere assertion is not good enough.
Mr. Leslie: I do not wish to —
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Order. I deplore the intervention of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who has not been here for anything near the whole debate. Furthermore, he is another Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. Without setting any precedent, I established that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) should speak, but I hope that the Minister will give way only to those who have been present during the debate.
Mr. Leslie: You make a fair point, Sir Nicholas. We have already heard about the fluid nature of the Opposition Front Bench. It is becoming more like liquidation as the debate goes on.
The time has come to reform our constitution and settle the anomalies that all people recognise. The Opposition look set to oppose a supreme court, as is their right, but it is vital that we make the judicial system more comprehensible and create more transparency in our institutional arrangements.
Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Leslie: If the hon. Gentleman will listen for a moment, I shall explain my point precisely. The House of Lords Appellate Committee is, in effect, a separate court and should be openly acknowledged as such. A UK supreme court will be a far more visible and distinct entity than is the Appellate Committee. It will reflect and enhance the judiciary's independence from the legislature and the Executive. That really is the nub of the matter.
Mr. Grieve: May I take up the Minister's comment about the need for self-denying ordinances for the judiciary in the House of Lords? He is a Minister of the Crown. He is also a Member of Parliament. He must exercise a self-denying ordinance daily when he says in the House, not what he thinks or believes, but what he as a Minister of the Crown must say as part of being a member of the Government. Surely, when he considers that and thinks it through, he will immediately realise that that is no different from the position of members of the judiciary in their self-denying ordinances. It is a convention. There is nothing wrong with conventions unless it can be shown that they do not work. In this case, they do.
Mr. Leslie: It is quite clear that Conservative Members have taken it into their heads that what is proposed is some isolated separation of the powers of the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary. That is not the proposal. We have a constitutional anomaly whereby there is blurring and confusion between the judicial, the legislative and the Executive, not least in the form of the office of Lord Chancellor. It is important not only to secure the integrity of each branch of our constitution, but to have a clear and transparent system for members of the public, who need to see greater independence for our judiciary from the Executive and
202WH
the legislature. That is the proposal. We do not have a proposal for an absolute, clear separation of each branch, because of course they will all always be related, but we must always have an eye to improving the independence of the judiciary. That is precisely the rationale behind our proposal to create our new supreme court.
Mr. Carmichael: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Leslie: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, in the five minutes that I have left, I should like to answer some of the points that have been made.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked about the impact of the reform on the House of Lords. I do not believe that the other place will suffer greatly should a new supreme court be established separately. There is a great deal of other legal expertise in the House of Lords, enough to ensure that, although the Law Lords will not be present, there are many others who bring a legal perspective to debates and Committee work.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland sought to scrutinise the implication of the proposals for devolution and the devolved powers. Although we are open to consultation, we have expressed our preference that the devolution issues currently heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be moved to the supreme court. I believe that that would be consistent with the strong arguments that I have already advanced on the need to establish a visible separation between the highest court of the land and the second Chamber of the United Kingdom legislature. It cannot be right that cases that might turn on a dispute between the UK Parliament and the UK Government on the one hand and devolved institutions on the other should be argued before a Committee of the UK Parliament. That argument would not apply to a supreme court, so its creation would give the perfect opportunity to rationalise the situation and remove potential conflicts of interest.
I know that hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland and for Somerton and Frome, have raised issues about location. No conclusions have yet been reached on where a new supreme court should be housed. All options are open for consideration, although there is a strong likelihood that it will need to be located in the UK capital city to reflect its UK-wide jurisdiction. However, subject to the results of consultation, I am keen to allow the court to sit around the United Kingdom when hearing devolution matters, if need be. That could enhance the public perception of the supreme court as a UK court. It seems only right that where possible and subject to logistics, cases relating to Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish devolution could be heard in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland respectively.
As I have already stated, it is vital that the supreme court is a UK body and viewed as such by the public. The court, like the Appellate Committee, will have judges from each of the three jurisdictions.
Mr. Carmichael: Briefly, does the Minister agree with Lord Hope of Craighead who says that the legislation can be implemented only with at least the concurrence,

203WH
if not in fact the active participation, of the Scottish Parliament through amendment of the Court of Session Act 1988?
Sir Nicholas Winterton: A perfect intervention—brief.
Mr. Leslie: To give the devolved institutions adequate input to our overall proposals, they have all been consulted in the preparation of the consultation paper. My officials have been liaising with officials from the devolved Administrations and we will ensure that the final package takes proper account of the devolution arrangements. We are fully aware of the historic importance of an independent legal system in Scotland and of the requirements of the devolution legislation in relation to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
The Scottish Executive have announced their broad support for a supreme court. On the point about the Sewel motion, I can assure the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that we are working closely with Scottish Ministers to identify any legislation in Scotland that needs amending and to bring before the Scottish Parliament any necessary Sewel motion.
I remain firm in my view that the establishment of a supreme court is a vital step forward for our constitution. It will mean more institutional transparency and it will be more clearly independent and more comprehensible to the general public than the Appellate Committee is. We are working hard to analyse the consultation responses to ensure that we make the right and proper decisions on the detailed policy issues. We are talking about historic changes, and I am proud to be involved in making such a landmark change to the UK legal system.

Uzbekistan
11 am
Mr. Simon Thomas: I am pleased to initiate this timely debate, which provides the House with a perhaps overdue opportunity to examine Government policy on Uzbekistan.
I start with two quotations. The Minister will recognise the first, because he referred to it in a speech on 25 November:
"There is no such thing any more as a quarrel in a faraway country which is indifferent to our interests … States where human rights are gravely violated, because the rule of law has broken down or because only repression and violence can sustain a ruling clique in power, are the main source of risk to our and our allies' security … So promoting democracy, human rights and the rule of law is right at the heart of working for our interests."
The second quote is from one of our ambassadors, who said:
"We believe there to be between 7,000 and 10,000 people in detention whom we would consider as political and/or religious prisoners. No government has the right to use the war against terrorism as an excuse for the persecution of those with a deep personal commitment to the Islamic religion, and who pursue their views by peaceful means."
The Minister was speaking in general terms, but the ambassador was referring to a real situation—that in Uzbekistan. I want to examine the assessment that the ambassador made of human rights in that country in a speech that I understand was sanctioned by the Foreign Office. That assessment should be taken more seriously by the House and the Government in their dealings with the Uzbek authorities. I also want to ensure that, having captured one tyrant this week in Iraq, we do not allow or encourage another to rise in Uzbekistan.
Although, of the former Soviet Republics, it is Georgia that has captured our attention in the past few weeks, it is perhaps Uzbekistan that should give us the greatest concern about human rights and democracy in the long run. It is an authoritarian state with limited civil rights, and neither the January 2003 referendum to extend the president's term of office, nor previous elections, were judged to be free or fair by international standards. The Parliament consists almost entirely of officials appointed by the president and members of parties that support him, and meets for just a few days a year. The Government influence the courts heavily in both civil and criminal cases.
The human rights record remains very poor, with both the police and the national security service—the former KGB —committing numerous serious human rights abuses, including causing the death of several citizens in custody, torture and beatings. The UN special rapporteur on torture visited the country in November 2002 and found poor prison conditions and arbitrary detentions by the police, often for bribes, particularly of Muslims suspected of "extremist" —that is, non-state sanctioned —sympathies. There was also planting of evidence on persons. Some 6,500 persons were in prison for political or religious reasons.
The Government in Uzbekistan restrict freedom of speech and press, and ban unauthorised public meetings and demonstrations, and the police forcibly disrupt peaceful protests. Internal passports are required for movement within the country and permission is

205WH
required to move from one city or district to another. The Government restrict freedom of religion. Members of domestic human rights groups are abused and targeted for arrest. Only one such domestic group has been recognised to date. In short, citizens cannot exercise their right to change their Government peacefully.
That damning criticism comes not from Human Rights Watch or the much-maligned Amnesty International. but from the 2002 country report on Uzbekistan by the US State Department bureau of democracy, human rights and labour. Those are comments to which we should pay a great deal of attention. Perhaps we should add to them another matter that, for understandable reasons, may not concern the US Government so much: the use of the death penalty in Uzbekistan. Its use is a state secret, but Human Rights Watch has identified at least 22 people who were sentenced to death last year. When that is taken with the report of the UN special rapporteur on torture, who found that torture was systematic and that
"many confessions obtained through torture and other illegal means were then used as evidence in trials,"
including
"in trials that are leading to the death penalty or to very severe punishment",
its use becomes even more abhorrent.
Independent human rights organisations such Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have scores of examples of the abuses faced by peaceful opponents of the Uzbek regime. Let me share just two examples with the House. Two women, Larisa Vdovina and human rights defender Elena Urlaeva, were forcibly confined in a psychiatric hospital to stop their human rights activities. They were detained on 27 August 2002 during a demonstration outside the Ministry of Justice building to protest against human rights abuses. They were transferred to Tashkent City psychiatric hospital the next day. Elena Urlaeva was released at the end of December 2002. The whole episode is horribly reminiscent of the way in which the old Soviet system abused the psychiatric hospital system.
I will continue with the evidence that, at least in Uzbekistan, Soviet-style suppression continues under another name. The second example is even more grisly. In August 2002, the body of Muzafar Avazov was brought from Jaslyk prison to his family for burial. He had been imprisoned for membership of a proscribed Islamic party. In May 2002, Human Rights Watch reported that prison authorities had beaten Muzafar Avazov and put him in a punishment cell for stating that nothing could stop him performing his prayers. Prisoners are often placed in such cells for praying or refusing to ask for forgiveness from the Uzbek president. A 35-year-old father of four, Avazov's body showed signs of burns on the legs, buttocks, lower back and arms. Some 60 to 70 per cent. of the body was burned. Doctors who saw the body reported that such burns could have been caused only by immersing Avazov in boiling water. They also reported that there was a large, bloody wound on the back of the head, heavy bruising on the forehead and side of the neck, and that his hands had no fingernails.
206WH
Uzbekistan has perhaps a worse human rights record than Zimbabwe —I know that that will interest you, Sir Nicholas —but it has received little attention in this House. Its importance is due not only to the perspicacity of the Minister when he reworded John Donne for a globalised world, but to the fact that both the US Government and the UK Government have regarded Uzbekistan as an ally in their war on terrorism. I understand that, to that end, the country has received more than $200 million of aid from the US Government, including some $70 million used directly to support its state security system, which, as I have made clear, is oppressive to say the least. Uzbekistan has also been given favourable treatment under the UK arms sales regime, which I will consider later.
Hon. Members may well be aware that certain countries, such as Zimbabwe, Burma, Argentina, Cyprus, India and Pakistan, feature on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office list of territories in respect of which arms restrictions of one sort or another apply. All told, some 40 countries are on the list, but unfortunately Uzbekistan is not one of them. Indeed, despite the prevalence of internal repression, Uzbekistan is one of those favoured few countries for which open individual export licences are granted. In 2002, five such licences were granted, mainly for dual-use equipment.
Uzbekistan is also supported by EU overseas aid. The EU-Uzbekistan Co-operation Council implements a partnership agreement. However, the EU and the UK seem to have missed an opportunity to wring from the Uzbek Government specific commitments on human rights, allied to that partnership agreement. Similarly, both the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development have seen their meek criticisms of the Uzbek Administration treated with disdain, to the extent that, at the meeting of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development this year in Uzbekistan, the president did not condemn the use of torture, as he was expected to do.
Baroness Symons, in the other place, has described the relationship between the UK and Uzbekistan as one of critical engagement:
We must proceed with the Government's policy of critical engagement; it is through such dialogue that we hope to bring Uzbekistan to a better understanding of its obligations."- [Official Report, House of Lords, 11 November 2003; Vol. 654, c. 1214.]
To date there has been precious little dialogue and little understanding of obligations, certainly on the part of the Uzbek Government. Only two weeks ago, they cancelled an expected conference on the use of the death penalty.
I conclude with some specific questions for the Minister on our relationship with Uzbekistan and offer some suggestions as to how we might improve that relationship to the benefit of human rights. First, I understand there will be a further meeting of the EUUzbek Co-operation Council early next year. Will the Minister confirm the location and date of that meeting and state what specific obligations under human rights he expects the council and the partnership agreement to set out as a condition of further EU support for Uzbekistan?

207WH
Will the Minister take the opportunity to look at the words of Baroness Symons, who said that
"the fact is that Uzbekistan has not been a traditional market for UK defence exporters-primarily because of its human rights record"? —[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 November 2003; Vol. 654, c. 1213.]
Although I accept the validity of those words, I ask the Minister to consider the fact that they are an inadequate safeguard against unwelcome exports under the open licence system. In other countries —Israel comes to mind-we have seen exports with dual use used in a military manner and an offensive way against a civilian population. We should not allow exports from this country to be used in that manner in Uzbekistan. Will the Minister review the open licence system and confirm that the Government find the Uzbek record on human rights so poor as to demand an arms embargo?
Will the Minister pressure the Uzbek Government to ensure that the conference on the death penalty, which is scheduled to take place on 5 December, goes ahead, and that civil rights groups in Uzbekistan have the opportunity to take part without harassment? Will he urge the Uzbek authorities to make public their statistics on the use of the death penalty and to disclose the locations of prisoners' burials, which are often withheld from families, and to release their bodies to their families?
Will the Minister ensure that the UK takes a leading role in the EU, the International Monetary Fund, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in setting firm standards and a timetable for improvement on the record of human rights, to be met by the Uzbek Government as a condition of any further aid? I believe that the answers to those questions are, at least in part, key tests of the Minister's claim, made in his speech on 25 November, that
"human rights and the rule of law is right at the heart of working for our interests."
I have yet to mention the name of the Uzbek President, Islam Karimov. He has dominated the leadership of Uzbekistan since 1989, when he was the Communist party leader of what was then the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic. The following year, he became Uzbek president and he continued in the post after independence. He has won every election on grounds that are dubious by any international standards. He won his first election with 88 per cent. of the vote. In 2003, his Parliament, filled with his supporters, passed a law granting him immunity from prosecution for his activities as president should he cease to hold the post. The Uzbek president, Islam Karimov, maintains a Soviet-style dictatorship over his country. In Uzbekistan, we see the continuation of the malignant human rights record that existed under the USSR.
I hope that the Minister will assure the Chamber that in the future we will not have cause to be ashamed of our support of and co-operation with the Uzbek president, and that all steps necessary will be taken to ensure that the human rights record of Uzbekistan —which some would argue has improved slightly over the past few months-continues to improve and that Uzbekistan meets the standards that we should demand of it as a country that receives aid from both the UK Government and the EU.
11.15 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): As I have indicated both to you, Sir Nicholas, and to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), I apologise for the fact that I shall conclude my remarks before the normal end time of the debate owing to the fact that I have, for want of a better parliamentary phrase, to leg it to the Chamber to answer the first question at Foreign Office questions.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having initiated the debate. The discussion is timely, given that there has been significant parliamentary and media interest in Uzbekistan, and I welcome the opportunity to put on the record the Government's position and policy.
Our relations with Uzbekistan are generally constructive —the characterisation of constructive engagement put forward by my noble Friend Baroness Symons in the other place is correct. However, despite that constructive relationship, we have serious concerns about human rights and the lack of economic and political reforms. Uzbekistan became an independent state only when the former Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, so the relationship is relatively young and is developing.
Uzbekistan is developing its relations with us through multilateral forums such as the European Union. In addition, it is a member of international financial institutions including the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which held its annual meeting in Uzbekistan in May 2003. There was some criticism of that move at the time, but the meeting, chaired by our then Secretary of State for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), provided an opportunity for a free and frank discussion between the international community, the Uzbek authorities and Uzbek civil society about the importance of economic and political openness. Before the meeting, the EBRD agreed a country strategy for Uzbekistan; it set seven key benchmarks for progress on economic, political and human rights reforms. The clear implication of the strategy is, rightly, to warn the Uzbek authorities that insufficient progress against the benchmarks could lead to the EBRD adopting a reduced lending strategy. We support that stance. The benchmarks are due to be reviewed by the EBRD in early 2004 and we are strongly encouraging the Uzbek authorities to make substantive progress against them.
The hon. Gentleman referred to our relationship with Uzbekistan and the war against terror. We are grateful for Uzbek support, particularly in relation to Afghanistan. Uzbekistan was also strongly supportive of the coalition efforts in Iraq. The important role that Uzbekistan has played in the war against terror is reflected in high-level exchanges of defence visits-most recently, that by the Uzbek Defence Minister in October. That provided an important opportunity for us to encourage further reform in the Uzbek armed forces and Uzbek participation in international peacekeeping operations. A memorandum of understanding that was signed will enable our armed forces to assist the Uzbeks with those goals. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would support that initiative.

209WH
Uzbekistan is a key player in a region of increasing strategic importance to the UK, so defence co-operation is important. However, while bilateral defence cooperation is effective, it is important to note that the Uzbek armed forces are not implicated in human rights violations.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned defence exports. Uzbekistan has not traditionally been a market for UK defence exporters. I have seen a number of press articles —I think that he quoted from them —accusing the Government of breaking their own arms export guidelines and selling weapons to Uzbekistan. It is necessary to answer that accusation by stating clearly that the UK has not sanctioned arms sales to Uzbekistan. The equipment covered in the export licences that have been granted consists of replacement components for civil passenger aircraft, goods for the oil and gas industry—those were sent for rental purposes only to companies operating in Uzbekistan—and goods to be used by a named UK exporter in Uzbekistan.
Relations with Uzbekistan are also developing well in a number of other areas—for example, education and culture. In May, we signed a memorandum of understanding on education at the opening of the British-Uzbek university in Tashkent. The British Council is also active in Uzbekistan: it has helped more than 200 Uzbek scholars to study in the UK. Through the Chevening scholarship programme, which is a flagship initiative for the Foreign Office, the Government have funded more than 40 Uzbek students to study in the UK.
Importantly, we are developing a dialogue on trade and economic issues. Uzbekistan is an attractive potential market and has substantial resources, including gas, oil, gold and silver. The previous high-level British visit to Uzbekistan, focusing on trade and investment, was undertaken in September by the lord mayor of London. As well as promoting the City of London's financial and business services, the lord mayor raised with Uzbek Ministers some challenges that face British businesses in doing business in Uzbekistan. In terms of deepening business-to-business contacts, which is a driver of necessary reform, that was an important initiative to undertake.
There has been progress. In October, the Uzbeks signed an agreement with the IMF that commits Uzbekistan to full current account currency convertibility. We welcome that, although for the move to bring benefits to the Uzbek economy the authorities need urgently to complement it with other essential economic reforms. We raise that issue in all our bilateral relations. A well managed and open economy is important not only for Uzbekistan and the prosperity of its people; it is equally important for its neighbours. Regional trade and transport co-operation need development. High tariffs and import duties, along with the unpredictable border closures that I mentioned, mean that Uzbek consumers are forced to pay higher prices for goods than they would otherwise have to. Those policies also adversely affect the well-being of Uzbekistan's smaller neighbours-the Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan —yet creating the conditions that allow trade to flourish would benefit not only those neighbours but Uzbekistan itself. There is genuinely a mutual interest in these issues.
210WH
There has been progress on some issues of regional cooperation, notably security. An example is the establishment of the Shanghai co-operation council. Regional security is important in countering the threat posed by Islamic extremists in central Asia—a threat that we would do well not to underestimate.
The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan has called for the overthrow of President Karimov's Government. In 2000, that movement made armed raids into Uzbekistan. IMU fighters received training and support from the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Although the IMU suffered serious losses during Operation Enduring Freedom, it is still active in central Asia. We support efforts to curtail the activities of the IMU, which we proscribed in October 2002. It is a threat to Uzbekistan's internal security and, through its links to al-Qaeda, to British interests and those of the wider international community.
It is important to point out that our concern about Islamic extremism in Uzbekistan and central Asia more generally does not mean that we turn a blind eye to human rights abuses or regard perceived threats to security as justification for imprisoning young men simply on religious grounds—far from it. On that point, I concur with the hon. Gentleman.
We want a prosperous and stable Uzbekistan, based on the rule of law and an open and democratic society, but Uzbekistan's respect for human rights has been poor. On that, I agree with some of the hon. Gentleman's comments. We acknowledge and support the small steps forward that the Uzbek Government have taken-for example, inviting the UN special rapporteur on torture to visit Uzbekistan. We now need to see the Uzbek authorities fully implementing his recommendations. It is welcome that the Uzbek criminal code has been amended to define torture and that a draft national action plan on torture is being drawn up. We shall look closely at the detail of that plan, and we hope to have open and constructive dialogue with the Uzbek authorities to ensure that it is implemented. I am also pleased that the Uzbek Government have granted access to prisons to western ambassadors and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, there have been many well-documented cases of human rights abuses in Uzbekistan. We have used every opportunity to press those with the Uzbek Government. Earlier this year, I went into detail about the concerns over human rights in Uzbekistan at the Foreign Affairs Committee when it discussed the Foreign Office's international human rights report. I made it clear that we had
"concerns about the deterioration of the human rights situation in Uzbekistan, particularly in relation to torture".
We shall continue to press those issues at every opportunity.
I now move to another issue to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Last week, staff at our embassy in Tashkent publicly expressed concern that a scheduled conference in Tashkent on the death penalty, which we were jointly sponsoring with Freedom House, was not allowed to go ahead because the non-governmental organisation that was organising it was unregistered. We will continue to push for the abolition of the death penalty and the registration of political parties and NGOs.

211WH
We are also monitoring the persecution of religious minorities in Uzbekistan. We understand that there are 7,000 religious and political prisoners —that is 7,000 too many. Of those prisoners, many are simply devout Muslims, whom we believe are often unfairly convicted of being extremists. We will continue to stress to the Uzbek Government the fact that falsely accusing citizens of extremist activity is likely to foster rather than discourage extremism.
It is worth taking this opportunity to put on the record the situation with our ambassador. There has been much comment and speculation in the press, and it has been suggested over the past few months that we do not support our ambassador to Tashkent, and that we have recalled him from that post because of pressure from our allies. Neither assertion is true. The ambassador is in the UK for private medical reasons. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further, other than to confirm that he remains our ambassador and to say that we endorse his comments about the human rights situation in Uzbekistan; I explicitly endorsed them at the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.
I will now briefly deal with some questions raised by the hon. Gentleman. As regards the EU-Uzbek Cooperation Council, I am not yet aware of the date and place of that meeting. That has not been settled. Certainly, continuing European Union engagement depends on Uzbekistan's progress on human rights.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the death penalty conference. I have made clear our stance on the death penalty, both generally and with regard to Uzbekistan. We will continue to pursue that issue. He also discussed pressing the Uzbek authorities to publish statistics on the death penalty and burials. I will consider putting some of those points to them.
The subject of defence sales was also raised. I made it clear that the UK has not sanctioned arms sales to Uzbekistan. There have been indications to the contrary in some of our national newspapers, but it is important to make that point clear.
Both the Government and the EU continue to lobby for the abolition of the death penalty. With our support, the EU recently criticised six executions that took place in Uzbekistan. The EU, the UK and our embassy will continue to lobby for a moratorium on the death penalty.
To sum up, it is clear that Uzbekistan faces many difficult challenges. There is much work to do, but we should bear it in mind that it is only 12 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union. We are engaging constructively with Uzbekistan, and will continue to press our human rights concerns and give what support we can to the Uzbek authorities. There are difficult concerns and challenges, and it is critically important that we remain engaged on them.
11.28 am
Sitting Suspended

Antisocial Behaviour
2 pm
Mr. Frank Field: If I am fortunate enough to secure another debate in this Chamber in the future, Sir Nicholas, I hope that by then I will be able to address you as Mr. Deputy Speaker again. That day cannot come too soon. I also thank whoever decides which debates are chosen for giving us the opportunity to examine what is, for many of us, the single most important issue facing our constituents. I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who is normally present at these debates. She has an engagement that was put in her diary long before we knew that we had secured the debate, and, quite rightly, she has kept her engagement.
This is the first time that I have debated this subject with the Minister, whom I am immensely glad to see here. I know how committed she is to examining the issue of antisocial behaviour in different ways. I shall later explain how I would like Government policy to develop. I am also pleased to see other hon. Friends present.
In developing policy further, we need to think about immediate redress for antisocial behaviour. I make a plea for the Government to think outside the box of the criminal justice system in dealing with the problem, and I shall explain why. I shall talk about the root causes of the plague of antisocial behaviour, and I shall end by saying that we require not only the lead that we are getting from the Home Office, but a concerted effort across Government.
I want to stress why this issue is the new politics. Next year, I will have been a Member of this House for the constituency of Birkenhead for 25 years. During that time, my role as an MP has changed dramatically. My role can best be summarised as one that has witnessed and tried to respond to the movement from class politics to the politics of behaviour.
When I became an MP the issues that I dealt with for my constituents may have been complicated, but usually they either had an answer or they did not. If one examined the various pieces of legislation assiduously enough, one could usually, if not always, find redress for one's constituents. There were queries such as, "Why am I not eligible for this benefit?" and, "Why have I been denied that benefit?" and constituents might want to transfer from one house to another. There were employment questions, as well as the big questions with which all Members on both sides of the House have become familiar as Britain has lost its manufacturing base, despite the noble efforts that you, Sir Nicholas, and others have made to try to reverse the tide.
About nine years ago, a group of very respectable working-class constituents came into my surgery and described the life that they were experiencing. They had young lads running across the roofs of their bungalows, peeing through their letterboxes, trying to break their windows when they were watching television, and jumping out of the shadows at night to see whether they could give someone a heart attack. Those elderly residents explained to me that of course they had been to the police, but that the police knew the limitation of

213WH
their powers, as did the young culprits. After conversations with the police, and again with my constituents, I realised that a pattern was beginning to emerge from what I had previously wanted to see as isolated incidents of appalling behaviour. That was when my interest in the politics of behaviour began, and I started to try to discover how we as politicians could respond to this new area of politics.
Because this is a new area, it is difficult for us to deal with. It is not like passing Acts to nationalise or denationalise whole industries. For most of our history, Governments have not had to be involved with behaviour. Other great powers in the land have determined how people behave, and the character each of us has. Since at least the 1950s, we have been living off capital put in place by previous generations, which emphasised what common decencies were and how they were learned in families. Because people learned in their families, they were provided with the map and compass to negotiate the wider world beyond the family successfully.
In a growing number of families, that has ceased to happen. In Birkenhead —and, I am sure, in other Members' constituencies —there is a rise in dysfunctional families who do not see any place for trying to teach their members about how the group can get along together, despite the fact that each member is stained with original sin and thinks that the world centres around them. It is not possible to run a family —or a society —if everybody thinks that they will be the centre of the world all the time, and how their behaviour impacts on surrounding members is of no importance to them.
In the past, families taught their members that they were the most important people in the world, but that they were also surrounded by other people who were also the most important people in the world. Happy families know how to negotiate that frontier between people. We have taken it for granted that families will do that, but increasing numbers of them have ceased to do so.
This is a new area both for constituency Members and for the Government, and I make a plea for the Government to continue the approach that they have begun. They should not simply come out with the politicians' hackneyed phrase about being in listening mode although that is necessary. As we cannot draw on any previous experience from politicians about how to negotiate this new area, it will be down to luck—and only sometimes judgment —if we get all our measures right in the first instance.
Our constituents are not asking the impossible from us, but they do ask us to try. When some measures to deal with antisocial behaviour do not work as we wished them to and thought that they would, or if they have consequences that we did not foresee, we need to change our approach quickly. There ought not to be any stigma attached to politicians, including Ministers, saying, "I honestly got this wrong." Our constituents would cheer us if they heard that from us more often. In an area in which politicians have never before had to be involved —the politics of behaviour —it is inevitable that in our first attempts to get things right our batting average will be lower than usual.
Mr. Tim Boswell: The right hon. Gentleman is making a fascinating and compelling argument. Does he agree that the problem may be aggravated if society and its forces, which are represented by the Government, councils and other people in authority, are not seen to care and respond? Might that not give rise to vigilante action—as it has in certain cases —which none of us would wish to see?
Mr. Field: I agree with the first part of that. In the past, there were what are euphemistically called strong community ties, which included clear knowledge about what happened to people if they crossed certain boundaries. Many of us led more peaceful lives then, because we did not investigate too carefully how those common rules were enforced. Of course, I would not wish to go on the record as giving any support for, or making claims for, vigilante groups. It is significant, however, that in my constituency, and perhaps in other constituencies, too, the common decencies upheld by local force—if need be —generally ceased. Even some of the youngest members of the community know their rights under the law and what aid they will get under the legal aid scheme should anybody box their ears—that is what would have happened in the past, and it would have been helpful in guiding their actions.
In Birkenhead and elsewhere we have also lost the role that heavy industry played in disciplining people. People could not misbehave in the steelworks or the shipyard, because although they might have damaged themselves, the likelihood was that they would endanger one of their workmates too. Tough discipline operated regarding people who played around and risked other people's lives or limbs. Sometimes disputes in the town got settled in the shipyard, with the result that there was a more peaceable community. We know that we cannot create that world again, but there has been a loss, and it needs to be taken into account when we are trying to understand the behaviour we are now seeing. If all the checks built up over centuries are quickly stripped away, people should not be surprised if the bag of potatoes takes on a different shape.
I shall mention four issues to my colleagues and the Minister: the need for immediate redress, the need to think outside the box of the criminal justice system, root causes, and a plea for the Government to respond across Departments.
I ask the Government to think further about how we might devise means that bring redress to our constituents much more quickly than we have done so far with antisocial behaviour contracts and orders, or curfews. Nobody in the debate today has more praise than me for what the Government have done. However, although we all know from our constituencies that we are just beginning this great initiative, sadly we are not seeing the end of it.
One of the problems for our constituents is that it takes time to use the galaxy of measures that the Government have properly introduced. Even if the Government have not realised it, the subconscious model for many of their counter-measures against antisocial behaviour is the criminal justice system, which quite properly takes time, is careful, collects and weighs evidence and weights it in favour of the person

215WH
who is accused, rather than those who are making the accusations. I question whether that is the right approach to antisocial behaviour.
Our constituents are crying out for immediate action. In a little book that I published recently, which I called "The Politics of Behaviour" but the publishers retitled "Neighbours from Hell", I defined antisocial behaviour as separate from criminal activity. Generally speaking, antisocial behaviour, on the odd occasion that it occurs, is a nuisance but no more than that. However, peeing through people's letterboxes. is too much. When such nuisances are perpetrated by large numbers of people hour upon hour, day after day, and recipients of that viciousness never know whether they will get respite from it that particular night, that uncouth behaviour moves into the category of antisocial behaviour. We need measures to act quickly against that, because our constituents need redress.
From observing what is happening it is clear that some-maybe many—of those who indulge in antisocial behaviour not only get a buzz from it, but want an increasing buzz. If such behaviour goes unchecked, it encourages people to think of more uncouth and wicked ways of behaving to get more thrills next time than they did last time. Sometimes, that behaviour acts as a recruiting sergeant for people to get a criminal record. At all costs, our counter-measures should prevent people from coming to court, becoming part of the criminal justice system and getting a record.
Because the root cause of antisocial behaviour is the failure of a small but growing number of families to teach their offspring what I call the common decencies, or social virtue, we need to consider who could act in the place of parents when the real parents cannot or will not. The police are the one body that can do that. I have advocated that they should have powers like those of a football referee. They should be able to warn people, and if they did not stop their behaviour, the police would have the power immediately to impose a contract or an order, which individuals could challenge only if they went to the courts. The police would not have to go to court to get the order in the first place, because they need it quickly.
Above all, we do not want people in the courts —although there are those who might go to court, because in any institution people abuse their power. The check against that would be that some people would go to the courts, and chief superintendents and chief constables could see whether there was a pattern, with one or two police officers being too regularly involved in cases of people challenging decisions.
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that there is a sufficient uniformed presence, whether that is police, neighbourhood wardens or community support officers, to provide that support and help?
Mr. Field: I hope that the Home Affairs Committee will do two things soon, and one of those is to examine how the police spend their time. I must tell the hon. Lady
216WH
that when it was respectable in the Labour party to attack the police, I did not —I supported them. That does not mean that I am not anxious for them to perform better. In London, each police officer gets on average three convictions a year —one every four months. Outside London, that figure is about one every two months. I am interested in what the police do with their time. I am not suggesting that they are sitting at home playing cards, but it would be interesting to have a proper audit.
We might be able to use existing resources better, but I hope the Home Affairs Committee will address the fact that we need more police. In an age where no one can get elected by advocating a rise in direct taxation, we need to determine how we can create contracts so that local people can pay more to see more police on the beat. I agree with the hon. Lady that that is required. I am looking for people who will behave as surrogate parents.
Of course, we need to think about the longer term. If some families are failing to teach the common decencies, why does that happen? Last year, I spent part of the summer attending practically all the reception classes for four-year-olds. Two things struck me above all. First, there are pupils who cannot sit still, but run around madly all over the place. How can one begin teaching anything unless the children can sit still? Secondly, when children were collected or brought to school, it was deeply shocking to note that some four-year-olds already knew how to bully their parents. It is not therefore surprising that by the time the offspring are as tall as their parents, the parents find it rather daunting if their children decide that they will not do as they are told and will not abide by the common decencies.
I found a note of hope in the most difficult school. When I was discussing the school contracts that pupils would like to see, and how they would draw them up, there was a demand for parenting classes as part of the national curriculum. One could not describe what 40 per cent. of those young people had received as parenting, yet they wanted to be good parents themselves.
I make a plea for thinking across Departments. There is a need for extraordinary co-ordination when trying to intervene in different ways and at different points of people's lives if we are to be successful with the new politics. Because I have touched on other themes —I got slightly carried away with what I was saying, but I am very mindful of the time —I wish to emphasise before I conclude why we are in the present position.
This is a new area for politicians. My constituents started me thinking about the question nine months ago. I wanted to find out why we had originally become a peaceable kingdom. What were the causes, and in what ways could that success be replicated in the new millennium? I could not but agree with what Noel Annan wrote in his great book on Leslie Stephen. He said that the evangelical revival changed Britain, and that almost nobody was untouched by it. What it did, among many other things, was give people a real sense of self-respect and responsibility. No one could properly be a self-respecting person unless he or she equally and willingly gave self-respect to other people as well. In the areas that the evangelical revival did not touch or where it needed strengthening, a welfare state grew up from

217WH
friendly societies, trade unions and mutual societies, through which rules about behaviour were ruthlessly enforced because of the risk that if they were not enforced, misbehaviour would bring the whole welfare initiative down around the ears of the contributors.
The values of those two great forces imbued families, and the standards of behaviour of those two great revolutions were taught to offspring. For the past 50 years, we have been living off the social capital that families somehow knew how to teach their children the common decencies, but we have never applied ourselves to the question of how that capital should be replenished. Therefore, part of my plea to the Minister is about how we can act more quickly to nip antisocial behaviour in the bud and prevent It from escalating, so that other people do not join in because they see it as the norm. We also need to think about the fact that there will not be another evangelical revival. Sadly, we will not have a welfare revolution that puts responsibility back on groups rather than the state, either.
We must therefore look elsewhere for great teaching forces. It is clear that schools are one great teaching force that we all have in our constituencies. We cannot put yet more pressure on our schools without taking some pressure off the national curriculum. After Christmas, I shall start to engage much more seriously with young pupils in Birkenhead about the contract that they wish to see in their schools. It will be interesting to see how many wish to see their abilities as parents developed, whether they believe that such skills can be achieved by osmosis and whether some practical knowledge can be taught to them.
Welfare, although it is largely nationalised, is the other great teaching force in our society. As a Government we need to begin a conversation—indeed, we have already begun it—aimed at moving away from the false system of welfare that is rights based to contract-based welfare. Each time we claim, it should be clearly spelled out what society is doing for us, and what society expects in return.
In the first world war, practically everybody who was sent to France had been baptised, but of the thousands of troops sent to the recent war in Iraq, only one third had been baptised. For two thirds of children, there is no public ceremony whereby we welcome them into our community and say, "Welcome. You are now part of something wider than your family." I therefore hope that the Government will consider making the registration of birth a public ceremony and a public event, in which we as society say, "Welcome. This is what we are going to provide for you, with Sure Start, medical help, day care and nursery education, and this is the framework within which we expect your parents to operate." That is not because we want an interfering or bullying society, but because most of us respond better when we know the rules of the game and the framework within which we should operate.
I am pleased to have opened this lengthy debate, and to see my colleagues in the Chamber ready to participate in it. I hope that I have put over the reasons why I see this as the beginning of the new politics that will dominate our lives as politicians, as the old class politics dominated for 50 or more years in our neighbouring Chamber.
218WH
Of course we need for our constituents to consider immediate redress; we also sometimes need to use such debates to reflect on why behaviour is going wrong in so many areas. What are the root causes and what can we do, however limited, as politicians to reverse the tide of disorder that our constituents feel? They feel that disorder and, consequently, they do not make a clear distinction between antisocial behaviour and crime.
One reason why the Government find it so difficult to get over their message that crime is falling in most areas is because people see growing disorder in their neighbourhood and they equate it with crime. If we begin to get on top of that issue, the issue of crime will also settle into a better perspective.
Several hon. Membersrose —
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Order. It is my intention to start the winding-up speeches at 3 o'clock, so simple arithmetic indicates that there is about 30 minutes for the three Back-Bench Members who wish to catch my eye. That means that there is about 10 minutes each, if hon. Members need to take that much time.
2.30 pm
Mr. Michael Foster: Thank you, Sir Nicholas, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate on antisocial behaviour. I begin by thanking and congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on securing the debate. As always, he showed himself to be extremely thoughtful, if a tad provocative, when dealing with social issues, which is to his credit. To take on board his comments and debate them properly is a matter worthy of Parliament and this Chamber.
I shall make some brief remarks on how we could do better in tackling antisocial behaviour in our communities. That is not a criticism of the local police, the crime and safety partnerships or the local city council, but I think there is room for improvement in all our public services. It is on those aspects that I should like to focus attention, and I look to the Minister for guidance and support where appropriate.
Worcester is not the crime capital of the west midlands; it never has been and I hope it never will be. However, as with every other community up and down the land, there are issues relating to antisocial behaviour that cause my postbag to bulge and which cause utter misery on some of our estates. The relatively low crime rate in the city as a whole brings antisocial behaviour more sharply into focus, because that is what people can see day in, day out, as crime in their local community.
I fully understand that incidents of antisocial behaviour will not rank highly for emergency response from the police, nor would I expect them to be compared to the assaults and burglaries that are committed in my area. However, a problem that my constituents can have is the long response time from the police to a reported incident. A report is made and a number given, but it may be one or two days or even a week before the police get round to talking to that constituent about the incident. There is no immediate response, a point that my right hon. Friend made. Someone affected by antisocial behaviour wants an immediate response. Improvements could be made locally in dealing with

219WH
that, which may require extra resources. I hope that the Minister takes keen note of any plea for resources that I make later in my contribution.
Antisocial behaviour orders are, without doubt, one way in which we can get a grip on the antisocial behaviour in our communities. However, in Worcester they are the fourth and final stage of an approach that tries to nip antisocial behaviour in the bud with early intervention. That involves providing distraction and alternatives, and dealing with parents to explain what the behaviour of their youngsters has been and why it is unacceptable in the local community.
An example of an area where that has taken place and come to prominence in Worcester is a local playground at the back of Barley crescent in the Long Meadow estate and Warndon villages. It is designed for primary school children. The estate has matured and grown up, but the playground is still geared towards the children who are not on the estate any more, and it has become a focal point where young people gather. Although I do not wish to condone the actions of those young people, what starts as boredom leads to mischief making and moves on to antisocial behaviour. That is when misery for local people begins It might take the form of cars being vandalised in the neighbouring streets and closes, eggs or stones being thrown or fires being lit in the playground deliberately designed to draw attention and to show what mischief the young people are getting up to. That is the behaviour that needs to be tackled, ideally through early intervention and moving the young people into something more fruitful and positive.
When talking to my colleagues about ways of tackling such problems, I have seen that there is some good practice in dealing with antisocial behaviour in this country. One idea that came up in a discussion that I had with my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) is a system that works in Wigan with the cooperation of the Greater Manchester police. There, a leaflet was printed and distributed to the local community containing a picture of four youngsters who had all been given antisocial behaviour orders. The leaflet described what those young people had done and set out the conditions of the antisocial behaviour order. The final page of the fold-up leaflet explained what residents should do if they saw young people in breach of their antisocial behaviour orders and gave telephone numbers and so on.
That is a positive way of involving the local community and empowering people to do something within the law to tackle what they know is a problem in their area. I am keen to see the scheme move forward and I would like West Mercia police to embrace it. They have promised to consider the data protection and human rights issues, and I would welcome the Minister's clarification of whether local police could produce and distribute such leaflets.
All that got me thinking about how to involve and respond to local communities when positive action has been taken on antisocial behaviour. I have raised with the local city council issues concerning, young people —for example, the Barley crescent playground —and it has asked its detached youth team to investigate the problems and to discuss with young people why they
220WH
become involved in behaviour that causes a nuisance to everyone. I have had full responses from the city council and they have been warmly welcomed when I have passed them on to my constituents. Occasionally, I have had a letter back saying, "Thank goodness someone has told the parents," or that action has been taken and it is good to know that people are listening. That feedback from constituents suggests that there is a real need for local police, through the Safer Worcestershire partnership. to let constituents know more formally and more regularly what is happening in their neighbourhood.
Whenever people are asked what they want, they say that they want more bobbies on the beat, but police officers are rarely seen on the beat because people must be outside or in the garden when the officers walk past to know that they are in the neighbourhood. That will not always happen, but one way in which the visibility of the police presence can be improved is to provide regular information to constituents, perhaps in a newsletter, about issues that they have reported, such as antisocial behaviour orders. That would overcome the visibility issue and provide information about what the police are doing. One of the great problems facing the police is that they feel Joe Public does not value them or their work, and that is one way of moving forward.
Without doubt, one way to deal with antisocial behaviour is with positive distractions for young people. We have seen a decline in youth service provision in our communities over a number of years, but I saw it in operation on Friday evening at the Angels in Exile in Worcester, which is a centre where young people can congregate and the police can distract them and involve them in doing something positive. Funding is an issue because the youth service has never been a statutory service, and when finances have been tight the youth service and facilities have been squeezed. It is time that society took on board the important role that youth facilities provide in our communities. If we want to tackle antisocial behaviour —people always say that they do —we must improve the facilities that we offer to our young people.
The final way we can help to improve how we tackle antisocial behaviour in West Mercia is to examine police funding. The Minister moved smartly to attention at the mention of that topical matter. West Mercia as a whole —it covers the city of Worcester —has a low crime rate and no one would argue with the statistics. My fear is that that means it does not trigger the same police resources as some higher crime areas do. I fully understand the importance of tackling more serious crimes, but a debate will crop up on whether we should provide an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff to deal with the emergencies or funding for a fence at the top of the cliff to prevent people from falling over the edge. It is the preventive side of tackling antisocial behaviour that I think will lead to fewer resources being used up in dealing with the emergency aspects of police work.
So, there is an issue with police funding but, having said that, West Mercia has record numbers of police —the most since the constabulary was formed in 1967. That has to be good news, if people can feel that the police are dealing with the antisocial behaviour on their doorstep.

221WH
We need a big conversation on finding other ways of financing and resourcing the police. An example would be to consider placing a levy on nightclubs to pay for the extra police time and effort that we know nightclubs use. Anyone who has been to somewhere such as Worcester on a Friday or a Saturday evening knows that extra resources go to such places. While those resources are being used in Worcester city centre, they are not available in the suburbs for dealing with the antisocial behaviour issues that crop up.
Finally, over a number of years, there has been a change in police housing. One idea that I have discussed with the West Mercia branch of the Police Federation is the impact that police houses would have on some of our tougher estates, and the impact of police being seen, even just going to work and coming back. I have discussed whether such a police presence and having someone in the local neighbourhood as a port of call for information would help deliver a safer community and one less blighted by antisocial behaviour.
I hope that I have made a couple of contributions that are of use to the Minister. I would welcome a few comments on issues such as the newsletters and leaflets that I have mentioned, because the issue will not go away, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said. It will be a measure of us, as Government Members and as politicians generally, to see how we tackle the issue, which is individualised but affects communities across Worcester.
2.42 pm
Hugh Bayley: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on securing the debate. He made a thought-provoking contribution. He was way ahead of the times when he said that the Labour party needed to confront its Trotsksyist entryist problem in the 1970s and 1980s and when he talked about the need for welfare reform, and I think that he is ahead of his time in posing solutions to the serious problem of antisocial behaviour, which we all face in our constituencies.
I take a slightly different line from my right hon. Friend: I believe that everyone should have the right to enjoy social order and security. Everyone should have the right to sit in comfort and safety in their home, to feel safe when walking down the street, and not to feel intimidated by people lurking on the street corners. It should be safe for children to go out and play, and for people to park their car outside their house and expect to go out in the morning and find it undamaged where it was left.
My right hon. Friend is right that we need a contract. In return for rights, everybody —and it has to be everybody —has responsibilities. Everyone has a personal responsibility to their neighbours and a responsibility to ensure that their children respect the neighbours and the neighbourhood. Everyone should also have a responsibility to join others in the neighbourhood in confronting problems, through organisations such as neighbourhood watch or tenants or residents associations, and a personal responsibility to report problems to the authorities, including the police. Too often, that is a difficulty. People come to me complaining about the breakdown of order in their neighbourhood, yet they feel intimidated or unable to approach the police. Rights and responsibilities need to go together.
222WH
It takes only a very few shirking their responsibilities to create a serious problem for the many. That is why antisocial behaviour is a problem in so many parts of the country, not just in run-down estates and inner-city areas. It is because so few people can cause so much trouble for so many that antisocial behaviour is a problem in places such as Worcester and my constituency. I cannot hold a surgery or open my postbag in the morning without receiving complaints from constituents about the problems that we are discussing.
York's tourist industry benefits from the city's reputation as a beautiful, historic city, and the city centre is safe and clean, but in some ways York also suffers from that reputation. People forget that it is also a northern city with low wages and some serious social problems, as Seebohm Rowntree documented 100 years ago. There have been two drug-related murders in York in the past fortnight. To deal with those problems, we need more help, not just for services funded by the Home Office, but for other services, such as education. Two weeks ago I called a public meeting in Tang Hall. In common with estates in other parts of York —Clifton, Foxwood and the Groves —Tang Hall faces quite serious problems of criminal and antisocial behaviour. We gathered together the police, the Safer York partnership, magistrates, the probation service, councillors, council officers, residents associations, neighbourhood watch groups and churches.
In passing, I should say a special word of thanks to the Home Secretary, with whom I discussed the problems when he came to York early in November. He sent me a detailed letter responding to the queries that had been put to me by my constituents. Those attending the meeting were impressed by a hands-on Home Secretary who not only responded constructively to their questions and complaints but did so quickly —speed of response is of the essence.
At the meeting, we identified some good practice. In the past year, magistrates in York have issued 11 parenting orders. Magistrates issue such orders, and supervision is carried out by York city council—a good partnership is working between them. The parents who are the subject of those orders usually respond quite angrily. They say, "I have got enough problems with my children already without the courts coming down on me like a ton of bricks." However, after they have been through a parenting course, they support the system. They find that they are better able to communicate with their children to resolve conflict situations and to do things that might be second nature to some parents, such as praising their children when they do something well. Such behaviour does not necessarily occur naturally in society, and some people need help to find ways to be a more effective parent.
However, some powers that Parliament has passed in legislation are not being used locally. A common complaint made to me is that children under 10 —the age of criminal responsibility —brag that the police cannot touch them. That is no longer true, because of legislation that passed through this House. Children below that age can be taken to court and made subject to a child safety order. If a child's parents are unable or unwilling to

223WH
enforce the terms of a child safety order, it can be coupled with a parenting order. That coupling has yet to be used in York —so some additional powers are available.
Although police numbers in York are at an all-time high and the police have a new communications centre, when people phone up to report incidents, the response time is often far too slow. I know that there are technical problems with the new control room, but I hope that the Minister will have a look at what is happening in North Yorkshire, and ask what targets for response times are being set locally and when the police think that they will be through the teething problems and able to meet them.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead is right to emphasise that this is a problem not just for the criminal justice system. In view of the time, I want to touch briefly on one set of agents for change that need more support —schools. At the meeting that I called, the head of a primary school said that it was easy when children come into the nursery at the age of three to identify which will become problem children in years to come. There are children who display a lack of socialisation —those who cannot sit down and who run about and disrupt activities for others. Getting support urgently for those children wad their parents is extremely important. A local education authority, such as York's, which performs extremely well in the league tables, does not get the education resources that allow for sufficient educational social workers and other specialist support to be provided to schools.
I am particularly grateful to one head teacher who wrote me a long report after the meeting. He highlighted the fact that schools are both victims of antisocial behaviour and stand in the front line of the defence against youth offending. In the past week, that school has faced two assaults, four bicycle thefts, a gang fight outside the youth club, the site manager being threatened by a group of children aged between eight and 13, the head being threatened by intruders, verbal abuse from many trespassers, criminal damage, theft, intimidation, threats from unsupportive parents, and many phone calls from other parents and community leaders asking it to do more to help them in the fight against crime.
This is not a question of burdening schools with additional responsibilities; it is a question of putting in resources to help them deal with the problems that they face. Schools need both additional educational resources—an educational social worker, or perhaps an additional member of the school leadership team to deal with these day-to-day crises so that the head teacher can focus on the strategic direction of the school—and better liaison with the police. Perhaps we need a special police-school contact service, which could deliver a quick response. I cannot go into details because of the time, but there was a serious incident involving a bit of stolen property. The police were called and could, had they responded in time, have apprehended the child responsible. A number of police officers or community support officers could he attached to schools to provide direct support.
2.53 pm
Vera Baird: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) not only on securing the debate, but on the imaginative way in which he has yet again perceived a problem and applied intellectual rigour to analyse it and look for a solution. As we all know, antisocial behaviour is a huge problem. There is simply no need to describe how it impacts on the people of Redcar every day —it has an impact there, just as it does in Birkenhead, York and other places. He presented an interesting model about welfare being part of a contract, where the other part related to enforcing social duties on people.
I have read some publicity attached to my right hon. Friend's recent book, and I would be a very happy Christmas recipient of a signed copy. He says that
"crucial to any success on this front is the removal of the so damaging belief that no matter how badly the person behaves the right to welfare is inviolate. This link has to be broken whereby continual offensive behaviour leaves that individual's right to benefit untouched."
He gives an attractive example, which is also cited in the publicity, of a contract shaped so that the registration of a child's birth becomes a public event or initiation ceremony into the wider society beyond an individual family.
The contract would outline society's duty to provide support, and the registration would become the gateway to child benefit. The contract would detail the rights that parents had to natal care and other NHS care and to Sure Start, nursery and school facilities. It is attractive to set out what people can get and its purpose, because that could help a person be a responsive and complete member of society. As an educational process that is attractive because it breaks down the enforcing of social duties by removing welfare benefits. We have only to look back to the contract that my right hon. Friend set up to see which welfare benefits we are going to remove when somebody does not behave.
Let us consider Sure Start, which is not a welfare benefit in a financial sense, but a benefit primarily for poorer people who, through no fault of their own, are not likely to be able to give their children the best start in the world. People can be taught such diverse things as literacy, parenting skills, speech therapy, ways to deal with difficulties with children, and breastfeeding. There are many sorts of support and assistance to try to enable the kids who come from such homes to overcome the innate deficiencies that poverty, perhaps, puts into their background.
So what are we going to do? Should we take Sure Start away if people break that contractual responsibility, which is the logical consequence of what is being suggested? If not, why not? We do not want to do that, because we want our citizens to have such things to improve and support them and to help with the next generation. We do not want to say, "All right, there is no logic to it, but we will confirm this enforcement through a welfare contract to remove financial support." Of course, in doing that we would increase poverty at a stroke. People get financial support from the state to keep them out of poverty. Immeasurable damage would be done, even if the logic were lost and the financial support removed.
The model that has mostly been considered by the Government, and cited by my right hon. Friend, is the removal of housing benefit, which shows three problems

225WH
with the notion of enforcement through a welfare contract. First, which benefits are removed and who, outside a court, decides when they are to be removed? Secondly, how is the punishment to be confined to the individual, when most people live in families and have dependants around them? Thirdly, however wide the model of welfare benefits is cast, there are people outside it who cannot be punished in that way. How can we avoid a two-tier system of administrative justice?
I recognise that the threat to withdraw housing benefit is designed primarily to deter people from antisocial behaviour, and I accept that it is capable of succeeding with some people. However, research for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Chartered Institute of Housing on tackling antisocial behaviour found that two thirds of people involved in such activity have special needs of one kind or another, which is no surprise. Some 18 per cent. had mental illness; 18 percent. had experienced physical or sexual abuse —that figure only reveals those who talk about it —9 per cent. had a physical disability; 23 per cent. had drug and alcohol problems; and in 15 per cent. of cases kids were out of control and parents did not have the skills to deal with them.
Many households had been evicted before, but they were not able to change their behaviour or control that of their children. Such households need intensive, specialist support to encourage them to challenge their behaviour. When people have received such support, their conduct has improved. If the Dundee family project were made available to anyone facing a housing benefit sanction of the kind mooted in the Government's consultation paper and frequently mentioned by my right hon. Friend and the threat of such a sanction were accompanied on every occasion by intensive support and counselling of the kind available in very few families projects, I should have a less rooted objection to it because the threat of removing housing benefit would be a lever to push people into taking on more support. However, the resources are not available —they are very few.
What are we to do? We are to take people off housing benefit and cast them into poverty. The obvious outcome of withdrawing somebody's housing benefit is likely to be rent arrears —although the consultation paper minimised that —eviction and homelessness. I suppose that a good deal more poor women would be engaged in crime. A lot of women who are already engaged in necessity crime would get pushed into crime in an attempt to hold their home together.
Housing benefit is only paid to those who cannot meet their housing costs in any other way. Even if we are talking about a reduced rate of deduction, we cannot say that that would not inevitably cause hardship. There will be times when that cannot be done —
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Order. I must interrupt. A Bill is being discussed in the main Chamber and a vote has been called. May I suggest that we break for only 10 minutes? If Members co-operate, we can return at 10 minutes past 3, when the hon. and learned Lady can continue her interesting speech.
3 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
3.10 pm
On resuming —
Vera Baird: I think that I was discussing the inevitable consequences of removing housing benefit, which is given only to people who cannot pay their housing costs in any other way. There will inevitably be eviction, homelessness and the intolerable burden on a local authority of having a duty to support people even when they are intentionally homeless, which it could find impossible to fulfil.
On the question of where those people go, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has frequently said that his constituents do not care where antisocial behaviour families are moved. I understand that, and I would probably share that sentiment if I were suffering antisocial behaviour. As legislators, however, we have an obligation to be fair, and if there is no positive input to help the antisocial behaviour families change their behaviour, it is not fair to impose them on another community that is just as vulnerable as the one from which they have been removed.
There are problems with the administrative enforcement of a welfare contract of the kind that has been conceived. First, which benefits will be removed? How does one marry them up? I hope that I have demonstrated that benefits in kind, such as Sure Start, could not conceivably be removed. If one discusses financial models, such as housing benefit, however, one is in danger of throwing poorer people further into poverty. No one should present a solution without presenting a matching positive input at the same time.
Secondly, how is such a solution confined to the individual responsible? The consultation document on removing housing benefit discussed doing so only where the antisocial behaviour was caused by the individual or by someone whom people could reasonably expect to control. It is a very difficult model and it is not the kind of decision that should be taken by a local authority officer on an administrative basis or by a 22-year-old police constable who has trained for different duties. It requires not so much speed as the careful consideration and evaluation of evidence, for which the courts are primarily intended. The question of who takes the decision is extremely difficult in that kind of welfare contract.
I will leave an unanswerable question in the air: how do we deal with the inequity that there are people who are not on welfare benefits who cannot be punished in such a way? How do we avoid one justice for the poor and one for the rich? Although the suggested model is attractive as part of a programme for educationally and socially cementing progress and as a method to enforce acceptable behaviour, it needs a good deal more thought.
3.13 pm
Mrs. Annette L. Brook: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on securing the debate, because this has been a fascinating discussion. It has not quite taken the route that I expected, but that makes it all the more interesting. All of us would agree that antisocial behaviour and its effect on ethers is the most frequently raised issue in our constituency postbags. I too have

227WH
come across incidents of climbing over roofs, such as those that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, and although I might not agree with his conclusions, I am passionately committed to tackling antisocial behaviour. The question is: what is an effective way of dealing with it?
I am committed to the idea that we should have respect for others, and that we should value them. Early intervention has been mentioned this afternoon, and that is important. We must consider antisocial behaviour at different levels. If we consider it at a societal, community and individual level, we will see that what has emerged from this debate is that enforcement measures against the individual will never be enough. We have heard the analysis of how society has changed, and few of us would fundamentally disagree with it. What we must take from this discussion is the fact that some solutions have to be used at the societal level.
I concur with others that if we are to make changes in society, education is the most important feature. Every time I speak about antisocial behaviour, I congratulate the Government on Sure Start, which has been an excellent innovation. However, it is a pity that some very deprived areas are missing out until it is extended over a wider area to cover the next tranche of the most deprived communities. Within, let us say, the bottom 15 per cent. of deprived communities, there are pockets of extreme deprivation that Sure Start is not getting to yet. Doing things is going to take a long time, but doing anything at societal level takes a long time. Although we are all impatient, the Government do not have unlimited resources.
I asked earlier whether there was sufficient uniformed presence. I use the term "uniformed presence" rather than the word "police" because my constituency is probably similar to others in that its antisocial behaviour is not often serious enough to need fully qualified police to deal with it. We must give more credit to the Government by recognising that we have a record number of police. However, there is a lack of uniformed presence, and communities need that, because without it nothing can really work.
Some valid comments were made about communication involving the police and the community. That is a two-way process. Like everybody else, I frequently get complaints: people say, "I rang about that behaviour but nothing happened; nobody bothered to get back to me.' Surely we can sort that out with better use of civilians, antisocial behaviour hotlines, and people understanding which telephone line to use out of hours. People do not like to dial 999, but they do not know what to dial to deal with the less serious troublesome situations.
We need to give leadership. The only way in which we can change society and values is by giving political leadership; that is incumbent on us all. We live in a more caring society than we did 10 years ago, but we have a long way to go to overcome basic selfishness and individualism.
I like the idea that the community should be involved in the solutions. People should know what is happening. A parish council could determine what reparations
228WH
should be made in the community, or whether something useful could be done involving area committees. If that were made very local and based on the community, some societal problems could be overcome.
As the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) said, we are dealing with individuals who have their own characteristics. They often have serious needs. The roots of what we call antisocial behaviour often lie in many factors that we have not addressed for years. We know that there is not enough investment for autism, for example, and that child mental health care has been terribly neglected. Those are long-term problems that we need to put right.
At the individual level, we ought to be thinking of changing behaviour. A real change can come about only through a voluntary contract and a genuine understanding. We must have the supportive measures that other hon. Members talked about. We have some tough measures, which I question. I accept that we need enforcement, but I worry about the counter-productive elements. I support antisocial behaviour orders, but I am wary about naming and shaming people. For example, three teenagers in Kent had ASBOs put on them for life; it may or may not be related, but one has committed suicide. That individual clearly needed support, as well as the ASBO. We must all agree with that conclusion, and we must not forget those supportive measures.
There is so much that can be said in this debate, but I planned to talk about housing and antisocial behaviour, probably because I thought that the question of cutting housing benefit would emerge. The hon. and learned Member for Redcar made a strong case, arguing that cutting housing benefit is not the answer. That would only scratch at the surface and not tackle the underlying problems. It is surely most important to have supportive measures alongside the demoted tenancies that have been introduced, which involve the ultimate threat of losing one's house. We have heard about the Dundee project, and there is an excellent scheme running in Rochdale, as well as other examples around the country. How much of that work to support and change behaviour is going on —
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I have to remind the House that we must finish the debate at 3.41 pm. The shadow spokesman has yet to speak for the Conservative and Unionist party, and the Minister will need time to reply. I am not in any way seeking to short-circuit what the hon. Lady is saying, but I am sure that the House would be grateful if she appreciated the time factor.
Mrs. Brooke: Thank you, Sir Nicholas; I was conscious that there was not quite 10 minutes for me to speak. The record of the supportive measure schemes for families undergoing them is excellent. I conclude by saying the same as the antisocial behaviour unit. We must, for goodness' sake, spread best practice across the board —best practice with housing and young people, for example —and ensure that we herald and celebrate the successes. Before we introduce draconian measures that could make things much worse for everybody and make society a worse place, please let us get it right.
3.22 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell: I. too, begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and all those who have participated. Without exception, they have made thoughtful contributions. Antisocial behaviour clearly affects us all; it is a universal problem. The town of Daventry, the largest town that I represent, has greatly expanded since the 1960s. There are, within those early developments, areas of significant social pressure where, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the infrastructure is run down. Their community spirit and community capital have run out, and require refreshing. The problem also arises in rural areas, where transport is difficult, particularly for young people, and access to leisure and sports facilities is extremely limited. Sometimes a group of troublemakers from the town goes out to one of the villages some miles away, and creates trouble there. It is clear from my regular constituency surveys that my constituents feel strongly about that.
Many hon. Members, including the Minister, will be familiar with the American experience, and the famous "broken windows" theory of Wilson and Kelling. Some of us, including myself, were lucky enough to hear William Bratton —the former police commissioner of New York, now commissioner for Los Angeles —lecture on the subject in London last week. Untended, unrepaired and unloved assets signal an erosion of local values, which is soon followed by the kind of behaviour that afflicts our constituents. The areas and the perpetrators are not typecast, and neither are those who have to put up with them. The problem affects not just the affluent, but significant numbers of poor and young people. Almost half of students report that they have been the victims of theft during their time at college.
The diagnosis of the right hon. Gentleman and others, and the Government's concern, are entirely appropriate; I would not argue about that. I am less happy about the efforts to find a solution. The Home Office initiatives, characteristically described by the Prime Minister as "eye-catching initiatives", do not necessarily bear the weight of expectation that has been laid on them. The ASBO system, even to my relatively inexperienced eye, is bureaucratic and clumsy, as is borne out by the figures. Ministers were talking in terms of 5,000 ASBOs a year —but although we had the first of them in Northamptonshire, there are still only 12 in the county. If we applied a percentage test, that would suggest that they are running at about a quarter of the number projected. Undoubtedly aided by the work done by all parties-such as my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who is speaking in the Chamber today, and former Labour Home Office Ministers who have expressed concern the Government have tightened the system with the new legislation. I hope that the Minister will have time to tell us about progress in that area.
At the same time, it is becoming clear that there must always be reservations, and limits on legislation that relies on restraint orders and naming and shaming, or the possibility of moving on to welfare sanctions directed at behaviour that, although recognisably offensive to the ordinary citizen, is difficult to tie down legally. In a largely positive article about ASBOs in the December edition of Youth Justice Board News, Paul
230WH
Horrocks, the editor of the Manchester Evening News, made it clear that his colleagues do not trawl through old orders naming and shaming people, and they do not write about people who have not appeared before the courts. Those are proper restraints. I suppose that—the Minister might wish to comment on this —there is always the possibility of clever legal challenges to orders within the scope of the Human Rights Act 1998. There must be restrictions on the ready recourse to those.
In any event, ASBOs by themselves are not going to solve the problem. There have been a number of other constructive suggestions. They might help, and it would be useful to hear where the Minister thinks we are going. However, there must be reservations about whether what has happened so far has had any discernable impact on the wider issues of behaviour and culture that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead spoke about.
To help the Minister, I shall finish after making two general points. The first is that a great deal of this is about public reassurance. We need to convince the public that somebody is on their side, and that they are not unloved or uncared for. A visible police presence is important, particularly in areas of difficulty such as town centres on a Friday night. Five police officers have had to be taken from the western area of my county to parts of Northampton that the chief constable judges to have greater crime problems. That has gone down very badly. We need more police officers. My colleagues on our home affairs team have suggested a way of securing a further 40,000, as that is a major area of complaint.
The second issue, which is more a matter of culture, is that of rights and responsibilities. A strong message has emerged: both are required. If people are to be offered rights, there should be matching responsibilities or understandings. Those do not come automatically; they have to be fostered. It is clear to me that there is no chance of securing improvements without offering young people something constructive and interesting to do, and there is no question of rebuilding participant communities without some positive gear on the motor. Community policing and law and order cannot be improved from the outside without an equivalent commitment, fostered in the community, from local people. The two have to go together, and the problem will not go away until they do.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Before I call the Minister, I thank the Front-Bench spokespeople for their co-operation in cutting their speaking time to allow the Minister adequate time to reply.
3.29 pm
The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): I, too, thank hon. Members for restricting their speaking time. A huge number of issues have been raised that go to the heart of the dilemmas that we as politicians face; some are deep and complex, and some very practical. I hope to be able to respond to them all.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) for securing what, as has been illustrated by the standard of the contributions made by every Member today, is a debate. We all consider this to be an important issue in our communities.

231WH
My right hon. Friend made a plea to the Government to consider specific areas, such as immediate enforcement and root causes, and to look across the whole of government to see what we can do. That is what we are doing with policy making, the legislation that has been enacted, the launch of the Together campaign, the action plan and the funding. Everything happening in government is designed to address that agenda.
It is right that, so as to have immediate enforcement, we have introduced fixed-penalty notices for disorderly behaviour. That was a controversial step, but it provided an immediate sanction for disorderly behaviour, intimidation and harassment. We have been piloting the use of fixed-penalty notices in six forces. Today I saw an evaluation of how that trial has gone, and we shall trial further powers in relation to 16 and 17year-olds after Christmas. A new area of policy is being developed, in which there can be immediate sanction without going through the whole panoply of court prosecution, which sometimes takes far too long for the community to see results.
I hope that hon. Members accept that root causes are being addressed through Sure Start, the many other schemes that have been put in place and the new parenting fund that we have brought into being. Some £25 million has been set aside for parenting orders, to try to ensure that parents get support and learn skills. Unfortunately, far too many parents have not had the opportunity to learn the fundamentals of bringing up a family. Money is in place to help with that process. That is essential, in terms of cross-Government effort, which is why the antisocial behaviour unit, although situated in the Home Office, has a complete cross-Government brief.
Unless we engage with the Department of Trade and Industry—as with the fireworks—menace, when we worked closely with that Department for robust proposals and legislation to clamp down on fireworks—and with the Department for Education and Skills on what we can do in schools to change attitudes, simply having enforcement tools will not be enough for our campaign to change the way we live so as to reduce antisocial behaviour.
I ask hon. Members to put the situation in perspective. We have made considerable gains over the past few years in reducing crime, which is down 25 per cent. I entirely take the point raised by hon. Members, however, that convincing people that crime is down is a bigger issue, because they do not necessarily feel safer when they are out and about in their communities on their lawful business. That is why tackling antisocial behaviour and increasing reassurance are the key. We can keep driving down the volume of crime—burglary is down 40 per cent., vehicle crime is down 30 per cent., and robbery is down 17 per cent.—but, unless people feel safe going about their day-to-day affairs, they will not connect that with their real lives. That is why this agenda is central to everything we do.
The agenda is not just about crime or intimidating behaviour, it is about graffiti, fly-tipping, fly-posting, and all those things that lead to neighbourhoods looking run-down, and to people feeling threatened.
232WH
The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) mentioned the broken windows theory. Dealing with the whole range of such environmental crime is vital to our proposals. That is why the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 contains innovative new powers to deal with graffiti, fly-tipping and other such environmental problems. That is also why I am working closely with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on the liveability agenda, which underpins our policies.
It is important that we give our public services the tools to do the job. That is why we brought in antisocial behaviour orders as long ago as 1998, and why we listened to people who said that it was difficult to get them through the courts initially, when the use of ASBOs was a new tool. It was a new discipline, and people were not used to such powers. We have streamlined the process dramatically—and I can say that from personal experience. There are 50 ASBOs in my constituency, and 25 of those have been granted since last December, when we brought in the power to make ASBOs on conviction. The new procedure is much simpler. People do not have to listen to two sets of evidence, and the order can be made at the same time as the conviction. That has been a tremendous help to the police and the local authority, and has ensured that the orders are obtained and enforced.
For the first time, magistrates are agreeing to sentencing guidelines in relation to the breach of such orders. The inconsistency of sentencing has been a real problem, and people have been given a caution or a conditional discharge when they have breached the order. Getting sentencing guidelines in place so that breaches are taken seriously helps to build the confidence of the community that it was worth while coming forward and giving evidence because the order has been obtained and will be enforced.
The big issue is the confidence of the community, which brings me to a question that several hon. Members have raised about the publication of the fact that orders have been obtained. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) has reservations about—as she puts it—naming and shaming. I think that it is absolutely right that communities should know when orders have been made and what the conditions are. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) made a clear case for that. The community can then take action and feel empowered in connection with what is happening on their doorstep, in their local area. That publication should be proportionate and should not demonise people. It is a question not of humiliation, but of letting the community know that when it is prepared to take a stand against antisocial behaviour, the orders will be made.
I do not know whether any of the hon. Members here were present at the "Taking a Stand" awards that we introduced in the House two weeks ago. We brought together people from all over the country who had taken a stand in their communities. They had been prepared to go to court and give evidence. We acknowledged their contribution and rewarded them with a small amount of money that they could spend on community project to ensure that we repair some damage done to them and their neighbourhoods by antisocial behaviour. We shall do that annually, and I am sure hon. Members will want to make nominations for future awards from their own areas.

233WH
One of the interesting political debates that we have had this afternoon concerns changing how people view the state, so that we can move from a dependency culture to a welfare state that enables people to help themselves. That has been reflected in the contributions from several hon. Members. We have embarked on that big political change throughout government. How do we involve local people in coming up with solutions and empower them to take action in enforcing the standards of the common decencies to use the phrase used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead? I have no doubt that that debate will run and run throughout many of our policy areas.
The other fascinating issue that emerged was reflected in the comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) about the extent to which conditionality can be part of our welfare system. She made the point that some people would comply if conditionality was introduced. I attended a fascinating seminar a few months ago, full of academics, learned lawyers and all sorts of knowledgeable people from different backgrounds. We took part in an enormous exercise about conditionality, examining where the cost benefit was, and debated whether it would punish the most vulnerable and the poorest.
The idea was that if we got as many people as we could to comply, there would always be a group of people who did not comply. What would be the effects of that? I posed the question to my colleagues, who had worked out a big empirical method, but their only answer was, "That's a matter for politicians to decide." That is a stark and graphic way of illustrating some intensely difficult issues that we have to deal with when we think about how far to put tools in place to shape people's behaviour, and what are the implications of doing so. Hon. Members have raised a complex issue, and we shall be directing our minds to it during the coming months and years.
I want to say a little about spreading good practice, a subject that has been raised by hon. Members. The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and I launched the Together action plan a couple of months ago, which shows how far up the political agenda the issue is. A key part of that action plan is the setting up of the Together
234WH
academy, in which we shall bring practitioners together in the new discipline of coping with antisocial behaviour. They will examine how to use the legislation and the tools, how to get ASBOs in place and how to use the acceptable behaviour contracts in a more flexible way. The Together academy will bring people from the front line together and train them to use the tools that we have provided through legislation.
The Together action line will be a hotline, so that people who have a problem in their area can get immediate help from the antisocial behaviour unit. I recently visited Kendal in the Lake district. That is not a place that we would naturally associate with antisocial behaviour, but in one estate there one family was causing huge problems for people in the community and no one had a clue where to start. If they were in Salford, they would know and would have the skills and experience to deal with the problem. We can help that to happen through the antisocial behaviour unit. If my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester has a problem with his local authority or police being reluctant to act, the antisocial behaviour unit can empower them to use the tools that we have put in place. I certainly commend it to him.
I accept the support of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole for dealing with antisocial behaviour. However, I say again that it is a great pity that her party did not support the Government's legislation to tackle such issues, which is essential to people in our communities. I hope that even at this very late stage she might repent of her party's decision and support the methods that we have introduced.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) spoke about child safety orders. He will know that we are actively considering the matter. I am grateful to him for his contribution on an important subject for children of 10 and under—
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I always hesitate to interrupt the Minister, but time is up. We must now move to the next debate. I must tell the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) that we are about 11 minutes behind because of a Division in the House, so he is here exceptionally early for his debate.

Traffic Management
3.41 pm
Mr. David Kidney: Compliments of the season, Sir Nicholas. Without in any way wishing away the festive season that everyone is about to enjoy, I ask you and the Minister to look ahead to Parliament's first day back in January, when we shall debate the Traffic Management Bill, part of which will move the Highways Agency from being just a road builder and maintainer to a network operator. Highways authorities and traffic officers will patrol trunk roads and motorways, manage traffic flows and respond to incidents. That is relevant to this debate.
To put this debate in a broader context, in a speech to the Automobile Association awards ceremony on 26 February 2003, the Secretary of State spoke of the Government's commitment to investment in all modes of transport, to expanding the highways network of the country, including major investments in widening the M1 and M6, and to making better use of the existing network. It is that last commitment that brings me to the Government's plans to allow vehicles to use the hard shoulder of motorways as an extra running lane.
Motorists will already be familiar with driving on the hard shoulder, but only at certain times, such as when road works are in progress or during construction. In fact, there has been wider use of hard-shoulder running in other countries, including Australia, Germany, the Netherlands and the United States of America, but the debate is about the UK's plan to allow for the first time driving on the hard shoulder to reduce congestion on motorways. It began on 27 July 2001, with the Government's announcement of a pilot scheme, called active traffic management, on a stretch of the M42 between junction 3A, which is the M40 junction, and junction 7, which is the M6 junction. The Government then announced on 9 July this year that hard-shoulder running would be considered for other motorways.
I should like to check with the Minister whether the active traffic management scheme on the M42 will be the only pilot or whether the Government envisage a larger pilot. The Highways Agency refers to all the motorways around Birmingham as the Birmingham box. It would be interesting to know whether there will be one pilot scheme or more than one.
I raise this subject because of the concerns that have been expressed. Several of my constituents have taken the trouble to contact me to say that they are worried about the safety aspects of the proposal. Several road hauliers, both within and without my constituency, and individual members of the emergency services have expressed concerns. In addition, the RAC recently provided a written submission to the Transport Committee, in which it detailed NOP research that it had commissioned, which found that 83 per cent. of motorists think that using the hard shoulder to reduce congestion is a bad idea and 84 per cent. of them think that it would make roads less safe. In requesting this debate, I intend to investigate what is involved in the pilot and discuss the safety issues raised. I hope that the Minister and I can reassure motorists that the pilot is safe.
We should start from the premise that the UK has an excellent road safety record compared with most other countries. Too many people—about 10 a day—still die
236WH
on our roads. Nevertheless, our roads are safer than most, and our motorways are the safest of all. It is fair to say that many people think that the system of having a hard shoulder next to the carriageway contributes to that excellent safety record, so it is understandable that any proposed changes to that system would cause motorists anxiety.
It might be helpful to establish the safety record of our motorways and the current casualty records for people on the hard shoulder. In the RAC's written submission, it is claimed that between 200 and 250 people a year die or are injured on motorway hard shoulders. However, in a written answer, the Minister said that
"in road accidents involving vehicles parked on motorways for the three-year period from 1999 to 2001",
the figures were
"62 people killed; and 118 people seriously injured."—[Official Report, 15 July 2003; Vol. 409, c. 166W.]
Those figures do not even add up to 200 over three years. Such a disparity makes it difficult to rely on any of the figures. Does the Minister agree that it would be helpful to establish a more accurate baseline before the project begins to ensure meaningful evaluation?
The Minister's advisers have studied overseas experiences and examined the subsequent research. The pilot schemes in the Netherlands, on the A27 and A28 at Utrecht, were reported to the House of Commons in a paper that the Minister placed in the Library in March 2003. Those pilots and a third of those on the A50 at Arnhem involved permitted use of the hard shoulder at fixed, predetermined times, and vehicle detection equipment in place to check that the hard shoulder was clear of obstructions before the start of hard-shoulder running. The scheme was not run through motorway junctions, only on continuous stretches between junctions. The Dutch operators claim a reduction in journey times as a result of the pilots, and a 75 per cent. reduction in rear-end collisions.
I suggest to the Minister that motorists will have two obvious fears about the scheme. First, in the event of a breakdown or damage to a vehicle, there will be no safe refuge if the hard shoulder is used by other vehicles. Secondly, if the motorway is snarled up by a major incident and all traffic, including that on the hard shoulder, is stationary, how will emergency vehicles get to the scene of an incident? It may be a serious incident, with people trapped in vehicles, a fire raging, or toxic substances released, and it would be desperately urgent for the emergency services to get there.
I shall set out my understanding of the components of the active traffic management pilot. There should be frequent overhead gantries and signs to advise motorists when to use the hard shoulder. There should be clear signs above the motorway-the green arrow and red cross system that we are already familiar with. It is also essential to apply a reduced speed limit across all lanes of the motorway before allowing hard-shoulder running.
3.49 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
3.59 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Kidney: I understand that the components of the pilot will also include effective monitoring equipment, a constantly staffed control centre and, most importantly, a new network of emergency refuge areas adjacent to the existing hard shoulder. That is my understanding of how the scheme will operate. At times of heavy congestion—I have seen suggestions that on weekdays that will be two and a half hours during the morning and four hours during the evening—the green arrows above the hard shoulder will indicate that it may be used as a running lane.
The green arrows will be switched on only after the control centre staff have satisfied themselves that the hard shoulder is clear of obstructions and that a lower speed limit for all traffic has been set. The staff at the control centre would then have the benefit of CCTV cameras and a closely spaced inductive loop to detect rapidly any incident on the motorway. In the event of a breakdown or damage, the vehicle would have to make it to the nearest emergency refuge area.
In addition to the CCTV cameras and the induction loop, every emergency refuge area would have an emergency telephone. The control centre, by one means or more, would be alerted to the incident. I believe that a recovery vehicle would be dispatched and a decision would be made whether to close the hard shoulder in the vicinity of the emergency refuge area for safety reasons. In any event, if a recovery vehicle were to come along to assist a vehicle in exiting an emergency refuge area, signs would be operated to close that part of the hard shoulder, as it would clearly be dangerous to emerge into moving traffic from a standing start. In a major incident, I understand that the control centre staff would close off all the hard shoulder in order to allow access to the site for emergency vehicles.
Will the Minister confirm whether my understandings are correct and whether he wants to make any alterations or additions? Could he answer some queries to allay motorists' fears? Clearly, when traffic is running in more than one lane, it will not be easy to get to one of the emergency refuge areas. How frequent will they be alongside the motorway? Will they be big enough for the biggest heavy goods vehicles and their recovery vehicles to fit into without protruding on to the hard shoulder? Will they be clearly indicated for people who might need them? Will entry to an emergency refuge area be detected automatically by control centre staff? Will all the areas have an emergency telephone?
I want also to ask about the legal status of the hard shoulder signs. Will they be advisory or mandatory? The highway code tells us at paragraph 238:
"You must not drive on the hard shoulder except in an emergency or if directed to do so by signs."
The law that backs that up is the Motorways Traffic (England and Wales) Regulations 1982. Will a new offence of driving on a hard shoulder when the sign says not to do so be created? If so, what will be the punishment for doing that?
What does the Minister think about the issue of noncompliance by motorists? I understand that the Netherlands' experience was that 40 drivers an hour drove on the hard shoulder when they were instructed not to. That amounts to one every one and a half minutes. Does the Minister think that that rate of non-
238WH
compliance in the pilot scheme would be dangerous? Will the pilot scheme apply not to motorway junctions, but only to continuous stretches of motorway between junctions?
I take it that the control centre technology will be tried and tested, and available in sufficient quantity for staff to be alerted immediately, so that they can respond immediately to problems. Is that correct? Will a recovery vehicle be dispatched in the event of an incident, and if so where from? Will it come from somewhere nearby? Crucially, are such services from the Highways Agency free? Organisations such as the RAC are concerned about the motorist's choice of recovery operator.
Is it correct that in serious incidents control centre staff will be clearly instructed to clear all the hard shoulder of running traffic? The question must arise of whether there will be room in the carriageway for those vehicles, assuming that a major incident has already caused a backlog of traffic. In such an event, will emergency vehicles co me from the opposite carriageway? If so, will traffic running on the hard shoulder on that side of the motorway be stopped? Communication between the emergency services and the control centre staff is clearly crucial in such situations. How closely will they communicate?
Consultation is a great concern, so I should be grateful to the Minister if he mentioned what consultation has taken place so far and what will take place in the future. Groups such as the emergency services, the Health and Safety Executive, other road safety organisations, motoring organisations and road hauliers all have a keen interest in the subject. Does the Minister agree that it will be important nearer the time to ensure that individual motorists are well aware of what is going to happen?
Most helpfully, the Minister handed me a new leaflet about the pilot scheme at the start of the debate, which I am sure would help many of the public to understand what is involved. Will he confirm a start date for the first pilot? Will there be a special rule about the number of lanes that heavy goods vehicles may use? I have asked that before in a parliamentary question. At the moment, on a three-lane motorway, they may not use the outside lane for overtaking. If the hard shoulder is in use, are heavy goods vehicles restricted to two lanes or three lanes? Is he aware that the RAC, which I have already mentioned several times, is still steadfastly opposed to the pilot? It says that there is a safety hazard for motorists and those working on the hard shoulder.
I hope that the Minister will appreciate that I am not speaking in opposition; indeed, if the measures provide a better way to manage the network, the pilot is a responsible way to proceed before ensuring a more general application of such practices. Clearly, there are safety issues, and some people have concerns about the scheme. I hope that the Minister welcomes this opportunity to make public reassurances about, and explanations of, the scheme, as do I.
Sir Nicholas WintertonI call the Minister to respond to this interesting debate
4.6 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I hope that my contribution does not make the debate less interesting.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on the way that he presented his argument and commend him on his excellent record on matters of road safety. He always speaks with great authority on the subject, both in and out of the House, and is well respected for his views, so it is a pleasure to respond to the debate. I will answer as many of his points as possible in the time available.
I know that the issue is important to my hon. Friend's constituents, but I think that he spoke for the much wider audience of those involved with the pilot that he mentioned in the west midlands and those from outside the area who will use the roads in that area. He rightly pointed out that this country has an enviable road safety record. I think that I am right in saying that we have probably the best record in the world, given the number of miles travelled and the number of people who travel on our roads. Our motorways have an extremely good record, even in the context of the general good record in this country.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss this innovative and exciting project that we have embarked on in the west midlands. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I feel that the active traffic management pilot project could provide significant benefits for road users and the nation as a whole. It would contribute to our policy of removing some of the bottlenecks on our roads and to the improvements that we are making. Importantly, the project would enable us to make better use of the road network, and help us to see what additional capacity we can safely squeeze out of it.
I assure my hon. Friend at the outset that safety has always been, and will continue to be, the top priority in managing traffic for any project. As part of the active traffic management pilot, we are developing a wide-ranging safety strategy to ensure that the concept develops with safety at the forefront of what we do. The ongoing safety work is facilitated by our commitment to sustaining our long-lasting and fulfilling partnership with the police service and the emergency services, who are all too often on the front line of incident management on our motorway and trunk road network. Those services' commitment to the pilot project, and in particular that of the central motorway police group responsible for that section of network, has been instrumental in ensuring the successful progress of the work.
I am aware that my hon. Friend has concerns about how we will deal with the management of incidents on the hard shoulder when it is being used by traffic, and I assure him that the issues that he has properly raised today are being given the fullest attention. The emergency services deal with emergency access every day when they attend incidents on high-speed trunk roads, which do not have hard shoulders. Sometimes, access is through road works or on motorways with gaps in their hard shoulders. In such circumstances, the emergency services will seek to establish whether any traffic can pass the incident. If not, the approach may be at the next available junction.
240WH
The active traffic management pilot will provide more traffic cameras. I stress that those cameras will not enforce speed limits, but will send information back to the Highways Agency, which will help the emergency services to monitor the situation, to take decisions using the enhanced detection method, and to speed up their reaction to any major incident on that particular stretch of road.
In the past few years, we have become increasingly aware that we need to make better use of our road space. We have made strong advances in technology to support our roads management, and we have successfully implemented several innovative traffic management measures throughout the country. For example, the controlled motorway section of the M25, which has operated successfully for several years, has shown that managing speed limits in response to the prevailing traffic conditions has created a safer and more comfortable driving environment.
As my hon. Friend said, we have paid close attention to our overseas partners' development of the active traffic management concept. In particular, we have forged close partnerships with the Dutch, who have operated a similar system for several years. Their extensive experience has proved that such innovative projects can significantly benefit road users. They have reported consistent reductions in the number of serious accidents by using the hard shoulder, owing mainly to a reduction in queuing and congestion following the introduction of the system.
My hon. Friend may be interested to know why we chose the M42 on which to pilot the project. As I am sure he will know from his journey to and from the House, the M42 regularly suffers from congestion, especially in peak periods. Accident rates are higher on certain parts of it than on other parts of the national motorway network. It is also a route of strategic national significance, as it forms part of a key cross-country route and provides direct access to the national exhibition centre, Birmingham international airport and Birmingham international station.
My hon. Friend asked whether this is the first pilot. Yes, it is, but a second is being developed in south-west Yorkshire. We will examine the experience of those pilots to see how they can be rolled out in other parts of the country, although he will be the first to appreciate that there will be limitations on where they can be rolled out on our motorway network, because the hard shoulder is not consistent in certain parts of it, as he knows. There are breaks in the hard shoulder on much of our motorway network, and it would therefore be inappropriate to use the system on parts of it.
The issues that I believe are of the greatest immediate concern to my hon. Friend relate mainly to the use of the hard shoulder as a running lane. I stress that the hard shoulder will be opened only if it is safe to do so and, even then, only under carefully controlled conditions. Trained active traffic management operators will take the decision to open the hard shoulder, which will not be opened during bad weather. When the hard shoulder is open, all traffic will be subject to a mandatory speed limit of 50 mph, or less if appropriate, to improve safety, and will be able to use the hard shoulder only between traffic junctions, not through them.

241WH
When the speed limit on the carriageway is reduced, a red cross will be shown if the hard shoulder is closed to traffic. If it is open, the speed symbol will be used to indicate the speed limit that has been set. Green arrows will not be used. In the event of a breakdown, there will be safe refuges called emergency refuge areas, spaced at approximately 500 m intervals. I am sure that, as he drives along the M42, my hon. Friend has noticed those being constructed. The hard shoulder will be opened to prevent the onset of congestion and may also be used during incidents as appropriate once the emergency services have reached the scene.
We shall use the latest enforcement technology to ensure that drivers adhere to the speed limits that we set and to ensure that we minimise any abuse of the hard shoulder outside the times of operation. I stress that for most of the day, the hard shoulder will remain a conventional hard shoulder as we all understand that term.
I think that my hon. Friend said that there would be no safe refuges. Of course, emergency refuge areas, which will be similar to lay-bys, are being provided along the length of the scheme to give a safer area for vehicles in an emergency. Even when the hard shoulder is closed to use, those refuges will be a huge advantage. As my hon. Friend said, when motorists pull up on the hard shoulder in an emergency now, the likelihood of being hit by another vehicle from behind is, alas, very high. That is why we advise people to get out of their cars and get behind the barrier. The refuges, notwithstanding any policy decision that we take about hard shoulder running, will substantially enhance safety on the motorways where they are placed.
The refuges will be available at all times, not just when the hard shoulder is open, and will be equipped with detection technology and emergency telephones to alert control centre operators as to the presence of a vehicle. A dedicated team of people will work on the system to see who is in the refuges. They will look specifically on this stretch of motorway to see what is happening and alert the police or, later, traffic officers to go and give assistance as necessary.
As part of the project, we are providing improved incident detection techniques and technologies. That includes comprehensive CCTV coverage to allow monitoring of traffic conditions, more sensors in the road to speed up the detection of traffic queues, and more message signs and lane signals to give better information and instruction to drivers. I am sure that my hon. Friend has seen the variable message signs that have been fitted to this stretch of road. Those detection technologies will be used by operators before opening the hard shoulder to ensure that it is safe to do so. They will be able to see whether something is blocking the hard shoulder.
The signs and signals provided over each lane of the carriageway will be spaced at much more frequent intervals than is the case on other motorways in the
242WH
network. As soon as an incident occurs, an operator. using the signs, can close the affected lanes to protect those involved in the incident, and warn road users before they reach the incident. The closed lane can then be used by the emergency services to secure access.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will be interested to hear that we have consulted on our proposals for the M42. In addition to the good partnership that we enjoy with the local police, we have discussed the project at length with the other emergency services in the area and are now drawing up detailed operational plans and agreements with them for the operation of the scheme.
We are also about to embark on a wide-ranging consultation exercise on the changes that need to be made to the road traffic regulations for the project to be implemented. That exercise will include more than 100 consultees who may have an interest in the project and our proposals. In addition, we have been talking to vehicle recovery operators and transport and maintenance organisations about the detailed development of our proposals.
A key aim of the project has been to ensure that the signs and signals that we provide are as intuitive as possible to ensure that road users can use the scheme with care and confidence. My hon. Friend will know that we have held a number of local exhibitions on our proposals for the M42, as well as appearing at national events such as the motor show.
We shall continue to raise awareness of the project among the public as we move to the start of operations. My hon. Friend asked about that. We may be able to give better guidance on it later in the year. There is some ongoing work. We want to be assured that all the safety precautions are in place first. Once that is the case, we can make an announcement.
My hon. Friend also asked whether emergency vehicles would approach in the opposite lane in some instances. Yes, that will still be possible on occasion, but of course if the other carriageway is closed, it is a total closure. We could not have emergency vehicles approaching the wrong way down a stretch of motorway, with other traffic still trying to use the hard shoulder and so on. It would be a total closure, as now, removing part of the central barrier and gaining access. That will be no different from the system that applies now.
My hon. Friend will, I hope, be reassured to hear that we are not implementing our proposed traffic management measures all at once. We will be taking a phased approach during the next few years to allow road users to build understanding and confidence in what we are doing and the Highways Agency to learn from the experience. Once the measures are implemented, we will benefit not only from less congestion but from safer roads. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to outline some details of the proposal.

Police Funding (London)
4.21 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce a debate on this subject and, because of the staggering of the debates, to have broadened my education on British motorways. I have introduced this debate for two reasons. First, I have a long-standing interest in police matters. I chair the all-party group on police, and I hosted the meeting on 15 October at which the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities gave a preliminary airing to some of their concerns over the looming financial difficulties of some authorities, especially the Metropolitan Police Authority.
Secondly, I am raising the subject as a London Member of Parliament. My particular part of London, the borough of Richmond, is by most indicators the most law-abiding in London. Although it is not law-abiding by the standards of many other parts of the country, by London standards it is considered to be a relatively low-crime area, and I accept the relative indicators on that. None the less, there is a major fear of crime, and much of that has burst to the surface during the past year.
I hosted a public meeting about a year ago in Hampton in my constituency, where the attendance was in thousands rather than hundreds—we had to turn people away and have the meeting in shifts. Part of that public anxiety was triggered by a particularly alarming murder, that of Marsha MacDonnell, but even before that a growing worry about crime was building up. That was underlined by the fact that most people in most parts of my constituency had not seen a police officer on the streets for many years. In that sense, my area was typical of many parts of London. Particularly in the early and mid-1990s we saw a quite catastrophic decline in police numbers; in aggregate London terms they fell from 29,000 to just over 25,000 in 1997-98. In my borough, the decline was from 336 in 1990 to 267 in 1998, a loss of more than 20 per cent. of the force. Street policing simply disappeared.
The situation has stabilised since then, and in the last year we have seen an increase to about 280, a slight improvement. For the first time, people are beginning to note a visible police presence, helped by the police community support officers, a welcome development. My borough commander has recently introduced a system of allocating a beat officer to every ward. That is a big change and a welcome improvement.
I have introduced the debate because I worry that that turnaround, which, if not dramatic, improves the visibility and numbers of police, may be undermined by the overall position of the Metropolitan police and the consequences of the local government finance settlement. The calculations that the Metropolitan Police Authority has made are provisional, so the Minister may want to correct or explain them, but its assessment is that London will lose in the order of £56 million in the next financial year, compared with what it would have received had the formula applied as before.
The reasoning behind that number has several elements. First, the growth for funding for London is apparently 3.3 per cent., as opposed to an average of 4.2
244WH
per cent. None of us can understand why London's growth is less than the average. Any needs-based system would presumably reflect the fact that London has an intensification of many law and order problems such as gun crime. Any system based on costs would take into account the fact that labour and property costs in London are rising relatively rapidly. Yet for reasons that are unclear, London seems to have done less well than it would have done under the earlier needs-based formula.
The second reason for concern relates to the funding of those elements of the police budget that are described as national and capital city functions. There are a large number of tourists in the city, as well as the monarchy and the diplomatic service. A whole set of functions accrue to the Metropolitan police on account of our being the capital city. Quite properly the Government funds them separately. The growth rate here is about 2.5 per cent., which is even lower than the overall funding allocated to the Metropolitan police.
Again, the figures are difficult to explain. The rough notional sense that many borough commanders are getting is that abstractions, particularly from suburban areas into the centre, are growing rapidly. I was informally given an estimate of a 9 per cent. annual growth last year. These are police officers who, to maintain public confidence, are being removed from routine duties and transferred to the centre of London for those national capital city functions. Yet that has not been allowed for in the funding formula.
Mr. Mark Field: In view of the constituency that I represent, I am well aware of the problem relating to capital city funding element within the Metropolitan police area. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, for historical reasons, the City of London police have a level of independence. I pay credit to the Government: the City of London police have received a good settlement this year to take account of terrorism and fraud. However, terrorism, and the fear of terrorism, are quite large factors. Does the hon. Gentleman have any thoughts not just about police numbers, which have been used as the big idea by both the Mayor of London and the Government, but about the management of the police in the Metropolitan police area? That is of grave concern to my constituents, and to his in a more suburban area.
Dr. Cable: There has been an enormous improvement in the management of the Metropolitan police in the last few years. I will shortly give a few indicators that show that. I certainly accept that the Metropolitan police were notorious for the inefficiency of some of their operations a few years ago. That has greatly changed. The hon. Gentleman referred specifically to terrorism. There is a query about how the Government will approach that. That is not a criticism. As I understand it, some 257 new security posts were to be created in London specifically to deal with the problem. The Metropolitan Police Authority and the police have no indication of how they are to be funded. The impression they have gained is that there is to be no additional funding for that purpose.
In addition to the difficulties of the basic national formula and the national duties allocation, there is a set of queries relating to the special grants. It would be

245WH
better—I know that the Government are moving in this direction-if some of those special grants were simplified and consolidated. What seems to be happening is that existing special grants are being increased far less substantially than the London police have been led to expect. This is a further source of concern.
The community support officers are a welcome addition and have made a major difference to policing in the capital. Some 40 per cent. of them are women or from the ethnic minorities. They are making a big change to the face of London police. However, the funding that has been made available for them for next year is substantially less than London was led to expect. The Airwave project is key to efficiency and better communication. Again, there is a big drop in funding that will be made available for it. The crime-fighting fund, which is key to recruitment, is not being extended next year. The funding of existing officers is being reduced. The funding being made available for a whole set of specific grants is less then London was led to expect. That is on top of the losses from the overall funding allocation.
What are the potential consequences? As I understand it, there is a consultation process in which the Minister will be involved. It may produce a different outcome from the one that I am trailing here. There is a set of decisions to be made by London's elected members. It is not for the Government or me. That is right. They have to decide their own priorities. But it is clear on the basis of the provisional numbers that some painful decisions will have to be made. It is quite possible that the London authorities will steam ahead with their plans for expanding the number of police officers on the ground. If they do that they will have to increase substantially the council tax precept. A figure of 20 per cent. growth has been quoted but given the overall inequity and unpopularity of the council tax system, I suspect that that would not be acceptable to many boroughs.
The alternative is for the police in London to trim back some of their plans. In particular, I am worried that the Metropolitan police may he forced to abandon or seriously postpone their step change initiative, which was to give a new dimension to policing in London by introducing ward-based beat policing across the capital. The first stage was to involve three wards per borough, including mine. My understanding is that the funding is precarious and depends on an optimistic outcome to the negotiations with the Government.
Of course, the Government could say that the Metropolitan police could become more efficient. That point was made in an intervention. They could ask why the Metropolitan police do not save money. I remember being part of a delegation that went to see the Home Secretary—now the Foreign Secretary—about four or five years ago. He produced all kind of indicators of inefficiency in the Metropolitan police to explain why he was not being more generous to them, but since then there has been a big change. The Metropolitan Police Authority has been able to demonstrate that, over the past three years. it has made, I think, effective cuts of £100 million in expenditure, through improved productivity. According to most indicators of performance, when the Metropolitan police are compared with West Midlands or Greater Manchester
246WH
police, which are comparable forces, they come out relatively well on things such as days lost and crime reduction. I am talking about burglary, car theft and many other key crimes. Public perception of and trust in the Metropolitan police ranks higher than for comparable metropolitan forces. There has been a big turnaround in the Metropolitan police, and the old argument about not trusting them with more money because they will not use it properly is becoming rather invalid.
To draw my thoughts to a close, I have two specific points. First, how it is possible to get a simple and more transparent system of Government funding for the Metropolitan and other police services? One of the points that people in the police service make is that they currently negotiate with six or seven Departments, and the European Commission. They deal with the Treasury, the Home Office, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Department for Transport—for the British Transport police—the Department of Trade and Industry and others. Can those different negotiations and streams of funding not be consolidated in a much simpler way? That ties in with the broader argument about the need for targeting to be reduced because it merely adds to the complexity and rigidity of funding. I know that the Government are moving in that direction this year, but targeting remains a major problem.
My other point is about the funding of major events. It is estimated that the Metropolitan police spent £4.2 million on the Bush state visit. Much of that was opportunity costs—police who could have been employed doing other things—but the sum is substantial. It is assumed that that will all be covered with the national and capital city funding formula, but there is an argument for treating big events separately. I suggest that that particular event could, and perhaps sensibly should, be covered separately by the Government. It was an entirely national activity and a one-off event, and should be separately funded rather than assimilated into the costs of the Metropolitan police. London has already paid for the visit in other ways because robbery rose 20 per cent. on the day in question. Many areas, such as mine, were denuded of their police officers. Londoners have already been asked to pay once, and they are being asked to pay twice.
On major events, I have another suggestion. I understand that the argument is not simply about asking taxpayers to pay more for policing. There is an argument, in some cases, for getting commercial operators to pay more. My constituency is host to the Rugby Football Union, as we are all aware, and I am proud of that, but I often question why the Metropolitan police should be expected to provide police officers outside the ground, at overtime rates, when there are major events. I did some costings about a year or so ago, and the cost is about £35,000 or £40,000 a time. Taking into account the major events over a year, the cost is probably £500,000. If the cost of events at Stamford Bridge and Highbury is added to that, we are talking about quite a large sum of money, and that is just for sporting events, not other events. There is an argument for asking the organisers, most of whom are now highly profitable owing to television revenues, to make a contribution to that. It should not just be down to the taxpayer.

247WH
The major question is why London, despite its exceptional needs and costs relative to other parts of the UK, appears to have suffered disproportionately in the allocations for the coming financial year and seems to have lost a lot of money for reasons that are not clear.
4.35 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): As a former Twickenham girl, I am pleased to respond to this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing it. I also welcome the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) to the debate.
Such debates are always opportunities to air local concerns about issues around crime. The hon. Member for Twickenham raised the important matter of people's concerns about crime throughout the UK-in Richmond, Twickenham, London and the rest of the country. A major incident, such as a murder, is bound to induce people's concerns and fears about its handling in their local community and about how safe they feel. Much has been done on a number of fronts to tackle crime. In more recent times, the general public have welcomed the reality of our need for police officers. However, we need other people to be engaged in fighting crime, whether they be community support officers or neighbourhood wardens. Tackling antisocial behaviour comes top in my postbag and in my surgeries-it is the issue that people raise daily. People realise that unless we tackle that problem. it can develop into far more serious crimes committed by people who are engaged in such activity. Such matters are important, and I take them seriously as an MP, a Minister and a member of the Government.
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the 2004-05 provisional police funding settlement was announced on 19 November. Details were circulated to all police authorities and forces and have been communicated to hon. Members. The closing date for representations on that settlement is 9 January. Expenditure on policing supported by Government has increased by 30 per cent. since 1999-2000. That was indicated in the hon. Gentleman's comments on how police numbers had plummeted for a time, but were now stabilising, with the trend moving upwards. That is welcome. Next year that expenditure will be increased by a further 4 per cent., which covers police formula spending, specific grants and Home Office direct expenditure. Under the provisional settlement all police authorities will receive, within that total, an increase of police authority general grant of 3.25 per cent above inflation. To set a single rate increase is an exceptional step. I shall elaborate further on that, because it is at the heart of the hon. Gentleman's questions this afternoon.
The Metropolitan Police Authority was allocated a general policing grant of £1,764 million for the current year as part of the overall grant to the Greater London authority. That is an increase of 5.2 per cent., or £87.73 million, which places it at the grant ceiling level. It remains a ceiling authority for the next year, when its grant increases to £1,822 million—an extra £58 million. The GLA also received up to £140 million in grant for specific initiatives in 2003-04. The main items included
248WH
£70 million for the crime-fighting fund to support more than 2,000 officers and £62 million for counterterrorism. That is substantially more than the sum received by any other force. Specific grant allocations for 2004-05 are still being calculated, but we have already announced that the force will receive £73 million for the crime-fighting fund. It will also receive a range of other grants.
Specific and targeted grants were introduced as a direct response to what the police service and the public told us they wanted. The general police funding formula is not sufficiently flexible to allocate some funding streams or funds that may not be relevant to all police authorities. Specific grants enable us to target funds in the areas where they are needed. London is a beneficiary in that arrangement.
The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members spoke about the impact of transferring the specific grant, which was previously earmarked for Airwave menu services funding, to the general grant. That does not increase the total grant, but was done to offer police authorities increased flexibility and scope to use their grants. However, it has become clear to us that a large proportion of the Airwave menu grant was already committed for long-term services. In the circumstances, we have agreed with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities to consider again how to reduce any relative disadvantage to forces. We have written to both bodies suggesting a way forward that includes £30 million of additional funding. Those discussions are under way.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the mechanics of the formula and about providing for grant floors and ceilings and how it disadvantages the Metropolitan Police Authority. In the provisional funding settlement, we provide for a standard level grant increase for all authorities of 3.25 per cent. That requires authorities that would otherwise have received more to contribute towards bringing others up to the average increase.
The MPA would have received considerably more grant—about £56 million more for 2004-05 —in the absence of floors and ceilings or standard increases. The GLA contributed about £10 million in 2003-04. The main cause of the difference is the grant formula review in 2002, which moved spending need assessments towards urban and metropolitan authorities, but the shift would have destabilised the finances of losing authorities. Several metropolitan authorities are net contributors to the 2004-05 standard 3.25 per cent. pot, and we are not trying to run away from that. In the absence of a large grant increase overall, it is simply impossible to give the full benefit of formula change to the winners without unacceptable damage to the losers. For example, without a floor, several authorities would lose 5 to 6 per cent. of this year's grant in 2004-05. The situation is difficult because London representatives feel that they have a case to make and lobby for. However, so do many other colleagues around the country who know that to go below the floor would have been unacceptable.
We will continue to keep the grant formulas up to date, so that if and when floors can be lifted, the MPA will be in a fair position to take an increased share of grant. For example, the provision in the formula for national and capital city functions, which the hon. Gentleman raised, was increased from £202 million to

249WH
£207 million in 2004-05. The gain is locked into the formula and will be realised in terms of grant increase when grant can be eased.
The Metropolitan Police Service increased its budget to £2.208 billion this year: an increase of £170 million or 8.3 per cent. in line with the 8.5 per cent. average increase across police authorities generally. The precept was increased by £28.5 million or 21.9 per cent. I acknowledge the pressures, and hon. Members have referred to the inescapable pressures on precepts and to the possibility of having to tackle issues relating to police authority budget capping. I have no doubt that authorities will need to look at that matter responsibly when considering precepts for next year. They will make well-justified cases for any increases; it is important that they are accountable to local people so that they can explain why increases are necessary. They should want to consolidate the recent gains in police numbers that command universal public support.
In a number of areas, London benefits more than other parts of the country because there is recognition of need. In one of my areas of responsibility—drugs—the Met has been allocated £1.9 million for adult arrest referral, which is committed funding for the next three years until 2005-06. The Home Office is funding the Met to conduct drug testing on charging in selected basic command units—there are 12 at the moment, and another five will be added after April next year. That, along with other specific grants, should be recognised as part and parcel of the fight against crime and the effort to support communities. It also recognises the particular needs of London.
On police numbers, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the MPS on reaching record police strength. There were 28,845 police officers on 31 August 2003, some 861 more than in March 2003, and 2,168 more than in March 1997. That is an important part of ensuring police numbers in London, and I am pleased, too, that police support staff numbers increased by 905 in the year to March 2003. Many of the extra staff will be used to free-up police officers from paperwork.
I was pleased to visit Southwark police recently; they provide support to victims of crime who can ring in and discuss their case with civilian personnel. Victims do not therefore have to wait for the police officer involved to come on shift or to come back from leave or from being off sick; a civilian member of staff will act as case manager and give the victims vital support and up-to-date information on their case. There are plenty of good examples of the family of policing growing daily. It should not be forgotten that the Government pay considerable money to support recruitment and retention: 75 per cent. of the cost of the London allowance and £2.4 million towards free travel for Metropolitan police officers. They also try to tackle the problems of housing and additional costs involved in retaining and recruiting police officers in London.
250WH
The MPS received capital grant and credit approvals of £41 million in 2003-04, which may be used for capital investment at the authority's discretion. I cannot say more now, but we hope to announce capital allocations for 2004-05 in a few weeks. We are funding the bulk of the capital cost of the MPA command, control and communications information system. The costs up to 2005-06 are estimated at about £160 million, of which the Home Secretary has agreed to meet up to £140 million. That will provide a centralised "one-stop" call handling despatch operation, improve performance in responding to 999 calls and provide more efficient command control, which is to be welcomed. It will reduce call handling centres from 32 to three and the use of civilians in that process will release about 800 police officers for other duties.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the state visit of President Bush. I congratulate the MPS on its handling of the security for that visit; I understand that about 5,000 officers were involved and the extra cost was about £4 million. Unlike other forces, the MPA receives an annual grant of just over £200 million for its specific national and city functions, and I have indicated that that will rise next year. It includes extra work for state visits. The £4 million for supporting that event represents 0.2 per cent. of the force's annual budget.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned further security; there is an element for security in the formula. In addition, in 2003-04 we provided £62 million for the MPS, £6 million for community support officers and £9 million for CSOs to be more widely used. I will get further information on the terrorist situation if the hon. Gentleman wants it, as I do not have it to hand. We are considering the issue of the role of the MPS and other agencies in tackling terrorism on the streets of the capital city.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels that we recognise the strength of the MPS and what it does in the city of London. However, there must be a balance; we must ensure that we take into account all forces in the United Kingdom and provide accordingly for special grants and the recognition of special needs. In a number of areas, London is receiving considerable funds for that purpose.
Finally, on asset recovery, I am pleased to say that a multi-agency asset recovery team incorporating a money-laundering team will be established in London, paid for from the proceeds of crime, to the tune of £5 million. A very good job has been done in London with Customs and Excise in respect of Operation Payback, which has been a great success. I am considering incentivisation for police forces, not just in London but elsewhere, to ensure that they look at criminals' assets, to ensure that where we can do so we get those back and use them for good rather than for bad purposes.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Five o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Leominster Station
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are to provide disabled access to Leominster station. [144101]

  Mr. McNulty
  The SRA is considering how best to prioritise a programme of works to ensure stations and train services meet the accessibility requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act. The SRA will consult widely on draft criteria next year. The implementation of works will be subject to the availability of funding.

  Heathrow Airport
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of whether the(a) M4 and the (b) M25 would need to expand to accommodate further traffic if a third runway was constructed at Heathrow airport. [144179]

  Mr. McNulty
  "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East" consultation document covered the impact of a third runway at Heathrow airport on the M4 and the M25. These roads were also considered in the Thames Valley and Orbit multi-modal studies. The Secretary of State's response to those studies was published in July 2003.
  The Government's conclusions on UK airport capacity, including surface access issues, have been set out in the White Paper, published today.

  Ministerial Visits
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has to visit the East Midlands to discuss the proposed expansion of East Midlands airport; [142927]

  (2) when he next plans to visit Leicester. [142929]

  Mr. McNulty
  I visited East Midlands Airport in September and have discussed its future development with a number of interested parties. Our conclusions on the proposed development of the airport have been published today in the air transport White Paper. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to visit Leicester at present.

  Parking Fines
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport under what powers private operators of local authority car parks may pursue(a) civil action and (b) criminal action for unpaid fines levied on late and non-payers of car park charges. [143460]
  794W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Section 4(3) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 provides that the council of a county, district, London borough or the Common Council of the City of London may institute proceedings for offences under section 35A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (contravention of an order as to the use of a parking place). It is an established legal principle that a power delegated to one body may not be further delegated in the absence of express provision or necessary implication. This does not, however, prevent a local authority lawfully exercising its prosecution functions under section 4(3) with the assistance of service providers. In any given case, it is for the local authority to ensure that any arrangements it makes with a service provider are lawful and in accordance with its statutory functions.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of the total public investment in transport in England and Wales was spent on railways in the last year for which figures are available. [142617]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 8 December 2003]: The Department's provisional outturn expenditure for 2002–03 (as recorded in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper 2002–03, Cm5884) was £8.8 billion. Of this, £2.8 billion or 32 per cent. was spent on railways. DfT's expenditure was across the UK as a whole, with additional funding for transport provided by the Scottish Executive and Welsh Assembly Government. It is not possible to provide a detailed breakdown of the proportion of spending specifically in England and Wales.

  US Ships (Decommissioning)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the earliest date is on which the Government expects the return to the United States of the US Navy ships moored in Hartlepool could safely begin, assuming normal weather conditions. [143763]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 15 December 2003]: A return passage would be permitted only when application is made; and detailed arrangements approved by the sending and receiving States.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWELATH AFFAIRS

  Zimbabwe
  14. Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to enforce the sanctions regime in place against Zimbabwe. [144053]

  Mr. Mullin
  Her Majesty's Government continue to fully implement EU measures against Zimbabwe. These comprise an arms embargo, including for equipment that might be used for internal repression, and an assets freeze and travel ban on President Mugabe and 78 of his associates. The details are set out in the EU's Common Position 2002/145/CFSP, the EC Regulation 310/2002 and their subsequent amendments.
  795W
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's future relationship with Zimbabwe following its departure from the Commonwealth. [144049]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UK maintains diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe. Following the Commonwealth decision to maintain Zimbabwe's suspension, some of Mugabe's supporters have called for the breaking of diplomatic relations with the UK and the expulsion of the British High Commission. This would only serve to damage further Zimbabwe's reputation and the Zimbabwean people.

  Cameroon
  18. Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on human rights in Cameroon. [144058]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are concerned about Cameroon's record on human rights and regularly raise human rights issues with the Government of Cameroon. We are closely involved in the Commonwealth's work to assist the Government of Cameroon to meet the standards laid down in the Harare Declaration, and we provide bilateral assistance for relevant projects and initiatives.

  Middle East
  19. Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what influence the United Kingdom is exerting on the United States to put pressure on the Israeli Government to stop the building of the wall. [144059]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed the Middle East Peace Process with President Bush during his recent visit to London. In a joint statement on 20 November, they called on all parties to fulfil their obligations under the roadmap, and to refrain from steps which would prevent or prejudge the terms of a final settlement.

  Additionally, the Foreign Secretary, FCO officials and I regularly discuss key elements of the Middle East Peace Process with the US Administration.

  The Government recognises Israel's legitimate security concerns, and deplores the terrorist suicide bombings of Israeli civilians. But, we consider Israel's building of a wall, or fence, on occupied land to be unlawful, and have urged the Israeli government to reconsider the route of the fence.

  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the US Administration to encourage them to exert pressure on the Israeli Government in relation to the building of the wall. [143810]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed the middle east peace process with President Bush during the latter's recent visit to London. In a joint statement on 20 November, they called on all parties to fulfil their obligations under the roadmap, and to refrain from steps which would prevent or prejudge the terms of a final settlement.
  796W
  Additionally, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, my noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean and Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials regularly discuss key elements of the middle east peace process with the US Administration.

  The Government recognise Israel's legitimate security concerns, and deplores the terrorist suicide bombings of Israeli civilians. But we consider Israel's building of a fence on occupied land to be unlawful, and have urged the Israeli government to reconsider the route of the fence.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further consultation he has had with Palestinian and Israeli authorities on the impact of the security wall built by the Israelis. [144052]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government continues to urge the Government of Israel to re-route the fence away from Palestinian areas. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made clear our concerns to the Israeli Prime Minister and Foreign Minister on a number of occasions. I raised the matter with the Israeli Foreign Minister during my visit to Israel on 30 September, and have since then discussed with the Israeli Ambassador and Israeli Minister for National Infrastructure.
  We are in regular contact with the Palestinian Authority and NGOs on the ground.

  Guantanamo Bay
  20. Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the use of the British Indian Ocean territory of Diego Garcia for the detention by the United States of terrorist suspects en route to Guantánamo Bay. [144060]

  Mr. Rammell
  Further to the written answer given on 11 September by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), allegations that terror suspects are being, or have at any time been, detained in Diego Garcia are entirely without foundation.

  Arctic Convoy Medal
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the award of the Russian Arctic Convoy medal to UK nationals. [144010]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer on 15 December 2003]: Government rules governing the acceptance of foreign awards by British Nationals preclude the acceptance of medals for services more than five years before consideration. In addition, the Defence of the Soviet Arctic Region Medal (DSARM) is a campaign medal and it was agreed at the end of the Second World War, by the then allied countries, not to exchange campaign medals. (The Atlantic Star is the British medal awarded for service in Atlantic Convoys.)

  However, officials have been examining the possibility of an exception to the present rules to permit veterans to accept the DSARM should the Russian

  797W
  Government formally seek the Government's authority to award the medal to British Citizens. A decision on whether an exception can be made is expected shortly.

  Bribery/Corruption
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many reports of possible cases of bribery or corruption abroad by UK(a) nationals and (b) companies have been referred to him by his Department's posts overseas since November 2001. [144014]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on 28 October 2003,Official Report, column 181 W.

  The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act was passed in November 2001 and entered into force in February 2002.

  Burma
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what international action he will propose to bring about democracy and human rights in Burma. [144326]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A number of countries including Burma, France, Germany and ASEAN members met on 15 December in Bangkok at the invitation of the Thai Government. We understand that Burma objected to Britain attending because we were strongly critical of the regime. The aim of the meeting was to see if there was a realistic prospect of a roadmap toward democracy and reconciliation.

  We have regularly discussed Burma with our international partners, including what possible further measures we may take if the regime continues to thwart the democratic rights of the Burmese people. I hope to meet Thai Foreign Minister Surakiart Sathirathai on 18 December to discuss the 15 December meeting and how we can take matters forward. We will also continue to work with our EU partners through the UN. ILO and other international fora to put pressure on the Burmese regime to fully release Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy colleagues and, together with the ethnic groups, begin a genuine dialogue leading to democratic change and national reconciliation.

  Ethiopia/Eritrea
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to help resolve the dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea. [144048]

  Mr. Mullin
  We take every opportunity to emphasise to both parties that the Boundary Commission's decision is final and binding; that both should avoid any return to war; and that dialogue is essential to address all the issues separating Ethiopia and Eritrea.

  EU Constitution
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 8 December 2003,Official Report,
  798W
  column 245W, on the European Constitution, what assessment the Government have made of the impact of the territorial cohesion provisions in the draft EU Constitution Treaty on applications from peripheral and insular areas for regional European support and state aid; and what discussions his Department has held with local government representatives from Highland and Island councils on this subject. [143985]

  Mr. MacShane
  We do not expect the references to "territorial cohesion" to have any impact on existing arrangements for the structural funds and regional aid. The devolved administrations have throughout been closely associated with the development of government policy towards the IGC, and are also involved in the development of UK positions on structural funds and state aid.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects discussions on the European Constitution to reach a conclusion. [144332]

  Mr. MacShane
  In the light of the outcome of the meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference on 12–13 December, we expect discussions on the timetable of the negotiations to be taken forward by the future Irish presidency.

  European Foreign Ministers (Combined Initiatives)
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is planning further combined initiatives with the Foreign Ministers of France and Germany. [144330]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have worked closely with the French and Germans on an informal basis on a range of issues of mutual interest (e.g. joint initiative on industrial competitiveness, consultations on European defence, co-ordinated foreign policy towards Iran) and will continue to do so as the need arises.

  Mikhail Khodorkovsky
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department has had any representations relating to the detention of Mr.Mikhail Khodorkovsky; and whether this matter has been discussed with the(a) Russian Government and (b) the Russian Embassy. [143932]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office received one letter from a member of the House of Lords about the "Yukos affair", to which I have replied. Separately, I also discussed the issue with the Russian Ambassador last month, and the EU raised it with President Putin on 6 November during the recent EU-Russia summit.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will investigate claims of torture made against Saudi Arabia by the recently released British prisoner. [143811]
  799W
  Mr. Mullin
  Throughout the detention of the British men in Saudi Arabia, we raised with the Saudi authorities, at the highest levels, our concerns about the case, including the men's treatment and conditions in detention. We are in touch with the men and their lawyers and are doing what we properly can to assist them.

  Singapore
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Singapore regarding the trading by Singapore-based companies with the military leadership in Burma; and if he will make a statement. [143713]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  While we have not made any representations to the Government of Singapore on this issue. We regularly discuss the problems of Burma with Asian countries, including Singapore. The UK has a long standing policy of not supporting trade with Burma.

  This is well known to the international community. The EU Common Position is designed to target regime leaders and, as far as is possible, to avoid hurting the people of Burma. We would welcome a similar approach from Burma's neighbours.

  United Nations
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on reforming UN structures; and if he will make a statement. [144322]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK Government wish to see an efficient United Nations that can meet the challenges of the modern world and deliver the objectives established in the Millennium Declaration.

  We want to see a stronger and revitalised general assembly. We strongly support the proposals of the GA President, Julian Hunte. We support the Secretary General's efforts to create a more effective secretariat with improved priority setting and financial management. We are encouraging efforts towards improving the wider UN system of Funds, Programmes and Specialised Agencies. We also look forward to the outcome of the high level panel set up by the Secretary General to review the way the UN deals with threats to international peace and security.
  800W
  I also refer my hon. Friend to Command Paper CM5898, laid before the House in September, in which the UK's policy towards reform of the UN is described in more detail.

  Visa Centres (India)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit the new visa centres in India; and if he will make a statement on the operation of the new visa centres in India. [142936]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have no plans at present to make a visit to the new visa application centres in India. Full details of the service offered at the visa application centres can be found at UKvisas' website: www.ukvisas.gov.uk and the websites for our diplomatic posts in India.

WALES

  Compulsory Identity Cards
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the implications of the introduction of compulsory identity cards for his Department. [141414]

  Mr. Hain
  Since the Wales Office does not provide services directly to the public, the implications of such a scheme would be minimal.

  IRA Terrorism
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on which dates terrorist incidents ascribed to the IRA have taken place in Wales since 1973. [142752]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Home Secretary on 11 December 2003,Official Report, column 618.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how often he holds meetings with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales; what proportion of his working week is spent in the Wales Office; and if he will make a statement. [141189]

  Mr. Hain
  The First Minister and I meet virtually every Monday and routinely discuss by telephone matters of common interest. I begin my week at my office in Cardiff, travelling up later in the day to the Wales Office in Gwydyr House London to meet ministerial colleagues and Wales Office officials and others as necessary over the rest of the week.

TREASURY

  Employment Statistics
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people(a) under 50, (b) between 50 and state pension age and (c) over state pension age were in employment, broken down by (i) region and (ii) gender, for each year since 1997; [143939]

  (2) what the employment rate was for people (a) under 50, (b) between 50 and state pension age and (c) over state pension age, broken down by (i) region and (ii) gender, for each year since 1997. [143940]

  John Healey
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Ms Sandra Gidley dated 16 December 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about employment levels and rates.

  The tables which have been placed in the Library give the information requested for the twelve month period ending August of each year from 1998 to 2003. These estimates are from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). As with any sample survey, estimates from the LFS are subject to sampling error.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to the Exchequer was in tax receipts foregone of the 10 per cent. rate of corporation tax introduced in the 1999 Budget for the smallest companies, in each year since its introduction. [144655]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The 10 per cent. starting rate of corporation tax is estimated to have reduced the CT liability of small companies with accounting periods ending in 2000–01 and 2001–02 by £85 million and £140 million respectively. Estimates are not yet available of the impact of the starting rate on accounting periods ending in 2002–03.

  Inland Revenue
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he estimates the Inland Revenue's ruling of 24 October will affect the welfare of tenants occupying the housing stock of Craven Housing Limited. [144634]

  Keith Hill
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 15 December 2003.

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the Government will compensate Bury St. Edmunds for the loss of funds available to the Haverbury Housing Partnership following the Inland Revenue's ruling of 24 October 2003; [144165]

  (2) if the Government will compensate Letchworth for the loss of funds available to North Hertfordshire Homes Ltd. following the Inland Revenue's ruling of 24 October 2003; [144166]
  802W
  (3) if the Government will compensate Skipton for the loss of funds available to Craven Housing Ltd. following the Inland Revenue's ruling of 24 October 2003; [144167]

  (4) if the Government will compensate Hereford for the loss of funds available to Herefordshire Housing Ltd. that will result from the Inland Revenue's ruling of 24 October 2003. [144169]

  Dawn Primarolo
  On 24 October 2003, the Inland Revenue gave its preliminary view on the tax implications of contracts developed by a major accountancy firm. Discussions are continuing.

  Pay-as-you-earn Schemes
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pay-as-you-earn schemes with one or two employees there were for companies, excluding unincorporated businesses, at April(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [144656]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available.

  Pensions
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to the Government of increasing pensions in line with average wage increases. [143546]

  Ruth Kelly
  The costs of uprating retirement pension in line with earnings and these costs as a percentage of GDP are as follows:

  Gross Cost (£)

  Gross Cost as (percentage)

  2005–06

  1.8

  0.15

  2010–11

  6.3

  0.54

  2020–21

  18.1

  1.21

  2030–31

  38.1

  1.99

  As my right hon. friend the Chancellor said in his pre-Budget statement, UK public finances are sustainable in the long term. The UK is in a strong position relative to other countries to face the challenges ahead. To revert to the pre-1980 position, an earnings link with pensions would—by 2050—raise deficits by 3 per cent. a year just to cover this one item with the long-term sustainability of public finances undermined. The Government will proceed on a sustainable basis.

  Notes

  1. Figures are in 2003–04 price terms. Costs are in billions rounded to the nearest £100 million. Percentages are to the nearest two decimal places.

  2. GDP figures are from HM Treasury Economic Assumptions provided 28 November 2003.
  803W
  3. Gross costs are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department and are consistent with Budget 2003 assumptions.

  4. The net costs take into account income related benefit offsets, which are calculated using the DWP policy simulation model.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the organisations which responded to the consultation document, "Simplifying the taxation of pensions: increasing choice and flexibility for all". [144663]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government consulted widely on the proposals in last December's document "Simplifying the taxation of pensions: increasing choice and flexibility for all". The document elicited many responses, copies of which have been placed in the House of Commons Library. A summary of the responses can be found on the Inland Revenue website at www inlandrevenue.gov.uk/pensionschemes.

  Project ASPIRE
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date board members of Inland Revenue first began planning for project ASPIRE or its antecedents; and who was responsible for project ASPIRE from that date up to 5 September 2002. [144692]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The planning for the ASPIRE project began in January 2001. John Yard, the Inland Revenue's Director of Business Services, took responsibility for this planning.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the purpose was of the market making exercise run by Inland Revenue as part of Project ASPIRE; what objectives were set to judge its success; and whether these objectives were achieved. [144693]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Competitions are generally accepted as the best way to deliver value for money. The market-making exercise was designed to encourage the major IT industry players to enter the ASPIRE competition. This objective was achieved and the competition has been genuinely tough and fair. In a written statement to the House on 11 December 2003 (column 107WS) I announced that the result of the competition was that Cap Gemini Ernst and Young had been named as the Inland Revenue's preferred supplier for the ASPIRE contract replacing the incumbent suppliers EDS and Accenture.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the potential suppliers who engaged in the market making exercise in support of project ASPIRE were made aware by Inland Revenue at the outset of the exercise of the identities of the other potential suppliers; whether the methodology adopted by Inland Revenue for the market making exercise provided for discussions

  Table 1: Unemployment in London boroughs

  March to February, thousand and percentage

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Levels

  Rates (%)

  Levels

  Rates (%)

  Levels

  Rates (%)

  Levels

  Rate (%)

  Greater London

  394

  11.1

  326

  9.1

  283

  7.9

  269

  7.3

  Barking and Dagenham

  10

  12.9

  7

  9.6

  7

  10.2

  2—

  2—

  Barnet

  13

  8.0

  11

  6.6

  10

  5.4

  10

  5.6

  Bexley

  11

  8.9

  6

  5.4

  8

  7.0

  8

  7.3

  Brent

  16

  13.1

  16

  12.6

  15

  11.2

  10

  7.5

  Bromley

  9

  5.8

  7

  4.5

  8

  5.5

  6

  3.8

  804W
  between Inland Revenue and each of the potential suppliers engaging in the market making exercise; and whether the potential suppliers who responded to the Official Journal of the European Communities Notice placed by Inland Revenue with regard to Project ASPIRE were required in their submissions to provide indicative pricing information. [144694]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I cannot comment on whether the potential suppliers who engaged in the market making exercise were aware of the identities of the other potential suppliers. However, there were ongoing discussions between the Department and potential suppliers, at their request, throughout the market-making exercise. In addition, as I stated in my reply of 18 September, an open meeting was held for all interested suppliers on 7 March 2002, which was attended by 42 potential suppliers. The potential suppliers were not required to provide indicative pricing information in their response to the Official Journal of the European Communities notice that was placed by the Inland Revenue.

  Redundant Workers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many redundant workers, found employment three months after their Labour Force Survey interview in each of the last six years in London. broken down by age group. [144171]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 15 December 2003]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Simon Hughes, dated 16 December 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about unemployment in London boroughs. (143995)

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) following the internationally standard International Labour Organisation definition.

  Table 1 gives estimates of unemployment levels and rates for each London borough for the twelve month period ending February of each year from 1997 to 2002. These estimates are from the LFS annual local area databases. As with any sample survey, estimates from the LFS are subject to sampling error. The LFS sample size is too small to give reliable estimates of youth unemployment and long term unemployment in nearly all of London boroughs.

  ONS also compiles statistics of those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) for local areas. Table 2 gives, for each year since 1998, the average number and proportion of the working age population claiming JSA benefits. The number of these claiming for over 12 months and the numbers for those aged 18–24 years old are given in Tables 3 and 4. The data are not seasonally adjusted.
  805W

  Table 1: Unemployment in London boroughs

  March to February, thousand and percentage

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Levels

  Rates (%)

  Levels

  Rates (%)

  Levels

  Rates (%)

  Levels

  Rate (%)

  Camden

  12

  12.4

  2—

  2—

  7

  7.9

  6

  6.5

  City of London

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Croydon

  14

  8.0

  11

  6.1

  10

  5.8

  12

  6.8

  Ealing

  15

  10.4

  14

  9.5

  9

  6.4

  11

  7.7

  Enfield

  11

  8.3

  7

  4.9

  10

  7.2

  10

  7.5

  Greenwich

  16

  16.2

  13

  13.4

  11

  10.6

  8

  7.4

  Hackney

  18

  23.1

  18

  21.5

  12

  14.8

  13

  13.8

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  7

  8.6

  8

  9.1

  2—

  2—

  7

  8.5

  Haringey

  14

  13.6

  14

  13.6

  12

  12.2

  11

  9.8

  Harrow

  7

  6.9

  6

  5.7

  6

  5.3

  7

  6.0

  Havering

  7

  6.6

  6

  5.2

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Hillingdon

  8

  5.9

  7

  5.1

  2—

  2—

  8

  5.4

  Hounslow

  13

  13.0

  7

  6.7

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Islington

  14

  17.0

  12

  14.0

  10

  12.0

  11

  11.8

  Kensington and Chelsea

  8

  10.2

  2—

  2—

  9

  10.2

  9

  10.3

  Kingston upon Thames

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Lambeth

  30

  19.3

  21

  14.8

  11

  7.6

  13

  9.1

  Lewisham

  21

  16.3

  14

  11.6

  10

  8.3

  13

  10.7

  Merton

  6

  6.7

  6

  6.6

  7

  7.1

  2—

  2—

  Newham

  17

  17.9

  15

  15.3

  17

  16.7

  14

  14.3

  Redbridge

  9

  7.7

  12

  10.5

  10

  8.6

  6

  5.0

  Richmond upon Thames

  2—

  2—

  6

  6.5

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Southwark

  23

  21.7

  19

  16.8

  15

  13.4

  15

  12.2

  Sutton

  6

  6.5

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Tower Hamlets

  11

  15.8

  13

  19.7

  9

  13.8

  8

  9.4

  Waltham Forest

  12

  11.1

  11

  10.6

  9

  9.3

  8

  7.7

  Wandsworth

  16

  10.6

  10

  7.2

  7

  5.0

  7

  4.8

  Westminster

  10

  10.5

  10

  9.7

  11

  10.9

  8

  7.0

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Levels

  Rates (%)

  Levels

  Rates (%)

  Greater London

  254

  6.9

  248

  6.6

  Barking and Dagenham

  4

  5.9

  4

  6.4

  Barnet

  11

  5.9

  9

  4.9

  Bexley

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Brent

  11

  9.2

  12

  9.4

  Bromley

  6

  3.7

  6

  3.9

  Camden

  6

  6.4

  9

  8.2

  City of London

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Croydon

  10

  5.3

  10

  5.7

  Ealing

  11

  7.3

  10

  6.3

  Enfield

  7

  5.5

  8

  6.4

  Greenwich

  11

  9.8

  8

  7.4

  Hackney

  14

  16.4

  11

  12.2

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2—

  2—

  6

  6.4

  Haringey

  13

  12.7

  11

  10.4

  Harrow

  6

  5.0

  2—

  2—

  Havering

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Hillingdon

  2—

  2—

  6

  4.1

  Hounslow

  2—

  2—

  6

  5.6

  Islington

  8

  9.4

  8

  9.3

  Table 2: JSA Claimants in the London boroughs—not seasonally adjusted

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Annual average

  Levels

  % of Pop2

  Levels

  % of Pop2

  Levels

  % of Pop2

  Levels

  % of Pop2

  Greater London

  224,303

  5.0

  2—

  4.4

  173,445

  3.8

  153,666

  3.2

  Barking and Dagenham

  3,791

  4.0

  3,485

  3.6

  3,156

  3.2

  2,873

  2.9

  Barnet

  6,407

  3.4

  5,725

  3.0

  4,822

  2.5

  4,594

  2.3

  Bexley

  4,073

  3.1

  3,455

  2.6

  2,859

  2.1

  2,453

  1.8

  Brent

  10,352

  6.2

  9,015

  5.4

  7,614

  4.4

  6,798

  3.7

  Bromley

  4,828

  2.7

  4,156

  2.3

  3,579

  2.0

  3,223

  1.8

  Camden

  8,281

  6.6

  7,630

  6.0

  6,444

  4.8

  5,542

  3.8

  806W

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Levels

  Rates (%)

  Levels

  Rates (%)

  Kensington and Chelsea

  8

  7.5

  7

  6.1

  Kingston upon Thames

  4

  4.4

  4

  4.8

  Lambeth

  14

  9.6

  10

  7.0

  Lewisham

  9

  6.9

  12

  10.3

  Merton

  6

  6.1

  2—

  2—

  Newham

  12

  13.5

  11

  11.7

  Redbridge

  8

  7.4

  8

  6.8

  Richmond upon Thames

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Southwark

  13

  12.1

  12

  10.7

  Sutton

  2—

  2-

  5

  5.1

  Tower Hamlets

  9

  11.8

  9

  12.3

  Waltham Forest

  6

  5.7

  7

  6.9

  Wandsworth

  9

  5.7

  10

  6.3

  Westminster

  10

  8.6

  8

  6.1

  1 Unemployed as a percentage of the economically active population.

  2 Sample size too small for reliable estimate.

  Note:

  These Labour Force Survey estimates have not been interim-adjusted to reflect the 2001 Census results.

  Source:

  ONS Annual Local Area Labour Force Survey.
  807W

  Table 2: JSA Claimants in the London boroughs—not seasonally adjusted

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Annual average

  Levels

  % of Pop2

  Levels

  % of Pop2

  Levels

  % of Pop2

  Levels

  % of Pop2

  City of London

  98

  2.2

  91

  1.9

  81

  1.6

  82

  1.4

  Croydon

  8,247

  4.0

  7,483

  3.6

  6,473

  3.1

  5,972

  2.8

  Baling

  7,679

  4.0

  6,927

  3.5

  5,801

  2.9

  5,262

  2.5

  Enfield

  7,542

  4.5

  7,021

  4.2

  6,137

  3.6

  5,488

  3.1

  Greenwich

  8,681

  6.7

  7,785

  6.0

  6,636

  5.0

  5,873

  4.2

  Hackney

  12,995

  10.7

  11,288

  9.0

  9,367

  7.2

  7,717

  5.6

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  6,285

  5.9

  5,480

  4.9

  4,688

  4.1

  4,225

  3.5

  Haringey

  12,228

  8.7

  11,082

  7.7

  9,571

  6.6

  7,613

  5.0

  Harrow

  3,580

  2.8

  3,318

  2.6

  2,771

  2.1

  2,395

  1.8

  Havering

  3,414

  2.5

  3,313

  2.4

  2,819

  2.1

  2,308

  1.7

  Hillingdon

  3,530

  2.3

  3,058

  2.0

  2,513

  1.6

  2,369

  1.5

  Hounslow

  4,157

  3.0

  3,411

  2.5

  2,555

  1.8

  2,169

  1.5

  Islington

  9,925

  8.4

  8,944

  7.5

  7,440

  6.2

  6,409

  5.1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  4,377

  4.6

  3,805

  3.9

  3,290

  3.2

  2,827

  2.5

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  1,904

  2.1

  1,641

  1.7

  1,359

  1.4

  1,180

  1.2

  Lambeth

  13,790

  7.8

  12,456

  6.9

  11,230

  6.1

  10,239

  5.3

  Lewisham

  11,052

  7.0

  9,882

  6.1

  8,557

  5.2

  7,901

  4.6

  Merton

  3,604

  3.1

  3,183

  2.7

  2,522

  2.1

  2,360

  1.9

  Newham

  10,885

  7.7

  9,958

  6.9

  8,715

  5.8

  7,367

  4.6

  Redbridge

  5,377

  3.6

  4,881

  3.3

  4,336

  2.9

  3,725

  2.4

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  2,264

  2.1

  2,036

  1.8

  1,572

  1.4

  1,432

  1.2

  Southwark

  11,680

  7.6

  10,711

  6.8

  9,779

  6.0

  8,792

  5.1

  Sutton

  2,382

  2.2

  2,128

  1.9

  1,653

  1.5

  1,500

  1.3

  Tower Hamlets

  9,411

  7.9

  9,049

  7.3

  8,616

  6.8

  7,949

  5.9

  Waltham Forest

  7,692

  5.5

  7,039

  5.0

  6,091

  4.3

  5,489

  3.8

  Wandsworth

  7,862

  4.4

  6,494

  3.6

  5,510

  3.0

  5,182

  2.7

  Westminster, City of

  5,930

  5.1

  5,739

  4.8

  4,889

  3.9

  4,358

  3.2

  2002

  20031

  Annual average

  Levels

  % of Pop2

  Levels

  % of Pop2

  Greater London

  164,350

  3.4

  170,532

  3.5

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,983

  3.0

  3,328

  3.3

  Barnet

  5,290

  2.6

  5,769

  2.8

  Bexley

  2,629

  2.0

  2,866

  2.2

  Brent

  7,959

  4.4

  8,234

  4.5

  Bromley

  3,597

  2.0

  3,842

  2.1

  Camden

  5,956

  4.1

  5,909

  4.1

  City of London

  93

  1.7

  100

  1.8

  Croydon

  6,334

  3.0

  6,497

  3.0

  Baling

  6,137

  3.0

  6,222

  3.0

  Enfield

  5,441

  3.1

  5,847

  3.3

  Greenwich

  5,955

  4.3

  5,934

  4.3

  Hackney

  7,682

  5.6

  8,123

  5.9

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  4,481

  3.7

  4,695

  3.8

  Haringey

  7,603

  5.0

  7,722

  5.1

  Harrow

  2,841

  2.1

  3,025

  2.3

  Havering

  2,331

  1.7

  2,546

  1.9

  Hillingdon

  2,961

  1.9

  3,530

  2.3

  Hounslow

  2,908

  2.0

  3,298

  2.3

  Table 3: JSA Claimants over 12 months in the London boroughs not seasonally adjusted—Computerised claims only

  Levels

  Annual average

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  20031

  Greater London

  72,593

  61,881

  47,957

  36,327

  32,193

  32,848

  Barking and Dagenham

  833

  864

  806

  628

  467

  507

  Barnet

  1,963

  1,585

  1,081

  886

  923

  986

  Bexley

  1,208

  856

  611

  443

  356

  374

  Brent

  3,640

  2,842

  2,233

  1,604

  1,788

  2,046

  Bromley

  1,383

  1,120

  912

  714

  615

  558

  Camden

  3,016

  2.727

  1,962

  1,486

  1,373

  1,342

  City of London

  27

  28

  26

  24

  22

  28

  Croydon

  2,945

  2,249

  1,850

  1,479

  1,352

  1,111

  Baling

  2,271

  1,772

  1,235

  891

  925

  982

  Enfield

  2,642

  2,286

  1,738

  1,329

  984

  885

  Greenwich

  3,218

  2,539

  1,930

  1,435

  1,172

  1,027

  808W

  2002

  20031

  Annual average

  Levels

  % of Pop2

  Levels

  % of Pop2

  Islington

  6,343

  5.0

  6,398

  5.1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,957

  2.6

  3,096

  2.7

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  1,548

  1.6

  1,711

  1.7

  Lambeth

  10.707

  5.5

  10,835

  5.6

  Lewisham

  8,056

  4.7

  8,079

  4.7

  Merton

  2,749

  2.2

  3,035

  2.4

  Newham

  7,610

  4.7

  7,655

  4.8

  Redbridge

  4,047

  2.6

  4,106

  2.7

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  1,803

  1.6

  2,013

  1.7

  Southwark

  9,363

  5.5

  9,689

  5.6

  Sutton

  1,800

  1.6

  1,975

  1.7

  Tower Hamlets

  8,136

  6.0

  8,335

  6.2

  Waltham Forest

  5,857

  4.0

  6,035

  4.1

  Wandsworth

  5,686

  2.9

  5,692

  2.9

  Westminster, City of

  4,507

  3.3

  4,391

  3.2

  1 Average of 10 months.

  2 Claimant count figures as a proportion of the resident working age population.

  Source:

  Jobcentre Plus Administrative system.
  809W

  Table 3: JSA Claimants over 12 months in the London boroughs not seasonally adjusted—Computerised claims only

  Levels

  Annual average

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  20031

  Hackney

  4,483

  3,888

  2,462

  1,753

  1,339

  1,491

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,466

  1,940

  1,492

  1,067

  940

  996

  Haringey

  4,708

  4,185

  3,048

  1,807

  1,670

  1,864

  Harrow

  988

  864

  657

  455

  414

  464

  Havering

  670

  801

  704

  481

  318

  307

  Hillingdon

  897

  658

  433

  255

  259

  400

  Hounslow

  917

  610

  309

  152

  196

  247

  Islington

  3,971

  3,449

  2,447

  1,954

  1,512

  1,355

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,682

  1,355

  1,044

  761

  667

  701

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  474

  369

  253

  171

  193

  292

  Lambeth

  4,797

  3,905

  3,525

  2,864

  2,548

  2,361

  Lewisham

  4,322

  3,532

  2,703

  2,261

  1,910

  1,703

  Merton

  1,055

  779

  506

  403

  401

  474

  Newham

  2,657

  2,814

  2,292

  1,611

  1,354

  1,366

  Redbridge

  1,260

  1,168

  1,085

  886

  581

  534

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  637

  522

  346

  207

  207

  292

  Southwark

  3,985

  3,515

  3,034

  2,414

  2,363

  2,692

  Sutton

  613

  465

  328

  241

  284

  377

  Tower Hamlets

  2,388

  2,532

  2,326

  2,041

  1,809

  1,935

  Waltham Forest

  1,970

  1,912

  1,662

  1,256

  1,108

  1,144

  Wandsworth

  2,503

  1,821

  1,390

  1,173

  1,134

  1,103

  Westminster, City of

  2,004

  1,929

  1,527

  1,195

  1,009

  904

  1 Average of 10 months.

  Source:

  Jobcentre Plus Administrative system.

  Table 4: JSA Claimants for the age group 18–24 years old in the London boroughs not seasonally adjusted—Computerised claims only

  Levels

  Annual average

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  20031

  Greater London

  46,706

  38,567

  33,207

  30,444

  35,432

  39,206

  Barking and Dagenham

  997

  840

  796

  725

  794

  928

  Barnet

  1,173

  977

  842

  841

  1,057

  1,253

  Bexley

  935

  745

  617

  538

  604

  691

  Brent

  2,120

  1,691

  1,394

  1,217

  1,619

  1,726

  Bromley

  924

  710

  621

  611

  702

  786

  Camden

  1,424

  1,223

  1,024

  903

  1,072

  1,163

  City of London

  29

  21

  17

  18

  24

  24

  Croydon

  1,665

  1,452

  1,244

  1,215

  1,369

  1,527

  Eating

  1,594

  1,388

  1,133

  1,015

  1,265

  1,344

  Enfield

  1,589

  1,331

  1,209

  1,066

  1,230

  1,516

  Greenwich

  2,169

  1,780

  1,510

  1,402

  1,513

  1,601

  Hackney

  2,861

  2,261

  1.846

  1,558

  1,741

  1,900

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,050

  855

  760

  697

  816

  936

  Haringey

  2,430

  1,993

  1,742

  1,548

  1,722

  1,819

  Harrow

  707

  624

  509

  457

  583

  668

  Havering

  854

  731

  610

  524

  559

  647

  Hillingdon

  791

  661

  561

  569

  731

  922

  Hounslow

  977

  765

  606

  511

  685

  840

  Islington

  1,913

  1,600

  1,296

  1,133

  1,241

  1,406

  Kensington and Chelsea

  642

  534

  477

  427

  502

  538

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  331

  281

  222

  189

  245

  301

  Lambeth

  2,535

  2,141

  1,946

  1,812

  2,084

  2,248

  Lewisham

  2,282

  1,993

  1,741

  1,738

  1,907

  2,048

  Merton

  712

  595

  484

  486

  572

  670

  Newham

  2,885

  2,311

  2,014

  1,770

  1,979

  2,225

  Redbridge

  1,264

  1,035

  880

  784

  977

  1,041

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  319

  268

  217

  194

  241

  292

  Southwark

  2,478

  2,051

  1,885

  1,779

  2,081

  2,204

  Sutton

  459

  385

  289

  270

  336

  406

  Tower Hamlets

  2,393

  1,958

  1,825

  1,723

  1,934

  2,030

  Waltham Forest

  1,770

  1,412

  1,173

  1,128

  1,332

  1,460

  Wandsworth

  1,428

  1,073

  951

  924

  1,113

  1,182

  Westminster, City of

  1,006

  882

  766

  672

  802

  864

  1 Average of 10 months.

  Source:

  Jobcentre Plus Administrative system.
  810W

  Tax Compliance
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Inland Revenue and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise inform other Government Departments when a potential supplier has poor compliance in tax affairs. [143885]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue only inform other Government Departments when a potential supplier has poor compliance in tax affairs in very exceptional circumstances. Such disclosures will only be made where statute permits, or otherwise, is justifiable on public interest grounds and will be confined to a general description of the potential supplier's compliance status and will not contain any detail.

  Tax Rates
  David Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps have been taken to ensure that high income earners pay the 40 per cent. income tax rate and not the standard one on the basis that a company is being run by them; and if he will make a statement. [144649]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made in this House on 10 December 2003 by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to paragraph 5.91 of the Pre-Budget Report published the same day.

  David Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals in the last three tax years were informed by the Inland Revenue that, though claiming to be eligible to pay the standard income tax rate because of running a company, the amount they would have to pay was 40 per cent.; and if he will make a statement. [144651]

  Dawn Primarolo
  None. There is no direct correlation between the amount of income tax an individual would pay on profits if self employed and the amount of income tax payable on salary and dividends received from a limited company.

  Unemployment (London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the rate of(a) unemployment, (b) long-term unemployment and (c) youth unemployment in each borough of London was in each of the last six years; and how many individuals this represented in each case. 143995]

  Headcount

  FTE

  Population:

  Sick absence

  Staff-in-post

  Average sick absence

  Staff-in-post

  Average sick absence1

  DTI HQ including SBS

  Year ending March 2003

  37,107

  5,412

  6.9

  5,254.54

  7.1

  Year ending March 2002

  35,870

  5,263

  6.8

  5,122.70

  7.0

  Year ending March 2001

  32,920

  4,998

  6.6

  4,867.03

  6.8

  Year ending 31 March 2000

  32,717

  4,934

  6.6

  4,820.63

  6.8

  Year ending 31 March 1999

  34,715

  4,892

  7.1

  4,788.22

  7.3

  1 Full time equivalent

  812W
  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 15 December 2003]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Simon Hughes, dated 16 December 2003:

  As the National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about redundant workers. (144171)

  The attached table gives estimates, from the Labour Force Survey, of the number of people resident in London who were made redundant in the three months prior to their LFS interview, and who were in employment again at the time of interview. These estimates are for the twelve month period ending August each year from 1998 to 2003. The LFS does not collect information about respondents' labour market status three months after their interview. As with any sample survey, estimates from the LFS arc subject to sampling error.

  People resident in Greater London who were made redundant in the three months prior to their LFS interview and who were in employment again at the time of interview, by age

  Thousands

  September to August

  Total

  16–34

  35 or over

  1997–98

  29

  14

  15

  1998–99

  28

  12

  16

  1999–2000

  30

  19

  12

  2000–01

  34

  19

  14

  2001–02

  34

  20

  14

  2002–3

  23

  14

  —

  — Sample size too small for reliable estimate

  Note:

  These LFS estimates have not been interim-adjusted to reflect the 2001 Census results

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Staff
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many days were lost to illness by employees in her Department in each of the last five years; [143880]

  (2) how many days' sick leave per staff year were recorded in her Department in each of the last five years. [143881]

  Ms Hewitt
  The following table sets out the number of days lost due to sick absence in DTI HQ and the Small Business Service between 1 April 1998 and 31 March 2003.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will reply to the letter of 15 October from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan regarding his constituent, Mr. A. Downie of Whitehills. [141743]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The delay in replying to the letter has been caused by the need for several Government departments and agencies to be consulted on preparing a response. I hope to be able to reply shortly.

  Electricity Supplies
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans are in place to ensure that electricity supplies to homes and industry are maintained in the event of severe winter weather. [141854]

  Mr. Timms
  The market has responded to concerns about a possible shortfall by returning plant to service so that margins are at a similar level to the mid 1990s. However no system can be guaranteed and in the event of a possible power shortage there are a number of steps that NGT could take in order to maintain supplies and avoid rota cuts.

  The Government has robust, and well rehearsed plans, for dealing with extreme circumstances that cannot be dealt with by NGT's normal operating arrangements.

  Employment Regulations
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment she has made of the impact that the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 will have on businesses, with particular reference to the costs they will incur; and
  if she will make a statement; [143832]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the impact that the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 will have on businesses, with particular reference to the costs they will incur; and if she will make a statement. [143833]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  We have set out the impact on business of the Employment Equality (sexual orientation or religion or belief regulations) regulations 2003 as part of the last consultation on our proposals in the document "Equality and Diversity: the way ahead". In the case of sexual orientation, quantifiable benefits outweigh the costs significantly throughout the period analysed. For religion or belief, the initial costs are outweighed by the future benefits. Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the Libraries of the House and are also available online at
  dti.gsi.gov.uk/er/equality.

  Equal Treatment at Work Directive
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) which religions are to be protected under the Equal Treatment at Work Directive; [142842]
  814W
  (2) if she will make a statement on which philosophical beliefs are to be protected by the Equal Treatment at Work Directive; and what guidance her Department has offered to companies on how to make an assessment of this. [142849]

  Jacqui Smith
  This aspect of the Employment Directive is implemented by the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. The regulations define "religion or belief' as "any religion, religious belief, or similar philosophical belief". It will be for the courts and tribunals to determine, in accordance with the Directive's requirements, whether a religion or belief falls within this definition. However, guidance to help employers put the new legislation into effect is available from Acas, and on the website acas.org.uk. In addition the Acas national helpline (08457 47 47 47) is able to offer advice on employment related issues.

  The reference to "religion" includes religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Rastafarianism, Baha'is, Zoroastrians and Jains. Branches or sects within a religion can be considered as a religion or religious belief, such as Catholics or Protestants within the Christian church.

  The reference to "similar philosophical belief" includes philosophical belief which is similar to a religious belief in that it is a profound belief affecting a person's way of life, or perception of the world. The belief should occupy a place in the person's life parallel to that filled by the God or Gods of those holding a particular religious belief.

  EU Funding (Yorkshire and Humber)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and industry how much EU regional funding has gone into the Yorkshire and Humber region in each of the last five years. [143304]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information is as follows:

  Table of Expenditure in Yorkshire and the Humber

  ERDF and ESF Spend by Year

  £ million

  1998

  54,817

  1999

  92,188

  2000

  94,294

  2001

  135,953

  2002

  96,095

  2003

  116,665

  Fusion Research Reactor
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the decision to site the next International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor fusion research reactor at Cadarache in France; and what financial commitment has been made by the United Kingdom in its support. [142450]

  Ms Hewitt
  I am pleased that it was possible to reach a unanimous decision on the European candidate site for ITER. The UK will not make a direct financial commitment to ITER; instead its financial participation will come from the EURATOM budget, which the UK contributes to through its annual payment into the EC budget.

  Give as You Earn Scheme
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many and what percentage of staff in her Department contribute to a charity through the Give as You Earn scheme; how much money is donated to charity per month by staff in her Department through the scheme; and what steps she is taking to encourage greater participation in the scheme by staff in her Department. [143904]

  Ms Hewitt
  In my Department 404 staff, 4.43 per cent. of the workforce, contribute £7,390.17 per month to charity through the Give As You Earn scheme. We regularly encourage greater participation by publicising the scheme to staff. We are planning the next awareness campaign for the new year.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 4 December 2003,Official Report, column 168W, on Learning and Skills Councils, if she will discuss with the Deputy Prime Minister contacts which have taken place between officials of her Office and the North West Regional Development Agency concerning that RDA's aspirations to assume control of the responsibilities and funding of Learning and Skills Councils in that region. [143455]

  Jacqui Smith
  The North West Development Agency has assured the Learning and Skills Council that it is not looking to usurp its role, and my answer of 4 December makes the Government's position clear. The Deputy Prime Minister is aware of the situation.

  Manufacturing Employment
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by how much employment in manufacturing has changed in each of the last six years; and if she will make a statement. [140951]

  Ms Hewitt
  The following table shows changes in manufacturing employment in each of the last six years.

  Manufacturing employee jobs (1997 to 2003)

  June

  Employee jobs(000s)

  Change on the previous year (per cent.)

  1997

  4,191

  1.3

  1998

  4,209

  0.4

  1999

  4,060

  -3.5

  2000

  3,960

  -2.5

  2001

  3,808

  -3.8

  2002

  3,628

  -4.7

  2003

  3,502

  -3.5

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, Department of Trade and Industry

  A trend of declining manufacturing employment has been a feature of advanced economies over the last 30 years. Overall the UK labour market is performing well, with total employment rising by nearly 1.7 million since Spring 1997, and unemployment falling in every region.

  We published the Government's Manufacturing Strategy in May 2002—the first such strategy for 30 years—which we developed in partnership with industry, trade unions and other stakeholders, following a summit
  816W
  meeting on the challenges facing manufacturing held in December 2001. The Manufacturing Strategy aims to create a high value manufacturing sector in the UK with a highly skilled well paid workforce, moving away from competing on the basis of low skill and low wages.

  Internet/E-mail Traffic
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the Government announcement that it is lawful, under EU Single Market regulations, for private sector internet and e-mail traffic to use public sector-installed IT infrastructure covered the use of wide band IT infrastructure installed in schools and libraries. [140574]

  Mr. Timms
  I am not certain which announcement the hon. Member is referring to. If he cares to write to me I will respond as soon as possible.

  North West Regional Development Agency
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the per capita expenditure by the North West Regional Development Agency was in each of its five sub-regions in each year since its inception. [143557]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 December 2003]: The North West Development Agency does not allocate its funding by sub-region or on a per capita basis. Funding levels for the last three financial years were:

  £ million

  Financial Year

  Allocation

  2003–04

  345

  2002–03

  306

  2001–02

  292

  Nuclear Power
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reasons(a) THORP and (b) the Sellafield MOX plutonium fuels plant were excluded from consideration in the strategy review of BNFL on which she made her announcement on 11 December. [144573]

  Mr. Timms
  The 2001 Government White Paper "Managing the Nuclear Legacy—a strategy for action" stated that THORP and the Sellafield MOX plant at Sellafield would pass to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority when it is established in April 2005. For this reason it was not appropriate for them to be considered as part of the review.

  Post Office Closures
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what definition of deprivation is used for the half-mile rule applied to post office closures. [143036]

  Mr. Timms
  There is no such rule but, in England, post office branches in the 20 per cent. most deprived wards (as defined by the Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2000) and more than half a mile from the nearest alternative post office are, other than in exceptional circumstances, ring fenced from inclusion in closure
  817W
  proposals under the Urban Reinvention programme. In Scotland and Wales the relevant national indices are used.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices in each constituency have remained open because of the half-mile rule. [143038]

  Mr. Timms
  There is no such rule, but, in deprived urban areas, post office branches which are more than half a mile from the nearest alternative post office are, except in exceptional circumstances, ring fenced from inclusion in closure proposals under the Urban Reinvention programme. Final decisions on any such closure proposals, after consideration of representations received during public consultation, are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices notified for closure under the Network Intervention Programme have(a) closed and (b) remained open after public consultation procedures, by constituency, in the last year. [143039]

  Mr. Timms
  Decisions on post office closure proposals under the urban reinvention programme following public consultation are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) consultations on post office closures have taken place as part of the urban reinvention programme and (b) post offices have remained open following such consultation in each region in the United Kingdom. [143109]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 9 December 2003]: Decisions on post office closure proposals under the urban reinvention programme following public consultation are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Postwatch
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding is made available to Postwatch from(a) Royal Mail and (b) her Department. [143040]

  Mr. Timms
  The Consumer Council of Postal Services (CCPS), also known as Postwatch is funded through grant in aid from the Department of Trade and Industry. A three-year budget envelope is agreed between Postwatch and the Department. The cost is recovered by the Exchequer from the licence fees paid by operators of postal services. Details of the Postwatch budget are set out in its Forward Work Programme; the 2004–05 Programme will be published shortly.

  Renewable Energy (Greater London)
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was spent on renewable energy projects in Greater London in each of the last five years. [143834]
  818W
  Mr. Timms
  The Government are supporting a number of projects in London under photovoltaic (PV) domestic and large-scale field trials, the Major PV Demonstration Programme, and the Clear Skies scheme.

  The Greater London Authority is leading the London partnership taking forward renewables planning facilitation and awareness raising work in London. DTI has allocated £233,000 funding for this work, total funding from all partners is £401,000, and spend so far is in the region of £85,000. The first phase of this work includes research into public and stakeholder attitudes. The GLA plans to publish a report on work so far, including proposals for encouraging renewable energy in London and ways of overcoming barriers, on 16 December.

  The London partnership will take forward these recommendations in the next phase of its work, which will include a stakeholder consultation on a renewable energy target for London. This will inform the Mayor's energy strategy due to be published next year.

  The Department does not gather information about investment by private companies in renewable energy projects.

  Royal Mail
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much revenue has been lost by the Royal Mail Group Ltd. as a result of industrial action in each of the last five years. [142136]

  Mr. Timms
  The amount of revenue lost by Royal Mail as a result of industrial action is an operational matter that falls within the day-to-day responsibility of the Royal Mail Board. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Sex Discrimination (Private Clubs)
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what policies she has towards sex discrimination against women in private clubs; what plans she has to change the law; and if she will make a statement. [143894]

  Ms Hewitt
  There can be no justification for treating women club members as second–class citizens. Sex discrimination in private clubs is contrary to this Government's principles of opportunity for all and we have supported attempts to legislate in this area in the past.

  I cannot give any assurances about our future legislative plans, but we are keeping the matter of sex discrimination and private clubs under review.

  Trading Standards
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether a local authority trading standards officer is permitted to inform members of the public that a complaint has been made against a company. [143450]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  It would be for the individual Local Authority to decide whether they wish to pursue a policy of informing members of the public of businesses that have been the subject of a complaint.
  819W
  Any such policy would be subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 regarding the disclosure of personal information in relation to individuals.

  US Steel Tariffs
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action has been taken by her Department to prepare the UK steel industry for the lifting of US steel tariffs. [142854]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department is in regular contact with the UK steel industry and its stakeholders, on this and other issues. We have used these contacts to keep them informed of developments in the EU's WTO case against the US.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department's estimate is of the cost to the UK steel industry of the United States' tariffs on imported steel. [142855]

  Ms Hewitt
  UK steel exports to the US fell by 14 per cent. in 2002 compared with the figure for 2001. The negative consequences of the US decision for the UK steel industry were reduced by our success in securing exclusions for UK products from the US safeguard measure. At the point when the safeguard was lifted, 74 per cent. of UK steel exports to the US were free of safeguard tariffs. The Government also supported the EU steel safeguard, which prevented any surge into the EU of steel from third countries diverted from the US market.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Places of Worship
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list beneficiaries of the listed places of worship grant scheme. [143213]

  Mr. Caborn
  To date, 3,953 listed places of worship throughout the United Kingdom have received grant payments under the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme. A list of all recipients of payments could be produced only at disproportionate cost. This scheme returns in grant aid the difference between the amount of Value Added Tax paid on eligible repairs and maintenance and a lower 5 per cent. rate. Listed places of worship of all religions are eligible to claim under the scheme.

  Pleasure Piers
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps her Department takes to encourage non-departmental public bodies to take into account principles of sustainable development in allocating funding for pleasure piers; what guidance has been issued; and what reference it contains to timber. [144249]

  Estelle Morris
  Applications to allocate funding for pleasure piers would not be addressed to my Department directly. Should the application be addressed to one of the 15 bodies which distribute lottery funding, the policy directions DCMS issue to Lottery Distributors ask them to take into account 820W
  'the need to further the objective of sustainable development'. Guidance to non-departmental public bodies forms part of DCMS's sustainable development strategy, which will be published in January. The strategy also contains a specific reference to our commitment that all timber used in construction and repair work should come from fully certified sources.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Horse Transportation
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with other EU Ministers about the international transportation of horses; and if she will make a statement. [141938]

  Alun Michael
  The international transportation of horses is being considered as a part of the European Commission's proposal to update and improve the current EU rules on the welfare of animals during transport. This review has the potential to improve significantly the way many horses are transported into and within the EU. We are also taking the opportunity of this review to consider the best way to protect British equines. This is a matter that we will raise with other EU Ministers in the course of normal business and in particular when the proposals are presented to the Agriculture Council.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the organisations which she has consulted about the welfare of horses during transport. [143712]

  Alun Michael
  We consulted 50 animal welfare and trade organisations, and almost 800 transporters who hold specific authorisations to transport animals, on the European Commission's proposals to update and replace the current directive on the welfare of animals during transport. In addition, further discussions, on horse transport and related issues, are taking place with the British Horse Industry Confederation and representatives of the British Horse Society, the International League for the Protection of Horses, the National Equine Welfare Council, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the World Society for the Protection of Animals.

  Art Acquisition
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much her Department has spent on the acquisition of works of art in each year since 1997, broken down by amounts spent on(a) paintings and (b) sculpture; what the single most expensive piece of art purchased by her Department since 1997 was; how much it cost; and what the total revenue raised by her Department through sales of its works of art has been since 1997. [142367]

  Alun Michael
  No works of art have been purchased by Defra (or MAFF) since 1997.

  No works of art have been sold by Defra (or MAFF) since 1997.

  Badgers
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of whether perturbation in badger populations can be eliminated or substantially reduced by improved badger culling programme design and execution. [141384]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No such assessment has been made.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what proportion of TB lesions found in cows subject to post-mortem examination for TB were considered to be of a type which would have rendered the cattle in which they were found capable of transmitting bovine TB to another bovine animal in England in the past 10 years; [141089]

  (2) where the main TB lesions have been found on those cows which have been subject to post-mortem examinations for TB by or on behalf of her Department, in England in the past 10 years; [141389]

  (3) what inferences have been drawn from the sites of TB lesions found on those cows which have been subject to post-mortem examination for TB by or on behalf of her Department, in England, in the past 10 years, as to the routes of transmission. [141392]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The vast majority of lesions found in reactors to the TB skin test and in cases disclosed in the slaughterhouse are found in the lymph nodes of the throat and lungs (i.e. retropharyngeal, bronchial and mediastinal nodes).

  Any bovine animals infected with the causative agent for bovine tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis) becomes potentially infectious for other animals after a period of latency. By the time shedding begins, the animal may or may not have developed visible lesions.

  The routes of transmission in field conditions are not fully understood but the distribution of the lesions strongly suggest that the respiratory and oro-pharyngeal routes are the most common.

  Reactors to the tuberculin test and confirmed slaughterhouse cases are considered to be infected and infectious. The testing regime applied to the remainder of the herd after removal of the reactors takes account of this.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the implications are for the UK beef and dairy industries should the UK lose its Organisation International des Epizooties TB-free status. [142000]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The United Kingdom does not satisfy the requirements of the OIE or EU to be regarded as TB-free.

  Article 2.3.3.11. of the OIE Terrestrial Code states that international trade in beef requires the:
  "presentation of an international veterinary certificate attesting that the entire consignment of meat comes from animals which have been subjected to ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections for bovine tuberculosis with favourable results".
  822W
  Thus, beef can be traded provided the Meat Hygiene Service has passed the meat as fit for human consumption.

  In the case of dairy products, the OIE does not provide recommendations for the international trade in milk to protect against TB.

  Departmental Costs
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) running costs of and (b) number of staff in the Department and its predecessors were in (i) 1997 and (ii) 2002. [144176]

  Alun Michael
  The information requested can be found in the annual Departmental Reports. In particular, Annex 7 of the 2000 MAFF Report for 1997 running cost statistics (CM 4612), Table 6 of the 2003 Defra Report (CM 5919) for staff numbers in both years, and Table 5 of the 2003 Defra Report for administrative costs in 2002. Copies of these Reports are in the Library of the House.

  Employment
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many UK nationals were employed in(a) horticulture and (b) fruit farming in each year since 1997. [143920]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 15 December 2003: The following figures show the total labour force on holdings in England where horticulture is the predominant activity (this includes specialist horticulture, specialist glass and specialist fruit). The June Agricultural Census does not record nationality, only number of people working on holdings.

  Total labour force

  (a) Total labour force on horticulture holdings (excludes specialist fruit)

  (b) Total labour force on specialist fruit holdings

  1997

  35,237

  8,084

  1998

  36,826

  8,528

  1999

  38,262

  7,740

  2000

  35,463

  8,639

  2001

  35,993

  9,120

  2002

  34,605

  8,988

  Notes:

  1. Figures for the other UK countries fall under the jurisdiction of the devolved authorities.

  2. Figures prior to 2000 show main holdings only. From 2000 onwards all holdings are included.

  3. Due to a register improvement exercise in 2001 labour figures prior to this are not directly comparable with later results.

  Source:

  June Agricultural Census

  Farmed Cod
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much food, by weight, is required to produce one kilo of marketable farmed cod; how much raw marine resource, by weight, is required to make one kilo of food; where that food is sourced from; and what the content of that food is. [143013]
  823W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  This Department does not collect data on feed usage and composition from the limited number of enterprises engaged in cod farming in the UK. However, we estimate that between 1.2kg and 1.4kg of feed is needed to produce 1kg of farmed cod of a marketable size.

  We do not have information on the weight of the raw marine resource used in feed for farmed cod. The quantity involved will vary depending on the proportion of fishmeal used in the different grades of dry fish feed produced for cod at various stages of growth. Cod, like other farmed piscivorous species are unlikely to consume more natural marine resources through feed than their wild counterparts would consume in the natural environment.

  The fish used for aquaculture feed are generally small, bony pelagic species sourced from non food grade fisheries, usually off the coasts of Peru and Chile, and in the North Atlantic, North Sea and Baltic Sea.

  We understand that feed for farmed cod includes protein and oils derived from marine sources, carbohydrate, starch, minerals and vitamins.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether active acoustic deterrents will be made compulsory in all static net fisheries; and if she will make a statement. [143539]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK Small Cetacean Bycatch Strategy published in March 2003 recommended that it should be a legal requirement for pingers to be used in specific set net fisheries in the North Sea and the Channel to reduce bycatch of harbour porpoises. I will be making an announcement early in the New Year on the results of consultation on the UK strategy following discussion with the Devolved Administrations.

  Since the publication of this strategy, the European Commission has produced proposals for the reduction of cetacean bycatch in EU waters. These proposals include the mandatory use of pingers in set net fisheries in the North Sea and the Channel. Discussions on this regulation are still at an early stage.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will undertake to assist fishing businesses with the costs of purchasing and maintaining compulsory active acoustic deterrents on their gear; and if she will make a statement. [143581]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK Small Cetacean Bycatch Strategy published in March 2003 referred to funding available under the EU FIFO structural programme to encourage fishermen to adopt more selective fishing methods. This could provide part of the costs required to alter fishing practices to reduce cetacean bycatch, such as the purchase of active acoustic deterrents. I will be making an announcement early in the New Year on the results of consultation on the UK strategy following discussion with the Devolved Administrations.

  Hired Fishermen
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what 824W
  compensation payments have been made to hired fishermen since the Fisheries Council in December 2002. [143949]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Neither this Department nor the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department have made any payments to hired fishermen since last December's Council.

  Integrated Administration and Control System
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what penalties apply to farmers who supply incorrect details on their application forms for the Integrated Administration and Control System. [143591]

  Alun Michael
  Penalties apply to farmers who have claimed a greater area or a larger number of animals than that determined. These penalties are graduated in severity depending on the level of discrepancy found. If the discrepancy is severe, this may lead to a loss of entitlement to aid for the current scheme year and once again in the following three years.

  Regional Producers (Wiltshire) Ltd.
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the public objectives of Regional Producers (Wiltshire) Ltd. as reported to the South West Regional Development Agency. [143598]

  Alun Michael
  The South West Regional Development Agency tell us they have not received any formal public objections to the support for Regional Producers (Wiltshire) Ltd. However, the Government Office for the South West has received representations from a number of shareholders in Regional Producers (Wiltshire) Ltd. that the organisation should not at present be considered for further public support. Copies of these also have been passed to the South West Regional Development Agency, Business Links for Berkshire and Wiltshire and to Defra.

  Renewable Energy
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether UK companies met the Government's targets for the purchase of renewable energy in 2002. [142024]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under the terms of the Renewables Obligation Order (2002), and the Renewables Obligation (Scotland) Order 2002, licensed electricity suppliers in Great Britain are required to supply specific proportions of their electricity sales from renewable sourced electricity—with the aim of reaching the target of 10.4 per cent. in the period 2010–11.

  For the year to April 2003, the level of the Obligation was set at 3 per cent. (The current level is 4.3 per cent.) Suppliers demonstrate their compliance with the Obligation through presenting Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) for all or part of this quota to Ofgem.
  825W
  Taking all licensed electricity suppliers in Great Britain together, the proportion of the Renewables Obligation met by the actual supply of renewables in 2.002–03 was 58.9 per cent. 41 per cent. of suppliers met their obligation fully; 23 per cent. met their obligation in part, and 36 per cent. failed to meet any of their obligation target through the supply of renewables.

  River Nene
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on trends in populations of invertebrates in the River Nene following the pollution incident earlier this year; what evidence is publicly available of population levels; what evidence she has collated on whether species that are restricted to the affected section of the river are now extinct; whether there has been a survey for the Red Data Book of the riffle beetle Stenelimis canaliculata; whether a survey is planned; and what plans the Environment Agency has to repair damage to biodiversity as a result of the incident. [143261]

  Mr. Morley
  The results of the routine biological monitoring of the River Nene in spring 2003 showed that biological water quality at Cogenhoe (NGR SP 831 615) (mid reaches of the River Nene) and sites as far downstream as Orton Staunch (NGR TL 167 973) were uncharacteristically poor. In particular, there was a general absence of water hog louse, mayflies and freshwater shrimp, normally commonly occurring freshwater invertebrate species in the River Nene. In contrast, the invertebrate community at Duston Mill (NGR SP 730 597), the routine monitoring site further upstream of Cogenhoe, suggested good water quality with these taxa found in abundance.

  Results of a survey undertaken in September 2003 from sites along the River Nene show that biological water quality at Billing Road Bridge and Cogenhoe (mid reaches of the River Nene) is improving (although water hog louse and freshwater shrimp is still absent). In contrast, the invertebrate community at sites in the lower reaches of the River Nene has largely recovered, and these sites achieved their water quality target rating.

  Recently an additional survey has been undertaken at the same sites. Although sample processing is not yet completed, initial observations suggest that mid reaches of the River Nene are still impacted by the pollution incident that occurred earlier in the year. Of particular concern is the continuing absence of water hog louse and freshwater shrimp.

  The Environment Agency undertakes routine freshwater invertebrate surveys in spring and autumn seasons each year at specific sites along the River Nene. This information is available to members of the public upon application to the Environment Agency Customer Services Department in Lincoln (Tel. 01522 513100). Additional surveying of the River Nene and Hardingstone Dyke was undertaken to locate the source of the pollution. Data arising from these surveys is not currently available pending the outcome of the Environment Agency Special Enforcement team review of this case. Monitoring undertaken to record recovery of the River Nene and Hardingstone Dyke, is also available to members of the public, on application to the customer services department.
  826W
  Surveys have been undertaken at three-monthly intervals at important sites along the River Nene using standard methods which sample the accessible margins of the watercourse using a pond net. Key species (water hog louse and freshwater shrimp) which were absent at sites along the mid reaches of the River Nene remain absent. The Red Data Book riffle beetle Stenelimis canaliculata was not found in any samples taken in 2003, although it has been recorded very infrequently in the lower reaches of the River Nene in the past. It is difficult to say whether its absence is related to the pollution incident, as it is a deep-water species and unlikely to be sampled using Environment Agency standard methodology.

  The Environment Agency have not carried out a specific survey for the Red Data Book riffle beetle Stenelimis canaliculata and have no plans to conduct such a survey. To do so would disturb the habitat, which could be damaging to this and other deep water species.

  It is not normal practice to restock invertebrate populations damaged by pollution incidents; invertebrate populations usually recover through natural colonisation from tributaries and unaffected sites upstream, or natural invertebrate re-distribution.

  Fish were not affected directly by the pollution incident, so fish re-stocking is not necessary. However, the longer term health of fish populations in the mid reaches of the River Nene may be affected because their food source remains depleted.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the impact of the pollution incident on the River Nene earlier in the year was on the invertebrate populations of Morton's Learn Special Area of Conservation; and whether the site has favourable conservation status. [143263]

  Mr. Morley
  Environment Agency monitoring of the Morton's Learn SAC shows no impact of this pollution incident on the Morton's Leam, which was surveyed in July 2003. The results showed a diverse and abundant invertebrate community and the biological data suggested excellent water quality. The key species impacted by the pollution on the River Nene, water hog louse(Asellus aquaticus) and freshwater shrimp (in this instance, Crangonyx pseudogracilis) were abundant in Morton's Learn. The results compare favourably with earlier surveys, which date back to 1985.

  The Nene washes (of which Morton's Learn are a part), have unfavourable and unchanged conservation status.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on invertebrate biodiversity in the Nene water system in the last 10 years. 143264]

  Mr. Morley
  The River Nene normally supports an invertebrate community consistent with that type of river. Reductions in invertebrate biodiversity occurred after the 2003 pollution incident at sites as far downstream as Orton Staunch, near Peterborough. Components of the invertebrate community remain absent at some impacted sites.

  Shellfish Licensing Scheme
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when a new shellfish licensing scheme will be introduced; and whether the scheme will take account of its impact on(a) small boat (under eight metres) fishermen and
  (b) future new entrants to the industry. [141113]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  A restrictive licensing scheme for shellfish (crabs and lobsters) will take effect from 1 January 2004 for vessels over 10 metres and from 1 April 2004 for vessels under 10 metres. Shellfish entitlements are being granted to existing fishing vessels which, with their current licences, have taken more than 200 kg of lobsters or 750 kg of crabs in any 12 month period between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2002. The scheme will apply to vessels under eight metres which will account for more than 40 per cent. of the vessels qualifying under the scheme. Anyone wishing to take up shellfishing will need to acquire an appropriate fishing vessel licence carrying a shellfish entitlement from an existing vessel. Licensed fishing vessels without a shellfish entitlement will be permitted to land up to five lobsters and 25 crabs per day.

  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    Law Officers
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Solicitor-General what recent(a) democratic and (b) human rights issues the Law Officers have considered. [144484]

    The Solicitor-General
    There is a longstanding convention that the fact that the Law Officers have been consulted is not publicly disclosed. This is consistent with paragraphs 2 and 4(d) of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

    Middle income country expenditure plans (£ million)

    2003–04

    2004–05

    2005–06

    South Africa

    35

    35

    35

    China

    38

    60

    55

    Sri Lanka

    15

    20

    8

    EC Pre Accession (Romania, Bulgaria)

    8.1

    6.4

    5.4

    Balkans (Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia, Kosovo, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Albania)

    19.6

    18.8

    18.2

    Russia

    19.7

    17.6

    12.4

    Latin America (Brazil, Peru, Honduras, Bolivia)

    17.7

    16.2

    15.2

    Caribbean (Jamaica, Guyana, Belize, Windward Islands)

    11.3

    10.6

    10.3

    Overseas Territories (Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, Montserrat, St. Helena)

    33.2

    30.0

    28.1

    Palestinian Authority

    15.5

    11.5

    11.5

    Middle East Regional (Egypt, Jordan)

    6.4

    6.0

    4.0

    Iraq (prior to 14 October statement)

    201.9

    5.9

    5.9

    Mr. Rosindell
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the aid programmes in middle income countries whose funding from the Department will be reduced as a result of the recent announcement on the diversion of aid. [144677]

    Mr. Gareth Thomas
    The Secretary of State outlined the middle income countries and regional programmes that will be affected in his statement to the House of 6 November 2003,Official Report, column 42WS. More detailed plans are now being made, in consultation with

  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Afghanistan
    Tom Brake
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the progress is of the UN programme for voter registration in Afghanistan. [143936]

    Hilary Benn
    On 1 December voter registration for the 2004 general election started in eight regional capitals (Kabul, Bamian, Jalalabad, Mazar-e-Sharif, Konduz, Kandahar, Heart and Gardez). Initial results indicated that the UN backed programme has proceeded smoothly with 21,370 voters, including 2,395 women registered to vote in the first week. The government, with the help of ISAF and the international coalition forces has taken measures to ensure security of the teams carrying out the registrations. Voter intimidation however, as well as the reluctance in rural areas to allow women to register, continues to be a major concern. The UN remains confident that they will meet their goal of registering 10 million Afghan voters.

    Aid
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the expenditure allocated to each programme in middle income countries prior to his written statement to the House of 6 November 2003,Official Report, columns 41–43WS. [143268]

    Hilary Benn
    DFID's internal resource allocation process allocates funds to many middle income countries (MICs) on a regional basis only. Individual country expenditure plans within these regions are flexible and are managed collectively within the overall budget. The table shows indicative figures for the amount we were planning to spend on middle income country programmes within these regional budget lines and excludes any multi-country programmes.

    partner countries and other donors. They will be embodied in the annual revision of DFID's Aid Framework, which is expected to be completed over the next two months.

    Annabelle Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations he has received concerning the UK Government's performance in meeting the UN's international development aid target as a proportion of gross national product. [142725]
    829W
    Hilary Benn
    Representations have been received on this subject from a wide range of correspondents. Since 1997. the UK's level of official development assistance has increased in real terms by 93 per cent. It currently stands at 0.33 per cent. of Gross National Income for this financial year, and will rise to 0.4 per cent. in 2005–06, exceeding the EU target of 0.39 per cent. for member states, and more than double the current G7 average of 0.19 per cent. The UK remains committed to the UN target of 0.7 per cent. oda/GNI and to meeting the Millennium Development Goals.

    Art Acquisition
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much his Department has spent on the acquisition of works of art in each year since 1997, broken down by amounts spent on(a) paintings and (b) sculpture; what the single most expensive piece of art purchased by his Department since 1997 was; how much it cost; and what the total revenue raised by his Department through sales of its works of art has been since 1997. [142369]

    Hilary Benn
    DFID has not spent any funds on the acquisition of works of art since 1997. All works of art in our UK offices are on loan from the Government Art Collection. Most DFID offices overseas have some low value works of art that have been purchased locally, but we have no central records, and the information could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

    Eritrea
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance his Department is giving to(a) the Government of Eritrea and (b) aid agencies operating within Eritrea. [144156]

    Hilary Benn
    We are not providing any direct assistance to the Government of Eritrea.

    However, in 2003, we have provided the following assistance for Eritrea to address humanitarian needs:

    £

    International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)

    500,000

    UNICEF

    1,000,000

    World Food Programme (WFP)

    1,000,000

    CAFOD

    200,000

    Dutch Interchurch Aid

    550,000

    We are considering what support we should provide to the 2004 Consolidated Annual Appeal for Eritrea that has recently been issued.

    We also have a Small Grants Scheme, which is managed by our Embassy in Asmara and is for the funding of small development projects in Eritrea. Our total support for this scheme in the current financial year is £200,000.
    830W
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with the Government of Eritrea on development aid; and what plans he has to link aid to progress on human rights issues in that country. [144157]

    Hilary Benn
    We have written to the President of Eritrea indicating that we plan to provide our development assistance to Eritrea through the EU, IMF and World Bank. DFID provides funds to these organisations.

    We also indicated that in order for Eritrea to make progress on eliminating poverty through support from partners, they needed to engage in developing a strong Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. We also stressed the need for these development partnerships to be based on frank dialogue and the sharing of information.

    During his recent visit to London, I explained to the Eritrean Foreign Minister that we do not have a bilateral programme with every country and referred to our support through the EU, World Bank and IMF. We also reminded him of the substantial humanitarian support that we have provided to Eritrea in 2003.

    Iraq
    Mr. Patrick Hall
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what assessment he has made of the role in the reconstruction of Iraq of the privatisation of state-owned enterprises being pursued by the Private Sector Development Department of the Iraqi Coalition Provisional Authority; [143302]

    (2) if he will make a statement on the privatisation of Iraqi state-owned enterprises being pursued by the Private Sector Development Department of the Iraqi Coalition Provisional Authority; and if he will make a statement on compatibility of such action with Article 55 of Section III of the Annex to the Hague Convention (IV) 1907. [143303]

    Hilary Benn
    No decision has been made on the privatisation of Iraqi state-owned enterprises. As Paul Bremer, the US Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, stated at the Madrid Conference,"Decisions on that matter [privatisation of Iraqi State Owned Enterprises] will be made in due course by Iraqi authorities".

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    Norman Lamb
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contracts his Department has entered into in the last 12 months with(a) Avient Air and (b) other companies in which Mr. Andrew Smith has an interest; what services have been provided to his Department under these contracts in (i) Sierra Leone and (ii) other countries; what the value of these contracts is; when these contracts were entered into; and if he will make a statement. [142188]

    Hilary Benn
    We have no contracts with Avient Air. As far as my Department is aware, we have none with any other companies in which Mr. Smith has an interest.

    Zimbabwe
    Tom Brake
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the nature is of(a) food and (b) HIV/AIDS programmes he is funding in Zimbabwe. [143991]

    Hilary Benn
    At least 5.5 million Zimbabweans will require food assistance in the run up to the next harvest in April 2004. This year DFID is providing support worth £21 million for emergency feeding programmes. This is being channelled both through the World Food Programme's Emergency Appeal and directly to international and Zimbabwean NGOs. This direct DFID support reached 1.2 million people in October 2003, 80 per cent. of whom are children.

    HIV/AIDS remains a key challenge for Zimbabwe and kills over 2,500 people each week, while 25 per cent. of the adult population are infected. DFID has committed £27 million for longer term HIV/AIDS programming. This includes the supply of condoms through clinics and private sector outlets, promoting behavioural change and home-based care for the chronically sick.

    Tom Brake
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many internally displaced persons there are in Zimbabwe; and how many Zimbabwean refugees there are abroad. [143990]

    Hilary Benn
    There is a significant population of Internally Displaced People (IDPs) in Zimbabwe, mainly due to growing food shortages and the continued farm seizures. This has resulted in the displacement of an estimated one hundred thousand people, predominantly farm workers. However, exact numbers are difficult to assess. The Government of Zimbabwe's reluctance to acknowledge the disastrous effects of the fast-track land reform programme has prevented the humanitarian community from carrying out a comprehensive assessment or establishing recognised IDP camps.

    Numbers of documented Zimbabwean refugees are negligible—the vast majority of Zimbabweans fleeing the crisis are classed as migrants. Again, exact numbers of this transient population are difficult to assess, as many are illegal migrants in the sub-region. However, there are believed to be 2.35 million Zimbabwean migrants in the Southern Africa region. The vast majority of these, approximately two million, are in South Africa.

    Net administration costs

    £ million

    1996–97

    1997–98

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    2001–02

    2002–03

    2003–04 (planned)

    Total Admin Costs before adjustment

    269

    244

    232

    245

    254

    270

    258

    252

    Machinery of Government changes from 2001

    -28

    -25

    -26

    -26

    -26

    -33

    -32

    -32

    Machinery of Government changes from 2003 (provisional)

    0

    0

    5

    5

    5

    5

    5

    6

    Total Admin Costs after adjustment1

    241

    219

    211

    224

    233

    242

    231

    226

    1 Figures include Sure Start and the Children and Young People's Unit where appropriate.

    832W
    DFID is providing support to the International Organisation for Migration and also a Zimbabwean NGO working with former farm workers to prevent displacement and provide, humanitarian assistance for displaced people.

    Tom Brake
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether food aid supplies in Zimbabwe have been secured beyond December. [143986]

    Hilary Benn
    The UN World Food Programme (WFP), who are the principal coordinators for general food distributions in Zimbabwe, have to date secured over 50 per cent. of the funding requested for this year's Emergency Operation (EMOP) in Zimbabwe. This follows recent pledges of US$8 million from the European Union, and £5 million from DFID. This means that food will be available for distribution until mid-February 2004, when there will be a shortage of cereals if further contributions are not forthcoming. A substantial additional pledge is anticipated shortly from the United States.

    Despite this funding, the WFP have reduced monthly ration levels in order to accommodate the growing number of vulnerable people, above the level anticipated when the EMOP appeal was originally prepared. This increase in beneficiary numbers is partly due to increased urban vulnerability, as spiralling inflation (now over 500 per cent.) has affected food prices in shops. There is also emerging evidence of up to several hundred thousand people facing crisis in the former commercial farming areas, most of whom are former farm workers displaced by the Government's disastrous land reform programme. Additionally, the state-controlled Grain Marketing Board has proved erratic and unreliable in contributing to food supply and distribution in the country. Donors are monitoring the situation closely, in close consultation with the WFP.

  EDUCATION AND SKILLS

    Departmental Administrative Costs
    Mr. Hoban
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the administrative costs were for the Department in each financial year from 1996–97(a) before adjustments for machinery of government changes and (b) after such adjustments. [143122]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    [holding answer 9 December 2003]: The information requested is set out in the following table. the changes have been projected backwards to provide a consistent set of figures for the period requested.

    Child Protection Investigations
    Mr. Dawson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which local authorities have instituted child protection investigations with regard to children held in custody or removal centres during 2003. [144024]

    Margaret Hodge
    The information requested is not held centrally.

    Directorate Staff
    Mr. Hoban
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many civil servants were employed in the(a) Schools, (b) Lifelong Learning and (c) Youth Policy Directorates in each year since 1997. [141731]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    [holding answer 3 December 2003]: The numbers of civil servants employed in the Schools, Lifelong Learning and Youth Directorates as at 1 April for the years in question so far as the information is available are:

    Directorate

    Schools1

    Lifelong Learning2

    Youth3

    October 2003

    969

    906

    0

    April 2003

    1,602

    661

    376

    April 2002

    1,385

    681

    336

    April 2001

    1,134

    1,017

    —

    April 2000

    1,017

    —

    —

    April 1999

    913

    —

    —

    April 1998

    800

    —

    —

    1 The rise in School Directorate figures over the period is largely a result of additional responsibilities, for example, the creation of Sure Start and Children and Young Peoples' Unit.

    2 Lifelong Learning Directorate was established in May 2000 drawing on staff from the previously existing Employment. Lifelong Learning and International, Further and Higher Education and Youth Training and Operations Directorates.

    3 Youth Directorate was set up in September 2001 with staff from Lifelong Learning and Employment, Equality and International Relations Directorates. In October 2003, Youth Directorate ceased to exist and its responsibilities were transferred to other Directorates within the Department.

    Emergency Contraception
    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures are in place to ensure that girls aged under 16 are properly supervised when taking emergency contraception. [141893]

    Margaret Hodge
    [holding answer 15 December 2003]: NHS provision of emergency contraception is always by a health professional under medical supervision. Health professionals can provide contraception to young people under 16 provided they are satisfied that the young person is competent to understand fully the implications of any treatment and to make a choice of the treatment involved. Health professionals work within an established legal framework which involves assessing the young person's competence to understand the choices they are making and encouraging them to talk to their parents. All professionals are bound by their professional code of confidentiality. A young person's request for confidentiality is respected unless there are serious child protection issues.
    834W
    Providing emergency contraception through a range of community outlets aim to increase early access. All health professionals providing emergency contraception are trained to ensure that young women are informed about and encouraged to visit local services that provide regular forms of contraception and condoms to protect against sexually transmitted infections.

    Fair Trade Products
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether it is the policy of his Department to use fair trade products, as a matter of course, in(a) sales on Departmental premises and (b) receptions and meetings involving staff and visitors. [142817]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    Fair trade products are offered for sale in all Departments' head office buildings, restaurants and can also be supplied, on request, for meetings and receptions.

    Fees (Repayment)
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research the Learning and Skills Council is carrying out into(a) the level of and (b) repayment arrangements for fees in (i) post-16 education and (ii) further education colleges. [144650]

    Alan Johnson
    The research work carried out by the Learning and Skills Council is the Council's operational responsibility. Mark Haysom, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Member providing the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

    Foundation Courses
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many places for students taking foundation degrees the Government are planning to fund in 2004/05. [143657]

    Alan Johnson
    The Higher Education Funding Council for England is in the process of allocating up to 10,000 additional full-time equivalent foundation degree places for the academic year 2004/05. Bidding closed on 3 December and the outcome will be announced in February 2004.

    These places will be additional to any already in the system and planned for by individual institutions. The Higher Education Students Early Statistics survey (2002) data for the academic year 2002/03 showed 12,417 students (headcount—a mix of full and part-time) studying for a foundation degree. Early data on the numbers studying for a foundation degree in the current academic year will not be available until January 2004.

    Outside specific Additional Number Exercises such at the current one, the Higher Education Funding Council for England does not normally plan the detailed funding of places. The number and type of places offered are a matter for the funded institution to determine within the resources available to them.

    Free School Travel
    Mr. Goodman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the costs were of free school
    835W
    travel (a) to grammar schools, (b) to upper schools and (c) for children with disabilities in Buckinghamshire in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2003. [143536]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    [holding answer 11 December 2003]: This information is not held centrally.

    Further Education
    Mr. Mahmood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research his Department has carried out on the ability of(a) individuals and (b) employers to pay increased fees for further education courses. [143639]

    Alan Johnson
    We have little direct evidence about the impact of higher fees in further education (FE) on individuals' or employers' ability to pay. However, in a recent DfES study of adult learners in FE, 40 per cent. assessed themselves as "financially comfortable" and a further 38 per cent. as "not particularly struggling but don't have much to spare", 14 per cent. said they "found it quite hard to cope financially", and only 7 per cent. said they were "finding it very difficult to cope financially".

    Dietary Advice
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures his Department has taken to promote healthy eating in schools; and if he will list the funding commitment for each measure. [141784]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    The National Healthy Schools programme, jointly sponsored by Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and the Department of Health (DoH), through funding of £5.7 million since 2000, promotes healthy eating and healthy lifestyles. The National Healthy School Standard (NHSS) promotes a whole school approach to health. Healthy eating is one of the eight themes of the NHSS. Schools demonstrate that the taught curriculum complements informed messages about healthy eating, for example, food on offer in vending machines and tuck shops. Schools will supply, promote and monitor healthier food at lunch and break times and in any breakfast clubs where they are provided. Over 14,000 schools are taking part in the healthy schools programme and over 8,000 schools are working 'intensively' to achieve the NHSS.

    Additionally, we are: working with the Food Standards Agency and Ofsted to examine aspects of school meals and good practice in food and nutrition (DfES contribution—£330,000); working with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on promoting healthy lifestyles through greater engagement with growing and farming and local food procurement (in excess of £720,000 between March 2002—March 2004); providing a top up to the EU school milk subsidy scheme (£0.5 million annually from January 2001); on a range of other education, food and health interests on improving teaching and learning about healthy eating for pupils of all ages (exact figures not available, but in excess of £0.5 million).

    Learning and Skills Council
    Mr. Hoban
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the areas where the Learning and Skills Council is reviewing the provision of post-16 education. [144066]

    Alan Johnson
    Local Learning and Skills Councils are conducting Strategic Area Reviews of post-16 LSC-funded provision in all areas of England. These started in April 2003. Nine local LSCs have been Identified as pathfinders: Nottinghamshire; Bedford and Luton; Northumberland; Cheshire and Warrington; Berkshire; Bournemouth Dorset and Poole; Birmingham and Solihull; North Yorkshire; and a pathfinder involving all five local LSCs in the London region. They will undergo early evaluation and lessons learnt will be shared with local LSCs across the country.

    Pupil Absences
    Mr. Hoban
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many half days have been lost owing to unauthorised absence of pupils in each year since 1997(a) in absolute terms and (b) as a proportion of the total number of half days. [141895]

    Mr. Ivan Lewis
    The data for unauthorised absence, as requested, is shown in the following table.

    Yearly unauthorised absence between 1997/98–2002/03

    Total possible sessions

    (a) Half days missed due to unauthorized absence

    (b) Percentage of half days missed

    1997/98

    2,074,028,975

    15,355,180

    0.74

    1998/99

    2,140,513,917

    15,644,482

    0.73

    1999/2000

    2,125,665,642

    15,008,057

    0.71

    2000/01

    2,124,473,604

    15,423,004

    0.73

    2001/02

    2,128,700,388

    15,296,933

    0.72

    2002/031

    2,105,577,893

    14,846,088

    0.71

    1 Provisional

    School Trips
    Helen Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance he has issued to schools and local education authorities on making parents aware of assistance available(a) to cover the cost of school trips and (b) to help provide school uniforms; and if he will make a statement. [143488]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    [holding answer 11 December 2003]: Detailed guidance for LEAs and schools on charging for school trips is contained in Circular 2/89. The same information is reproduced in the School Governors' Guides to the Law, which are revised and reissued annually. In March 2003 we sent out a letter to all Chief Education Officers and Directors of Education explaining how remission of charges for school trips would work once child tax credits were introduced. This letter is posted on The Parent Centre website.

    All LEAs and schools must have a charging policy in place, which is readily available to parents. In addition, when schools make charges, or request money, they must explain whether parents are being asked to pay for a specific activity or make a general contribution to school funds. Schools must also be clear whether or not contributions are voluntary.
    837W
    We do not provide guidance to LEAs on the assistance they may provide to parents on meeting the cost of school uniforms. LEAs may delegate this work to schools, but must ensure that all their schools adopt a consistent approach.

    Student Loans
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how much his Department spends each year on the cost of subsidising the student loan book; and what proportion of every pound loaned this represents; [143074]

    (2) what the net present value including administration and the subsidy cost, of each pound loaned to students is as part of the student loan book. [143075]

    Alan Johnson
    The interest subsidy is calculated on the loans issued in year rather than the loans stock. Based on the loans issued during 2001–02, the cost per pound of the subsidy and administration costs was 42p. This is based on the increase in the interest subsidy provision (including the cost of unwinding the discount) which can vary from year to year according to a number of factors, e.g. the Retail Price Index, HM Treasury discount rate; and
    the cash Grant in Aid paid by DIES for administration costs to the Student Loan Company.

    No figures have yet been published for 2002–03. Information for that year will be contained in the 2002–03 resource accounts which will be published within the next month. The outstanding student loan stock at 31 March 2002 was £7,203,199,000; the closing balance of the interest subsidy provision was £1,593,670,000 and the Grant in Aid to the Student Loans Company was £27,650,000.

    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much of the money loaned to students by the Student Loans Company has been written off in each of the past ten financial years. [143648]

    Alan Johnson
    The table shows the total value of student loans in the UK and in public ownership which have been written off or cancelled in each financial year.

    £ million

    Financial year

    Amount written off or cancelled 1,2,3

    1993–94

    0.2

    1994–95

    0.3

    1995–96

    0.5

    1996–97

    0.9

    1997–98

    1.0

    1998–99 of which:

    0.9

    Income Contingent Loans

    4—

    1999–20005 of which:

    1.2

    Income Contingent Loans

    6—

    2000–01 of which:

    1.1

    Income Contingent Loans

    0.2

    2001–02 (provisional) of which:

    1.4

    Income Contingent Loans

    0.4

    2002–03 (provisional) of which:

    2.6

    Income Contingent Loans

    0.7

    1 The table shows the value of loans cancelled or written off during each financial year.

    2 Two portfolios of student loans to the value of just over £2 billion have been sold to the private sector in March 1998 and March 1999. The figures in the table relate to the public debt only.
    838W
    3 A cancelled loan is one where the borrower no longer has any liability to repay as set out by legislation. A borrower's liability to repay a mortgage style loan shall be cancelled: on death of the borrower; after 25 years or when the borrower reaches the age of 50 (60 if the borrower was aged over 40 when he/she last borrowed), whichever is the earlier, provided the borrower is not in arrears of any loan agreement; and if the borrower is in receipt of a disability related benefit and permanently unfit for work. Income contingent loans are cancelled because of death or permanent disability in the same way, but are cancelled on the grounds of age when the borrower reaches the age of 65. A written off loan is one where the borrower remains liable to repay but recovery is deemed unlikely by the loan administrator or not possible by legal judgment.

    4 Not available.

    5 Amounts written off in 1999–2000 include some transactions which relate to the previous financial year.

    6 Nil/negligible.

    The amount written off or cancelled may relate to loans advanced in any of the previous financial years. Therefore data cannot be expressed as a proportion of amount lent.

    In addition to the amount shown in the table, £0.5 million was written off under the Repayment of Teacher Loans scheme in respect of accounts in public ownership in financial year 2002–03.

    The introduction of the income contingent loan based system of student support from 1998–99 meant that the amount of student loans paid out each year has increased. The amount of loan advanced in 1993–94 was £292.3 million (all mortgage style); in 2002–03 it was £2,618.0 million (of which £2,599.2 million was income contingent loans). A consequence of this increase is a higher level of write-off or cancellation.

    Teachers (Work Permits)
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the work permits granted since January 2003 by country for(a) primary teachers and (b) secondary teachers in each Government office region. [143191]

    Beverley Hughes
    I have been asked to reply.

    The numbers of work permits granted to teachers, by country, from 1 January 2003 to 30 September 2003 (the latest date for which information is available) are as follows:

    Work permits granted

    South Africa

    1,284

    Australia

    986

    New Zealand

    539

    United States of America

    502

    Canada

    432

    Jamaica

    430

    Zimbabwe

    228

    India

    150

    Ghana

    102

    Japan

    61

    Others

    682

    Total

    5,396

    Work Permits (UK) is unable to provide from its management information a breakdown of this data by type of school to which permits have been issued or by region.

    Top-up Fees
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what level of top-up fees student teachers will be expected to pay on undergraduate teacher training courses at universities in the Russell Group; and if he will make a statement. [142648]

    Alan Johnson
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) on 20 November 2003,Official Report, columns 1497–1498W.

    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will estimate the cost of servicing the debt outstanding on the income-contingent student loan scheme after the introduction of top-up fees; and if he will make a statement. [144383]

    Alan Johnson
    I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on 15 December 2003,Official Report, column 671W.

    Tuition Fees
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what liability for tuition fees those who choose to drop out of a degree course incur; and how this money is required to be repaid. [143646]

    Alan Johnson
    Where the student withdraws from their course and is assessed to make a private contribution towards their fees, it is for the student and the institution to determine the amount that should be paid. It is also for the institution to determine any repayment that may be due. Guidance is provided to institutions by Universities UK. There is no liability on the student to repay the tuition fee grant once it has been paid to the institution.

  DEFENCE

    A400M Project
    Mr. Rosindell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the A400M project. [143547]

    Mr. Ingram
    A contract for the development and production of the A400M aircraft was signed with Airbus Military on 27 May 2003 by the Organisation for Joint Armaments Co-operation on behalf of the participating nations (Germany, France, Turkey, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and United Kingdom). The UK will take 25 aircraft out of a total 180. The contract milestones are being achieved. I also refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 2 July 2003,Official Report, column 314W to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones).

    Aircraft Numbers
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many aircraft, of each type, will be deployed over the time scale covered by the Defence White Paper; [144465]
    840W
    (2) when he will complete his review of the future numbers of aircraft to be deployed by the RAF over the period referred to in his statement of 11 December 2003. [144464]

    Mr. Hoon
    As I said in my statement of 11 December 2003,Official Report, column 1211, the Ministry of Defence is currently undertaking work to develop the details of the individual systems and structures appropriate for the policy context as set out in the Defence White Paper, "Delivering Security in a Changing World." I shall make further announcements on the results of that work next year.

    Defence Export Services Organisation
    Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff are(a) employed in and (b) seconded to the Defence Export Services Organisation; and how many departmental staff are engaged in oversight of the licensing of military equipment and weapons for export. [142521]

    Mr. Ingram
    The Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO) employed 606 personnel as at 31 October 2003; three were on secondment from industry.

    The Department of Trade and Industry is the licensing authority for the export of military equipment. Within the Ministry of Defence the equivalent of 65 full-time staff have specific responsibility for considering applications to licence the export of military equipment, or the policy associated with this activity. This number includes 34 employed full-time within DESO.

    Defence Fire Service
    Mr. Grogan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what activities, other than those directly related to the provision of fire cover to UK military forces, the Defence Fire Service has been involved in in Iraq since February. [143754]

    Mr. Ingram
    The Defence Fire Services deployed in Iraq assist in the provision of fire service support to coalition forces and provide advice on the production of fire safety orders and procedures to enhance safety.

    They have also provided assistance to the host nation and the civil community. They continue to train the host nation civilian fire service and have attended a variety of emergency host nation incidents including oil pipeline fires, road traffic accidents, and rescue from buildings. They have also undertaken comprehensive fire inspections to enable the re-commissioning of electricity and water supplies and have assisted in the sanitation of warehouses for receipt of humanitarian aid.

    Eurofighter
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Government remain committed to purchasing 232 Eurofighter Typhoons. [144463]

    Mr. Ingram
    The United Kingdom remains committed to the Typhoon programme. Under the four partner nation Memorandum of Understanding, the UK has undertaken to acquire 232 aircraft out of a total
    production of 620.
    841W
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will order Tranche II of the Eurofighter Typhoon; and how many aircraft he will order. [144466]

    Mr. Ingram
    Work is under way involving our partner nations and industry to enable contracts for the second tranche of Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft to be placed as soon as possible over the coming months. The Tranche 2 contract comprises 236 aircraft of which 89 will be for the RAF.

    Iraq
    Mrs. Liddell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many reservists are in Iraq; and what plans he has to change this number. [143733]

    Mr. Ingram
    As at 11 December 2003, there were 1,235 reservists serving in Iraq. As the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 27 November 2003,Official Report, columns 32–33WS, we intend shortly to conduct a roulement of forces in Iraq. At the end of the roulement the number of reservists in Iraq will remain broadly similar. We continue to keep our forces levels in theatre under review in the light of the operational situation.

    Harry Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hazardous sites the Coalition estimates there are in Iraq; how many of these relate to cluster bombs; what steps are being taken to make them safe: and if he will make a statement. [141183]

    Mr. Ingram
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 17 November 2003,Official Report, column 504W to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson).

    Adam Price
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the circumstances were surrounding(a) the death of Radi Nu'ma in British custody in May, (b) the death of Baha Musa in British custody in September and (c) the fatal shooting of Ali Salim in May, in Iraq. [141677]

    Mr. Ingram
    The Special Investigations Branch is currently investigating the deaths of Radu Nu'ma. Baha Musa and Ah Salim (also known as Radhi Nama, Baha Nasheem Mohamed and Ali Salaam). It would, therefore, be inappropriate for me to comment.

    Adam Price
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether individuals have been charged in connection with Special Investigation Branch investigations into Iraqi civilian casualties allegedly involving British forces; [141689]

    (2) what action has been taken as a result of the Special Investigation Branch investigations into Iraqi civilian casualties allegedly involving British forces. [141676]

    Mr. Ingram
    The Special Investigations Branch has completed two investigations into Iraqi civilian fatalities. The first found there was no case to answer. In the second the SIB has sent a report to the unit concerned but it would be inappropriate for me to comment further as it might be prejudicial should further action be taken. The other investigations have not yet been completed and I am, therefore, unable to comment.

    Mrs. Liddell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Scottish regiments are in Iraq. [143726]
    842W
    Mr. Ingram
    The only Scottish regiment currently deployed to Iraq is the 1st Battalion, The Royal Scots.

    The 1st Battalion, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders will deploy in Iraq in January 2004.

    Mr. Keetch
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance has been issued to(a) civilian staff, (b) military staff and (c) outside organisations regarding the transport of effects to service personnel in Iraq over Christmas; and if he will make a statement. [142449]

    Mr. Ingram
    [holding answer 10 December 2003]: Family members of United Kingdom Forces personnel serving in Iraq are entitled to send an unlimited number of parcels up to 2kg in weight free of charge through the British Forces Post Office (BFPO).

    The Ministry of Defence has made arrangements for the transport of traditional festive fare to British Forces personnel serving in Iraq. Organisations wishing to donate gifts have been encouraged to contact the MOD to discuss the nature of the gifts and to make arrangements for transport. Transport for such gifts has been provided where spare capacity MOD transport is available.

    Joint Strike Fighter
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans to follow up the findings of the RAND Europe report on the Joint Strike Fighter. [144462]

    Mr. Ingram
    The RAND report provided useful advice on the feasibility of establishing a Joint Strike Fighter Final Assembly and Check Out facility in the United Kingdom. Establishment of such a facility is one strand of our approach to the production and support phases of the Joint Strike Fighter Programme. Work is in hand with UK industry to develop initial ideas further.

    Legal Expenses
    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost to date is of legal expenses incurred by his Department in(a) defending Guardsmen Fisher and Wright against the charge of murder and (b) appealing against conviction. [143687]

    Mr. Ingram
    The cost to date is approximately £165,000.

    Merchant Ships
    Mr. Carmichael
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 3 December 2003,Official Report, column 66W, on merchant ships, which flags were flown by the merchant ships that did not fly the red ensign; and what percentage of merchant ships chartered by his Department to support allied efforts in the 2003 Iraq war were over (a) 15-years-old, (b) 25-years-old and (c) 30-years-old. [143179]

    Mr. Ingram
    Ships chartered in support of the Iraq campaign which did not fly the Red Ensign were registered under the following national flags: Antigua, Bahamas, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt, Greece,
    843W
    Italy, Liberia, Malta, Marshall Islands, Netherlands, Panama, Portugal, Spain, St. Vincent, Sweden and Turkey.

    Of the vessels chartered, some 59 per cent. were over 15-years-old, some 9 per cent. were over 25-years-old, and approximately 1.5 per cent. were over 30- years-old.

    The ships chartered by the Ministry of Defence fulfilled all their obligations.

    Overseas Deployment
    Mr. Paul Keetch
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the three services he expects to be(a) serving abroad and (b) deployed on front-line duties between 24 December and 2 January 2004; what percentage of the trained strength of each force this represents; what provisions he has made to ensure family contact over that period; and if he will make a statement. [142578]

    Mr. Ingram
    [holding answer 11 December 2003]: The number of Naval Service personnel expected to be stationed abroad between 24 December and 2 January 2004 is 2,209, representing 5.9 per cent. of the trained strength. Of this, 1,223 (3.3 per cent.) personnel will be deployed on front-line duties.

    In the Army, 40,842 personnel are expected to be stationed abroad, representing 40 per cent. of the trained strength. Of this, approximately 19,500 (19 per cent.) are expected to be deployed on front-line duties.

    The number of RAF personnel stationed abroad at 1 November 2003 was 4,895. This is not expected to change significantly by 24 December 2003. This figure represents 10 per cent. of the trained strength. Of this, the number of personnel expected to be deployed on operations is approximately 1,800 (3.7 per cent.).

    Of those stationed overseas on operations, or otherwise, a proportion are likely to be away from their duty station on leave or individual courses.

    An Operational Welfare Package (OWP) is available for those personnel on operations, exercises and deployments which are expected to last for two months or more. It includes many welfare enablers for the deployed Service person, including 20 minutes of publicly funded telephone calls per person per week, internet, e-bluey and postal access and was extended in April 2003 to provide public funds to improve communications between families and those deployed.

    Over the period 22 December—2 January an additional 20 minutes of telephone calls has been authorised. This means that 40 minutes of publicly funded telephone calls will be available over the Christmas/new year period to families and friends to any destination in the world.

    Individuals also have the opportunity to buy further telephone minutes as they require.

    Permanent Secretary (Engagements)
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates in July 2002 the Permanent 844W
    Secretary held meetings with the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs of the United States State Department. [142410]

    Mr. Ingram
    Sir Kevin Tebbit, Permanent Under Secretary, met Mr. Anthony Wayne, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs of the US State Department on 19 July 2002 in Washington DC.

    Project Isolus
    Dr. Jack Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what terms of reference he gave to Lancaster University in connection with their contract to conduct public consultations for Project Isolus; what the basis was for giving three working days notice of the recent public meeting in Whitehaven; and if he will make a statement. [143422]

    Mr. Ingram
    [holding answer 15 December 2003]: I am placing a copy of the terms of reference applicable to Lancaster University's Project Isolus public consultation work in the Library of the House. Lancaster University placed advertisements for the public meeting at Whitehaven in three local weekly newspapers during the week before the meeting, to reduce the risk of it being poorly attended. The first advertisement appeared in the North West Evening Mail on 24 November 2003, one week before the meeting on 1 December 2003. This strategy was also aimed at ensuring that the advertisements would appear at about the same time as any articles published in advance of the meeting, thereby setting the event in context. Information on public meetings, at Whitehaven and elsewhere in England and Scotland, was also published on the Lancaster University website around two to four weeks in advance of the confirmed date for the meetings.

    Saudi Arabia
    Norman Lamb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the value was of the management fee received by the Ministry of Defence from the Saudi Arabian Government for its management of the Saudi Armed Forces Project in each year since 1997. [141988]

    Mr. Ingram
    Details of the fees received by the Ministry of Defence are confidential between the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabian Governments. I am therefore withholding that information under the provisions of Exemption 1 of Part II of the Code of Practice on access to Government Information.

    Scottish Battalions
    Mr. Carmichael
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 4 December 2003,Official Report, column 130W, on Northern Ireland, how many soldiers from Scottish Battalions are stationed in Northern Ireland. [143501]

    Mr. Ingram
    There are no Scottish Battalions currently stationed in Northern Ireland. There may be individual soldiers from Scottish Battalions serving on detachment in Northern Ireland, but this information is not held centrally and could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

    Ship Construction (Govan)
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the time scale for construction of two landing ship dock (auxiliary) ships at Govan has changed; and if he will make a statement. [143446]

    Mr. Ingram
    The timescale for construction of two Landing Ship Dock (Auxiliary) (LSD(A)) by BAE Systems Marine at Govan will change following the recent announcement by the lead shipyard, Swan Hunter, of delays to its own build programme. We are is currently reviewing the impact this will have on the In-Service Dates of all four LSD(A)s.

    Troop Deployment
    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the Army is deployed. [143344]

    Mr. Ingram
    Approximately 20 per cent. of the trained Army are currently deployed on operations.

  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Ballybeen Women's Centre
    Mrs. Iris Robinson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when and where the Head of the Family Policy Unit of the Department of Health Social Services and Public Safety has agreed to meet representatives of Ballybeen Women's Centre. [144618]

    Angela Smith
    Representatives from Ballybeen Women's Centre have not, as yet, requested a meeting with the Head of the Family Policy Unit of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

    Bills
    Lady Hermon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what discussions he has had with the Department of Trade and Industry regarding the extension of the Employment Relations Bill to Northern Ireland; [142679]

    (2) what discussions he has had with the Department for Transport regarding the extension of the Traffic Management Bill to Northern Ireland; [142680]

    (3) what discussions he has had with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister regarding the extension of the Fire and Rescue Services Bill to Northern Ireland; [142681]

    (4) what discussions he has had with the Department for Education and Skills regarding the extension of the Children's Bill to Northern Ireland;[142682]

    (5) what discussions he has had with the Department of Trade and Industry regarding the extension of the Civil Partnerships Bill to Northern Ireland; [142683]

    (6) what discussions he has had with the Home Office regarding the extension of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill to Northern Ireland; [142684]

    (7) what discussions he has had with HM Treasury regarding the extension of the Child Trust Fund Bill to Northern Ireland; [142685]
    846W
    (8) what discussions he has had with the Department for Education and Skills regarding the extension of the Higher Education Bill to Northern Ireland; [142690]

    (9) what discussions he has had with the Home Office regarding the extension of the Civil Contingencies Bill to Northern Ireland. [142695]

    Mr. Pearson
    There has been close consultation with other Departments at both ministerial and official level on the development of the Government's overall legislative programme as set out in the Queen's Speech. Where appropriate, these consultations have included the territorial extent of proposed legislation. I envisage that some of the provisions mentioned may extend to Northern Ireland.

    Eating Disorders Group
    Lady Hermon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Eating Disorders Group was established; what its remit is; and what the(a) names and (b) positions of its members are. [144343]

    Angela Smith
    The Regional Eating Disorders Working Group was established in June 2003 to take forward the recommendations of the eating disorder services consultation exercise. The group aims to oversee the development of services at all levels (community, primary care, generic mental health services, secondary care services and specialist services). It has the following objectives:

    Objective 1:

    To commission research which includes issues around user and carer views, hidden need, services at community, primary and secondary care level, and gaps in services with the aim of informing service development.

    Objective 2:

    For eating disorders identify a range of models of good practice including prevention, early detection and provision of services across all levels and to take account of these models in developing costed proposals for local services.

    Objective 3:

    To improve communication between the voluntary sector, primary care, community and secondary care services promoting the use of service directories, self help manuals and identifying appropriate referral pathways.

    Objective 4:

    To identify and plan for the education and training needs, including raising awareness, of all stakeholders.

    The group membership is as follows:

    A Consultant Psychotherapist, South and East Belfast HSS Trust

    A Consultant in Public Health Medicine, SHSSB

    A GP, Queens University Student Health

    The Assistant Director of Nursing, EHSSB

    A GP in Portadown Health Centre

    A representative from the Department of Education NI two representatives from the Eating Disorders Association

    A representative from Eating Disorders West

    A Clinical Nurse Specialist, South and East Belfast HSS Trust a volunteer with ADAPT Eating Distress Association

    A Service Planner for Learning Disability and Mental Health, WHSSB

    A project Worker, Craigavon and Banbridge HSS Trust

    847W

    A Consultant in Public Health, NHSSB

    A Child and Adolescent Consultant Psychiatrist, Homefirst HSS Trust

    A Specialist Registrar, South and East Belfast HSS Trust seven representatives from DHSS and PS including professional advisors.

    Elderly Patients
    Rev. Martin Smyth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) residential places were available for the elderly and (b) beds were blocked by elderly patients on the latest date for which figures are available, broken down by parliamentary constituencies. [144262]

    Angela Smith
    Information is not available according to Parliamentary constituency on the number of residential places available for the elderly or the number of delayed discharges in respect of elderly patients. This information is collected centrally according to Health and Social Services Trust, and is shown in the table in respect of the position at 31 March 2003, the latest date for which both sets of data are available.

    Number of Places in Residential Homes for the Elderly and elderly delayed discharges, 31 March 2003:

    Health and Social Services Trust

    Places in Residential Homes for Elderly

    Elderly Delayed Discharges

    Down Lisburn

    541

    19

    North and West Belfast

    316

    45

    South and East Belfast

    846

    43

    Ulster

    518

    28

    Causeway

    403

    42

    Homefirst

    917

    86

    Armagh and Dungannon

    172

    27

    Craigavon and Banbridge

    173

    8

    Newry and Mourne

    229

    16

    Foyle

    280

    10

    Sperrin Lakeland

    311

    5

    Northern Ireland Total

    4,706

    329

    Notes:

    Places in residential homes for the elderly refer to the total number of available places in such homes, regardless of whether they were occupied or not. The information refers toresidential places in residential or dual registered homes only and excludes nursing places in nursing homes and dual registered homes. Delayed discharges refer to patients occupying acute hospital beds although they were medically fit for discharge. This information is shown according to patients' community Trust of residence, for those aged 65 and over.

    Hare Population
    Mrs. Iris Robinson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what evidence he has collated on the change in the Irish hare population since 1995 in Northern Ireland. [144619]

    Angela Smith
    Research carried out at the Queen's University of Belfast (QUB) reported in 1997 that the population of the Irish Hare was at low density in Northern Ireland.

    This assessment was followed up by a research study, 'The Northern Ireland Irish Hare Lepus timidus hibernicus Survey 2002', commissioned by the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) of the Department of the Environment and also carried out by
    848W
    QUB. It reported that Irish Hares were widespread but occurred at a low density of about 1 to 2 per square kilometre.

    The Irish Hare Species Action Plan, published by EHS in 2000, has among its objectives a target to double the Irish Hare population, over as wide an area as possible, by 2010. There will be regular surveys of the Irish Hare population through to 2010. These will identify population trends and assess progress against the objectives in the Irish Hare Species Action Plan. The first of these surveys will be undertaken in Spring 2004.

    Mrs. Iris Robinson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place in the Library, the scientific evidence he is using as the basis for his proposal for a temporary ban on hare hunting in Northern Ireland from 1 January 2004. [144620]

    Angela Smith
    I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave my hon. Friend, the Member for Vauxhall on 11 December 2003.Official Report, column 577W.

    Mobile Telephones (Driving Offences)
    Lady Hermon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to ban the use of mobile telephones while driving in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the introduction of spot fines for the use of such telephones by drivers. [142660]

    Mr. Spellar
    Under the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999 drivers are required by law to exercise proper control of their vehicle at all times. The Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 provides that a person who breaches these regulations commits an offence and is liable to a fine of up to level three on the standard scale (£1000). As such, drivers can already be prosecuted for driving with undue care and attention if they are using a mobile telephone while driving.

    With effect from 1 February 2004,1 will be making it a specific offence to use a hand-held mobile phone when driving. The penalty will be a £30 fixed penalty—sometimes referred to as a "spot fine"—or a fine of up to £1,000 on conviction in court. It is also my intention to introduce by September 2005 legislation to increase the penalty by making it an endorsable offence attracting penalty points and a £60 fine.

    Operating Theatres
    Rev. Martin Smyth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action has been taken to address the issues raised on the use of operating theatres by the Audit Office in April. [144263]

    Angela Smith
    A wide range of action has been taken in response to the recommendations made by the Northern Ireland Audit Office report "The Use of Operating Theatres". The Report made 35 recommendations, of which 13 have been fully implemented. A further 11 recommendations have been partially implemented to date and plans are in place to implement all of the remaining recommendations by September 2004.

    Public Liability Insurance
    Rev. Martin Smyth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to help small businesses in Northern Ireland cope with rises in public liability insurance. [143849]

    Mr. Pearson
    I appreciate fully the problems which the current hard market in insurance is creating for many businesses.

    Invest NI and the Health and Safety Executive for NI are working with local companies to improve risk management and insurability. In addition I have been pressing the UK insurance market to facilitate more coverage for Northern Ireland businesses.

    In relation specifically to Employers Liability Compulsory Insurance (ELCI), I will also be working alongside Ministerial colleagues throughout the UK to ensure the effective implementation of the recently published Second Stage Report of the Department of Works and Pensions led ELCI review.

    Public Transport
    Lady Hermon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to announce the results of the research undertaken into the proportion of disabled passengers carried on the Easibus network in Northern Ireland. [143585]

    Mr. Spellar
    The results of the survey are expected to be made available early in the new year.

    Mr. Beggs
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many licensed bus and coach operators there were in each of the last five years. [144223]

    Angela Smith
    The number of licensed bus and coach operators based in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years was:

    Total

    98–99

    141

    99–00

    114

    00–01

    109

    01–02

    149

    02–03

    135

    Mr. Beggs
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce a public transport service to serve(a) isolated communities and (b) mobility impaired residents in rural areas. [144232]

    Mr. Spellar
    The Department for Regional Development continues to support 16 rural community transport partnerships, which offer a range of transport services for their members that complement conventional public transport networks and which in particular provide transport opportunities for people with reduced mobility in rural areas. These partnerships cover most of rural Northern Ireland and the Department is encouraging local interests to establish partnerships in areas currently not covered. The Department also provides revenue support to Translink to maintain a network of 44 rural routes across Northern Ireland, which would otherwise be uneconomic to run. Recently the Department introduced the Bus Challenge 850W
    Scheme to support new stage carriage bus services in both rural and urban areas. This scheme is open to both Translink and private bus operators and is aimed at addressing gaps in the provision of bus services. So far the Department has agreed to support eight new routes which go through rural areas.

    Road Haulage Industry
    Mr. Beggs
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) nationally and (b) internationally licensed freight operators were based in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [144222]

    Angela Smith
    The number of nationally and internationally licensed freight operators based in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years was:

    National

    International

    98–99

    453

    1,605

    99–00

    422

    1,541

    00–01

    398

    1,671

    01–02

    343

    1,944

    02–03

    545

    1,725

  CABINET OFFICE

    Ministerial Cars
    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) what the total running cost of vehicles used by Ministers in his Department was in 2002–03; and what the cost of(a) servicing vehicles and (b) employing chauffeurs was; [143960]

    (2) how much was spent in 2002–03 on the cost of cleaning (a) the interior and (b) the exterior of cars for use by Ministers in his Department; [143961]

    (3) what the cost of each new ministerial car purchased in 2002–03 was; and how often on average each car is replaced. [143962]

    Mr. Alexander
    The responsibility for the provision of ministerial cars and drivers has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Government Car Despatch Agency. I have asked its Chief Executive Mr. Nick Matheson to write to the hon. Member. Copies of his letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Fire Services
    Mr. Caton
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the consultation process required by the Government when a fire service is drawing up a new integrated management document. [144587]

    Mr. Raynsford
    Guidance was published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 28 July 2003 that requires fire and rescue authorities to consult a wide range of stakeholders on their draft Integrated Risk Management Plans (IRMPs), This should take place over a period of not less than 12 weeks to meet Cabinet
    851W
    Office guidelines for written consultations. Copies of the final guidance and a paper setting out the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's response to the main comments received are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

    Barker Report
    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how the Government will increase the supply of affordable houses as recommended in the Barker Report. [144196]

    Keith Hill
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister welcomes the interim report by the Barker Review and look forward to seeing what policy recommendations emerge in the Kate Barker's final report.

    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has already taken significant steps to tackle the shortage of affordable housing. In all around £5 billion is being allocated over the next two years—2004–05 and 2005–06 to support housing investment in the English regions.

    In addition we have consulted on a proposed update to Planning Policy Guidance note 3: Housing. The aim of the update is to provide a framework that will secure more affordable housing without affecting the overall supply of housing, deliver a better mix of housing in new developments in terms of size, type and affordability, and ensure that the needs of the whole community are addressed, including for particular groups such as key workers. Affordable housing can be secured through planning obligations and we consulted on 6 November on our proposed new policy to improve negotiated planning obligations and legislation for an optional planning charge.

    Building Inspectorate
    Mr. Chaytor
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what evaluation he has made of the adequacy of the resourcing levels of the Building Inspectorate to allow it to carry out all its statutory monitoring functions in respect of the current building regulations. [142451]

    Phil Hope
    District and unitary local authorities in England and Wales are responsible for administering and enforcing the Building Regulations. Persons carrying out building projects subject to control by these regulations must use one of two Building Control Services—that provided by the local authority in whose area the work is taking place or by an approved inspector, a private sector alternative. It is the responsibility of local authorities to resource their building control departments, as appropriate, in order to be in a position to carry out their duties under the Building Regulations when they are called upon to provide the Building Control Service.

    The Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations 1998 make local authorities responsible for fixing their own charges for those functions carried out under the Building Control Service, and require them to ensure that the revenue from charges fully recovers the costs of carrying out the functions. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in conjunction with the Welsh Assembly Government conducts an annual monitoring exercise
    852W
    with all local authorities in England and Wales to ascertain the degree to which revenue from their building control functions is fully recovering their costs.

    Council Housing
    Mr. Hepburn
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much the Government has invested in council housing in(a) South Tyneside and (b) England in each year since 1996. [142990]

    Keith Hill
    Work undertaken by local authorities to renovate and improve council housing is funded partly from their own resources and partly from resources provided by central government. Part of the central Government funding is provided as general support for housing investment and it is up to individual authorities to decide how much to spend on council housing. The following tables set out the total amounts (£ million) of capital investment in council housing and housing capital allocations made by central Government in the years since 1996–97.

    South Tyneside

    Housing capital allocations

    Capital investment in council housing

    HIP allocution1

    CRI2

    MRA3

    Total

    1996–97

    4.0

    4.4

    —

    —

    4.4

    1997–98

    5.5

    3.2

    0.9

    —

    4.1

    1998–99

    9.2

    3.7

    3.1

    —

    6.8

    1999–2000

    11.0

    3.7

    3.1

    —

    6.8

    2000–01

    11.7

    10.8

    —

    —

    10.8

    2001–02

    19.1

    3.3

    —

    11.1

    14.4

    2002–03

    18.4

    3.7

    —

    11.0

    14.7

    2003–04

    14.4

    3.4

    —

    10.9

    14.3

    England

    Housing capital allocations

    Capital investment in council housing

    HIP/CRI allocation1.2

    MRA/ALMO3

    Total2

    1996–97

    1,510

    1,301

    —

    1,301

    1997–98

    1,563

    1,104

    —

    1,104

    1998–99

    1,660

    1,369

    —

    1,369

    1999–2000

    1,569

    1,411

    —

    1,411

    2000–01

    1,816

    2,090

    —

    2,090

    2001–02

    2,142

    997

    1,587

    2,584

    2002–03

    2,342

    1,041

    1,585

    2,626

    2003–04

    2,789

    899

    1,814

    2,713

    1Housing Investment Programme (HIP) allocations cover mainstream support for housing capital expenditure by local authorities (housing annual capital guidelines(ACGs)) and the ring-fenced support for private sector renewal (which was combined with the mainstream funding from 1997–98) and for disabled facilities grants. The figures also include the funding made available through the Capital Receipts Initiative (1997–98 to 1999–2000), the Housing Partnership Fund (1996–97) and to support Cash Incentive Scheme (CIS) grants (1996–97 to 1999–2000)

    2 The housing ACGs up to and including 2002–03 include an element that is assumed to be funded from local authorities capital receipts–this amounts to around £200 million for England as a whole.

    3 Funding for investment in council housing to meet the on-going capital costs of maintaining the stock (Major Repairs Allowance) or to help bring authorities' housing stock up to a decent standard (Arms Length Management Organisation initiative).

    Council Tenants
    Mr. Hayes
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what arrangements he has put in place to ensure that local authorities identify tenants who lack basic budgeting skills; [144090]

    (2) what arrangements he has put in place to ensure that local authorities supply those of their tenants who lack basic budgeting skills with the opportunity to develop those skills. [144091]

    Mr. Raynsford
    While the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no specific arrangements in place, guidance was issued in 1999, in the National Framework for Tenant Participation Compacts which advises local authorities on how to identify tenant training needs and provision. This is aimed primarily at helping tenants to develop their skills and capacity in relation to participating in and influencing decisions affecting them and their homes.

    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's main interest here is to ensure that social landlords adopt good practice in their approach to tackling housing rent arrears to avoid unnecessary evictions for tenants. Glasgow university is currently carrying out a research project into policy and practice in relation to use of possession orders and eviction by social landlords and to identify good practice in this area: they are expected to complete the research by summer 2004.

    The wider issue of over-indebtedness is being taken forward by a new cross-Government Group announced in the Consumer Credit White paper published on 8 December by the Department for Trade and Industry. As part of its work, the Group may look at financial literacy. It expects to publish a strategy by spring 2004.

    Mr. Hayes
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what funds the Government has made available to organisations providing core literacy and numeracy skills schemes for social housing tenants in each of the last five years; and what funds will be made available in 2004–05. [144092]

    Keith Hill
    There are a number of organisations funded by central Government to provide core literacy and numeracy skills training for those in need. This client group may include social housing tenants but not exclusively.

    Over the past two years the Adult Basic Skills Strategy Unit has provided in excess of £1.5 million to fund a financial literacy programme. Embedded into Government's "Skills for Life" programme, a national strategy for improving adult literacy and numeracy, the financial literacy programme is run on behalf of Government by the Basic Skills Agency (BSA). The aim of the programme is to help adults with poor literacy, language and numeracy to develop the skills they need to make effective decisions about the use and management of money.

    In developing the programme the BSA have resources and pilots in several areas including Community Development Projects. These projects are testing effective ways of engaging people and delivering financial literacy in community settings.

    High Hedges
    Mr. Dawson
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when legislation relating to high hedges will come into effect. [144022]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects the legislation relating to high hedges to come into effect towards the end of 2004. The next step will be public consultation on regulations covering certain detailed procedural arrangements and on guidance for local authorities.

    Housing
    Mr. Hayes
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans the Government have to encourage shared or part ownership arrangements to make housing more affordable; and if he will make a statement. [144097]

    Keith Hill
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recognises the important contribution that shared ownership schemes can play in making home ownership affordable for people on modest incomes. The Home Ownership Task Force, which reported on 13 November, has proposed 45 recommendations to assist in the delivery of affordable housing, including improvements to the operation of the shared ownership scheme. We are considering the recommendations and will respond in the new year.

    Government funding for shared ownership is provided by the Housing Corporation through grants to registered social landlords. Around 13 per cent. of the Corporation's Approved Development Programme in 2003–04 (total programme £1.2 billion) will be spent on home ownership initiatives, including shared ownership and the Homebuy equity loan scheme. In 2002–03 over 4,000 affordable homes were provided through the shared ownership and Homebuy schemes.

    In addition the £250 million Starter Home Initiative is helping key workers into home ownership primarily through equity loan and shared ownership arrangements. Almost 6,000 key workers have so far benefited from the programme.

    From April 2004, the new key worker housing programme will help key workers, both first-time buyers and those wishing to trade-up, in areas of high housing costs. The options available to key workers through the scheme will include equity loan and shared ownership arrangements. Full details of the operation of the scheme will be announced by the beginning of March.

    Mr. Hayes
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what powers local authorities have to ensure an appropriate social mix in housing development; what guidelines he has issued to local authorities on the exercise of these powers; and if he will take steps to give local authorities additional powers in this regard. [144098]

    Keith Hill
    Planning Policy Guidance note 3: "Housing" (March 2000) requires local planning authorities to provide wider housing opportunity and choice, and a better mix in the size and type of housing than is currently available.

    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recently published for consultation proposed changes to the current policies on planning for housing mix set out in

    855W
    PPG3. The consultation document "Influencing the size, type and affordability of housing" proposes that local planning authorities should ensure their policies for residential development, including for affordable housing, widen housing choice and encourage better social mix. It proposes new policy which would allow local planning authorities, where appropriate local plan policies are in place, to reject developments that conflict with the objective of widening housing choice.

    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the housing allocation was for each local authority in each of the last five years; and how many houses were built by each authority in each of those years. [144201]

    Keith Hill
    Details of annual housing capital allocations made to local authorities in England are available in the Library of the House. Information on new housebuilding carried out by local authorities can be found on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website (under "housing/housing statistics/publications") and, for years up to 2000–01, in "Local Housing Statistics".

    Local Development Plans
    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how the Government will ensure that the number of houses provided in each local development plan is built; [144207]

    (2) what proposals he has to accelerate existing planning permissions for residential dwellings. [R] [144265]

    Keith Hill
    Each local planning authority would be required, under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, to prepare an Annual Monitoring Report. Regulations would specify that the report has to be prepared by 31 December in each year to cover the period from 1 April to 31 March immediately preceding. The authority would need to report on their performance against the published local development scheme and on the impact of their policies on the ground. The authority and stakeholders would need to know what effect its policies and proposals were having in order to decide whether they are achieving the desired

    Floor (Percentage)

    Scaling factor applied to grant increase above the floor

    Ceiling (Percentage)

    Authorities with education and social service responsibilities

    4

    0.9411240

    7.5

    Single-service police authorities, police part of GLA

    3.25

    0.0100295

    25

    Single-service fire authorities, fire part of GLA

    3.5

    0.9181902

    5

    Shire districts in two-tier shire areas (i.e. shire districts that do not have education and social service responsibilities)

    3

    0.2287428

    50

    For 2004–05 these floors will ensure that all authorities receive an increase in formula grant, when measured against 2003–04 on a like-for-like basis, which is above inflation. (Formula grant comprises Revenue Support Grant, redistributed non-domestic rates, and any Principal Formula Police Grant.) The scaling factor and the ceiling have been set so that, for each local authority group, the cost of supporting authorities
    856W
    effect or whether changes are needed. Draft Regulation 48 requires authorities to include information on housing policy and performance.

    If the annual report on the effect of the authority's policies or proposals demonstrates that they are not performing as desired this should trigger the authority to revise their local development scheme (and subsequently their local development documents) under clause 25 (revision of local development documents). If they fail to do so, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister can direct the authority to do so.

    Through the planning delivery grant, we are investing an extra £350 million in planning over the three years 2003–06. This will provide local authorities with the resources to deliver an improved, efficient and responsive planning system that takes good decisions in sensible timeframes and delivers the right development in the right places. Part of the grant is top-sliced for local authorities in areas of high housing demand. In 2004–05 we are giving serious consideration to an element of the grant being related to performance in the delivery of housing in these areas.

    Through comprehensive performance assessment we make across the board judgments about the quality of the services delivered and management in authorities. We can use it to assess whether there are corporate reasons for any failure to deliver good housing and planning services. It informs us on the nature and scope of any support that might be needed for failing housing and planning services.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Tyrie
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will give the value of the local education authority grant floor and publish his calculations and the assumptions he has made in order to reach that figure; [143864]

    (2) if he will publish his calculations and the assumptions he has made in order to reach the new levels he has set for grant floors and ceilings. [143868]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The following table shows the floor, the ceiling and the scaling factor applied to grant increases above the floor which we are proposing for 2004–05 for each local authority group.

    below the floor is shared equitably between those authorities with grant increases above the floor.

    The grant floor, the grant ceiling and the scaling factor applied to increases above the floor are inter-related. So for any group of authorities decisions on the floor, the scaling factor and the ceiling have to be taken together. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has published on the departmental website models which

    857W
    allow interested parties to explore the effect of other floor and ceiling values (http://www.local.odpm.gov.uk/finance/0405/fandc/index.htm).

    Mr. Tyrie
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the amount of specific grant per head from the Local Government Finance Settlement of 2003–04 was for(a) West Sussex and (b) Hartlepool; and if he will give the amount of extra total grant that would be payable if West Sussex were to be funded at the same level of specific grant per head as Hartlepool. [143869]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The specific grant per head in West Sussex and Hartlepool is tabled as follows. The variations in funding per head reflect a number of factors including the level of relative deprivation in each local authority and the take up of grants, for example the number of local authority funded nursery education places. Distributing simply on the basis of population would not reflect the different needs of different areas.

    Specific grants1 (£)

    Population2

    Specific grants per head (£/head)

    West Sussex

    68,200,000

    754,253

    90.42

    Hartlepool

    22,777,000

    88,711

    256.76

    1 This information is taken from local authority budget RA returns.

    2 The population is taken from the Office for National Statistics 2001 mid year population estimates.

    Note:

    If West Sussex received specific grant support at the same level per head as Hartlepool then they would receive £125,458,290 extra.

    Mr. Tyrie
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will give the amount of formula grant per head from the Local Government Finance Settlement of 2003–04 for(a) West Sussex, (b) inner London boroughs, (c) outer London boroughs and (d) the English average; and if he will give the amount of extra total grant that would be payable if West Sussex were to be funded at the same level of formula grant per head as (i) inner London boroughs, (ii) outer London boroughs and (iii) the English average. [143870]

    Mr. Raynsford
    Formula grant per head in 2003–04 is given in the following table:

    Area

    Formula grant per head (£)

    West Sussex county council

    503.33

    Inner London boroughs

    1,166.30

    (including City of London)

    Outer London boroughs

    809.90

    England

    892.49

    The formula grant per head figures in the table are not directly comparable since the services provided by West Sussex county council are not the same as those provided by London boroughs. London boroughs also provide those services provided by the district council within the West Sussex area; while West Sussex county council received an allocation of grant to cover fire services in 2003–04, that are provided by the Greater London Authority in the London area. In addition the City of London also provides police services. The total England figure includes both district level and police services; neither of these services are provided by West Sussex county council.
    858W
    The calculation of formula grant takes account of a range of factors other than the numbers of recipients. It includes top-ups for deprivation, pay costs, and other factors such as population sparsity that drive the costs of service delivery in different areas, as well as the relative ability of councils to raise council tax in their areas. Simple per capita comparisons will not therefore be meaningful comparisons of all the factors that drive grant distribution.

    If West Sussex county council received £1,166.30 per head of formula grant then it would have received £879,685,274, an additional £500,043,641; at £809.90 per head of formula grant then it would have received £610,869,505, an additional £231,227,872; and at £892.49 then it would have received £673,163,260, an additional £293,521,627.

    Peterborough Housing Corporation
    Mrs. Helen Clark
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what he estimates will be the delay to the transfer of housing stock to the Peterborough Housing Corporation whilst the Inland Revenue's ruling of 24 October is considered. [144205]

    Keith Hill
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) and for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) on 15 December 2003.

    Planning Grants
    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which(a) local authorities and (b) regional assemblies (i) have received and (ii) will receive planning grants in 2003–04; what (A) methodology and (B) consultation is being used by his Department concerning its distribution; what funds will be allocated for planning in 2004–05; and for what reason this grant is not ring fenced. [144203]

    Keith Hill
    The recipients of planning delivery grant in 2003–04 were all district, unitary, metropolitan district and London borough councils, all national park authorities, all regional planning bodies, together with the common council of the City of London, the council of the Isles of Scilly, the Broads authority and the Greater London Authority. Their grant for 2003–04 has been paid in full.

    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister set out the methodology for the distribution of the grant in a letter sent on 10 February 2003 to hon. Members. I have sent a further copy of that letter to the hon. Member. Before the announcement of the allocations was made, we consulted key stakeholders about the method of distribution.

    The amount of planning delivery grant to be allocated in 2004–05 is £130 million.

    The planning delivery grant is not ring fenced in line with our general policy on grants to local government whereby local authorities are free to consider how best to deliver outcomes. In the case of the planning delivery grant, there is an incentive to spend the grant on planning services because further allocations will only be made if planning performance continues to improve.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he expects implementation of the alcohol harm reduction strategy for England to begin. [143462]

    Ms Blears
    The Government made a commitment in the NHS Plan to begin implementing an alcohol harm reduction strategy for England in 2004, and we are on course to achieve that target.

    Antisocial Behaviour Orders
    Mr. Goodman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Antisocial Behaviour Orders were served in the Wycombe constituency in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002. [143537]

    Ms Blears
    From 1 April 1999 up to 31 May 2000 information on the numbers of Antisocial Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) was collected by police force area (pfa) on the numbers issued only. From 1 June 2000 up to 30 June 2003, latest available, data was collected by magistrates courts committee (MCC) area on the number granted and refused and from copies of the orders we have been able to identify local government authority (1ga) areas involved.

    The number of notifications received by the Home Office of ASBOs issued within the Wycombe 1ga, in which the Wycombe constituency is situated, from 1 June 2000 up to 30 June 2003 is two. One order was issued in 2000 and one order was issued in 2001.

    Asylum
    Mr. Malins
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the initial salary payable to initial decision makers in asylum applications is; and how long the period of training is; [142156]

    (2) what plans he has to increase and improve the salaries and training of initial decision makers in asylum cases. [142157]

    Beverley Hughes
    The vast majority of initial decisions in asylum applications are made by Executive Officers. The initial salary of an executive officer is not less than £15,557 nationally. In London rates are higher and staff also receive a locational allowance. Pay levels are reviewed each year, and in addition, all fully effective and exceptionally effective staff receive a performance related progression increase. The Department has proposed increasing the initial salary to a minimum of £16,606 nationally with effect from 1 January 2004 and is also considering increases to locational allowances. All new initial decision makers in asylum applications receive intensive training, comprising an initial 11 day course on all aspects of asylum work, 13 days in a special mentoring unit, and a three day intensive interviewing course (which is followed up by a consolidation workshop after three months in post). All asylum decision makers receive continual support and mentoring from more experienced colleagues in a team working environment where the sharing and pooling of acquired expertise is actively encouraged. They also receive any additional training or mentoring 860W
    necessitated by changes in legislation and procedures, and attend developmental presentations or seminars provided by organisations such as UNHCR and the Medical Foundation. The effectiveness of training is regularly evaluated to ensure it continues to match their induction and development needs.

    Annabelle Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with Scottish ministers concerning the impact on the Scottish Legal Aid Board of his asylum policies. [142733]

    Beverley Hughes
    Legal aid is a devolved function and it is for Scottish Ministers to decide how to address Scotland's needs in line with the overall UK policy on asylum. There have been no formal discussions with Scottish Ministers on this matter, although officials keep in touch with developments on both sides of the border.

    Annabelle Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from established churches in Scotland concerning his policy in relation to the detention of families with children in removal centres. [142762]

    Beverley Hughes
    Over the last few months we have received representations from both the Catholic Church and the Church of Scotland about the detention of families with children in removal centres.

    The Bishop of Paisley made written representations in March and April, and I met with representatives of the Church and Nation Committee of the Church of Scotland at the end of October.

    Mrs. Lait
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appeals from immigrants based on their being either a victim of crime or fear of being a victim of crime in their own country where the effective rule of law is uncertain are outstanding; and how many there were in the last 12 months. [142185]

    Beverley Hughes
    I regret that the information requested is unavailable and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case files.

    Information on the number of such appeals awaiting determination, relating to cases based on the appellant being either a victim of crime or their having fear of being a victim of crime in their own country where the effective rule of law is uncertain, is not compiled.

    Statistics on the number of asylum appeals awaiting determination are published quarterly. The most recent publication covering the third quarter of 2003 is now available from the Library of the House or on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1. html.

    Mr. Gerrard
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applicants in each of the last five years for which figures are
    861W
    available were accompanied by dependants under the age of 18. [142580]

    Beverley Hughes
    [holding answer 8 December 2003]: The requested information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records. The latest published figures (Asylum Statistics 2001) show estimates of between 13 per cent. in 1998 and 14 per cent. in 2001 of principal applicants had one or more dependants.

    Information on asylum applications is published quarterly. The next publication will be available at the end of February 2004 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at:http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

    Mr. Malins
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether children of failed asylum seekers are entitled to free education in the state system. [143214]

    Beverley Hughes
    It is a fundamental legal duty of local education authorities to ensure that education is available for all children of compulsory school age in their area appropriate to age, abilities and aptitudes and any special education needs they may have. This duty applies irrespective of a child's immigration status or rights of residence in a particular location. Children of failed asylum seekers are therefore entitled to attend school for as long as the family remain in the UK.

    Community Safety Accreditation
    Ms Buck
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what use has been made by chief officers of police of accreditations under community safety accreditation schemes under section 41 of the Police Reform Act 2002. [143569]

    Ms Blears
    In total, six forces have used powers under section 41 of the Police Reform Act. Five forces have accredited 16 Vehicle Inspectors employed by the Vehicle Operator Services Agency (VOSA). The inspectors have been issued with the power to stop vehicles for the purpose of testing. This allows them to test vehicles without police assistance and so frees police officers to focus on other tasks. The five forces are Cambridgeshire, Greater Manchester, Northumbria, North Wales and Staffordshire.

    In addition, Hampshire Police have accredited five employees of Southampton City Council, to enable them to be more effective in dealing with anti-social behaviour. Hampshire police received £20,000 central funding from the Home Office to help with the project costs of setting the scheme up.

    The Home Office has allocated a total of £450,000 funding to 21 pathfinder forces (including Hampshire) in this financial year to assist them with setting up community safety accreditation schemes. The funded schemes will accredit those already conducting patrols in communities to enhance the reassurance that these staff provide and make them more effective in dealing with anti-social behaviour. Forces involved in the first tranche of schemes in this first phase of accreditation are mainly intending to accredit wardens employed in or by local authorities.

    Community Support Officers
    Ross Cranston
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives to police forces about the insignia on policy community support officers' uniforms which describes their role; and if he will make a statement. [143891]

    Ms Blears
    The uniform and insignia worn by Community Support Officers is a matter for the Chief Officers of individual police forces. The Home Office's guidance document, available on the police reform web site, states that CSOs' uniforms should make them 'recognisable as such' so as not to confuse the public.

    However, many police forces have employees who are designated as both CSOs and appointed as Traffic Wardens. In line with the Home Office circular 065/ 2002, forces have labelled these CSOs' uniforms with the word 'Traffic'.

    Ross Cranston
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase funding to the West Midlands Police for the expansion of the police community support officers for(a) 2004–05, (b) 2005–06 and (c) 2006–07; and if he will make a statement. [143913]

    Ms Blears
    By the end of the 2003–04 financial year, the Home Office will be funding 2457 CSOs across 38 police forces. 40 of these are in the West Midlands Police area. These were provided for in the second CSO bidding round (2003–04). West Midlands Police did not put forward a bid in the first round (2002–03).

    Across England and Wales, a further 454 CSOs have been funded from other sources, including 21 in the West Midlands.

    In 2004–05 the West Midlands Police, along with other forces in England and Wales, will be invited to bid in a third CSO funding round. This round will provide 50 per cent of funding for salary and direct on costs.

    Final decisions about funding for future years, beyond 2004–05, have yet to be taken.

    Crimestoppers
    Mr. Boris Johnson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will guarantee the grant for Crimestoppers for the next four years. [142531]

    Ms Blears
    The Government believes that Crimestoppers is a highly effective organisation that gathers vital intelligence for the Police and other law enforcement agencies. As laid out in the 1998 Compact on relations with the Voluntary and Community Sector, the Government recognises that continuity of funding is important to voluntary organisations and takes this into account where possible.

    Criminal Records Bureau
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what additional payments have been made to Capita in respect of amendments and modifications to the Criminal Records Bureau computer system in each financial year since the project began; [142059]
    863W
    (2) what the unit cost of a Criminal Records Bureau (a) standard and (b) enhanced disclosure is for each application route. [142060]

    Ms Blears
    Additional payments in respect of amendments to computer systems in each financial year are as follows:

    £

    Amount

    2001–02

    10,590,581

    2002–03

    541,789

    20031

    594,200

    1To date.

    Based on the projections in the Criminal Records Bureaus (CRB) Corporate and Business Plans 2003–04 the individual unit costs are estimated as follows:

    £

    Amount

    Standard paper

    25

    Standard telephone

    20

    Enhanced paper

    31

    Enhanced telephone

    26

    Standard and Enhanced Disclosures are issued free of charge to volunteers.

    There have been no subsequent developments, which would suggest these costs are now materially different.

    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) for what reasons the Criminal Records Bureau has further increased its fees; [142261]

    (2) what discussions he has had with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations on the implications of fee increases by the Criminal Records Bureau on voluntary, community and charitable organisations. [142262]

    Ms Blears
    We announced on 1 December that the fee charged by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) for a Standard Disclosure will rise from £24 to £28 and that for an Enhanced Disclosure from £29 to £33. These increases will take effect from 1 April 2004.

    We have always made it clear that the CRB would be self-financed through the fees charged for providing the Disclosure service, and that the fee levels would be regularly reviewed. When the last fee increase was announced in June 2003, we re-affirmed the requirement that the CRB should be self-financing in the medium term—that is, from 2005–06 onwards. The CRB continues to make efficiency savings. However, as the CRB moves towards full cost recovery, it is necessary to reduce the substantial subsidy that the CRB currently receives from the general taxpayer and to make a compensating increase in the Disclosure fee.

    Disclosures continue to be issued free to volunteers, saving the voluntary sector some £12 million in 2004–05. We have had no discussions with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) specifically on the latest fee increase. But we agreed earlier to meet representatives of the NCVO to discuss its concerns about the previous fee increase, amongst other issues. In addition, the NCVO is represented on the CRB
    864W
    Voluntary and Community Sector Working Group which provides a forum to raise any CRB-related issues affecting the sector.

    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the costs of Criminal Records Bureau checks for(a) care homes and (b) voluntary organisations. [143062]

    Ms Blears
    Criminal Records Bureau checks are free for volunteers, saving the voluntary sector some £10 million in 2003–04. In other cases, responsibility for paying the fee rests primarily with individual applicants, although it is open to the employer to reimburse the cost. Since 1 July 2003, the fees for an Enhanced and Standard Disclosure have been £29 and £24 respectively;
    I announced on 1 December 2003,Official Report, column 51–52WS the fees to apply from 1 April 2004. The total revenue from fees in 2003–04 is estimated to be £47 million. No detailed breakdown is available of the proportion of Disclosure applications, which come from each sector.

    Emergency Services (Hoax Calls)
    Mr. Crausby
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hoax calls to(a) the emergency services and (b) the fire service there were in each of the last three years in (i) Bolton, (ii) the North West and (iii) the UK. [143247]

    Mr. Raynsford
    I have been asked to reply.

    The following information is available in relation to the fire service:

    2000

    12001

    12002

    Bolton

    815

    1,005

    700

    North West2

    11,672

    11,489

    10,639

    United Kingdom2

    74,086

    74,134

    67,060

    1 Provisional

    2 Includes estimates for incidents not recorded in November 2002 during industrial action

    Information about the number of hoax calls received by the police and ambulance services is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Immigration
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Immigration and Nationality Directorate expects to reach a decision in the case of Mr. S. S. of Aylesbury (ref.S108 1532/8). [140970]

    Beverley Hughes
    A decision was made on 25 November to grant him leave to remain here.

    Mr. Malins
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of(a) lorries and (b) other vehicles passing through Calais and Coquelles en route to the UK were not checked for purposes of seeking to discover illegal immigrants over the last 12 months. [142168]

    Beverley Hughes
    The Calais port operator (Calais Chamber of Commerce) check 100 per cent of freight vehicles passing through Calais (approximately 2,500
    865W
    per day) either by Passive Millimetric Wave Imagers (PMMWs), carbon dioxide or heartbeat detectors. Additional checks are also carried out by ferry operators and French customs. All other vehicles such as private cars and vans are systematically checked by the ferry operator before boarding.

    We are unable to say what proportion of vehicles (approximately 2,000 per day) are checked by Euro-tunnel at Coquelles prior to boarding. Immigration Service search teams exercising their powers under the Immigration Act currently carry out targeted and intelligence-led searches of UK bound freight and other vehicles within the British Control Zone at Coquelles.

    Migrant Workers
    Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government will ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and their Families. [142294]

    Beverley Hughes
    The Government has no plans to sign and ratify the UN Convention on the protection of rights of migrant workers and their families.

    We believe that the United Kingdom has struck the right balance between the need for immigration control and the protection of the interests and rights of migrant workers and their families. The rights of migrant workers and their families are protected in UK legislation, including the Human Rights Act 1998, and the UK's existing commitments under international law.

    National Policing Targets
    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the ways in which the National Intelligence Model is used to inform the setting of national policing targets. [143272]

    Ms Blears
    The National Policing Plan sets out the Government's key priorities for the police service describes the National Intelligence Model as the principal operational tool available to deliver those priorities. The National Policing Plan requires all forces to implement the National Intelligence Model to commonly accepted minimum standards by April 2004. Forces are currently at different stages of implementation.

    The National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) UK Threat Assessment and the National Policing Plan establish national priorities for the Police Service. The National Intelligence Model is applied by police forces to operationalise those priorities at national, regional and local levels. As the Model becomes established in forces, strategic assessments at Basic Command Unit and force level can be expected to inform the assessments made at regional, and ultimately at national, level.

    Police
    Mr. Dorrell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many uniformed officers were employed by the Leicestershire Police Service at 5 April in each year from 1997 to 2003. [143947]
    866W
    Ms Blears
    Police strength information does not differentiate between uniformed and plain clothed officers. The information requested (to the nearest available date) is set out in the table. On 31 August Leicestershire Constabulary had record strength of 2,159 officers, which is 210 more than in March 1997.

    Leicestershire Constabulary

    Police officers1

    Police staff1

    31 March 1997

    1,949

    755

    31 March 1998

    1,983

    774

    31 March 1999

    1,993

    802

    31 March 2000

    1,993

    805

    31 March 2001

    2,033

    806

    31 March 2002

    2,100

    816

    31 March 2003

    2,114

    934

    31 August 2003

    2,159

    n/a

    1 Data are for full-time equivalent strength

    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions Merseyside Police have(a) closed premises that are being used for drug dealing or use causing disorder or serious nuisance, (b) issued penalty notices for truancy, (c) designated an area with a history of anti-social behaviour, allowing them to disperse groups causing intimidation and take home children who are out on streets late at night, (d) used the new controls to tackle the misuse of air weapons and replica guns, (e) used their new powers for dealing with public assemblies and trespassers, (f) used their new power to move on trespassing encampments where a relevant site is available, (g) used their new powers to intervene in neighbourly disputes regarding high hedges, (h) issued penalty notices to 16 and 17 year olds for disorder and (i) used their extended stop and search powers where reasonable suspicion is held that articles made, adapted or intended for use in offences of criminal damage are being carried. [143463]

    Ms Blears
    These powers are contained within the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which both received Royal Assent on 20 November 2003. The powers are not yet available to the police—they will be commenced during 2004.

    Phil Sawford
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average cost is of recruiting and training a police officer. [144515]

    Ms Blears
    The recruitment of police officers is the responsibility of the Chief Officer of each force. No central records are kept of the average cost across the police service of recruiting and training a police officer in England and Wales.

    When rates of payment to be made under the Crime Fighting Fund in 2000–01 were agreed with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities, £1,000 was included for recruitment and £7,000 for the initial residential training for each new recruit. These payments have been up-rated annually to £1,082 and £10,000 respectively per recruit in 2003–04.
    867W
    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those police forces in which authorisations under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 are in place; and which of these areas have been subject to rolling monthly authorisations during 2003. [143383]

    Mr. Blunkett
    There are currently 14 section 44 authorisations in place. However, the publicising of the use of the powers in any particular area is an operational decision for the force concerned. Any decision to publicise the fact that the powers are being used would be made in light of the operational objective, and mindful of the need to ensure that the information released cannot be exploited by those intent on committing acts of terrorism.

    Each authorisation is given full consideration and confirmed only if I am satisfied that their use is expedient to prevent acts of terrorism as set against the background of the current threat level.

    Ross Cranston
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the United Kingdom police officers that will be deployed in Iraq are from the West Midlands police force; and if he will make a statement. [143892]

    Ms Blears
    I understand that no officers from West Midlands Police are deployed in Iraq at present. West Midlands Police are contributing generously to international peacekeeping efforts elsewhere.

    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the 2002 police pay settlement in reducing rates of police overtime. [143409]

    Ms Blears
    The 2002 settlement included a provision to reduce expenditure on police overtime by 15 per cent. by March 2006. The provision came into effect on 1 April 2003. Forces will be providing information to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of (HMIC) Constabulary on expenditure on overtime as part of the arrangements for monitoring progress against the target and HMIC will report on an annual basis.

    Mr. Ruffley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have retired from(a) Suffolk Constabulary, (b) Norfolk Constabulary, (c) Essex Police Force and (d) Cambridgeshire Constabulary in each of the last five years; and what the national average age of retirement was in each year. [143533]

    Ms Blears
    The number of police officers who have retired in each of the last five years from each force is given in the table.

    Police retirements: ordinary and medical

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    2001–02

    2002–03

    Cambridgeshire

    46

    38

    43

    44

    44

    Essex

    101

    124

    99

    104

    90

    Norfolk

    47

    45

    49

    51

    65

    Suffolk

    44

    37

    52

    36

    46

    Information on the national average retirement age of police officers is not held centrally and not readily available locally. However the information for Suffolk is as follows.
    868W

    Suffolk: average retirement age of police officers

    Average age

    1998–99

    47.06

    1999–2000

    49.85

    2000–01

    49.36

    2001–02

    48.51

    2002–03

    51.71

    Paul Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what resources have been made available to Gwent Police since 1997; how many police officers there were in the Gwent Force in each year since 1997; and what the expected number of police officers in the Gwent Force is in each of the next two years. [142820]

    Ms Blears
    The information requested is set out in the table. Gwent Police had record police strength at the end of August 2003. The balance between police officers and police staff and other resources, such as IT systems, in the Gwent Police is a matter for the Chief Constable. It is not therefore possible to estimate the number of police officers that Gwent Police will have Over the next two years. I understand that Gwent Police has forecast strength for 31 March 2004 at 1,357.

    The provisional police funding settlement for 2004–05 will give Gwent Police Authority a Government funding allocation of £71.8 million, an increase of 3.25 per cent over 2003–04. It is for the Police Authority to set the budget.

    Gwent Police: Funding, Police strength and police staff strength 1997 to 2003

    Year (as at 31 March)

    Force budget £million

    Police officer strength

    Police (support) staff strength

    1996–97

    62.6

    1,243

    452

    1997–98

    64.6

    1,233

    477

    1998–99

    66.9

    1,247

    487

    1999–2000

    71.4

    1,264

    498

    2000–01

    76.1

    1,274

    537

    2001–02

    80.7

    1,333

    570

    2002–03

    84.4

    1,341

    607

    2003–04

    92.0

    1,3421

    Not available

    1 Police strength as at 31 August 2003

    Mr. Goodman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many pupils(a) applied to join and (b) were enlisted as members of Thames Valley Police Force in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002. [143538]

    Ms Blears
    [holding answer 11 December 2003]: Neither the Home Office nor Thames Valley Police Force record the number of applications received from pupils to join Thames Valley Police Force record the number of applications received form pupils to join Thames Valley Police Force.

    Police recruits need to be of a minimum age of 18½ when they join a police force in England and Wales.

    Security Industry Authority Pilot Scheme
    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licensed door supervisors he expects to participate in the Security Industry Authority Pilot Scheme in Hampshire commencing in March 2004; and what target complement he has set. [143965]
    869W
    Ms Blears
    The Security Industry Authority (SIA) anticipates that some 2,500 door supervisors will apply to be licensed during the course of the pilot in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, commencing in March 2004. This figure is necessarily a best estimate as not all local authorities in the pilot area have existing local registration schemes, and those that do, do not always include all door supervisors working in the local authority's area.

    There are no overall complement levels set, as the demand for door supervisors is to a large extent market led. However, it is anticipated that some local authorities may set minimum complement levels for individual premises as a condition of their licence to operate under the Licensing Act 2003, and this will have an impact on the number of SIA licence applications.

    Weapons
    Mr. Paice
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) handguns, (b) rifles, (c) shotguns and (d) air weapons which have been used in crime have been recovered in each of the last five years; and how many of each had been previously or were at the time legally owned. [143921]

    Caroline Flint
    [holding answer 15 December 2003]: This information is not currently available in the form requested. The National Firearms Forensic Intelligence

    Breakdown of claimants receiving their payment by means of benefit payment order book

    Benefit

    Position as at June 20021

    Position as at March 20032

    Position as at 1 November 20033

    State Pension (SP), Widows Benefit (WB) and Bereavement Benefit

    4,811,063

    4,616,964

    4,280,487

    Incapacity Benefit (Incap)

    843,142

    803,494

    717,126

    Severe Disablement Allowance

    83,959

    79,359

    72,414

    Income Support (IS)

    1,740,655

    1,698,052

    1,516,248

    Disability Living Allowance

    1,143,393

    1,144,202

    1,065,636

    Carers Allowance

    310,684

    309,750

    298,089

    Attendance Allowance

    179,426

    180,791

    170,552

    Industrial Injury, Death and Disability Benefit

    302,798

    315,046

    284,360

    Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA)

    0

    0

    0

    Minimum Income Guarantee (MiG)/Pension Credit (PC)

    1,344,723

    1,360,994

    1,420,036

    1 2002: Figures for State Pension (SP), Incapacity Benefit (IB), Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA), Widow's Benefit (WB), and Bereavement Benefit (BB) are up to 3 June 2002; Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG), Income Support (IS) and Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) figures up to 15 June 2002, Industrial Injuries (II) up to 8 June 2002, Carers Allowance (CA) (previously Invalid Care Allowance), Attendance Allowance (AA) and Disability Living Allowance (DLA) figures up to 18 May 2002.

    2 2003: Figures for State Pension (SP), Incapacity Benefit (IB), Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA), Widow's Benefit (WB), and
    Bereavement Benefit (BB) are up to 22 March 2003; Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG), Income Support (IS) and Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) figures up to 21 March 2003, Industrial Injuries (II) up to 14 March 2003, Carers Allowance (CA) (previously Invalid Care Allowance), Attendance Allowance (AA) and Disability Living Allowance (DLA) figures up to 8 March 2003.

    3 Latest available: Figures for State Pension (SP), Incapacity Benefit (IB), Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA), Widow's Benefit (WB), and Bereavement Benefit (BB) are up to 25 October 2003; Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG), Income Support (IS) and Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) figures up to 31 October 2003, Industrial Injuries (II) up to 24 October 2003, Carers Allowance (CA) (previously Invalid Care Allowance) up to 30 June 2003, Attendance Allowance (AA) and Disability Living Allowance (DLA) figures up to 18 October 2003.

    Notes:

    1. The above figures are payload not caseload figures therefore, a claimant may be counted more than once if they are on several benefits.

    2. If a claimant is receiving one combined payment through the Income Support system for both PC and SP they will only be shown on MIG and not on SP.

    3. Figures quoted are for GB only.

    Source:

    DWP Information Centre, Information and Analysis Directorate, 100 per cent. sample.
    870W
    Database launched last month will provide a central database of seized weapons and help trace guns used in crimes and improve detection.

    Mr. Paice
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many gas cartridge air weapons have been handed in under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003; and how many applications have been made for firearm certificates by owners of such weapons under the provisions of the Act. [143922]

    Ms Blears
    [holding answer 15 December 2003]: None. The legislation is not yet in force. We are aiming to commence the relevant provisions on 20 January when it will become an offence to manufacture, sell, purchase, acquire or transfer any air weapon using a self-contained gas cartridge system. Existing owners will have a further period of three months in which to apply for a firearms certificate or to dispose of the weapon.

  WORK AND PENSIONS

    Benefit Payment Books
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of benefit payment order books in use in each category of benefit at(a) 1 April 2002, (b) 1 April 2003 and (c) the most recent available date. [142420]

    Mr. Pond
    The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows:

    Child Support Payments (North-west)
    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average sum paid(a) in child support payments and (b) in child benefit to families in (i) St. Helens, (ii) Merseyside and (c) the north west region was in each year since 1992. [141298]

    Mr. Pond
    The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

    Average sum paid in child support payments in St. Helens, Merseyside, and north west region as at end of February quarter

    £

    Average amount per week

    Quarter ending

    St. Helens

    Merseyside

    North west

    29 Feb 2000

    23.14

    21.60

    23.94

    28 Feb 2001

    26.11

    24.19

    24.68

    28 Feb 2002

    27.00

    25.66

    26.27

    28 Feb2003

    30.01

    28.55

    27.65

    Notes:

    1. Figures include full maintenance assessment cases only and exclude direct pay cases and zero assessments. Therefore, figures include only fully, partial and nil compliant cases.

    2. Figures produced using 5 per cent. scan of Child Support Computer System (CSCS) and therefore may be subject to sampling variation.

    Average sum paid in child benefit in St. Helens, Merseyside, and North West region as at 30 August

    £

    Average amount per week

    St. Helens

    Merseyside

    North West

    1999

    21.09

    21.83

    21.80

    2000

    21.97

    22.62

    22.63

    2001

    22.41

    22.95

    23.02

    2002

    22.55

    23.09

    23.18

    Notes:

    1. 100 per cent. sample

    2. Caseload figures are rounded to the nearest five

    Cold Weather Payments
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cold weather payments have been made in each of the last six years,(a) in total and (b) broken down by region; and what the real terms expenditure on those payments was in each case. [144654]

    Mr. Pond
    The information is in the table. A breakdown by region would be available only at disproportionate cost.

    Number awarded

    Amount awarded Cash terms (£million)

    Amount awarded Real terms (£million)

    1997–98

    55,000

    0.47

    0.53

    1998–99

    26,000

    0.22

    0.24

    1999–2000

    114,000

    0.97

    1.04

    2000–01

    3,535,000

    30.05

    31.69

    2001–02

    1,804,000

    15.33

    15.77

    2002–03

    1,675,000

    14.24

    14.24

    Notes:

    1. Real terms expenditure has been calculated using the GDP deflator released on 11 December 2003 and is based on 2002–03 prices

    2. The numbers awarded have been rounded to the nearest 1,000 and the amounts awarded to the nearest £0.01 million.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the hon. Member for Christchurch will receive a reply to his inquiries on behalf of Mrs. Pitson about the Child Support Agency. [144543]

    Mr. Pond
    The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

    Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 16 December 2003:

    In replying to your recent Parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

    You asked when you will receive a reply to your inquiry on behalf of Mrs Pitson about the Child Support Agency.

    Our records show that the last time you wrote to the Agency in respect of Mrs Pitson was the 10 October 2003, I subsequently replied on the 19 November 2003.

    Industrial Injuries
    Helen Jackson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects the further research recommended by the Industrial Injuries Council into risk of upper limb disorders in specific occupations to be completed. [142599]

    Mr. Browne
    The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (MAC) has monitored the scientific literature in relation to Work Related Upper Limb Disorders since its last report in 1992, and has decided that there is now sufficient new evidence that it should conduct a further review of the subject.

    The review is still in its early stages. 11 AC plans to continue its research and consultation with experts during the spring and summer of 2004 and to complete its review in the first half of 2005.

    Occupational Deafness
    Mr. Mahmood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases lodged before the Medical Appeals Tribunal in 2002–03 concerned occupational deafness; and how many were successful.[143458]

    Maria Eagle
    This is a matter for Christina Townsend Chief Executive of the Appeals Service. She will reply to the hon. Member.

    Letter from Christina Townsend to Mr. Mahmood, dated 16 December 2003:

    The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question regarding the number of cases lodged before Medical Appeal Tribunals in 2002–03 concerning occupational deafness.

    Appeals tribunals succeeded Medical Appeal Tribunals in 1999. The attached table shows the number of appeals lodged, those cleared at hearing and the number found in favour of the appellant. I hope this reply is helpful.
    873W

    Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB) appeals due to Occupational Deafness in the period 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003

    Lodged

    Cleared at hearing

    Found in favour of the appellant

    All Appeals

    242,510

    178,350

    80,815

    All IIDB appeals

    18,355

    15,860

    6,140

    IIDB occupational deafness appeals

    395

    355

    70

    Notes:

    All figures are subject to change as more up to date data becomes available. Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

    Source:

    IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. sample.

    Child Maintenance paid to parents with care who are in receipt of Income Support/Jobseeker's Allowance (IB) and Working Families Tax Credit: 1 March 2000 to 28 February 2003

    Total Maintenance paid

    Maintenance paid to IS/JSA(IB) PWCs

    Maintenance paid to WFTC PWCs

    £million

    £ million

    Percentage

    £ million

    Percentage

    1 Mar 2000 to 28 February 2001

    480.1

    142.0

    29.6

    154.0

    32.1

    1 Mar 2001 to 28 February 2002

    514.2

    137.8

    26.8

    180.3

    35.1

    1 March 2002 to 28 February 2003

    554.9

    137.7

    24.8

    205.3

    37.0

    Notes:

    1. Figures are for full maintenance assessments only.

    2. Figures produced using 5 per cent. scan of Child Support Computer System (CSCS).

    3. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and therefore may be subject to sampling variation.

    4. Maintenance paid is in millions and is rounded to the nearest hundred thousand.

    Pension Credit
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners receiving housing and council tax benefit became entitled to pension credit in October; and of that number how many received an increase in their housing and council tax benefit entitlement to reflect the increased thresholds for these benefits. [144652]

    Mr. Pond
    The information is not available. However, we estimate that some 1.9 million pensioner households stand to get more help, or help for the first time, through housing benefit and council tax benefit as a result of the introduction of pension credit.

    Steve Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether pension credit counts as income when assessing housing and council tax benefit. [144653]

    Mr. Pond
    Whether pension credit is taken into account when assessing housing benefit and council tax benefit depends on which elements of pension credit are in payment.

    A person in receipt of the guarantee element of pension credit, or both the guarantee and the savings credit elements of pension credit, has all of their income and capital disregarded for the purposes of housing benefit and council tax benefit. If a person is in receipt of the savings credit element only, then the amount of the savings credit is taken into account as income in the housing benefit or council tax benefit assessment.

    However, in October 2003, the applicable amounts in housing benefit and council tax benefit, for people aged 65 and over (or who have partners aged 65 and over) were increased to reflect the maximum savings credit people could get. This ensures that, although the savings

    Parents with Care
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the(a) monetary value and (b) percentage of maintenance that was paid to Child Support Agency parents with care in receipt of (i) income based jobseeker's allowance and income support and (ii) working families tax credit in each of the last six years. [141529]

    Mr. Pond
    The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

    credit is taken into account as income, the resulting reduction in their housing benefit or council tax is less than their gains due to receipt of the savings credit.

    Pension Payments
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners have decided not to change over to payment of their pensions into bank accounts or Post Office card accounts. [144288]

    Mr. Pond
    As at 14 November 2003, over 1.3 million Pension Service customers have been invited to convert to direct payment. Of these, only 2.98 per cent. (39,016) have actively indicated that, at this stage, payment into a bank, building society or Post Office card account is not their preferred option.

    Key figures on the progress of conversion to direct payment are available in the Library updated every four weeks.

    State Pension
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how his Department intends to help lower earners build up their entitlement to the state pension. [143927]

    Malcolm Wicks
    There are already a number of measures in place to help lower earners build up their entitlement to state pension.

    Employees who earn above the lower earnings limit (LEL) but less than the lower earnings threshold (LET) are treated as having earnings at the LET. Certain carers and people who are disabled or long-term ill who earn less than the LET, including those with no earnings at all, are also treated as having earnings at the LET. Because the LET is set at a higher amount than the LEL, some employees do not have to pay national insurance

    875W
    contributions (NICs) but are treated as if they have paid them. This means that they continue to build up entitlement to contributory benefits such as state pension and incapacity benefit even though they are not paying NICs.

    In addition, people with earnings below the level at which they are treated as paying NICs or no earnings can have their state pension entitlement protected by home responsibilities protection (HRP). HRP helps to protect the basic state pension position of people whose opportunities to work are limited because of caring responsibilities at home. It is available to eligible people for complete tax years and reduces the number of qualifying years they would otherwise need for a basic state pension.

    Also, recipients of working tax credit whose earnings are below the level at which they are treated as paying NICs can be credited with contributions for state pension purposes.

    Further, the state second pension focuses help on those with low to moderate earnings and on qualifying carers and long term-disabled people who have broken work records. 20 million people have started to benefit from the reform of state earnings-related pension scheme (SERPS) through the state second pension, introduced in April 2002. Low earners will get at least double what they would have got from SERPS, while carers and disabled people with broken work records will be entitled to an additional state pension for the first time.

  HEALTH

    Smoking
    Mr. Blunt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths were related to smoking in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002. [143842]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    Information is not available in the form requested. The Health Education Authority 1998 report, "The UK Smoking Epidemic: Deaths in 1995", estimated that in the United Kingdom in 1995, smoking caused more than 120,000 deaths of people aged 35 years or more. A copy of this report is available in the Library.

    "Valuing People"
    Mr. Blizzard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will fund the service improvements for adults with learning disabilities set out in the White Paper, Valuing People. [143503]

    Dr. Ladyman
    "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century" (Cm 5086), announced the creation of two new funds to support its priorities, the Implementation Support Fund from April 2001 and the Learning Disability Development Fund from April 2002. Our annual report on learning disability, Making Change Happen (HC 514), published in April 2003, announced that the Support Fund would continue until March 2006; the Development Fund will also continue until March 2006.
    876W
    In addition, over £3 billion a year is spent on health and social care provision for people with learning disabilities. People with learning disabilities also use mainstream health and social care services and benefit from increased expenditure on those services.

    Agenda for Change
    Linda Gilroy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent meetings he has had with the Business Services Association to discuss Agenda for Change; and if he will make a statement. [143523]

    Mr. Hutton
    Officials have met the Business Services Association to discuss issues arising from the new national health service pay system. Pay, terms and conditions for staff in contracted-out services will depend on the nature of transfer agreements and any subsequent agreements reached between the organisations concerned and their employees, but the Department welcomes the opportunity to share views on workforce issues with the independent sector.

    Assisted Conception Units
    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have been conceived in licensed assisted conception units using donated gametes; how many children have been unable to receive information on their genetic origins since July when donor anonymity was to have been lifted; how many children were made the subject of an adoption order and a Section 30 parental order since July; and when the Government will announce its conclusions on donor anonymity. [143358]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    Nearly 25,000 children have been conceived in licensed assisted conception units as a result of treatment using donated gametes and embryos since August 1991, when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's register of such births began. After a public consultation exercise in 2002, we announced in January 2003 that we would carry out a further programme of work on the possibility of providing of identifying information about future sperm, egg and embryo donors, and make a further announcement after that. We expect to make a decision on this shortly.

    In the region of 800 children have been born as a result of licensed infertility treatment using donated gametes or embryos since 1 July 2003. Over that period, the Registrar General has received 2,336 adoption orders and 27 parental orders under section 30 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.

    Brachytherapy Treatment
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make it his policy that every patient recommended by an NHS consultant for brachytherapy treatment has the treatment funded by a primary care trust; [144545]

    (2) what the Government's policy on the funding of brachytherapy treatment by the national health service is. [144546]
    877W
    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) published guidance on the organisation and delivery of services for people with urological cancers, including prostate cancer, in September 2002. The guidance states that the option of brachytherapy should be discussed with men with early prostate cancer.

    However, the NICE guidance also acknowledges that, the place of brachytherapy in the treatment of prostate cancer is uncertain and notes the importance of research to evaluate the effectiveness of brachytherapy for prostate cancer. The guidance refers to a randomised intergroup trial comparing brachytherapy with radical surgery that is being organised by the National Cancer Institute of Canada and the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group, and strongly encourages UK participation in this study. As a result, the Department of Health has made available £900,000 through the National Cancer Research Network (NCRN) to enable national health service patients to enter this trial. The National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) prostate cancer clinical studies group and the NCRN are working closely together to take this trial forward in the NHS.

    As more evidence on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of brachytherapy becomes available, the Department will consider whether this treatment is a suitable topic for referral to NICE as a technology appraisal. The Government are devolving power from the centre to enable primary care trusts to use the extra resources for the NHS to deliver on both national and local priorities for their communities, accounting publicly for how they have used them.

    Breast Cancer
    Mr. Baron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the reasons why the UK has lower survival rates for breast cancer than other EU countries. [141878]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    [holding answer 4 December 2003]: Comparable statistics on cancer survival in the United Kingdom and most other European Union countries have been produced in three studies funded by the European Commission (the EUROCARE studies). Cancer registries in the UK, including staff from the National Registry at the Office for National Statistics, have been involved in these studies since they began in 1989.

    The recently published findings of the EUROCARE 3 study, covering patients diagnosed in 1990–94, showed that cancer survival rates in England, in general, lag behind those in Europe. However, the study also shows that the gap in survival rates between England and other comparable countries is now beginning to diminish. For patients diagnosed with breast cancer in the early 1990s, differences in the stage at diagnosis were a key explanation for the differences in survival between Western European countries.
    878W
    It is important to note that these studies predate the introduction of the NHS Cancer Plan by more than five years. The improvements in waiting times, treatment and the introduction of specialist teams for breast cancer patients now being delivered by the NHS Cancer Plan will help to ensure survival rates for breast cancer patients continue to improve. Indeed, Cancer Research UK have noted that in the past decade British women have had the worlds biggest decrease in deaths from breast cancer thanks to better diagnosis and treatment. Indeed, deaths from breast cancer among the under 70s have decreased more sharply in Britain than anywhere in the world, by 30 per cent., in the last 10 years.

    Cancer Care
    Mr. Ben Chapman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he proposes to tackle the shortfall in trained(a) oncologists, (b) radiographers and (c) physicists. [140544]

    Mr. Hutton
    Since 1997, there has been a 28 per cent. increase in the number of consultants in clinical oncology and a 98 per cent. increase in the number of consultants in medical oncology.

    In 2003–04, central funding has been provided to support the implementation of six centrally funded training places in clinical oncology and six in medical oncology. Trusts have also been given the opportunity to create up to 14 additional locally funded training places in clinical oncology and 11 in medical oncology.

    The table shows the number of clinical and medical oncologists working in the national health service between September 1997-June 2003.

    The Department is committed to increasing the number of training places for radiographers and medical physicists; between 1996–97 and 2002–03, the number of training commissions for radiography have increased by 107 per cent. to 1,223. Separate information on the number of training places for medical physicists has only been collected sine 2002–03; latest plans show that work force development confederations (WDCs) expect to increase the number of training places by around 16 per cent. There is a range of recruitment, retention and returner initiatives in place to further increase the national health service work force, including radiographers and medical physicists.

    The cancer care group work force team, which is a multi-disciplinary body, supports the delivery of improvements in patient services through innovative, integrated, care-centred work force development. It is an expert advisory body with representation from WDCs, the Modernisation Agency, health and social care professionals, education and training organisations, and patients and service users.

    Its task is to recommend practical ways of providing the workforce needed to deliver improved services, in the right numbers, with the right skills and in the right place, taking into particular account recent and future policy initiatives.
    879W

    Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS): Hospital medical staff in clinical and medical oncology—England1

    Number (headcount)

    Clinical oncology

    Medical oncology

    1997

    All

    647

    271

    Consultants

    287

    89

    1998

    All

    676

    327

    Consultants

    299

    102

    1999

    All

    698

    375

    Consultants

    305

    110

    2000

    All

    711

    404

    Consultants

    307

    133

    2001

    All

    776

    435

    Consultants

    333

    147

    2002

    All

    785

    504

    Consultants

    315

    185

    June 2003

    All

    2—

    2—

    Consultants

    367

    176

    1 Data as at 30 September each year, except for 2003, where data as at 30 June.

    2 Not available. Data for June 2003 is taken from the mini census which collected consultants only.

    Source:

    Department of Health medical and dental workforce census.

    Mr. Ben Chapman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to ensure the replacement of radiotherapy equipment over 10 years old; [140549]

    (2) if he will make a statement on investment in (a) staff and (b) machines for radiotherapy delivery. [140550]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The NHS Cancer Plan committed the national health service to maintaining a modern stock of linear accelerators for radiotherapy treatment of no older than 11 years. The NHS Plan and NHS Cancer Plan made a commitment for 20 replacement and 25 additional new linear accelerators as well as for 50 additional computed tomography (CT) scanners and 50 additional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners to be installed in the NHS by 2004. Funding for the linear accelerators was announced in July 2002. On 22 May 2003, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, (Mr. Milburn) announced the location of the majority of the CT and MRI scanners, and a further programme of replacement CT, MRI and linear accelerators over the next three years. This will mean that by the end of 2006, no CT or MRI scanner will be older than 10 years and no linear accelerator will be older than 11 years.

    Alongside the investment in equipment we are also increasing the numbers of staff working in radiotherapy
    880W
    departments and making better use of existing staff through role re-design and improved skill mix.

    Cancer Services
    Mr. Norman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the two-month wait target from GP referral to first definitive treatment for(a) lung, (b) gynaecological, (c) colorectal and (d) urological cancers for each month over the last three years that were previously published on his Department's website.[141401]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    A two month waiting time target from urgent general practitioner referral to first treatment for lung, gynaecological, colorectal and urological cancers will be in place from 2005 and data will be published after the target is implemented. The cancer waiting times data referred to was published by the cancer service collaborative (CSC) on its own website as part of its monitoring of local cancer projects achievements and focused on 30 per cent. of cancer patients in services identified locally as those most in need of improvement. The CSC is currently developing a new more meaningful reporting system which will enable local teams to monitor their progress on delivering improvements to cancer patients using validated cancer waiting times data.

    Care Homes
    Mr. Ruffley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many council-owned care home places have been transferred out of council ownership in(a) Suffolk, (b) Norfolk, (c) Essex, (d) Cambridgeshire and (e) England in each year since 2000. [143531]

    Dr. Ladyman
    This information is not held by the Department. Information provided by the relevant councils on the numbers of council-owned care home places that have transferred out of council ownership in each year since 2000 is shown in the table.

    Council

    2000–01

    2001–02

    2002–03

    2003–04 (number of transfers in progress)

    Suffolk

    0

    0

    280

    89

    Norfolk

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Essex

    480

    200

    0

    0

    Cambridgeshire

    140

    300

    0

    0

    Christmas Celebrations
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were in hospital over the Christmas period in each year since 1997; and what guidance is issued to the NHS on celebrating Christmas in hospitals. [143704]

    Dr. Ladyman
    The number of children in hospital at Christmas in each year since 1997 is shown in the table. Only children discharged within the same year have been counted. Those who are still in hospital on 1 April after Christmas are not included.
    881W

    Children in hospital at Christmas, age on admission 0–17 years. Date of admission on or before 25 December, date of discharge on or after 25 December

    Count at in year discharges NHS hospitals, England 1997–98 to 2002–03

    Discharges

    1997–98

    10,069

    1998–99

    10,991

    1999–2000

    10,491

    2000–01

    10,026

    2001–02

    10,202

    2002–03

    10,439

    Notes:

    1. Discharges: A discharge episode is the last episode during a spell, where the patient is discharged from the hospital (this includes transfer to another hospital).

    2. Grossing: Figures are grossed for both coverage and missing/invalid clinical data, except for 2001–02 and 2002–03 which are
    not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

    Source:

    Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

    Guidance on the treatment of children in hospital was issued in April in the form of the national service framework (NSF) for children on hospital standards. This is available at: http://www.doh.gov.uk/nsf/ children/hospitalstandard.pdf. The NSF follows on from earlier guidance issued in 1991 on 'The Welfare of Children and Young People in Hospital'.

    In general, the cardinal principles underlying this guidance provide that:
    children are admitted to hospital only where the health care they require cannot be provided in their own home and community;
    when it is necessary to admit children to hospital, they are admitted for the shortest time possible, commensurate with the time necessary for treatment and recovery prior to discharge;
    the hospital environment is child friendly and hospital services take full account of childrens' needs for emotional support and recreation. These needs are of great importance in childhood, particularly at times like Christmas.

    Coronary Care
    Mr. Moss
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of external counter pulsation and enhanced external counter pulsation treatments for heart disease, with particular reference to angina pectoris; [143812]

    (2) what research work he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on external counter pulsation; and what conclusions about its efficacy were drawn. [143813]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    External counter pulsation (ECP) is not routinely offered to patients with angina pectoris by the national health service. There is insufficient evidence currently available about its benefits to warrant its widespread use.

    The available literature on this procedure has been reviewed and it has been decided not to commission any research from the Department of Health.

    Although there is currently insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the benefits of ECP, the evidence base is being monitored. Should improvements in the effectiveness of ECP be demonstrated, the position will be reviewed.
    882W
    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice is given to health professionals about signs and symptoms consistent with underlying cardiac conditions that could cause unexpected death. [143974]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    Relatives of people who have died of sudden cardiac death, or who are diagnosed with one of the underlying conditions, should be screened because there is a genetic component in many of these cases.

    The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is currently reviewing guidance, issued in September 2000 to the National Health Service in England and Wales, on the use of implantable cardioverter defribrillators (ICDs). Current guidance already suggests that ICDs should be used, where clinically indicated, for patients with a familial cardiac condition with a high risk of sudden death, such as Long-QT syndrome and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) emotional and (b) practical support is provided to (i) patients who are diagnosed with a potentially fatal cardiac condition and (ii) their carers. [143975]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    Following a diagnosis of potentially fatal conditions, people can access a range of psychological therapies, which are available in every strategic health authority catchment area. The responsibility of referring patients to such services lies with the clinicians involved in their care.

    All trusts provide support for patients, relatives and staff through the chaplaincy service and associated community faith representatives. In November 2003, the Department published guidance material for managers and those involved in the provision of chaplaincy-spiritual care, "Meeting the Religious and Spiritual Needs of Patients and Staff".

    The new guidance sets out the contribution chaplaincy-spiritual care providers can make in directly supporting patients within the modern national health service. Meeting the varied emotional needs of such patients and of their carers is fundamental to the care provided by the NHS.

    Practical support available for those diagnosed with cardiac-related illness is also widely available. Where appropriate, patients are offered surgery, and no one currently waits more than nine months for heart surgery. Those diagnosed with heart failure are offered treatments to control their symptoms, improve their quality of life and slow disease progression. Patients may also be offered advice on how to make lifestyle changes, for example, smoking cessation or dietary advice, which will improve their quality of life and reduce the risks of their condition deteriorating.

    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice is given to primary health care trusts to prevent those at risk from(a) sudden adult death syndrome and (b) arrhythmia death from being prescribed medications that may prove lethal to people whose hearts are sensitive to those substances and could cause them to die unexpectedly. [143976]
    883W
    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The British National Formulary (BNF) provides United Kingdom healthcare professionals with authoritative and practical information on the selection and clinical use of medicines in a clear, concise and accessible manner.

    The BNF makes specific mention of drugs which have associated risk with arrhythmia death.

    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the British Heart Foundation study published 27 March, Urgent Call for Greater Research into So-Called Adult 'Cot Death'. [143977]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The British Heart Foundation (BHF) study suggested that sudden cardiac death should be classed as a separate condition.

    We do not believe that sudden cardiac death should be classified as a syndrome in its own right. This is because it has many possible causes—neurological, metabolic or cardiac problems, or an underlying infection.

    The UK National Screening Committee has advised there is insufficient evidence to warrant a national screening programme for sudden cardiac death. This recommendation is based on a report produced in 1999 by Dr. Stuart Logan of the Institute for Child Health. Dr. Logan has now updated his report in the light of recent research and, after consideration of the report by the Child Health sub-committee, the position remains the same.

    The evidence base is due to be reviewed in March 2004.

    Correspondence
    John Barrett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Hutton), will reply to the letter of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West of 3 September 2003; and what the reasons are for the delay in replying. [143721]

    Mr. Hutton
    A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 14 October 2003.

    Delayed Discharges
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on delayed discharges in the Vale of York. [144482]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    Information available in the Library shows that, in quarter two of 2003–04, there were 47 patients in the Selby and York Primary Care Trust (PCT) area whose transfer of care had been delayed.

    Joint working has been put in place at every level in the Selby and York PCT area to address the issue of delayed transfers of care. A number of joint schemes have been put in place to prevent inappropriate admission, support early discharge and to prevent unacceptable delays.

    The local authority in York has developed eight transitional care beds in the last year and Selby and York PCT is about to start a 24-hour district nursing
    884W
    service. By July 2004, there will be a new intermediate care facility in York providing a further 28 more appropriate placements for patients.

    Diabetes
    Nick Harvey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been spent on healthcare professional education with regard to diabetes over the past three years; and if he will make a statement. [143738]

    Mr. Hutton
    The Department does not collect data at a level that allows the identification of the money that has been spent on healthcare professional education with regard to diabetes.

    Nick Harvey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions are being put in place to improve the overall competency of diabetes education of primary care and generalist staff; and if he will make a statement. [143739]

    Mr. Hutton
    The long-term conditions care group workforce team (LTCCGWT) was established two years ago. Part of its remit is to identify the workforce requirements for diabetes services. To help support this activity, the LTCCGWT in the summer of 2002, commissioned Skills for Health to develop competence frameworks for diabetes. The frameworks are intended to describe the quality of service a person with diabetes needs, whether that service is provided by a diabetes specialist nurse, a practice nurse, a general practitioner, a dietician, or any of the other professionals who provide diabetes care. They cover the key activities of:reviewing and investigating the health of adults with diabetes agreeing, implementing and supporting care plans

    In addition, Skills for Health is also developing national occupational standards for diabetes retinopathy screening. Work to develop the competence frameworks will be concluded in spring 2004 with the development of draft national occupational standards for diabetes retinopathy screening being achieved during summer 2004.

    Disease Screening
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that no doctor or nurse will be employed in the NHS without first being screened for(a) hepatitis B, (b) hepatitis C, (c) tuberculosis and (d) HIV/AIDS; and if he will ensure that checks are made on existing medical and nursing staff in the NHS. [144005]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    [holding answer 15 December 2003]: Earlier this year, the Department published draft guidance to the national health service for consultation on health clearance for serious communicable diseases for new healthcare workers. This guidance proposes strengthening existing checks for tuberculosis and hepatitis B and introducing new checks for HIV and hepatitis C for new healthcare workers who will perform exposure prone procedures–where injury to the healthcare worker could expose a patient to the risk of infection from the healthcare worker's blood. Such procedures occur mainly in surgery, obstetrics and gynaecology, dentistry and midwifery.
    885W
    "Health Clearance for Serious Communicable Diseases: New Health Care Workers—Draft guidance for consultation" is available on the Department's website at http://www.doh.gov.uk/healthclear/guidance.htm

    Healthcare workers have a professional responsibility (as set out in guidance from their regulatory bodies and the Department) to promptly seek and follow confidential advice on whether they should be tested if they have any reason to believe they may have been exposed to infection with a serious communicable disease.

    Domiciliary Care
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates(a) the Department and (b) the National Care Standards Commission has made of the number of domiciliary care providers operating in England that would be required to register with the Commission.[140641]

    Dr. Ladyman
    Before the introduction of regulation for domiciliary care agencies, the Department estimated that over 3,600 agencies operating in England would be required to register with the National Care Standards Commission. In fact, 4,322 registration applications have been received.

    Fertility Experiments
    Jim Dobbin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to prevent the sale of female eggs for fertility experiments; [143174]

    (2) what his policy is on pharmaceutical companies offering financial inducements to women to donate eggs for use in fertility experiments; and if he will make a statement. [143445]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    Infertility research involving the use of human eggs requires a licence from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) if those eggs are mature and are placed in storage at the research centre and/or are to be fertilised with human sperm to create a zygote or embryo. Women donating eggs to such projects can be paid a maximum of £15.00 per donation plus expenses.

    The sale of human material that is not regulated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, including immature eggs, will be made a criminal offence by the Human Tissue Bill, which was introduced on 3 December 2003.

    All research projects involving the use of human gametes, including those that do not require a licence from the HFEA, must have the approval of the research centre's local research ethics committee before the project can go ahead.

    Flu Vaccination
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the currently available influenza vaccination in offering protection against Fujian flu. [142966]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    [holding answer 9 December 2003]: The Chief Medical Officer asked the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) to
    886W
    review current flu policy and effectiveness of the vaccine. At its meeting on 10 November 2003, the JCVI agreed that the current vaccine is expected to offer some cross protection against the Fujian-like strain and should give good protection against the virus strains in the vaccine.

    Foundation Hospitals
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from(a) foundation trust applicants and (b) other hospital staff concerning the impact of the new financial flows system on their stability. [143702]

    Mr. Hutton
    The Department published a Payments By Results consultation on 7 August 2003. The consultation closed on 31 October 2003. Responses to the consultation, including those from foundation trust applicants and other hospital staff, are currently being analysed and a response will be made available when this analysis is completed.

    Genetic Information
    Mrs. Roe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the time scale is for(a) developing policy options involving stakeholders and (b) consulting the public before the moratorium on the use of genetic information by insurance companies comes to an end in 2006. [142218]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The Government have made clear its position on the use of genetic test results for underwriting life and health insurance in the October 2001 Government response to the report from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee: Genetics and Insurance.

    The Genetics and Insurance Committee (GAIC) is responsible for the evaluation of specific genetic tests and their relevance to particular types of insurance. GAIC also provides independent scrutiny of compliance with the terms of the moratorium on the use of genetic test results by insurance companies, which runs until November 2006. If there is evidence of non-compliance with the moratorium by the insurance industry, then the Government is prepared to enforce it through legislation, if necessary.

    The Human Genetics Commission (HGC) has been asked to work closely with GAIC to provide Government with further advice in developing a longer-term policy on the use of genetic information by insurance companies. GAIC and HGC will also monitor the effectiveness of the Association of British Insurers (ABI) Code of practice on Genetics which is mandatory for all ABI members.

    HGC and GAIC held a well-received joint public meeting in September 2003. A number of interested groups, members of the public, attended this meeting, including representatives from organisations concerned with genetic disorders, as well as from insurance and re-insurance companies, and non-Governmental organisations with an interest in this area. HGC and GAIC are planning a further such meeting in 2004.
    887W
    Research is also under way to consider the use of genetic information in insurance underwriting. This research will be completed by 2005.

    Health Care (Stoke-on-Trent)
    Mr. Stevenson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated at the North Staffordshire Hospital in each year since 1997. [143873]

    Dr. Ladyman
    The table shows the number of finished in-year admissions at University Hospital of North Staffordshire National Health Service Trust (formerly North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust) each year from 1997–98 to 2002–03.

    Admissions

    1997–98

    101,642

    1998–99

    106,355

    1999–2000

    122,241

    2000–01

    121,978

    2001–02

    113,621

    2002–03

    135,665

    Notes:

    Admissions

    Admissions are defined as the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. Please note that admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

    Grossing

    Figures have not (yet) been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed).

    Source:

    Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

    Mr. Stevenson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time for a first consultant appointment was in Stoke-on-Trent for each year since 1997. [143874]

    Dr. Ladyman
    The table shows the average (median) waiting times for first consultant out-patient appointment following general practitioner/general dental practitioner referral for University Hospital of North Staffordshire National Health Service Trust (formerly North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust) and North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust.

    Median waiting time (weeks)

    1995–96

    9.22

    1996–97

    8.60

    1997–98

    9.05

    1998–99

    9.16

    1999–2000

    9.20

    2000–01

    8.94

    2001–02

    10.14

    2002–03

    8.81

    Source:

    Department of Health form QM08

    Mr. Stevenson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the clinical areas where the NHS in Stoke-on-Trent has longer(a) waiting lists and (b) waiting times than the English average. [143875]

    Dr. Ladyman
    The table shows the number of patients, per 10,000 head of population, waiting for elective in-patient admission.
    888W

    Specialty

    England

    North Stoke PCT and South Stoke PCT

    Trauma and orthopaedics

    51.25

    63.58

    Anaesthetics

    0.96

    1.37

    Medical oncology

    0.04

    0.04

    Mental illness

    0.02

    0.93

    Note:

    Position at 30 September 2003.

    Source:

    Department of Health form QF01.

    The table shows the average (median) waiting times (in months) for elective in-patient admission.

    Specialty

    England

    North Stoke PCT and South Stoke PCT

    General surgery

    2.56

    4.02

    Trauma and orthopaedics

    3.52

    4.16

    Ophthalmology

    2.87

    3.06

    Anaesthetics

    2.25

    3.19

    Cardiology

    2.47

    2.83

    Mental illness

    1.64

    1.71

    All specialties

    2.71

    3.15

    Note:

    Position at 30 September 2003.

    Source:

    Department of Health form QF01.

    Health Start Programme
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the projected budget for the Healthy Start Programme is for each of the next three years; [144560]

    (2) how much he has spent on the Welfare Foods scheme in each of the past three years. [144566]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    Total expenditure on the Welfare Food Scheme in England in the last three financial years is shown in the table.

    £million

    2000–01

    120

    2001–02

    118

    2002–03

    114

    The budget is demand-led, but expenditure should continue at a similar level when the current scheme is replaced by Healthy Start at around the end of 2004.

    Herbal Medicines
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of products currently on the market that will require a full marketing authorisation under the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive. [143660]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    One of the main reasons why we have supported the development of the proposed Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products is the difficulty companies sometimes experience at present in providing evidence that their products fully satisfy all the criteria for a marketing authorisation, and in particular the requirements relating to efficacy.
    889W
    The current text of the proposed Directive provides that, where the competent authorities judge that a traditional herbal medicinal product fulfils the criteria for a marketing authorisation, the product will not be eligible for a traditional use registration. Our view is that it is likely that only a very small proportion of unlicensed herbal remedies currently on the United Kingdom market would be affected by this provision in a situation where an applicant was seeking a traditional use registration. However, it is not practicable for the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency to give a more specific estimate in advance of the launch of the proposed traditional use registration scheme or to conduct a detailed survey that would be burdensome to the industry.

    Human Genetics Commission
    Mrs. Roe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether the Human Genetics Commission has been charged with(a) involving stakeholders, (b) conducting a public consultation and (c) developing a national policy on the use of genetic information by insurance companies; [142217]

    (2) what plans his Department has for a public consultation to address the issue of genetics and insurance in preparation for the end of the current moratorium. [142206]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The Human Genetics Commission (HGC) has been asked to work closely with the Genetics and Insurance Committee (GAIC), and with stakeholders, to provide Government with further advice in developing a longer-term policy on the use of genetic information by insurance companies.

    HGC is committed to involving the public in all of its activities. It holds its main meetings in public and has held a public fact-finding meeting on genetics and insurance following its survey of public attitudes to the uses of genetic information.

    HGC and GAIC held a well-received joint public meeting in September 2003. A number of interested groups, and members of the public, attended this meeting, including representatives from organisations concerned with genetic disorders, as well as from insurance and re-insurance companies, and non-Governmental organisations with an interest in this area. HGC and GAIC are planning a further such meeting in 2004.

    There are no plans for the Department of Health to carry out a public consultation on this issue.

    Influenza
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken to ensure that at-risk groups of people aged under 65 are receiving influenza vaccinations this winter, with particular reference to children over six months in at-risk groups. [142957]
    890W
    Miss Melanie Johnson
    We launched a campaign on 1 October incorporating a number of strategies aimed at encouraging younger people in at-risk groups to receive their flu immunisation. The campaign incorporated:National television advertising.
    Advertising in national and regional newspapers and magazines, including ethnic media.
    Advertising in buses, on pharmacy bags and on-line.
    Work with commercial partners such as Gala Bingo and voluntary organisations, such as Heart UK and the National Asthma Campaign.

    The Chief Medical Officer wrote to all general practitioners with details of this year's influenza programme in his letter of 6 August 2003.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children are in the at-risk group for influenza; and how many of these have received an influenza vaccination this year. [142958]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The number of children registered as at-risk is not held centrally. This year, for the first time, general practitioners have been asked to set up disease registers for all at-risk patients in order to maximise uptake in these most vulnerable patients.

    Vaccine uptake for at-risk patients is not available.

    Mental Health Care
    Mr. Gale
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) organisations and (b) expert professionals who have been consulted during his Department's review of specialised mental health care. [143852]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The national director is leading a group of senior clinicians and managers who are considering the advice needed to support future commissioning and provision of specialised mental health services. In each instance they will consult acknowledged expert professionals and leading voluntary organisations. The review has considered three topics so far—eating disorders, perinatal psychiatry and Aspergers syndrome. The Eating Disorders Association gave evidence to the first topic and AsCUSE gave evidence to the session on Aspergers. There was no voluntary sector organisation available for the session on perinatal psychiatry.

    Midwifery Units
    Mr. Baron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many midwifery-led units have been closed since 1997; how many were transferred to hospitals to become consultant-led units; how many consultant-led units were closed; and how many have become midwifery-led units since 1997. [144662]

    Dr. Ladyman
    This information is not collected centrally.

    MMR
    Virginia Bottomley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the two-year-old cohort received the MMR vaccine in(a) the last 12 months, (b) 1997 and (c) 1990. [143601]
    891W
    Miss Melanie Johnson
    Information about the uptake of MMR immunisations and other childhood immunisations is published annually. The latest information is in DH Statistical Bulletin, NHS Immunisation Statistics, England: 2002–03, available on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0316.htm.

    The uptake levels for MMR by the second birthday by financial year (April to March) from 1989–90 to date are shown below in the table.

    Completed primary courses: percentage of children immunised by their second birthday, 1989–90 to 2002–03

    Percentage uptake

    1989–90

    84.0

    1990–91

    87.1

    1991–92

    89.9

    1992–93

    91.6

    1993–94

    90.8

    1994–95

    91.0

    1995–96

    91.9

    1996–97

    91.5

    1997–98

    90.8

    1998–99

    88.3

    1999–2000

    87.6

    2000–01

    87.4

    2001–02

    84.1

    2002–03

    81.8

    Nappies
    Mr. Swayne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions have taken place between his Department and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs regarding the Government's target to reduce disposable nappy waste; and if he will make a statement. [143226]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    In July 2003, I met my hon. Friend, the Minister of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elliott Morley), along with representatives from the Women's Environmental Network to discuss disposable nappy waste.

    The Department of Health supports the target on waste prevention and reduction. We believe women and their families should be given information on the use of both re-useable and disposable nappies to make an informed choice. "The Pregnancy Book" and "Birth to Five" are two comprehensive information booklets produced by the Department of Health and given free to all first time mothers. Both these publications give detailed information on both reusable and disposable nappies.

    Neonatal Intensive Care
    John Mann
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish his response to the Report of the Neonatal Intensive Care Services Review Group; and if he will make a statement. [143678]

    Dr. Ladyman
    I expect to do so shortly.

    NHS Dentistry
    Mr. Crausby
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the provision of NHS dentistry in Bolton. 143248]
    892W
    Miss Melanie Johnson
    Bolton Primary Care Trust is in discussion with the recently launched Bolton Oral Health Advisory Group to address the provision of national health service dentists within the area.

    Organ Transplants
    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) adults and (b) children are currently registered for an organ transplant in (i) St. Helens and (ii) Merseyside. [142904]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The information requested in shown in the following tables.

    Patients over 18 resident in St. Helen's and Merseyside registered (active and suspended) on the national organ transplant list, as at 10 December 2003

    Organ

    St. Helen's

    Merseyside

    Kidney

    25

    80

    Pancreas

    1

    4

    Kidney/pancreas

    1

    5

    Lung

    2

    5

    Heart/lung

    —

    1

    Total

    29

    98

    Patients under 18 resident in St. Helen's and Merseyside registered (active and suspended) on the national organ transplant list, as at 10 December 2003

    Organ

    St. Helen's

    Merseyside

    Kidney

    —

    3

    Pancreas

    —

    —

    Kidney/pancreas

    —

    —

    Lung

    —

    —

    Heart/lung

    —

    —

    Total

    3

    Notes:

    1. St. Helen's is taken as the former St. Helens and Knowsley Health Authority.

    2. Merseyside is taken as all other postcode with prefix 'L'.

    Source:

    UK Transplant.

    Palliative Treatment
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been spent on palliative care in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [141946]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    Information about how much has been spent on palliative care in each of the last 10 years is not held centrally.

    The Government recognised in the NHS Cancer Plan (2000) that national health service support for specialist palliative care services needed to increase. We pledged to increase NHS investment in specialist palliative care by £50 million per annum by 2004. Ministers also made available an additional £10 million from central budgets in 2002–03.

    We have now set up a £50 million per annum central budget for specialist palliative care to ensure that our pledge in the NHS Cancer Plan is met. This extra £50 million over and above what is already being invested, is to help tackle inequalities in access to specialist palliative care and to enable the NHS to increase their contribution to the cost hospices incur in

    893W
    providing agreed levels of services. All 34 cancer networks have submitted investment plans for the use of their allocation to the National Partnership Group (NPG) for palliative care (a joint NHS/voluntary sector group). The NPG has assessed the investment plans. Plans have been approved and allocations have been made to local cancer networks which will result in an additional 71 whole time equivalent consultants, an additional 162 whole time equivalent cancer nurse specialists and an extra 86 specialist palliative care in-patient beds. The £50 million represents a significant increase of nearly 40 per cent. in NHS funding for specialist palliative care over 2000 levels.

    Pedometers
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much he has spent distributing pedometers to primary care trusts in areas of high deprivation. [144569]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The Department of Health is contributing £27,000 out of a total budget of £85,000 for this initiative which will distribute 10,000 Step-O-Meters to general practitioner practices in areas of high deprivation and where there is a high rate of coronary heart disease. Other funding partners are The Countryside Agency and The British Heart Foundation.

    Pregnancy Care
    Mr. Baron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of pregnant women have had as their first point of contact(a) a general practitioner and (b) a midwife in each of the last six years. [144659]

    Dr. Ladyman
    This information is not collected centrally.

    Mr. Baron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the reasons for the varying rates of caesarean section in England. [144660]

    Dr. Ladyman
    In order to establish the reasons for the varying rates of caesarean section rates, the Department commissioned the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecologists (RCOG) to carry out the first ever and biggest National Sentinel Audit. The findings of the audit were published by the RCOG in October 2001 and these have been referred to National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to issue clinical guidelines. The guidelines are expected in January 2004.

    Prevenar
    Keith Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many studies he has commissioned into the vaccine Prevenar. [142931]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The Department has three studies on pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in the United Kingdom that are addressing a number of issues.the optimal schedule of this vaccine in the infants;
    the need for booster doses;
    the optimal schedule for catch-up for older children; and
    to assess the impact that introducing the pneumococcal vaccine to the routine immunisation schedule has on the level of protection given by the other childhood vaccines.
    894W
    These studies are part of an ongoing programme of research.

    Respiratory Syncytial Virus
    John Mann
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what preventive measures are being taken by NHS trusts to prevent respiratory syncytial virus; [143683]

    (2) how many paediatric wards have been closed due to respiratory syncytial virus infection in the last 12 months, broken down by NHS trust; [143684]

    (3) how many babies contracted respiratory syncytial virus while in each NHS hospital trust in the last 12 months; [143685]

    (4) how many cases of respiratory syncytial virus have been admitted to each NHS trust in 2003. [143686]

    Dr. Ladyman
    Palivizumab, a monoclonal antibody, is indicated for the prevention of serious lower respiratory tract infection caused by respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) requiring hospitalisation in children born at 35 weeks gestation or less, and who are less than six months old at the onset of the RSV season, or in children less than two years old who have received treatment for bronchopulmonary dysplasia within the last six months. The use of Palivizumab is a matter for clinical judgment.

    Information on the number of wards closed to new admissions owing to RSV, and RSV infections contracted while in each national health service (NHS) hospital trust, is not collected centrally. Information on the number of cases of RSV admitted to each national health service trust in 2003 has been placed in the Library.

    School Fruit Scheme
    Andrew George
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was(a) in total, (b) per school and (c) per pupil of implementing the Government's National School Fruit Scheme for each year of its operation. [143613]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The National School Fruit Scheme has been progressively scaled up over the last four years, with schools joining during the course of each year. It is impossible to state the exact cost per school as this will vary, but the table shows the total cost of the National School Fruit Scheme in each year, with the number of schools and pupils taking part at the end of each year.

    The full-year cost per pupil has fallen as schools in each region have joined the scheme. The total annual cost per pupil in schools joining in spring 2002 was £26; for schools due to join in spring 2004 it is £19.

    Cost (£ million)

    Schools

    Pupils

    2000–01

    0.5

    33

    6,000

    2001–02

    1.0

    500

    80,000

    2002–03

    42 (over 3 years1)

    6,400

    616,200

    2003–04

    8,680

    1,097,000

    1 met by the lottery-funded New Opportunities Fund.

    895W
    Andrew George
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what proportion of eligible(a) schools and (b) local education authorities have taken part in the Government's National School Fruit scheme since it began. [143614]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    Eligibility for joining the National School Fruit Scheme pilots has been extended region-by-region. At present, 7,586 schools in 87 local education authorities (LEAs) are taking part out of 7,938 invited to join, which is over 95 per cent. of schools and 100 per cent. of LEAs.

    Sexual Health
    Mrs. Calton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) 20 to 29-year-olds and (b) 30 to 39-year-olds were diagnosed with (i) HIV, (ii) chlamydia, (iii) gonorrhoea and (iv) syphilis per 100,000 population in each year since 1986. [141997]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    Information on the number of new diagnoses per 100,000 population for chlamydia, gonorrhoea and syphilis in England, in each year since 1991 (the first year for which data is available), have been placed in the Library. Data are not collected for the specific age ranges requested, but are shown for the age ranges 20 to 24 years and 25 to 34 years. The number of new HIV diagnoses in England, per 100,000 population, for the age ranges requested, since 1986 have been placed in the Library. Total numbers of new HIV diagnoses are also included.

    Sexually transmitted infection (STI) data is collected from genito-urinary medicine clinics. STIs diagnosed and treated by general practitioners or by health professionals in other settings do not form part of this data set.

    St. Helens Hospitals
    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) doctors and (b) nurses there were in (i) St. Helens and Knowsley Health Authority, (ii) Merseyside and (iii) the North West Region in each year since 1992. [141482]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The information requested has been placed in the Library.

    Stroke Units
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the definition of a stroke unit is under the National Service Framework for Older People's target for every hospital to have a stroke unit by April 2004; [143929]

    (2) what specialist (a) equipment and (b) staff are needed in a stroke ward to change its designation to a specialist stroke unit. 143930]

    Dr. Ladyman
    The formal definition of a stroke unit is still being developed. We would expect, however, that there would be a consultant physician with specialist knowledge of stroke formally recognised as having principal responsibility for stroke services. This 896W
    consultant would be supported by a multidisciplinary team who are specialists in stroke care. The key elements of a good stroke service are:

    vision, drive and leadership;

    interagency and interdisciplinary strategic view;

    the right workforce;

    establishing care pathways;

    the right contribution from primary care;

    involving users and carers;

    having the right long-term social and psychological support;

    good use of information technology;

    the right clinical governance; and

    effective management of change.

    Tees, East and North Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust
    David Davis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on consultancy fees by Tees, East and North Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust in each of the past three years; if he will list each consultant employed by the Trust; and on what matters they were requested to advise. [143236]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The information requested is not held centrally.

    David Davis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been claimed in expenses by the chief executive of Tees, East and North Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust since her appointment; and what her salary was in the past six months, including bonuses, where payable. [143237]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The chief executive of Tees, East and North Yorkshire Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust took up appointment on 1 June 2003. She receives an annual salary of £85,000 and has received £471 in expenses.

    Source:

    Tees, East and North Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust.

    David Davis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on wages for(a) management and (b) paramedics by Tees, East and North Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust in each of the past three years. [143238]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The information requested is shown in the following table.

    £000

    Expenditure on total senior managers and Managers

    Expenditure on ambulance staff

    2000–01

    1,797

    13,283

    2001–02

    1,807

    15,399

    2002–03

    1,827

    17,121

    Source:

    Tees, East and North Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust.

    Figures for expenditure on paramedics are not available separately from expenditure on all ambulance staff.

    David Davis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to improve the performance of the Tees, East and North Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust. [143240]
    897W
    Miss Melanie Johnson
    This is a matter for the North and East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire Strategic Health Authority. I understand that Tees, East and North Yorkshire Ambulance Service (TENYAS) National Health Service Trust has agreed an improvement plan with the North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire Strategic Health Authority. This recognises the issues which TENYAS faces and identifies appropriate actions to move the trust forward in 2003–04.

    Whooping Cough (Vaccination)
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the arrangements for offering adults vaccination against whooping cough; how many adults have been vaccinated in each of the last five years; how many cases of whooping cough in adults have been reported in the last five years; and how many deaths have been recorded.[141845]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    Pertussis disease (whooping cough) has been at the lowest levels ever observed in the past five years. Since the introduction of a pre-school booster dose in October 2001 pertussis levels have fallen further. We are continuing to monitor levels of pertussis to fully evaluate the impact of the booster dose. However, because pertussis has periodic cycles over several years, it may be several more years before the impact can be assessed accurately.

    The need for a booster dose for young people and adults will be assessed when the evidence becomes available. There is therefore no information on the number of adults immunised with the pertussis vaccine at present as it is not recommended.

    Information on notifications of pertussis disease are collected through the NOIDS system (Notification of Infectious Diseases). Information on deaths is collected by the Office of National Statistics (ONS). Information on the number of notifications of pertussis in adults in
    898W
    the last five years is shown in the table. There have been no deaths attributed to pertussis in adults in the last five years.

    Number of notifications of pertussis in adults (England and Wales) in the last five years

    Age group

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    2002

    15 to 24 year old

    24

    23

    20

    21

    20

    25 to 44 year old

    75

    69

    32

    35

    63

    45 to 64 year old

    21

    14

    19

    18

    28

    65+ years

    9

    4

    4

    3

    6

    Source:

    Health Protection Agency.

    Workplace Issues Group
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the group looking at workplace issues will report; what the membership of the group is; what its terms of reference are; and if he will make a statement. [142173]

    Dr. Ladyman
    The long term conditions care group work force team (LTCCGWT) is responsible for increasing the capacity of the work force supporting the delivery of neurology, diabetes, renal and dermatology services. The LTCCGWT is a multi-disciplinary advisory body working in support of the National Workforce Development Board and the Workforce Numbers Advisory Board in drawing up national workforce strategies. It takes a national view of the health and social care workforce pressures and priorities for the long-term conditions client group. Each year the LTCCGWT produces a report setting out its recommendations on work force issues, such as the need for increased numbers of staff and also new ways of working, including skill mix, role extensions and multi-disciplinary working, based around patient needs. This report, along with those from the other six CGWTs forms the overall report to the June meeting of the Workforce Numbers Advisory Board. The 2003 reports from the CGWTs will be published shortly for distribution to strategic health authorities and workforce development confederations. The reports will also be available on the CGWT website, together with details of the group's membership and terms of reference. The website address is: http://www.doh.gov.uk/cgwt/.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Metropolitan Police Fund
  The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears)
  I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses copies of the Metropolitan Police Fund Accounts for 1998–99 and 1999–2000.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Radio Interference
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms)
  My right hon. Friend. now the Secretary of State, announced on 9 November 2000,Official Report, columns 327–28, various measures to deal with interference from ADSL and similar systems, including interference regulations based on a standard, MPT 1570, to be implemented by regulations in due course. Since then, there has been only one reported and confirmed case of interference to medium wave broadcast reception and none to any other radio service. In view of this, I believe it would now be disproportionate to give statutory force to the standard. The operators of ADSL have made a voluntary commitment to take all reasonable steps to resolve any interference problems that do arise and I believe that is the pragmatic way forward for the time being. I expect that Ofcom, when it assumes responsibility for spectrum management matters on 2S December, will keep this matter under review.

  The UK continues to contribute to work in Europe towards producing a harmonised approach to interference.

CABINET OFFICE

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  An updated measurement of the level of compliance with the regulatory impact assessment process is today being placed on the website of the Cabinet Office regulatory impact unit. An exercise in November 2003 to establish a snapshot of the level of compliance provided a figure of 100 per cent. We will keep this under regular review.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Prison Service
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy)
  On 8 September 2003, the Secretary of State formally accepted the recommendations of the Steele 130WS
  Review of Safety at Maghaberry Prison. The review recommended that prisoners with paramilitary affiliations should be accommodated separately from each other, and from the rest of the prison population, on a voluntary basis.

  This major unforeseen change makes it now necessary to amend the Northern Ireland Prison Service Corporate and Business Plan 2003–06 to reflect the changing circumstances and priorities within the Service.

  I have approved the following amendments to the Corporate and Business Plan.

  The planning assumptions will now include reference to the requirement to hold some prisoners with paramilitary affiliations in separated conditions.

  Amendments will also be made to reflect the extent to which the Service contributes generally to the NIO's objectives and PSA targets.

  Three of the Service's twelve Key Targets for 2003–04 are adjusted as follows:
  Target 5: an average of at least 18 hours constructive activity per week for each sentenced prisoner (previously 20).
  Target 6: an average of at least 9 hours constructive activity per week for each remand prisoner (previously 12).
  Target 8: deliver at least 75% of the planned training days associated with the agreed corporate training priorities (previously 85%).

PRIME MINISTER

  Council of Europe and Western European Union
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair)
  The United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union is as follows:

  Tony Lloyd MP (Leader)

  Full Representatives

  Substitute Representatives

  Mr David Atkinson MP

  Mr Tony Banks MP

  Mr Malcolm Bruce MP

  Baroness Billingham

  Sir Sydney Chapman MP

  Mr Peter Bottomley MP

  Mr Tom Cox MP

  Lord Burlison

  Right on. Terry Davies MP

  Right hon. George Foulkes MP

  Mr Bill Etherington MP

  Ms Jane Griffiths MP

  Mr Paul Flynn MP

  Mr Michael Hancock CBE MP

  Lord Judd

  Baroness Hooper

  Baroness Knight of Collingtree

  Right hon. Lord Kilclooney

  Christine McCafferty MP

  Mr Khalid Mahmood MP

  Mr Kevin McNamara MP

  Mr Humfrey Malins CBE MP

  Mr Jim Marshall MP

  Mr David Marshall MP

  Mr Edward O'Hara MP

  Mr Alan Meale MP

  Lord Russell-Johnston

  Mr Gordon Prentice MP

  Sir Teddy Taylor MP

  Miss Geraldine Smith MP

  Mr John Wilkinson MP

  Lord Tomlinson

  Mr Jimmy Wray MP

  Dr Rudolf Vis MP

  Mr Robert Walter MP

TREASURY

  Public Service Pensions
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng)
  Legislation governing public service pensions requires public service pensions to be increased annually by the same percentage as state earnings related pensions (additional pensions). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced on 11 December 2003,Official Report, columns 108–118WS, that benefits such as additional pensions will be increased by 2.8 per cent. in line with the annual increase in the Retail Prices Index up to September 2003. Public service pensions will therefore be increased by 2.8 per cent. from 12 April 2004, except those which have been in payment for less than a year, which will receive a pro-rata increase.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Longitudinal Study
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Smith)
  From January 2004, the Work and Pensions longitudinal study will link benefit and programme information held by the DWP on its customers, with employment records from the Inland Revenue.

  This follows the Employment Act 2002 which introduced new data sharing provisions. This opened the way for the DWP to receive more data on employment from Inland Revenue and use the information for more purposes. The DWP and Inland Revenue have been working together to enable this data sharing to take place and to develop safeguards for the initiative.

  The Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study will be used to perform a range of statistical and research analyses, as well as being used for some limited operational purposes, to give the Department further opportunities to evaluate the effectiveness of its businesses. It will, for example:
  provide statistics, management information and research on the success of Jobcentre Plus in helping people into work and keeping them in work;
  help to evaluate individual DWP policies and their impact in the short, medium and long-term;
  help to ensure that pensioners receive the money they're entitled to;
  aid in the investigation of benefit fraud; and
  improve targeted information and marketing to clients.

  The DWP have a legal and ethical responsibility to ensure that the Work and Pensions longitudinal study is used appropriately. We have, therefore, developed a set of safeguards around access rights, system monitoring, storage/retention of the information and vetting new uses. Information on this and a full range of the study's uses, has been placed in the Library and on the DWP website at http:/www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/ longitudinal—study/ic—longitudinal—study.asp

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Biological Weapons Convention
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)
  Members will wish to be aware of the outcome of the recent discussions in Geneva on national measures to reinforce the implementation of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). On the concluding day of the meeting of States Parties to the BWC, which took place from 10–14 November, there was agreement by consensus on a politically binding final document which enjoins all States Parties to the following actions:to review and, where necessary, enact or update national legal. including regulatory and penal, measures which ensure effective implementation of the prohibitions of the BWC and which enhance effective security of pathogens and toxins.
  co-operation between States Parties with differing legal and constitutional arrangements. States Parties in a position to do so may wish to provide legal and technical assistance to others who request it in framing and/or expanding their own legislation and controls in the area of national implementation and biosecurity.
  comprehensive and concrete national measures to secure pathogen collections and the control of their use for peaceful purposes. There was a general recognition of the value of biosecurity measures and procedures, which will ensure that such dangerous materials are not accessible to persons who might or could misuse them for purposes contrary to the BWC.

  There was also agreement that these measures are essential effort in facilitating more effective implementation and enforcement of the Convention, as well as providing the basis for an assessment of progress at the 2006 Review Conference.

  As with the earlier meeting of BWC Experts in August, which had prepared the way for political decision-making, there was an impressive level of participation. Some 92 States Parties were represented and a total of 32 national statements were delivered, including one notably from Iraq which for the first time showed an open and positive engagement with its obligations under the Convention.

  The United Kingdom was grateful to the Chair, Ambassador Toth of Hungary, for the efforts he made to achieve consensus on a Final Document that reflects the commonality of views and approaches that were demonstrated throughout. The commitment to assess progress at the Sixth Review Conference in 2006 on the extent to which States Parties have put in place the necessary legislation is, in our view, particularly important.

  The outcome of the November meeting represents a very positive start to the work programme that lies ahead of us. Success was particularly important this year, as it is to be hoped that a precedent has now been set for agreement on effective action to emerge from the further meetings under the Biological Weapons Convention, scheduled to take place in 2004 and 2005.

  The United Kingdom believes that the success of the meetings in 2003 has also helped to prove to the wider arms control community that this new process can be made to work. It has delivered a shared international analysis and a readiness to adopt practical measures. Most importantly, a co-operative spirit continued to prevail throughout the discussions in Geneva, which also augurs well for the future.
  133WS
  South Africa will chair the meetings next year on suspicious outbreaks of disease and the need for improved international surveillance. The UK takes over in 2005 with the task of examining a possible Code of Conduct for Scientists. Work has already begun on our preparations for both of these meetings. I will keep the House informed of developments and outcomes in 2004.

  Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)
  At the meeting of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) in Geneva on 27/28 November, a new legally binding Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War (ERW) was adopted. The new Protocol (the 5th to the CCW) sets out obligations and best practice for the clearance of post-conflict ERW (munitions used during an armed conflict that should have exploded but failed to do so or munitions which have been abandoned during an armed conflict.) The principal obligations in the new Protocol are:
  The State in control of the affected territory shall mark, clear, remove or destroy the ERW as soon as feasible and prioritise those affected areas posing a serious humanitarian risk;
  The user of munitions which have become ERW undertakes to provide assistance, where feasible, to the party in control of the affected territory to facilitate marking and clearance, removal or destruction of such ERW;
  The user of munitions which may become ERW undertakes to provide information on the use of such munitions (subject to legitimate security interests) to the party in control of the territory and to organisations undertaking clearance operations on the affected territory. The content of this information is provided on a voluntary, best practice basis;
  Feasible precautions should be taken to warn civilians of the risks and effects of ERW;
  States shall take steps, to the extent feasible, to protect authorised humanitarian missions operating in the area under their control from the effects of ERW;
  States may provide assistance to deal with the threat posed by existing ERW;
  Preventive measures, such as good practice in managing munitions to reduce the chance of their becoming unexploded, may be undertaken on a voluntary basis.

  This Protocol is an important step in reducing humanitarian risks associated with ERW and fulfils a long-standing UK objective to secure agreement on a legally binding Instrument. The Government is looking
  134WS
  into the necessary steps that may need to be taken to enable the Government to proceed to ratification of this Protocol.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces Pay
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  I am pleased to announce that I have appointed Mr Robert Burgin and Dr Peter Knight for a three year term of office as members of the Armed Forces' Pay Review Body commencing 4 February. Mr Neil Sherlock is also re-appointed for a second three-year term from 4 March. These appointments and re-appointment have been conducted in accordance with the guidance of the office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The Prime Minister has announced earlier today that he is appointing Professor David Greenaway as the next Chairman of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body.

  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  The Supplement to the 2003 Report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body making final recommendations on the pay of Service Medical and Dental Officers has been published today. Copies of the Supplement are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House.

  The Review Body recommends a final increase of 6.8 per cent. for all Regular and Reserve Defence Medical Services Medical and Dental Officers, in addition to the 3.2 per cent. interim award already implemented on 1 April 2003, representing a total increase of 10 per cent. The Review Body also recommends a pay increase of 3.225 per cent. for medical and dental cadets and an out-of-hours supplementary payment of £8,500 to junior doctors. In addition, the Review Body recommends that there should be no further increase in the values of Sustained Quality Payments, Trainer pay and Distinction Awards, above the interim 3.2 per cent. increase already implemented.

  The cost of these recommendations to the Defence Budget, including the interim award already implemented, will be some £14.5M. This will be met within existing Departmental expenditure limits.

  The Review Body's final recommendations are to be accepted in full, with implementation effective from 1 April 2003.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St Albans.

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
John Warren, Lord Bishop of Chelmsford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Southwark and the Lord Bishop of St Albans.

Disabled Children and Child Abuse
2.41 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stokeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have considered the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children's report on disabled children entitled It doesn 't happen to disabled children: child protection and disabled children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, we welcome the publication of the report and will consider it carefully. We recognise the particular vulnerability of disabled children to abuse, which increases when, as a result of their disability, children are unable to communicate what has happened to them. That is why government guidance on safeguarding children highlights the need to promote a high level of awareness of this vulnerability and sets out measures to be taken to strengthen the capacity of disabled children and their families to communicate abuse.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in view of the seriousness of the situation and the urgency of these problems, I had hoped for a more robust response from the Government? Will my noble friend confirm that the report states that disabled children are more than three times more likely to be abused sexually, physically and emotionally than non-disabled children? Can she confirm that the report also states that central government and local protection societies have failed disabled children? Precisely what steps do the Government intend to take to counter this sorry situation, which should never have arisen? In particular, which recommendations do the Government intend to accept?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend and I hope that my further answer will help him see how seriously we take this NSPCC report. The evidence presented was based largely on American studies which demonstrated that
1050
disabled children are 3.4 times more likely to suffer from abuse. However, as yet there is no body of evidence. One of the recommendations made in the report is that such a body of evidence should be created, which we are now looking at carefully.
Given the different recommendations made in the report, we are considering the Green Paper, Every Child Matters, and looking at the work of the national service framework in order to take each of the recommendations and come up with what I hope my noble friend will see is a serious plan to do more to safeguard these children.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that children with mental disabilities probably need much more protection than those with physical impairment?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, all noble Lords would agree that every child needs to be protected; the question is how best to provide such protection and to ensure that children who are more vulnerable either as a result of mental disability or an inability to communicate and thus tell others about abuse are recognised in terms of the measures put in place. It is important that we look at the needs of all our children to ensure that those measures are implemented. That will form a central part of the work we undertake on safeguarding children.
Lord Addington: My Lords, in her original response the noble Baroness quite rightly placed great emphasis on the need for communication. Can she also give an assurance that attention is paid not only to the technical processes of communication, but that we also concentrate on what disabled children have to say, rather than repeat the "Does he take sugar?" scenario? Emphasis should be placed on understanding not only what the children say once the communication barrier has been overcome, but also what they mean. Not understanding or paying attention to vulnerable groups probably marks the start of the process of the possibility for all forms of abuse.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has raised a critical point and I could not agree with him more wholeheartedly. It is very important that we listen to children and take seriously what they say. That will form part of the work of the Children's Commissioner, of whom I know the noble Lord has been a strong advocate. I also believe that it must form part of the national service framework and the results of the Every Child Matters consultation process, which has just come to an end. Interestingly, that consultation brought in more replies from children than from any other group.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, will the Minister give a commitment that any legislation or guidance which follows from the Green Paper will address specifically the greater vulnerability to abuse of disabled children and safeguard their welfare?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, any legislation that we bring forward will aim to protect all

1051
children. Within that, I shall look to ensure that the needs of all children are suitably covered. Whether that means providing a separate part in the legislation, I could not say at this point, but it is important to ensure that the measures work for every child. I shall ensure that we bring forward proposals which can do that.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, does the Minister accept that focusing on children alone is not enough? During adolescence and into early adulthood, many of these young people are particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I accept that point. Much of the work we are doing within the children and families directives focuses not only on children, but in particular on adolescents and young people who are, as the noble Baroness observed, at risk.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in a school for disabled children situated close to where I live in North Yorkshire, the headmaster abused those very severely disabled children—who were lying on bean bags? The local community was simply appalled, as I hope is the noble Baroness. What vetting procedures are in place for people placed in such positions of trust?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is always difficult to comment on the circumstances within particular institutions. However, through the Protection of Children Act 1999 and, of course, List 99, which applies to the Department for Education and Skills, we do have in place safeguards that protect children. However, we are well aware that there are always circumstances which need to be reviewed. We are also well aware that such safeguards can do only as much as is possible within the way that they have been framed. That is why it is so important that we do as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said: listen to children and put as much as we possibly can into our practices for caring for very vulnerable children to ensure that they are well protected.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the recent case concerning a small boy named Lee? Not only was he not allowed to participate in the school nativity play but, much more significantly, the terms of his statement were not honoured by the school or the local education authority. How can she account for this?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I understand that this case has been through the tribunal process. I understand from press reports that not only was this child not allowed to be in the nativity play, he was not allowed to be included in the school photograph. Indeed, I have today sought to ensure
1052
that the school does have in place the practices that every noble Lord would wish to see for this child and any other.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge the importance of a high-quality childcare workforce? That is at least as important as having in place the right procedures for the protection of children with disabilities. Will she undertake to examine the impact of the work of the Scottish Institute for Residential Child Care to see whether its free training and consultancy services to residential childcare settings might be copied in this country?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Earl will be aware that part of the work arising from the Green Paper is to set up a workforce unit within the Department for Education and Skills; that is currently under way. We have done that in order to ensure that the generic training appropriate to all people working with children is undertaken, and that we provide what I have described before to noble Lords as a scaffold of opportunities for people working in childcare settings to develop their skills and move into other areas of work with children. I am not aware of the work of the Scottish Institute for Residential Child Care, but I shall ask officials to look at it.

Radioactive Waste Management
2.49 p.m.
Earl Attleeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management will examine the possibility of establishing a deep geological depository for high level waste.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management—CoRWM—will undertake a review of all the options for the long-term management of the UK's higher activity radioactive wastes and will provide recommendations to the UK Government and the devolved administrations. The options that the committee will be assessing will include that of a deep geological repository.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he explain why the committee does not have the benefit of either a geologist or a hydrologist?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the committee is able to call on expertise throughout industry and government—it does not necessarily need to have members with such qualifications on all aspects of this problem. Clearly, both the geological and, to some extent, the hydrological aspects will be part of any assessment of a geological site. As your Lordships will know, such committees cannot contain all the expertise required.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—I am sure he is—that this matter has been under review, in one shape or form, for decades? It has become abundantly clear that the time has come not to have a further review but to find a solution. Since the key problem always tends to be the transport of nuclear waste, the only rational solution is to have proper storage in the places where the waste is created.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am aware that this issue has been discussed for some time. Were I not, various Members of your Lordships' House would remind me of it at regular intervals. Clearly, it is a difficult problem. At our last attempt to do this, when Nirex was looking at sites around the country, one problem was that we failed to look at all the options, and there was a lack of transparency in the system. We therefore do not wish to reach a conclusion before we have assessed all the options. Although aspects of what the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, says may well be correct, it is not necessarily the only option that will be available at the end of that reassessment.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is not the lesson we learned from the inquiry into the Nirex proposals for a depository in west Cumberland—an inquiry to which I gave evidence—that we will never find a site on the UK mainland because the public will always object and, ultimately, the public will win? Why cannot we finally see sense, stop squandering money on these UK mainland solutions and go for the offshore option, which is the only realistic option in the longer term?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that certainly is an option and one which the committee will no doubt assess. But it is not necessarily the best option. While it is clear that there is strong objection to siting any such repository almost anywhere within the country, there are balancing arguments. My noble friend is correct that even in Cumbria, which is quite heavily dependent on the nuclear sector, there are strong objections. Any planning system has to take account of those objections. Even if we never build a single further nuclear facility, we have a legacy problem which the country must ensure is taken care of in the longer term. It is not sensible to rule out options at this stage.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a difference between storage and disposal? With one method, you can retrieve the waste but with the other you cannot. Does he also agree that it would be irresponsible to dispose of it at sea?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it would depend on the form of disposal. I think the terminology is quite difficult here. Clearly, in the relatively long term, storage is an option. On-surface storage may be an option for most sorts of waste for some considerable time, but in the long run, we have to find a final
1054
disposal method which will last not just for a few years but for centuries. By the time we adopt that option, it may be offshore or it could be on land.
Lord Jenkin of Roding:My Lords, how long will this committee sit before it reports? We have heard rumours that it may be another three years. Of course, that would be well beyond the next general election, would it not?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the committee will deliberate for as long as it takes to look at all the options.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the committee consider the middle of the Sahara desert?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is open to the committee to consider that option. However, I think that a number of international problems would have to be faced if we were to take that suggestion seriously. I suspect it would not be very high on the committee's list of options.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, the noble Lord is no doubt aware that a few years ago your Lordships Select Committee on Science and Technology had a report on the disposal of nuclear waste from an inquiry chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs. May we take it that the Government are taking account of the very powerful recommendations in that report?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, one recommendation in that report was that we take steps to ensure that public opinion is informed and consulted about these issues. Certainly, it will be part of CoRWM's remit to do just that.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, reference has been made to the length of time we have already spent on this subject and the length of time we may still spend on it. Can the noble Lord indicate whether he thinks that as a result of some slight speeding up, this could be resolved when the proposed Nuclear Decommissioning Authority comes into office?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority will not deal with the kind of waste we are talking about here—it is about cleaning up sites. The timescale envisaged in the Energy Bill, which we debated last week, for the establishment of the NDA would probably be before the committee had completed its work.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, is it not the case that the very long life of these highly radioactive wastes is a convenient reason for not moving very rapidly towards a conclusion? The conclusion, ultimately, is that they have to be disposed of and not stored. It has already been said that this question has been around for 30 years. Will it be another 30 years before anything is done?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it will not be another 30 years before we know what we intend to do. Storage is an option for some considerable time, as the noble Lord is aware. The point at which we find a final solution to disposal which will withstand several centuries may well be implemented some way down the line. We hope that the committee's deliberations will indicate the way in which we ought to go.

Teachers: Staffing Levels
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they can reconcile the concept of "personalised learning" with the possibility that schools of the future may have fewer qualified teachers.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, teacher numbers are at a 21-year high and support staff numbers at their highest level ever. This means that schools are able increasingly to call on the skills of a team comprising qualified teachers and other specialist staff to meet pupils' individual learning needs. But there are no proposals from the Government or any of their workforce partners to reduce teacher numbers in the school of the future.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can she confirm the report in the Times Educational Supplement of 5th December which suggested that in future we may see schools with only one qualified teacher—the head—and other support staff or teaching assistants supplied by an agency on a contract basis? Does she agree that if such ideas are around, they fly completely in the face of the evidence which suggests that the personal relationship between pupil and teacher, particularly among the young, is vital to learning?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness. Indeed, the paper was produced and then presumably leaked to the Times Educational Supplement without Ministers' knowledge. We have said in our statements that we do not agree with this. No work will be done on it, and it was a stupid thing to do.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in the hills and uplands of Eskdalemuir in Dumfriesshire there is a shortage of teachers and the local schools are closing, much to the detriment of the small farming economy? Does the noble Baroness not agree that before such time as these schools close, mainly because of the low population, broadband should be introduced into the area so that at least the local people will be able to get their own education via this new medium?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to low population. Where we have
1056
falling rolls, there is an issue about ensuring that we are using our school estate appropriately. I support him wholeheartedly in wanting to see broadband introduced so that we have the ability to use technology for learning.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, as an ancillary question, is the Minister aware that the salaries available to staff recruited for her department's Connexions programme for counselling young people is draining experienced staff from the youth service, with the corollary consequence of leaving the youth service, which is also within her department's purview, to try to recruit at lower salaries new substitute staff for the more testing task of leading and supervising larger groups of young people?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, that rather plays back to the previous question that I answered, about the workforce unit. It is very important that the workforce unit is able to look at where our people are recruited from and to ensure that we have appropriate salary levels and career structures to keep people working for children and young people without draining from each other.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, may I take it from the Answer that the Minister gave that she can guarantee on behalf of the Government that the use of teaching assistants will never result in their replacing qualified teachers in schools?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in the regulations debates, we have described the ability of schools to consider the broader workforce. I have made it plain that the reports in the Times Educational Supplement have no bearing on the policy that we pursue. We believe that schools should make good use of qualified teachers. We also believe, as I know that all noble Lords do, that there are some highly qualified and experienced teaching assistants, who should be used appropriately. The regulations give us that appropriateness for the first time.

Postal Services: Liberalisation
3.1 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their current policy on the liberalisation of postal services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, under our reforms of the postal services market, we created Postcomm, and gave it a primary duty to maintain the provision of a universal postal service, subject to which it is also responsible for introducing more competition into the postal services market in the interests of consumers. Postcomm has developed a framework for the introduction of competition in three stages that started on 1st January

1057
2003 and will lead to full market opening in 2007. Postcomm's key policy documents on market opening and licensing of operators can be found on its website.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that enlightening reply, which is summed up in the phrase that he used, and which the Chancellor also used in a recent speech, when he referred to,
"full market opening of postal services by 2009".
How do the Government reconcile that policy with their manifesto commitment to high quality universal postal services in the UK? Are they taking steps to strengthen the delivery network that is so important to us all at this time of year?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as part of our Postal Services Act 2000, we created Postcomm and gave it a primary duty to maintain the provision of a universal postal service, with all that that entailed. It is subject to that primary task that Postcomm is responsible for introducing more competition into the postal services market where it benefits consumers.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the regulatory results report, published in the summer by the Royal Mail? Those results show that, for letters weighing up to 100 grams, which is 75 per cent of the 82 million letters handled each day by Royal Mail, the Royal Mail lost £480 million. Does my noble friend agree that it would be totally unfair if under the Postal Services Act 2000, which requires the Post Office to take in the work of Royal Mail's competitors, the cost passed to the competitors was less than the cost to deliver? That would be terribly unfair and not competitive at all, but a burden on Royal Mail.
Will the Minister ensure that Postcomm, the regulator, is transparent in making its report on the amount that is being charged to competitors, and ensure that Royal Mail is allowed to charge a commercial rate to the competitors that it is likely to be subsidising?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, a final decision has not yet been taken on the question of access pricing, but Postcomm hopes to make an announcement on developments later this week. It published a draft determination on 19th May; unsurprisingly, there are differing views on prices of access. Postcomm proposes a price of 11.46 pence for the cheapest type of access to Royal Mail's network, but Royal Mail wants 20 pence. The aim of Postcomm in those circumstances is to arrive at a price that covers the company's costs and allows Royal Mail to make a modest profit.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister not accept that this mini-debate demonstrates the problem—that there is a significant lack of clarity in who is responsible for postal services in the Post Office? Would he not agree that currently the Post Office has all the disadvantages and none of the
1058
advantages of the old nationalised industries, in that the Government claim the credit when things are going well but say that it is nothing to do with them when things go badly? Is this not a moment at which there should be greater transparency and clarity?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, one advantage of the system is that there is much greater independence and clarity. Postcomm must determine on the issue of access, which is how it should be; it is transparent and very open to the public.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, would the Minister agree that the £161 million profit that the Royal Mail made in the last half of the year was mostly due to a penny increase in first and second class mail and an increase in the volume of letter post by 3 per cent over the corresponding period in the previous year? It was not exactly due to productivity. In those circumstances, would the Minister agree that, when the markets are liberalised, the Royal Mail will have to become much more productive to become a truly competitive and profitable company, as everyone in the House wishes?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I agree, and I suggest that Allan Leighton, the chairman of the Post Office, made that very point in his interim statement, when he said that,
"the increase in profit from our letters operations did not come from cost savings but was largely due to the Royal Mail tariff increase in May, when First and Second Class basic postage prices rose by 1 penny, and increased revenue from economic growth. The Letters business therefore remains the segment where the biggest operational changes have to be made, yet it's the area where we have made the least progress in the Company's overall Renewal Plan".
Clearly, there is still a great deal of work to be done in that area.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, will the Government continue to resist the European Commission proposal that there should be VAT on state monopoly postal services?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that continues to be the Government's position, and that we continue to oppose any move on that front. If that is not the case, I shall write to the noble Lord with the exact situation.

Iraq: Reconstruction Contracts
3.8 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwickasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support the decision by the United States Government and the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq to restrict certain contracts for reconstruction in Iraq to countries that supported military action by the United States and the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the United States is one of a number of countries, including France and Germany, which places restrictions on their spending of taxpayers' money as overseas aid. Her Majesty's Government stopped the practice of tying aid to trade in April 2001. We believe that aid-related contracts should be awarded on the basis of value for money. We shall continue to try to persuade our partners in the European Union and allies elsewhere that that is the fairest and most efficient policy.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that highly interesting reply. I declare an interest as the director of a UK company that could theoretically benefit from the reconstruction of Iraq, although the question that I wish to ask is directly opposed to that interest.
Given that the United States wants other countries to take over some military tasks after next June, that it has asked Germany and Russia to write off large amounts of Iraqi debt and has asked Canada to donate hundreds of millions of dollars to Iraq—as Canada has done—is it not short-sighted and wrong-headed of the United States to impose financial penalties on countries that simply failed to support military action?
After the capture of Saddam Hussein and the hope that that gives rise to, I urge our Government to use their influence to persuade the United States Government in general, and Mr Wolfowitz in particular, to look to the future and to forget about settling old scores.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I wish that the noble Lord could make the contribution that he has just made to a number of countries in regard to how they give aid. I think I have made it clear that the United Kingdom's policy is very different from that of the United States. I also hope that I make it clear that the United States is not alone in being a country that we wish to persuade to operate its aid in a rather different way. The noble Lord says that the policy is short-sighted. It is also putting a very difficult task in the path of James Baker, who is embarking on a series of visits to a number of countries including France, Germany and Russia, in order to persuade them on debt forgiveness. So I think that a lot of what the noble Lord has said is right on the mark.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, could the Minister explain whether this was a decision for the United States Government or for the Coalition Provisional Authority? Could she perhaps say whether there is any distinction between the United States Government and the Coalition Provisional Authority, and whether Her Majesty's Government have any formal part in the process of decision-making within the CPA?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a huge question and I think that we have to make this clear. The decision that the
1060
United States made is not about the totality of aid to Iraq. It is not about the 33 billion dollars pledged at Madrid. It is about the 18.6 billion dollars of supplemental funding under the US Foreign Assistance Act. It does not apply, of course, to aid from other countries. Moreover, it does not apply to Iraq's own resources from oil. It applies solely to the United States money. Actually, if I may say so, it is something of a liberalisation from the United States' usual policy, which is to grant primary contracts only to United States companies. So what the world is now seeing as a very restrictive practice is in fact in many ways a policy that is liberalised from the norm.
The noble Lord asks about the different ways in which decisions will be taken, which is a complicated question. There is the international reconstruction fund facility, set up at Madrid, and there is also the Development Fund for Iraq, both of which will play a role. I shall write to the noble Lord with the details on that and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, is it not the case that a great many countries would like to contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq so long as the United States pays for it, just as they were very happy to be members of NATO under the protection of the American defence umbrella when the American taxpayer was paying for it? Is it not a piece of infernal impudence on the part of the French and German Governments to try to tell the Americans how they should spend their own taxpayers' money?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am bound to say that I think that the case of our friends in France and Germany would be considerably strengthened if they did not tie their own aid to trade.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, in a speech last night, and again just now, the noble Baroness referred to the United States' policy of, on the whole, tying its aid to its trade. However, I do not quite see what that has to do with the present discussion. What the United States is doing in this case is discriminating against countries which it believes were trying to stab it in the back over its Iraq policy, which is a very different matter. Even those countries will, of course, have access to some of the subcontracts from the Iraqi contracts that are placed. So are the Government in favour of what the United States is doing—which as she rightly says is wider, less discriminatory and more liberal than its previous policy—or are they against? I am not at all clear from her answers.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I do not know why not, my Lords; I thought that I was very clear indeed. The noble Lord says that these matters are very different, but they are not very different. This is placing a restriction and tying aid to trade. It is to that which Her Majesty's Government object. I made it very clear to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and to my noble friend Lord Gilbert that we do not think that the tying of aid to trade is right. The noble Lord used

1061
rather pejorative language about the United States stabbing people in the back. I have already made it clear that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont— who on this occasion was very statesmanlike in the way that he put his question—when he says that it would better serve the interests of what the United States is trying to achieve in other areas if it acted more as the United Kingdom Government do in looking at the needs of countries in terms of aid in its own right and then looking at the awarding of contracts on the best value for money. I would hope to persuade not only our friends in America but also our friends elsewhere in the world that our policy is right.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [H.L.]
3.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, I beg to introduce a Bill to promote the reform of the statute law by the repeal, in accordance with the recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, of certain enactments which, except in so far as their effect is preserved, are no longer of practical utility, and to make other provision in connection with the repeal of those enactments. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Business of the House: Standing Order 47
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 47 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to allow the Consolidated Fund Bill to be taken through all its stages today.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Mclntosh of Haringey): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order 47 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of this day), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003
3.16 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd December be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a large order, encompassing as it does some 108 countries. Nevertheless, I think it fair to say that our arguments on it will come down to the inclusion of one country— the United States—in the list of countries not required to provide prima facie evidence to accompany its extradition requests. Certainly, that is the force of the Motion standing in the name of the Liberal Democrats. I will, if I may, leave that issue to the end of my remarks. First, I should like briefly to say something about the rest of the order.
The Extradition Act 2003 received Royal Assent on the last day of the previous parliamentary Session. It underwent fairly intense scrutiny in both your Lordships' House and another place, so I hope that we can avoid going over the arguments of principle again today.
We are concerned here with the secondary legislation required to bring the Act into force. Our aim is to bring the Act into force for 1st January 2004, which will enable us, inter alia, to comply with our obligations under the framework decision on the European arrest warrant.
This order designates all of the United Kingdom's extradition partners other than those being designated as category 1 countries in order to operate the European arrest warrant. As I mentioned, that amounts to some 108 countries. Seven of those countries are EU member states. If I may, I shall explain when we come to the next order why those countries are not for the time being in Part 1.
As well as those EU member states which are not yet ready to operate the European arrest warrant, this order designates all of our remaining extradition partners as category 2 partners. Every country with which we currently have general extradition relations is being redesignated. No new countries are being added and no countries are being dropped. Paragraph 3 lists the 40 or so countries that are not required to supply prima facie evidence with their extradition requests. For the most part, those are the non-EU parties to the Council of Europe Convention on Extradition and are countries that do not currently have to provide prima facie evidence.
For the avoidance of doubt, I should make it clear that though the European Convention on Extradition operates under the auspices of the Council of Europe, it is not geographically restricted. South Africa is a party to it which is why South Africa appears in the list.
For all of these countries there is no change to the evidential standard which they will have to meet. There are four countries whose inclusion in the list

1063
represents a change. One of these is the United States which, as I mentioned earlier, I shall come to in a moment.
The other three are Australia, Canada and New Zealand. These countries are all trusted Commonwealth partners. During the parliamentary passage of what became the Extradition Act 2003 we gave notice in both Houses of our intention to remove the prima facie requirement from these three countries, and I am pleased to say that no one appeared to object. Indeed, it is perhaps a little curious that, notwithstanding the lack of reciprocity, no objection was made to their inclusion in the other place by any party, not least the Liberal Democrats, if I may respectfully say so.
Having trailed that I was going to do so, let me now turn to the thorny issue of the United States. If this order is approved, the United States will no longer be required to supply prima facie evidence to accompany extradition requests that it makes to the United Kingdom. This is in line with the new bilateral extradition treaty signed by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary earlier this year.
By contrast, when we make extradition requests to the United States we shall need to submit sufficient evidence to establish "probable cause". That is a lower test than prima facie but a higher threshold than we ask of the United States, and I make no secret of that. The fact is that under the terms of its constitution the United States of America cannot set its evidential standard any lower than "probable cause".
As noble Lords know, the United States is a mature democracy that respects individual rights. We do not demand prima facie evidence of countries such as Albania, Turkey or Romania, and therefore we fail to see why we should impose a more stringent test on the United States of America.
Nor do we see why the absence of complete reciprocity affects this. We have to take an objective decision about what standards we believe incoming extradition requests should meet. We do not see how that is affected by the fact that another country cannot, for very good reasons, reciprocate.
We are in the business of protecting our citizens and those within our jurisdictions. If a non-prima facie requirement would be acceptable if the United States did likewise, we ask rhetorically why is it suddenly unacceptable because its constitution prevents it doing so?
Complete reciprocity has never been a feature of our extradition arrangements. As your Lordships will know, for many years certain other countries have, for constitutional reasons, been unwilling to extradite their own nationals. The United Kingdom has never had any such reservations. Our extradition relations have reflected that. In other words, we have been in the position where the United Kingdom has been willing to extradite even though in corresponding circumstances the other country would not be prepared to extradite.
1064
We have accepted that situation for over 100 years both because we have realised that complete reciprocity will not always be possible and because we have respected the imperatives of other countries' constitutional arrangements. Exactly the same arguments apply in this instance.
Incidentally, I hope that this point will appeal particularly to noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches as the legislation which allowed for all these lopsided extradition arrangements—the Extradition Act 1870—was enacted by a Liberal government!
There is another important, and more modern, precedent that I should point to. Having extradition relations of this kind with the United States would not be unique in Europe. Exactly the same evidential provision can be found in the bilateral extradition treaty between the United States of America and Ireland which dates from 1984. Perhaps more significantly, exactly the same can be found in the bilateral treaty between France and the United States which is less than 10 years old.
Whatever unjustified suggestions there may be about the United Kingdom, or even Ireland, being more deferential to the United States, I trust that none of your Lordships would seriously imply that France is a nation which is subservient to the United States or automatically does its bidding. The fact is that both Ireland and France have accepted the restraints imposed by the terms of the United States constitution. They see nothing wrong with treaties that impose differential evidential requirements and I believe that we should follow their example. I therefore invite your Lordships to approve this order and to reject the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd December be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in speaking to the Motion which has just been moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, I wish to speak also to my Motion.
I understand that the Clerks have told us that the Government's Motion does not pre-empt mine. Therefore, it may be helpful to say at the beginning that noble Lords on these Benches do not propose to divide your Lordships' House on the Government's Motion but to divide it on mine.
As we have just been told, on 31st March of this year the United Kingdom and the United States of America signed a new extradition treaty. No prior notice of the terms of the treaty was given to Parliament and, so far as I know, no one outside government was aware of the terms of that treaty as they were being negotiated. The treaty was signed by those famous supporters of civil liberties and human rights—the Home Secretary and Attorney General, John Ashcroft.
As we have been told, under the terms of the treaty the American Government can obtain extradition from the United Kingdom without having to produce evidence to show that there is a prima facie case to

1065
answer against the person whose extradition is sought, but the United Kingdom still has to provide prima facie evidence to get extradition from the USA.
The treaty needs to be ratified by the American Senate before it can come into force. I do not know whether that ratification has yet occurred. To bring the treaty into effect in the United Kingdom it is necessary for the Government to make an order. The order in question—the one that we are now debating—will bring the treaty into effect on 1st January 2004.
Part 1 implements the European arrest warrant. The USA is not, of course, a party to the European arrest warrant and Part 1 is not relevant to this debate. Part 2 of the Extradition Act provides for extradition to other territories designated for that purpose by the Secretary of State. Those territories—there are well over 100 of them—are set out in paragraph 2 of the order, and they include the USA. In itself, we have no objection whatever to paragraph 2. It simply maintains the status quo.
Under Section 84(1) of the Extradition Act, a judge faced with a request for extradition must decide whether there is evidence which would be sufficient to make a case requiring an answer from the subject of the request. However, under subsection (7) of Section 84, the need for that evidence is excluded if the Secretary of State makes a further designation. Paragraph 3 of the order contains the list of states which are designated under subsection (7) of Section 84 in respect of which evidence does not have to be provided. Of course, paragraph 3 also includes the USA.
Paragraph 3 also includes a number of states that are not in the forefront of observance of human rights and high judicial standards. I might refer for example to Albania and Azerbaijan. Of course, I am not suggesting that the legal standards in those countries are equal to or better than those in the USA. Those countries appear in paragraph 3 because, in 1990, the United Kingdom signed up to the European Convention on Extradition. The states party to that convention are required to extradite to each other without the need for prima facie evidence.
As has been explained, that convention is a product of the Council of Europe, not the European Union. It dates back to 1957, although the United Kingdom did not ratify it until 1990. Of course, that was done under a Conservative government who, then and now, were notable for their European enthusiasm. Unlike the agreement between the USA and the UK in the new treaty, the obligations under that convention are reciprocal. It is also true that all members of the Council of Europe are subject to the European Convention on Human Rights. An order giving effect to that convention was made in 1990 under the Extradition Act 1989. It was replaced by an amended order laid by the present Government in 2001.
What we might have done at an earlier date is neither here nor there. As the arrangements have been in operation for 12 years, we feel that it is inappropriate for us to seek to alter the status quo in relation to those states that are parties to the European
1066
Convention on Extradition. All except four of the states listed in paragraph 3 are party to that convention. Of those four, three are Commonwealth countries—Australia, Canada and New Zealand—as the Minister explained. We have no objection to their inclusion. The remaining country is the United States of America, and we object to its inclusion in the list of countries to which extradition does not need supporting evidence. We objected to that as soon as we became aware of the terms of the treaty, and we have continued to object to it ever since.
We object for three reasons. The first is the fact that there is no reciprocity. We are told that the reason for that is that the USA would need to change its constitution to be able to extradite people without the need for supporting evidence. Of course we are all aware that changes in the American constitution are extremely difficult and take sometimes decades to achieve, if they can be achieved at all. However, reciprocity is an important principle. If the United States believes in the constitutional principle that people cannot be extradited without evidence, it should not expect or ask us to extradite people to it without evidence.
If the order had been in force at the time, the United Kingdom would have been required to extradite the Algerian pilot Lotfi Raissi to the United States, on the basis of blatantly inadequate evidence that resulted in his extradition being refused.
Secondly, the USA has 51 different legal jurisdictions. The standards of the criminal process in the federal courts and in some American states is undoubtedly satisfactory. However, in other states—I mention Texas in particular as one—the standards are far from satisfactory. No doubt they are still better than those in Albania, but the fact that we have dispensed with evidence for extradition to some countries where the criminal process may be poor does not justify extending the same principle to other countries where standards are also poor.
Thirdly, we do not think that we should enter into agreements to lower the barriers for extradition to the United States at a time when the present administration have shown utter contempt for due process for the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and the federal courts have so far shown themselves feeble in recognising the claim of those prisoners to due process. It is not we alone who say that. It was the subject three weeks ago of an extremely powerful speech made in a public lecture by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn.
Each of those three reasons would justify the exclusion in itself of the USA from the list of states to which we are required to extradite people without supporting evidence. Taken together, the case for excluding the USA from the list is overwhelming. We call on the Government to withdraw the order and to introduce a new order that will exclude the USA from the list in paragraph 3.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the Extradition Act was indeed controversial when it made its progress through both Houses, because we on these Benches objected to the European arrest warrant procedures that were put in place in Part 1 of the Act. We believed then and we believe now that it would have been more appropriate to apply the Part 2 procedures to all countries. However, today I agree with the Minister that this is not the time for a rerun of all those old arguments, and I do not propose to give one.
We have before us a series of orders—this is the first, with three more to follow—that put in place the implementation of that Act, and we will consider them in a constructive manner. We have an opportunity to do so by affirmative measures as a result of a government concession in this House to an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Without that, they would have been subject to the negative procedure by Order in Council.
Throughout our debates on the Extradition Act, we made it clear that our objective has been to ensure that our extradition procedures are both effective and fair. We agreed with the Government that it was right to bring them up to date, to make the whole process of extradition swifter while retaining safeguards necessary to ensure that the innocent do not suffer. There must be no hiding place for those who commit crimes and seek to escape a fair trial by skipping from one country to the next.
Now that we have a new Extradition Act, it is right that it should be implemented as quickly and as effectively as possible, while ensuring that the right safeguards are in place first. My approach today is therefore that we do not oppose the making of any of the orders, although serious questions need to be answered. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has already posed a series of those, and I shall not repeat his points.
As some of the questions of which I have thought with regard to this and the other orders are rather detailed, I gave advance notice of them to the Home Office. I was therefore grateful, when I read the proceedings of a Standing Committee in another place, to note that the Government had answered them there in response to my honourable friend Mr Nick Hawkins. That was most helpful. I shall need to invite the noble Baroness to confirm one or two issues on other orders, for clarity.
When we debated the United Kingdom-US treaty in brief on Report of the then Extradition Bill, I made it clear that I was disappointed that the Government had ceded our right to have prima facie evidence produced by the US when it made a request to us for extradition, at the same time as our Government failed to obtain that same right from the US in respect of applications that we make to it for extradition from that country to the UK. My complaint was not about the United States, but about the UK Government. I understand full well that the United States cannot give up its right to demand "probable cause" evidence, because its own
1068
constitution simply does not allow it to do so. The UK Government knew that, but they went ahead and made a one-sided concession.
Today, the noble Baroness has put forward an interesting and perhaps very forceful argument about why it is not always possible to have complete reciprocity in all agreements. There is validity in that. One might say that there is even more validity in her assertion that the lopsided legislation was put in place by a Liberal government back in the 19th century. Who am I to add to that wonderful analogy? However, the problem is of the Government's own creation. I accept that in some cases it would not be proper to go ahead, but this is not one of them. I recognise that the United States is our closest ally and has been for a century or more. That is a very valuable relationship.
I put my trust in the judicial system of our closest ally, especially because there are other safeguards in Part 2 such as the Secretary of State's backstop power. Therefore, we on these Benches do not support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I took part in debates on the Bill in Grand Committee and I was most concerned about the arrangements made between this country and the United States. It is entirely proper for the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, now to move his Motion. If he presses it to a Division, I shall be pleased to support it because there is no doubt that in relation to extradition, citizens of this country are being put in a worse position than citizens of the United States who may be required to face charges in this country. That cannot be right.
No matter what the United States constitution provides, it should not be allowed to overrule the best interests and rights of the people of this country. We have our own constitution and means of protecting our citizens. One of them is to ensure that they are not put in a worse position, particularly on criminal matters, vis-à-vis any other nation. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is right in saying that the order does that.
Furthermore, because of the difficulty of changing the United States constitution, it will not be possible to redress the balance in a short period of time. If that were possible, I and many others would be prepared to see the measure go through today. But it may be decades before the balance can be redressed.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is unable to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I greatly admired the way in which she and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, conducted the proceedings in Grand Committee. It is a great pity that the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrat Party cannot come together on this, because it is a vital provision.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, made many of those points during the passage of the legislation. He was most assiduous in his attention to that and we all

1069
appreciated it. I agree that the problem is the Act. The Government have got themselves into this position vis-à-vis the United States of America. However, we have the Act and, given that fact, the disadvantages of a written constitution are shown by the fact that the United States cannot be flexible on this matter. We must accept that while taking note that written constitutions are not always as good as they may appear at first sight.
The measure must be accepted and there is no way around it. However, I want to reiterate what my noble friend Lady Anelay said. We would not be having this interesting debate had the Government got away with laying the order by negative resolution, which was what they proposed. The Grand Committee did a good job in insisting that the Government make the change.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said that she is not supporting the amendment because the United States is, in effect, our oldest ally. Technically, I believe that that honour belongs to Portugal, but I do not argue with the spirit of what she said. I am aware of a long-standing and vital friendship to which it is possible that I may owe my life. I was accidentally in America in 1939 and I returned across the Atlantic in 1944 in circumstances in which, without American protection, it is likely I might never have reached these shores.
However, justice is proverbially blind. As soon as you enter a world where in matters of justice you give a respect to people because they are your friends but will not give that to other people because they are not your friends, the very principle of justice itself is at risk. It is blind; it must remain blind. The fact that a country is a friend of ours is no excuse—
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to intervene. That was my preamble to saying that I then looked at the judicial system of that country, which I do in each and every case, and took note of how it might interact here. I did so particularly with regard to the Part 2 procedures which, the noble Earl will know because he was present during many of our debates on the Extradition Bill, contain other safeguards.
I entirely agree with the noble Earl that one does not give preferential treatment to someone just because he is a friend. That is not the basis of my political activity.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that correction. If Guantanamo Bay is not the United States system, whose system is it?
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Goodhart made a strong case for the Motion standing in his name. Other noble Lords supported his case equally strongly, not least my noble friend Lord Russell. I agree on reciprocity and on the obvious difficulties of resolving the matter within a reasonable
1070
period. In particular, I agree with the comments made on Guantanamo Bay and what it means for the defence of western values if the country which above all others stands for those values treats human beings as so-called "combatants" without any rights. Your Lordships' House has discussed this matter and has expressed a strong view which I share.
Nevertheless, I believe that the Motion would send a political signal which would put the United States on a level with a number of countries included in the order before us because of their relationship to the Council of Europe. That political signal would be sent when the defence of western values, acting together with the United States, is one of the major issues before us. I, for one, do not want to send that particular political signal and therefore I do not find it possible to support the Motion put forward by my noble friend.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, was right in saying that as a result of amendments made to the Bill, provision was made for us to have this debate in order to explore the issue. I want to deal with the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. He said that the principle of reciprocity is an important one. I would not disagree with him, save to say that the principle has never applied with total unanimity to all countries. I say to the noble Lord that that is a curious assertion to make when, in relation to New Zealand, Australia and Canada, we have no reciprocity. It is not an argument of principle which is raised in relation to those three countries.
Perhaps I may say a word, too, about the United States. In effect, the noble Lord is saying that if another administration were in being in the United States—that is tantamount to the implication— perhaps there would be another view. These extradition arrangements are made with a country, irrespective of its political complexion. The test that we shall consider is whether the judicial system in that country justifies its inclusion or exclusion from this part of the Bill.
In relation to that issue, I totally understand and accept that there is a difference between the way in which one state operates its law as compared with another. The noble Lord may prefer the way in which it is expressed in one state compared with another, but that does not change the fact that these systems are recognisable within a democratic country and that they deliver an accountable democratic system of justice.
I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that there cannot be one rule for one's friends and one rule for others. Justice must prevail and it must be blind. I believe that we have shown our fairness in that regard by including countries such as Albania, Romania and others, along with Canada, America, New Zealand and Australia. Therefore, we are not adopting one approach for our friends and one for others; we are even and open-handed.

1071
I noted what was said about the way in which the treaty was negotiated. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asserted that it was negotiated in secret. It was not. The treaty was negotiated in exactly the same fashion as we negotiate all other extradition treaties and, for that matter, all other bilateral international instruments. The text of the treaty was published as a command paper shortly after it was signed. Again, that is the normal procedure, including the Ponsonby rules.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, that was exactly my point. Of course it was published shortly after it was signed. It was published within a few days of being signed, but there was no possibility of anyone in either House of Parliament having any input into the negotiating process or of trying to put pressure on the British Government not to enter into an agreement which was not reciprocal.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says, but he cannot suggest that the negotiation took place in secret; neither can he suggest that it was outwith the usual practice. It may have been a practice with which the noble Lord does not concur, which is a slightly different issue, but it took place in accordance with practice which has been adopted for a very long time. I appreciate that 1870 was a long time ago for a Liberal government, but I hope that if the noble Lord considers what happened thereafter, he will agree that it has been consistent.
The command paper was published and normal procedure, including the Ponsonby rules, was followed. The only unusual aspect was that the gap between signature and publication was shorter than is customary because we were aware of considerable interest in the new treaty. I should have thought that the noble Lord would wish to congratulate the Government on that, but perhaps I ask too much.
The treaty has not been enforced yet because it has not been signed by the US Senate. We anticipate that the treaty will be put before the Senate formally early in the new year and approved shortly thereafter. We do not anticipate that we shall encounter any difficulties in that regard.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her very pragmatic approach in relation to these matters. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. However, I say to both noble Baronesses that what was done in this case was entirely proper. We sought to make an independent, objective assessment of the most appropriate way forward to enhance the opportunity to secure the proper exchange of persons required to go through the criminal procedure in our respective countries. That was the decision made. We took total cognisance of the fact that, as I believe even the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, accepted, changing the American constitution is an enormous task.
1072
I know that the noble Lord does not wish us to wait 10 years before the provisions are introduced. It is right to say that the present treaty needed to be changed. I hope that the noble Lord receives great comfort from the support that has clearly been given by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who totally agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on this occasion. If I may respectfully say so, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, has the right approach. With his usual sagacity, he summed up the truly liberal position.
We have had a very good debate, and I absolutely understand why the noble Lord wished to air these matters. They are serious and concerns have been voiced. However, it is appropriate to allow the order, as drafted by the Government, to go forward as the most proper and sensible way of dealing with the redesignation of the various countries under Parts 1 and 2.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have a question before the noble Baroness sits down. I am very ignorant of these matters, but do I understand that if Albania wants to extradite a British citizen, it can do so without explanation?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Albania will not have to provide prima facie evidence. When we debated these issues during the passage of the Extradition Bill, we went through all the safeguards relating to identity and all the matters that we shall put in place. Indeed, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will be reassured by the fact that provisions are in place which would enable us not to extradite if the issues relating to human rights and other matters were breached.
Indeed, to comfort the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, even further, I should say that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, was very concerned about many issues, including what would happen in respect of the death penalty and how that would operate. At the request of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, the United Kingdom Government approached the United States Government for a definitive statement on the rights guaranteed to those who are extradited there. It may assist noble Lords if I read the response of the United States Government into the record:
"Every person who is extradited to stand trial in the criminal justice system within the United States is entitled to the fundamental right of due process under the United States constitution. All extraditees have the right to a fair trial, before an impartial jury, and enjoy the right to counsel, the right to confront adverse witnesses, and the right to compulsory process to call witnesses favorable to the defense. No extraditee can be convicted except on the basis of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Every extraditee has the right to appeal a conviction".
Those rights apply irrespective of the nationality of the person or the state or jurisdiction concerned. Avenues of redress exist if those rights are not upheld. Therefore, not only the provisions in relation to prima facie evidence but all the other provisions contained in the Act will bite upon these issues and ensure that the rights are upheld.

1073
The promises that we have obtained from the Americans in the past, whether in relation to death penalty cases or otherwise, have, I believe without fail, always been adhered to. Therefore, history teaches us that, when dealing with specific cases, the Americans have made promises and can be relied upon to deliver what they say.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, at the conclusion of my speech I asked her: if Guantanamo Bay is not an American system, whose is it? That question was not rhetorical; I should be very grateful for an answer.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course matters in relation to Guantanamo Bay are still very much in issue between a number of parties who are considering them. That does not cast aspersions upon those who are returned to mainland United States pursuant to the system of law that prevails in the United States of America and in each of the states. We accept, as noble Lords will know, that Guantanamo Bay is still an unresolved issue. It has not been settled in any way. I am afraid that that is about the best answer that I can give the noble Earl today.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Goodhartrose to move, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003 and lay a new draft order deleting the reference to the United States of America in paragraph 3 of the order.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003 and lay a new draft order deleting the reference to the United States of America in paragraph 3 of the order.—(Lord Goodhart.)
4.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 120.

Division No 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Geraint, L.

Avebury, L.

Goodhart, L. [Teller]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Bridges, L.

Joffe, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Cobbold, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dholakia, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Emerton, B.

Maddock, B.

Ezra, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Falkland, V.

May of Oxford, L.

Fearn, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

1074

Monson, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Naseby, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Northover, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Razzall, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B

Rennard, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Turner of Camden,B.

Roper, L. [Teller]

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Russell, E.

Walmsley, B.

Sandberg, L.

Warnock, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Jones, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Alli,L.

Lea of Crondall,L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Levy, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Lipsey, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lockwood, B.

Andrews, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Bach, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Barnett, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Marlesford, L.

Berkeley, L.

Marsh, L.

Billingham, B.

Masham of IIton, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Bragg, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Brett, L.

Nicol, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Brookman, L.

Ouseley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Paul, L.

Carter, L.

Peston, L.

Chorley, L.

Powell of Bayswater,L

Christopher, L.

Puttnam, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Radice, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Crawley, B.

Richard, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Rooker, L.

David, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Sawyer, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Desai, L.

Sheldon, L.

Dixon, L.

Simon, V.

Dubs, L.

Slim, V.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Strange, B.

Filkin, L.

Swinfen, L.

Fitt, L.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B.

Gale, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gilbert, L.

Tenby, V.

Golding, B.

Tugendhat, L.v

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Turnberg, L.

Goudie, B.

Varley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Warner, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Weatherill, L.

Harrison, L.

Whitaker, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Whitty, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wilkins, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Winston, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Extradition Act 2003 (Police Powers: Code of Practice) Order 2003
4.12 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthalrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd December be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak to this order together with the following two orders. I hope that I can be relatively brief as I believe that, unlike the order that we have just discussed, they do not contain anything very difficult or contentious. However, I shall respond specifically to the questions that have been indicated to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, so I may speak more fully than I would otherwise have done.
As I mentioned, our aim is to bring the Extradition Act into force for 1st January 2004 to enable us to bring in the European arrest warrant on that date. The first of these orders is concerned with the designation of the UK's extradition partners under Part 1 of the Act; that is, those countries that will be operating the European arrest warrant from 1st January 2004.
As your Lordships will see, it contains seven names rather than the 14 that your Lordships might expect. Those seven countries are the countries that have confirmed that they will definitely be able to operate the European arrest warrant from the start of next year.
Your Lordships may find it helpful to know the latest state of play on implementation in the seven countries which will not make the 1st January deadline. France and the Netherlands expect to be ready by the end of January 2004 and Austria, Germany, Greece and Luxembourg expect to be ready by 1st April 2004 at the latest. Italy is also saying the same, although whether it will actually be able to achieve that remains to be seen.
We have put those countries that are able to operate the European arrest warrant from the first day of next year into category 1. The remaining EU countries are designated as category 2 countries in the order that we have just debated and will be moved up into category 1 when they begin operating the European arrest warrant.
The second order brings into force the codes of practice governing the exercise of police powers in extradition cases. The powers are very closely modelled on those in PACE, although with the necessary modifications to reflect the fact that the police are not actually investigating the offence.
As in PACE, there is a requirement to produce codes of practice; and these are they. We put them out for consultation over the summer. We are grateful to all
1076
those who took the trouble to respond. Your Lordships might find it helpful to have an outline of the changes that have been made as a result of the consultation exercise.
In addition to taking on board many of the detailed and helpful suggestions made by respondents, we have made the following key amendments. At the suggestion of the Metropolitan Police Service, we have restructured the codes to follow the structure and format of the revised PACE codes of practice. We hope that this will make the extradition codes of practice easier for police officers to follow. We also think that this format makes it easier to see where procedures in extradition cases differ from those in domestic cases.
The Law Reform Committee of the General Council of the Bar and the Metropolitan Police Service both suggested that the wording of the new caution was ambiguous and could call into question the admissibility of evidence seized in this country in proceedings abroad. We have therefore amended the wording of the new caution to follow the formulation of the caution in PACE Code C, Annex C, which contains a restriction on drawing adverse inferences from silence.
We believe that this formulation is familiar enough to officers to meet the concerns of those who felt the alternative extradition caution would be difficult to remember. We also believe that this caution is appropriate for use in extradition cases, where we cannot speak for the criminal justice system of the requesting country, and where the police will not question the person about the extradition offence.
At the suggestion of the Information Commissioner, we have made a number of changes to the sections relating to the use, retention, disclosure and destruction of photographs, fingerprints and DNA samples. We have also set out the person's rights in a fair processing notice. This is contained in the written extradition notice—Annex D to Code C—and will be given to every detained person by the custody officer.
At the suggestion of 95 per cent of respondents, including the Magistrates' Association and the Law Reform Committee of the General Council of the Bar, we have revised the section of the codes which prohibits officers using their search powers to investigate the extradition offence on behalf of the requesting country. We considered the alternative formulations proposed by the Metropolitan Police Service, the Bar Council and the Magistrates' Association and have amended the text.
Code B, Paragraph 1.3 now states:
"Searches conducted under powers in the Extradition Act 2003 may only be undertaken for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the extradition offence for use in the prosecution of the person accused of the extradition offence. Officers may not investigate crimes on behalf of the requesting authority or territory, other than to speak to persons for the purpose of assisting establishing ownership or connection to the property. Items relating to a person's identity and offences other than the extradition offence, may, if found, be seized in accordance with the provisions of the Act and this Code".

1077
We think that this formulation makes clear that officers may not undertake investigation of the extradition offence. We have taken care to ensure that this policy is reflected throughout the codes of practice. Code B contains detailed guidance on the information required before a judge may issue a search warrant, and Code C states explicitly that officers may not interview individuals arrested for extradition.
The final order designates those people who can apply to a UK magistrate for an outgoing European arrest warrant. As well as the police and a procurator fiscal, who are catered for on the face of the Act, we are giving this facility to the Crown Prosecution Service, the Inland Revenue, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the Serious Fraud Office. I cannot believe that there can be any serious objection to that.
I apologise for having spoken at some length, but three significant orders are before us, and I was anxious to answer as fully as I could the questions properly put to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I hope that I have done that as comprehensively as she would require. With that explanation, I hope that your Lordships will agree to the three orders. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd December be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for not only dealing with the orders but for expanding on them further than was possible yesterday in another place. I am grateful to her for answering fully the questions of which I gave her advance notice.
I notice that the noble Baroness took the orders in a different order from that on the Order Paper; I shall follow her lead. I understand why she did so; the order of printing has varied overnight from that which we anticipated.
The noble Baroness dealt first with the designation of Part 1 territories where the countries so listed will be able to implement the European arrest warrant. As she knows, that is a controversial matter in our eyes because we were concerned about which countries would be ready to be up and running with what we consider to be an unacceptable procedure in itself. I note that she was diplomatic in her reference to those of our current EU partners that will not be able to be on the list now, but which the Government hope will join the club later.
It must be disappointing for the Government that those EU partners have not all been able to comply. I note that the noble Baroness gave some possible start dates: the end of January for France and the Netherlands; for Austria, Germany, Greece and Luxembourg, 1 st April; for Italy the Government are aiming at 1st April, but that, she says, remains to be seen. That is disappointing for the EU when the presidency has been in Italy's hands for the past few months. Of course, my underlying feeling must be that if those countries are going to get systems right, it is
1078
better to wait for that to ensure that they operate correctly what can be the draconian procedure of the European arrest warrant.
The noble Baroness was generous in her response to my questions on the next order, which brings into effect the code of practice. When we debated the Bill in Grand Committee and at Report, I had been concerned about possible ambiguity, especially about whether there was a distinction between investigation of the extradition offence and obtaining evidence for the prosecution of the extradition offence. I am grateful to her for pointing out where amendments have been made to that and how. Having read the draft code of practice, I agree that the redrafting is indeed much more acceptable than the original.
I am also grateful to her for explaining which other parts of the codes have been redrafted. I shall not refer to those, because I welcome the redrafts and consider them perfectly proper. My only final remark concerns Part 3 designation, which designates those people who will be able to apply for a Part 3 warrant. We accept that the list is appropriate and we support that order.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am happy to support these three orders. I entirely understand why only seven states are designated under Part 1. The Government have gone the right way about dealing with that. Perhaps I should add that I am sorry that they did not use the same procedure for the United States and defer that order until the treaty had been ratified by the American Senate.
We also have no objection to the designation under Part 3. We are glad that the Government have taken into account the various representations made about the draft code of practice. It has undoubtedly been improved as a result.
I should like to raise one point. When scanning through the code, I came across one paragraph that leaves me completely befogged. I do not suppose that the noble Baroness will be able to provide an immediate answer, but perhaps she could write to me about it, because it is extremely difficult to understand. Paragraph 2.6 of code B states:
"This Code does not apply to the exercise of a statutory power to enter premises or to inspect goods, equipment or procedures if the exercise of that power is not dependent on the existence of grounds for suspecting that an offence may have been committed and the person exercising the power has no reasonable grounds for such suspicion".
I should be interested to know exactly what is the meaning of that paragraph. However, that is not a ground for any fundamental objection to the order; we are therefore happy to agree to the making of the orders.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, from the order itself, noble Lords who have not followed closely the passage of the Bill will probably not realise that the order does not apply to Scotland. In Committee and at Report, we discussed that matter in detail. The Government, with the support of the Lord Advocate in Scotland, were of the view that, although it is a Westminster, United Kingdom Bill—a Great Britain Bill—it was not appropriate for the Westminster Parliament to require the Crown Office in Scotland to produce a code of practice.

1079
I do not think that the noble Baroness takes the matter as seriously as I do. Having heard her full fleshing out of the contents of the codes of practice, I am anxious that the Scots police, who will be performing precisely the same task as police south of the Border, have the support of a proper code to guide them. The people of Scotland deserve that.
Has the Lord Advocate decided to issue a code of practice? If the noble Baroness does not know, perhaps she could find out and let me know, because this is a Westminster responsibility under a Westminster Act. We should be sure that the people of Scotland are protected in the same way from wrongful action by the police.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for their fulsome support for these orders. I am tempted to give the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, a full explanation, but he may be teasing me. He will know that paragraph 2.6 has been drawn precisely from the equivalent passage in the main PACE codes. Notwithstanding that, it will be my privilege and pleasure to give him a full written response, so that noble Lords need not be detained overlong with the matter.
I am in a less comfortable position with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. I do not know whether the Lord Advocate has yet made a decision about the code of practice; I shall certainly inquire. I hope that the noble Baroness has noticed that the Procurator Fiscal has been included in the code as one person who can make appropriate orders. I will certainly write to the noble Baroness about the matter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Extradition Act 2003 (Part 3 Designation) Order 2003
4.28 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have already spoken to the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd December be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 1 Territories) Order 2003
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd December be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Export of Goods, Transfer of Technology and Provision of Technical Assistance (Control) Order 2003
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendonrose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the order, laid before the House on 31 st October, be annulled (S.I. 2003/2764).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, my reasons for taking the unusual step of praying against this order were constitutional objections to it and serious reservations by the academic and scientific communities. Although there has been some consultation with the representatives of Universities UK, the Royal Society and the Foundation for Information and Policy Research, culminating in a meeting with officials at the DTI and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 25th November, the outcome of that meeting was not completely satisfactory. The academic representatives sought clarification on certain points, assurances and, more particularly, guidance on how the new rules should be interpreted and applied. However, the officials could give no absolute commitment without reference to the Minister.
I am informed that, as late as last Friday afternoon, the Minister did not wish to indicate to me in writing how he would deal with those points raised with his officials. I thought that the Minister might like to know that, as a result, I spent the whole weekend in consultation with my advisers and in discussions with the academic community and their advisers and Members of different sides of your Lordships' House, to say nothing of writing a 2,500-word speech in support of my Prayer. All that could have been avoided had the Minister found it possible to be a little more forthcoming earlier.
As it is, I received a message from the Minister's office yesterday at 3.15 p.m. that he wished to speak to me. He kindly faxed to me a draft of his speech at 6.11 p.m. yesterday whereupon another round of consultation and late-night speech-writing had to take place. However, I am most grateful to the Minister for letting me know in advance, however belatedly, his explanation of the order and the extent to which he believes that he is already meeting, and will meet in future, the serious concerns of academia. I owe it to noble Lords to explain what those concerns are because to some extent they have not been entirely met, and because of my own constitutional point, which I shall leave until the end.
In view of the explanations and assurances that the Minister tells me he is about to give noble Lords, I can be briefer than I would otherwise have been. In summary, academia's reservations are: first, that the new end-use controls that the order introduces are ambiguously drafted and, as a result, unreasonable in their extent; and, secondly, that the controls on dual-use technology in intangible form, which has been in use since 2000, and which the order re-states and re-enacts, are at serious risk of proving unworkable.

1081
Identical ambiguities are found in Regulations 8,9 and 10, but for simplicity's sake and to save time I shall refer only to Regulation 8.
Regulation 8 imposes a prohibition on the transfer of technology if each of two conditions is satisfied. The first is that the transferor is aware that the technology is intended for weapons of mass destruction programmes. What is not clear is who must hold that intention. Obviously, the condition is fulfilled if the transferor or the transferee holds the intention. But what if the intention is held only by third parties? Sadly, many governments seek to establish such weapons systems. Who is to delve into the motivation of such a foreign government who sponsors a student to study particular subjects in the United Kingdom, including, say, biology or chemistry? The regulation should require that the intention is that of the transferee of the technology or of some other person to whom the transferor is aware that the technology is likely to be transferred. When I refer to the transferor being "aware", I mean positively aware, not that he ought to be aware.
The second condition to make the prohibition effective is that the transferor has reason to believe that the technology may be used outside the United Kingdom. It is hard to think of a single case where the transferor could be sure that it was impossible for the technology to be used outside the EU. On the contrary, with the Prime Minister boasting as he did recently that Britain was becoming the destination of choice for international postgraduate students, it is inevitable that dual-use technology will be exported.
In my submission, prohibitions that apply unsatisfactory and ambiguous conditions and obligations, as contained in the proposed order, are unreasonable. As such, they will or may face rejection by the courts as ultra vires the powers of the Act. In the mean time, the academic community fears that the vagueness and ambiguity of the controls would have major adverse effects on them. First, they fear that the controls would severely inhibit the normal exchange of information between academics working in the same field. Next, they were worried that they would impose intolerable obligations on universities on accepting foreign students. Last but by no means least, they believe that they will inflict on academics and their publishers injurious uncertainty about the risks of prosecution or the need for a licence.
Having just discussed the new end-use controls, I shall now deal with the consolidation of the existing dual-use controls that have been in operation since 2000. The new consolidating regulation gives us the opportunity to revisit the actual contents of the previous order in the light of more than three years' experience of their operation. The existing regulations extend control from the export of goods and equipment to transfers of technology in intangible form. That has an immense prospective effect on many fields of scientific research involving international collaboration. The extensive scope of the controls is ameliorated by many open licences, but those licences are available only to those who comply with their general conditions. Those conditions require
1082
notification to the DTI and the keeping of extensive and detailed records of transfers of technology, however ephemeral the form of the transfer and however trivial the content. I believe that very few academics have made such notifications.
There is very widespread ignorance in the academic community of the stringent requirements of the available licensing schemes and the need to obtain their benefit. Unless the volume of international electronic mail passing through academic parts of the Internet and via text messaging has diminished since 2000—that is highly improbable—it seems likely that there is widespread contravention of the controls imposed in 2000.
The impact of export controls on the academic world is vastly different from that on the worlds of commerce and industry, which transfer technology and goods for money. Every item sold leaves a paper trail open to inspection and investigation in the form of invoice. By contrast, the academic world is dedicated to enlarging the stock of information, including technology available to everyone. The only trail of it is to be found in published papers and books or on the hard drives of computers. If, as I assume they do, the Government wish to see compliance with necessary controls—by necessary, I mean those that do not impose a shotgun approach—the DTI must devote substantial intellectual resources to developing constructive guidance, which must be tailored to the practical needs of the academic world. That is essential.
I have just mentioned the bureaucratic requirements of record-keeping. A particular problem affects information security projects, including, for example, the protection of bank customers' PIN numbers or prevention of computer fraud, hacking and spamming. Those are covered by the dual-use controls, and such projects come within the licensing regime, because they come under an EU instrument called the Community General Export Authorisation (CGEA). The problem is that, to take advantage of that licence, academics must comply with record-keeping obligations to be imposed by the order that are both onerous and impractical. They are set out in Part II of Schedule 4 of the order. I believe that the Government will claim that that mirrors what is set out in the CGEA itself.
In a modern information security project, very large numbers of exchanges of technology may take place by e-mail. That often consists of computer software that may never form part of the final product but is required for testing or design purposes. If a record under the CGEA must be entered for each e-mail and reply, the burden of record creation would make most projects unfeasible. In fact, article 6 of the EU dual-use regulation licenses most dual-use items, including information security, although it does not do so if it includes what are called cryptanalytic functions.
The conditions of the EC regulation do not contain anything resembling the burdensome ones set out in Part II of Schedule 4 to this order. This is despite the fact that the EC order specifically says that it is up to

1083
individual states to decide what registration and reporting requirements to apply. In other words—and not for the first time—the Government are guilty of gold-plating EC regulations. In this case, the Government are not under the constraints that I understand the Minister may claim they are.
I seek from the Minister a cast-iron assurance that ways will be found—either through detailed guidance on record-keeping requirements, or through the grant of open licences, or through the grant of individual licences containing more practical and less onerous conditions, or a combination of all three—to ensure that information security projects are not burdened in this most unreasonable way.
Before I make my concluding remarks I should like to add something else to my wish list at the request of Universities UK. The existing controls have been in force for three years. These should be reviewed in 12 months from now, when they will have been in place for four years and the new ones, if the order is passed, for one year. I understand that the Minister will confirm a review of the legislation after the controls have been in force for three years. I ask him to confirm that when that review takes place it will actively seek and take into account the views of the academic community.
Furthermore, as the delegation explained to the officials, there is a need for clear and adequate guidance, preferably tailored for academics, explaining what the regulations require within the boundaries of Section 8 of the Export Control Act. The representatives of Universities UK and the Royal Society have offered total co-operation with the Government in helping to draft the necessary guidance as well as in disseminating it to the academic community in exchange for clear statements from the Minister about the possible interpretation of Articles 8 and 9 of the order, which deal with the electronic and non-electronic transfer of information and general licences for certain academics in place of the Community general export authorisation. I hope to hear from the Minister that he will accept that offer.
Finally, I come to my third reason for objecting to the order, to which I shall refer in the fewest words possible. The simple fact is that because of the unnecessarily wide scope and impractical requirements of the order it is, according to the advice I have received, ultra vires the Secretary of State's powers as it contravenes the clear wording of Section 8 of the Export Control Act 2002—I ask the Minister to note this—which states:
"The Secretary of State may not make a control order which has the effect of prohibiting or regulating … the communication of information in the ordinary course of scientific research".
This provision is intended to deal with dual-use information used, for example, during legitimate academic presentation or research, but which has a potential strategic use. It may be that the clarification the Minister will give your Lordships, and the guidance that he may give on the operation of the
1084
order, will avoid any law suit in the future that may wish to test this point. For the moment, therefore, I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the order laid before the House on 31st October be annulled (S.I. 2003/2764).— (Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we on these Benches share many of the reservations spelt out by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about the order as it stands. Some of these reservations are shared by Universities UK and the Royal Society.
We feel that there is considerable ambiguity in the wording of Articles 8, 9 and 10. In particular we have concerns about the dual-use controls in Article 13 and the detail set out in Part II of Schedule 4. I did not spend the weekend trying to write a speech but I did spend it trying to read the order. I have to confess that I am not very much wiser as a result. The detail is considerable.
We are worried about the degree to which it is implied that the detail necessary under Part II of Schedule 4 arises as a result of the Community general export authorisation. I am given to understand that that authorisation does not require the detailed record keeping imposed under Schedule 4. We understand that it is for individual countries to specify precisely what they require under the authorisation. In this case, it is our own authorities which require the level of detail specified. Once again we are gold-plating European regulations to the detriment of our own people. The order imposes unnecessary burdens on them which they should not have to bear.
That said, thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, I have had the benefit of seeing a draft of the Minister's speech. I believe that I am right in saying that many of our reservations will be allayed as a result of his speech. I look forward to hearing it.
Lord May of Oxford: My Lords, I share many of the reservations that have been expressed. In my case, I have a vivid personal acquaintance with the problems created by legislation such as this if it is not carefully drafted. In my 11 years of experience at Princeton University as Vice-President for Research in the late 1970s and early 1980s, one dealt with several court cases that arose from forbidding mathematicians to present work. There was, in general, a history in the United States—until the whole matter was cleaned up about 15 years ago—of misapplication of such regulations in ways which inhibited research. Cases were always resolved happily, but only after much fuss and bother.
As your Lordships will recall, the original Export Control Bill was amended in this House and sent back to the other place, where the amendments were swept away. It then came back here for a happy resolution, led by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, which satisfied my fact-based—although from another country— worries.

1085
We were reassured in the earlier discussions that, even if the amendments had not stood, the orders would clear up any ambiguities. Unhappily, far from doing so, they have recreated some of the original obfuscations, although not with intent. Through the generosity of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, in sharing with me his preliminary thoughts, I am under the impression that he will lay all my worries to rest.
I have two minor points that I would like put even more formally to rest. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, also referred to them. First, I trust that we shall hear that the Government are committed to consulting with representatives of the academic community to provide further and clearer guidance, where appropriate, specifically tailored to the academic context. Why do I say that? The helpful notes and guidance prepared by my erstwhile colleagues in the DTI from my brief sojourn as Chief Scientific Adviser, well-intentioned though they are, clearly reflect the fact that most of the dialogue in the context of export control—it is an evocation of Scott and so on—is not between academics and officials in the Department of Trade and Industry but between rather different people. In short, there is what might generously be called a certain degree of mutual incomprehension between the academic culture and that of the people who drafted this document. The thought that it could come happily together is not reassured by the fact that the Royal Society and Universities UK's efforts to get together with officials before the order came to the House was, despite much polite exchange of promises, not effective. I am left with the harsh view that the guarantee of such dialogue must rest on ministerial assurance that officials will be told what to do. That is a crude thing to say, but it is best said openly.
Finally, I also hope — and this fleshes out something said by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and what the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, may be about to say—that there will be an undertaking that there will be a formal review of how the bits that relate to the academic world are going 12 months from the order coming into being, rather than three years.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the regulations currently before the House, and pay tribute to the efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, in pursuing the issues that she raised this afternoon. I also declare an interest as chief executive of Universities UK.
I broadly welcome the regulations and I wholeheartedly welcome the spirit of co-operation with which officials in the Export Control Organisation of the DTI have approached the concerns raised by academics and by the Royal Society and ourselves. Indeed, it is only a shame that we did not manage, as the noble Lord, Lord May, said, to get a meeting with them. In calling for clear, adequate and tailored guidance, I hope that the same spirit of co-operation can be maintained and built on to ensure that the regulations now before us are capable of being clearly understood by those in the academic community.
1086
As noble Lords have already made clear, however, there are a few areas of outstanding concern that I hope the Minister will be able to clear up. My own reaction in reading the regulations and the accompanying draft guidance was similar to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp—that they were hopelessly opaque and difficult to understand. The draft guidance in particular failed to clarify the obligations that the new controls will place upon academics and others, or to make clear the difference between existing controls and new ones. If we are not to produce a situation in which academics simply scratch their heads and give up on international collaboration in certain fields, it is incumbent upon the Government to make efforts to explain the scope of the existing and new legislation. I therefore join others in calling for clear, transparent and tailored guidelines for the academic community that make absolutely clear what they must do and how they must do it.
I also believe that the Government should keep the regulations now before us under review, as others have said. I believe that the impact of the regulations should initially be reviewed 12 months after their implementation, with full and active consultation with the academic community. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer a full clarification on those points.
I conclude with one final point, which relates to the requirements imposed by Schedule 4 Part II of the regulations. There has been some discussion of this already, but I would like to reiterate the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, about the record keeping and reporting requirements imposed by Schedule 4 Part II, which are utterly unrealistic for collaborating academics. The easiest solution to this problem would be for the Minister to provide some reassurance that the Export Control Organisation will look favourably on applications by information security academics for individual licences. I understand that the normal practice is to discourage applications for individual licences when existing licences are applicable. My view is that the reporting and record-keeping requirements of Schedule 4 Part II make the Community general export authorisation inappropriate for collaborating academics. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
5 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for wasting her weekend. The thought of negotiating my speech line by line and word by word with her led to a moment of weakness on Friday evening that should not have taken place. I apologise to her for that.
As Minister with responsibility for science and innovation, I believe that the UK must have strong international relationships if it is to remain at the leading edge of world science. I am proud of the fact that we carry out 4.5 per cent of all the world's science, bur. that means that 95 per cent is done elsewhere. If we are to stay at the leading edge, we need strong relationships with the science being done elsewhere in the world. However, I believe that there is nothing in the Export of Goods, Transfer of Technology and Provision of Technical

1087
Assistance (Control) Order 2003 that in any way prevents that happening. I want to reply in detail to the specific points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. First, however, I should put things in a wider context.
The order is one of two made under the Export Control Act 2002, which will come into force, together with a third order now in preparation, on 1st May next year. The order consolidates the extensive export controls that already apply under current legislation to the export of controlled military and dual-use goods and technology, and also to non-controlled goods that are to be used in connection with a programme of weapons of mass destruction. However, there are certain gaps in the present controls that this order will remedy. First, it will impose a control on the export of military technology by electronic means, to complement the existing controls on the export of dual-use technology by electronic means. Secondly—and this is the point which I believe to be of concern to the noble Baroness—it will impose controls on the transfer by any means within the UK of non-controlled technology and software intended for use in a weapons of mass destruction programme outside the EU. It will also impose controls on the provision of technical assistance to WMD programmes. The second order, with which I do not intend to deal today, introduces new controls on the trafficking and brokering of military goods between countries outside the UK.
At present, it is possible for those engaged in the production of WMD to obtain relevant technology and software or technical assistance within the UK or from a UK person outside the UK without the need for the transferor to obtain approval from Her Majesty's Government under export control legislation. Clearly, this is an area in which we must have adequate regulations. The new controls on the transfer of technology relevant to weapons of mass destruction do not represent a radical change in direction; they build on the existing dual-use regulations that have been in force since 2000. The new controls on technical assistance implement an EU joint action.
Equally, I accept that the controls must be proportionate, practicable and well understood by those subject to them. We have therefore engaged in extensive consultation before they were finalised. That started with a White Paper and we also published draft secondary legislation when the Bill was introduced into Parliament. We then had a final round of consultation of the draft orders starting in January this year.
Copies of that consultation document on the secondary legislation were sent to, among others, the Royal Society and Universities UK, and the Government have also discussed the operation of the new controls with them. Officials from the DTI's Export Control Organisation will continue to work with them during the implementation period and beyond to help their members become aware of, understand and operate the new controls. I have asked that a meeting take place early in the new year, and we will work with the academics to provide appropriate guidance for academics. I hope that that allays any fears that the noble Lord, Lord May, or the noble
1088
Baroness, Lady Warwick, have about the matter. We will produce appropriate guidance, working with academics.
Detailed user guidance on the new controls has been published on the Export Control Organisation website, including frequently asked questions tailored for academics. The Export Control Organisation provides a helpline and free ratings inquiry service, which further helps academics understand and operate the new controls. Additional advice is provided by compliance officers during their regular audits of open licence holders, including suggestions to help open licence holders understand and comply with the terms and conditions of their licences. In addition to this ongoing communication effort, the Government will consider what further guidance may be necessary in collaboration with representatives of academia.
The Government are already committed to a systematic review of the new controls three years after their coming into force. We have also undertaken to work with representatives of institutions of higher education to monitor current preparations for the new controls and their operation during the first year after coming into force. I am more than happy to give a cast-iron assurance that, in both reviews, we will consult representatives of higher education institutes.
The Government accept that institutes of higher education and the research community do not have wide experience of export controls, and we are committed to helping them to comply with strategic export controls, both under the new controls introduced by the order and under the existing dual-use regulations.
Some concern has been expressed about the ability of academics dealing with information security to comply with the existing EC dual-use regulation. The main concern seems to be the record-keeping requirements of the Community General Export Authorisation—the CGEA—a form of open licence that permits anyone to transfer encryption software or technology controlled in annex 1 to the EC regulation within the Community and to 10 of our close allies, including the United States. The Government have met representatives of higher education institutes to discuss the issue and are willing to continue working with academics dealing with information security to help them meet their obligations under the existing controls. However, I stress that the controls have been in force for the past three years, and, although we are making every effort to be as flexible and understanding as possible, we are constrained by the record-keeping requirements of the EC regulation with regard to the CGEA.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, raised the question of the extent to which the record-keeping requirements were necessary under the EC dual-use regulation. The regulation allows member states to attach national export control restrictions to the use of the CGEA in their territory. The Government have exercised the UK's right to attach further reporting requirements through national legislation on physical exports and electronic transfer of cryptographic items, software and technology to the 10 non-EC countries

1089
permitted as destinations under the CGEA. It is important to note that the further reporting requirements apply only to exports of cryptographic goods, software or technology specified in annex 1 to the EC regulations beyond the EC. The export of encryption beyond the EC raises national security issues, which the further reporting requirements address in a proportionate and workable way.
The noble Baroness also raised a point about record keeping and compliance for electronic transfers of military technology. I stress that we are not requiring records to be kept of every e-mail to an end-user, if a transfer takes place over a prolonged period. It is sufficient to identify the technology transferred, the dates between which it was transferred and the identity of the end-user. The detailed user guidance developed with industry representatives will make clear the practical record-keeping requirements under the new controls.
The belief has grown up in some quarters that no researcher will be able to collaborate or communicate with anyone in a sensitive area without first seeking a licence from the DTI. That is not the case. Section 8 of the Export Control Act 2002 specifically acknowledges that an order prohibiting or regulating the communication of information in the ordinary course of scientific research may not be made, unless the interference by the order is necessary and no more than necessary.
The new end-use controls apply only in specific circumstances, which I shall explain, relating to weapons of mass destruction programmes and missiles capable of their delivery. Even here, there will be an exemption for information in the public domain. We believe that the vast majority of scientists would, in any case, wish to avoid having their work contribute to such programmes. I do not believe therefore that those specific circumstances will arise frequently.
I will now give the House a clear explanation of the Government's position in answer to questions about the drafting of Articles 8 and 9 of the order. Article 8(1) contains the prohibition on the electronic transfer of software or technology. The article prohibits the transfer without licence of software or technology to a person or place in the United Kingdom, if the transferor has been informed by the Secretary of State that such software or technology is or may be intended, in its entirety or in part, for a relevant use; or if he is aware that it is intended for a relevant use, and he has reason to believe that it may be used outside the European Community. The phrase "any relevant use" is defined in Article 2. The definition follows the definition in the EC dual-use regulation and broadly covers usage in connection with weapons of mass destruction programmes.
For the test in Article 8(1) to be satisfied, the transferor must first either be informed by the Secretary of State or be aware that the software or technology is intended for a relevant use. For the "aware" part of the test to be met, there must be a realistic prospect that the person who has the intention to use the software or technology for a relevant
1090
purpose will be in receipt of the software or technology. The possible intention of an entirely unconnected person is not relevant. That, however, is not the end of the story. The transferor must also have reason to believe that a relevant use will take place, outside the EC. That does not mean that there is a theoretical possibility that it may be used outside the EC, a condition which, of course, may logically be satisfied in every case. Rather, there must be a positive reason for the belief on the part of the transferor. Article 8(5) confirms that by stating that, for the purposes of Article 8(1), a person has reason to believe that software or technology may be used outside the EC, if he knows that it may be, or is intended to be, so used, or if he has been informed by the Secretary of State that it is intended to be so used. If the constituent parts of that test are met, the transferor must apply for a licence before the transfer is made.
Article 9(3) contains the mirror provision to Article 8(1) in respect of the non-electronic transfer of software and technology. For the avoidance of doubt, the comments that I made about the interpretation of Article 8(1) apply equally to the interpretation of Article 9(3).
The wording of Article 10 is deliberately different from that in Articles 8 and 9, but the "is aware" test is the same as for those articles. A person may be "aware" only if he knows that he has goods intended for a relevant use.
The noble Baroness also raised a constitutional point. The new controls have been carefully framed to respect activities that fall under certain protected freedoms described in Section 8 of the Export Control Act 2002; namely, communicating or making information generally available to the public and communicating information in the ordinary course of scientific research. The Secretary of State may regulate such activity, if interference is necessary and no more than necessary, as determined by her in accordance with Section 8(2), and she considers that the new controls imposed by Articles 8 and 9 of the order are necessary.
I hope that what I have said for the record today will reassure the House and the academic community. As Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science and Innovation, I am determined that nothing should stand in the way of productive international scientific relationships. Equally, I do not think that any scientist would want to see his or her work misused in a way that threatened the security of the country.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his statement. I tried to note carefully what he said. I noted particularly what he said at the beginning: he did not speak to me on Friday because he did not think that he could face me going through the Bill line by line at the beginning of the weekend. I hope that that does not mean that, in letting me have the Bill last night, he expected me to go through it line by line. That could not have been his intention, or he would have tried to hide something from me, and I am not suggesting that he did. On the other hand. I do not think that, if I had suggested that we go through some

1091
of the lines on Friday, it would have made the Minister's weekend as difficult as he made mine. Having said that, I am sure that it will not happen again.
I am not 100 per cent sure that all of our concerns have been met. In particular, it was interesting to hear that the Secretary of State would prevent people having licences only if she thought that it was necessary. I looked again as he was saying that. The question is: what is necessary? I have reread Section 8 of the Export Control Act 2002, which we passed together. Section 8(2) probably covers everything when it states,
"by reference to the circumstances prevailing at the time the order is made and having considered the reasons for seeking to control the activity in question and the need to respect the freedom to carry on that activity".
I made the point that, ultimately, if any part was contravened, it could be ultra vires. I feel content to leave the matter at that because it probably would cover the position.
Therefore, for the moment, I am prepared to accept the assurances that the Minister has given, and the promise of co-operation with and guidance to be given to the academic community. I am very grateful to other noble Lords who supported me in what I said. I refer in particular to what the noble Lord, Lord May, said from his experience at Princeton. Nothing can take the place of experience when one is trying to make sense of what is in front of one, especially in the light of the three-year review of the operation of the Act, which is not too far in the future. I hope that makes it quite easy for the noble Baroness and Universities UK to accept. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
5.11 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. When we introduced the first justice Bill for Northern Ireland two years ago, we knew that we were starting out on a journey of reform and modernisation of the criminal justice system there. That Bill did not, and could not, represent the closing chapter on criminal justice reform in Northern Ireland when it received Royal Assent in July 2002.
All justice systems must continue to evolve. They cannot be allowed to sit still and to ossify or they will cease to meet the needs of modern society. As well as being effective, efficient and fair, they must reflect the community they serve and be prepared to change as society changes. This Bill therefore represents a continuation of the journey towards a better, more modern justice system for Northern Ireland. Such a justice system will benefit all the people of Northern Ireland in equal part and will create even higher levels of trust and confidence in the justice system.
1092
This justice Bill continues the themes of openness, transparency and accountability which run through the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. By further enhancing those characteristics we hope to instil even greater confidence in the justice system. The key elements on which this Bill makes provision are judicial appointments, the prosecution, human rights in the criminal justice system and bail. I will speak on each of its main provisions in turn.
First, the Bill provides for the establishment of a Judicial Appointments Commission prior to the devolution of responsibility for criminal justice matters. The 2002 Act provides for the commission to be established post-devolution, as the Criminal Justice Review recommended. But we see merit in bringing forward the establishment of the commission to ensure that the appointment processes for the judiciary are more transparent and encourage a wider range of applicants than ever before. That should make an important contribution towards enhancing public confidence in the Northern Ireland justice system. The Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 enshrines the principle of continuing judicial independence. The Government remain firmly committed to that.
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will have ministerial responsibility for the Judicial Appointments Commission prior to devolution of justice functions. Noble Lords are aware that a Bill on constitutional reform will be brought before the House this Session. We are, of course, mindful of the need to ensure that the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill sits comfortably with any wider constitutional reforms that might be carried in the other Bill. We do not anticipate any difficulties. However, noble Lords have my assurance that we will make any consequential adjustments to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill by way of government amendment if it is necessary to do so.
Turning to the other judicial appointments provisions, the 2002 Act stipulates that the lay members of the commission should be representative of the community. The Bill now provides that the composition of the commission taken as a whole will, as far as possible, be reflective of the community in Northern Ireland. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, who played a very important part in this, will claim credit for it; I acknowledge the role of the noble Lord. We think that it is right, in principle, to make this change in the interests of enhancing public confidence.
Merit has been and will continue to be the overriding principle for judicial appointments. That is non-negotiable. A key objective of the commission will be to engage in a programme of action to secure a judiciary that is reflective of Northern Ireland society. I want to make it clear that we are not in the business of appointing applicants on the basis of political opinion. Also, reflectiveness applies not just to religious background. There is a strong need for more applications from women and those from an ethnic minority background. Again, this change will help to promote confidence in the judiciary among all the people of Northern Ireland. The duty set out in the 2002 Act—to ensure that a range of

1093
applicants reflective of the community is available for consideration by the commission—is retained alongside this key objective.
It is envisaged that the programme of action will focus on any equal opportunity issues that could have implications for the judicial appointments process, as well as how to stimulate interest from a broader range of applicants suitable for judicial office. It is intended to establish an outreach consultative forum which will include representatives of the judiciary, the Bar, the Law Society and the Equality Commission. The forum's terms of reference will be to consult on what measures may be taken to secure a judiciary in Northern Ireland that is reflective of society, consistent with the requirement of appointment on merit. The matters likely to emerge from the forum will include consideration of the scope for part-time working, use of deputies, the present eligibility requirements and the judicial career path.
The 2002 Act placed time limits on lay membership of the commission. We think that it is right that judicial members of the commission should have the same time limits applied to their membership as currently apply to the non-judicial members, and the Bill provides for that.
When appointing the Lord Chief Justice and Lords Justices of Appeal after devolution, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, acting jointly, will make recommendations to the Prime Minister. The Lord Chief Justice, as the head of the judiciary in Northern Ireland, will be consulted and his views will be made known to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will then make a recommendation to Her Majesty the Queen. That improves upon the formulation used in the 2002 Act by bringing it closer to the original recommendation of the Criminal Justice Review.
The 2002 Act provided for the establishment of judicial tribunals to consider the removal or suspension of judges after the devolution of justice matters. This Bill provides that if a tribunal recommends that a judge be removed or suspended from office, the Lord Chief Justice will be consulted. His agreement to the removal or suspension is no longer required.
Again, building on the 2002 Act, a duly is placed on the Director of Public Prosecutions to refer all cases of suspected police malpractice to the Police Ombudsman. That duty places the onus on the Police Ombudsman to make decisions about suspected police malpractice. Again, it more closely reflects the original review recommendation. The 2002 Act asserted the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland. That is another principle that is non-negotiable.
Creating an offence of seeking to influence the prosecution decision-making process will ensure that those who attempt to impinge on the independence of the prosecution will be brought to account. The offence is linked to the idea of perverting the course of justice to ensure that innocent approaches, such as a doctor passing medical information to the director or a person writing in defence of a relative, are not
1094
criminalised. It is activities with malicious intent that we are targeting with this offence. An example of that malicious intent might be if someone were to attempt deliberately to mislead the director in making a decision about whether or not to prosecute.
The Criminal Justice Review concluded that human rights and dignity should be a core value of the criminal justice system in all its aspects. The Government fully endorse this view. In order to integrate human rights awareness into the criminal justice system still further, a requirement is placed on criminal justice organisations to have due regard to guidance on relevant international human rights standards in carrying out their functions.
A right of appeal for the prosecution against the grant of bail by a magistrate's court is introduced. The police are keen for this right of appeal to be introduced, bringing Northern Ireland into line with Great Britain. It is also supported by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Bill brings arrangements for breach of bail in scheduled cases into line with current practice in non-scheduled cases and makes some minor amendments in relation to the treatment of those on bail in non-scheduled cases.
The independent review of security in Maghaberry Prison conducted by John Steele concluded that republican and loyalist paramilitary prisoners should, on a voluntary basis, be accommodated separately from each other and from other prisoners. That recommendation has been accepted and work to implement it is on-going. The review also recommended that these new separated arrangements should be backed by a range of measures to prevent deterioration into segregation as it operated in the Maze.
The Bill introduces as one such measure a new power allowing the transfer of a prisoner from Northern Ireland to another prison in England or Wales in the interests of maintaining security and good order in prisons. Northern Ireland has only one high security prison and the dispersal of troublesome prisoners within the Northern Ireland Prison Service estate is not therefore possible. The need for the prisoner to remain in England and Wales will be reviewed on a regular basis and he or she will be returned to Northern Ireland as soon as it is assessed that his or her transfer is no longer necessary. Arrangements will be made to ensure that the prisoner will not be disadvantaged as regards family visits or, in the case of remand prisoners, access to legal advice.
The Bill will amend Section 103(2)(e) of the Terrorism Act 2000. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Act 1975 criminalised intelligence gathering against those working in the prison service in Northern Ireland. The Terrorism Act 2000 makes it an offence to collect information relating to,
"a full-time employee of the prison service".
This does not offer the same degree of protection to all classes of prison staff. Part-time workers are now protected in line with the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, in his independent review of the Terrorism Act 2000.

1095
I turn to arrest without warrant for the offence of driving while disqualified. The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland is anxious to have this power, which exists in the rest of Great Britain. Taking firmer action against the serious problem of disqualified driving is something I hope noble Lords will be able fully to support.
The powers of court security officers, as set out in the 2002 Act, are built on to ensure that all relevant buildings have adequate protection.
Finally, the Bill deals with the fact that, at present, barristers in Northern Ireland cannot enter into contracts for the provision of their services, whereas in England and Wales they can do so. The Bill brings the situation in Northern Ireland into line with that in England and Wales.
The Government look forward to the day when decisions on the local justice issues that matter to local people will be placed in the hands of local Ministers. We are confident that that will happen when the time is right—when we have a stable Assembly and executive, when there is an enabling security environment and when the local parties are ready to make the devolution of justice a reality. In the mean time, we have a responsibility to prepare the way by improving and modernising the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland in a way that maximises public confidence and political support.
I believe the provisions contained in this Bill mark an important further step in the reform and modernisation of the justice system in Northern Ireland. The Bill will help to provide for an even fairer, more efficient and more effective justice system. The Bill will provide for a justice system that is more transparent, open and accountable; a justice system that will instil even greater levels of confidence in all parts of the community. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Baroness Amos.)
5.24 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for setting out so clearly the details of the Bill before your Lordships' this afternoon. I also thank her for giving me the courtesy of a short discussion about it, and her officials for their considerable help in briefing noble Lords on this side of the House who are interested in this legislation.
It was clear from the opening speech of the noble Baroness that the origins of the Bill owe very little to the merits or otherwise of the individual measures it proposes. The Bill has not been brought forward as a result of any issue of great principle.
As a result of the Belfast agreement we had a major review of the criminal justice system which reported to the Government in the spring of 2000. The Government then spent more than a year considering that review and discussing its contents with all the relevant parties. The results of those deliberations
1096
appeared in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill which was introduced in the other place in December 2001, almost two years ago to the day. It received Royal Assent on 24th July last year. That was the conclusion of a process that, despite our disagreement with some elements of the final outcome, had evolved over a period of roughly three years.
So, what fundamental flaw in that process, and what error of judgment, has caused the Government to have to return to Parliament with a second justice Bill in the space of a little over a year? Why is it that the Government believe that now is the right time to bring forward such a Bill?
The answer is quite straightforward. The reality is that the primary motivation for the Bill is not the justice system, although it does make some important changes on which I shall comment and support later. The real motivation for this measure is politics; it is about maintaining the momentum in the peace process and trying to induce republicans into supporting the Northern Ireland criminal justice system as a precursor to the hoped-for devolution of justice during the lifetime of the current Northern Ireland Assembly, a matter just referred to by the Minister.
As noble Lords will be aware, the real origins of this Bill lie in the negotiations that took place at Hillsborough on 3rd and 4th March this year and which culminated in the Joint Declaration by the British and Irish Governments. The declaration also made clear that the Government would bring forward,
"a second criminal justice Bill which will bring forward the creation of a judicial appointments commission and make further provision to promote a human rights culture in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland".
The Joint Declaration was intended to establish a basis on which the Assembly and the executive could be reconstituted following elections in May 2003. As we all know, those elections had to be postponed. In October the Government tried again to piece together a deal, but that too failed. Eventually, elections were held on 26th November this year.
The DUP and Sinn Fein emerged as the largest parties within their respective communities; the moderates had lost. We wish the Government well in their talks this week with the parties, but the sombre reality is that the task of restoring the Assembly and the reforming of an executive looks even more difficult than ever.
I say that much more in sorrow than anger because this is a direct and predictable consequence of the tactics that Her Majesty's Government have used over the past five-and-a-half years. The strategy of appeasement began with the release of prisoners with no quid pro quo undertaking, and I am afraid that that strategy is not yet finished. This process has caused Her Majesty's Government to lose the support of the majority of the Unionist population, which it had at the time of the referendum. Sinn Fein is seen among nationalists as the party that delivers and the Unionists see a process of one-sided concessions and side-deals that undermine their confidence in the political process.

1097
We also question the timing in the context of the Government's proposed constitutional reforms, including a Judicial Appointments Commission for England and Wales and the planned abolition of the Lord Chancellor. I thank the Minister for giving the undertaking, as she assured me she would, in relation to changes that might be needed for Northern Ireland as a result of legislation for England and Wales.
Turning to the details of the Bill, Clause 1 proposes to give the Secretary of State the power to establish a Judicial Appointments Commission for Northern Ireland, rather than the First and Deputy First Minister, following devolution, as contained in the current Act. The Secretary of State is not specified, although we are told it means the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. The noble Baroness made that clear this afternoon. That is fine as things stand, as the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs is currently the Lord Chancellor and he, by convention, is a legal figure of some standing who has taken the judicial oath. Yet what happens if the Government get their way and abolish the Lord Chancellor? The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will not be the Lord Chancellor but simply another party politician. He need not even be a lawyer, or have any legal background at all. As such, it is difficult to see how political influence in the judicial appointments process is reduced. Would it not be sensible, therefore, to delay the Bill until the role of the Lord Chancellor is clarified?
The Government insist that appointments to the judiciary will be made solely on merit, and that is explicitly set out in Clause 3. Yet the same clause also states that,
"the Commission must engage in a programme of action designed to secure, so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, that appointments to listed judicial offices are such that those holding such offices are reflective of the community in Northern Ireland".
What is meant by a programme of action? How will it operate in practice? And how can placing such a duty on the commission be squared with the principle of appointment solely on merit? There is clearly a contradiction here. The merit principle must be absolute. As the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, a distinguished former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, said on Second Reading of the 2002 Act:
"It is clearly vital that a judge should be appointed on merit alone and that appointments should not be influenced by political considerations. That is all the more important in the highly charged political atmosphere of Northern Ireland. If judges are not appointed on merit the administration of justice will suffer, as will public confidence in that administration".—[Official Report, 3/5/02; col. 969.]
It appears to us that the Government are weakening the merit principle at the same time as strengthening the political influence in appointments that the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, rightly warns us against.
What is meant by,
"reflective of the community in Northern Ireland"?
Does it refer to Protestants and Catholics? As the Minister is aware, Catholics have always been very well represented among the senior judiciary in Northern Ireland. Or is it Unionist and nationalist?
1098
Moreover, judicial appointments will never strictly be reflective of the community, due to the nature of those who become solicitors or barristers. Northern Ireland, like other parts of the United Kingdom, has a criminal community, as well as communities of both persuasions still mainly under the influence of paramilitaries. Surely the Minister is not suggesting that they be reflected among the judiciary. However well intentioned, the aim is simply unachievable and could result in endless judicial reviews over appointments.
Clauses 4 and 5 increase the political influence in the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Justices of Appeal and in the removal or suspension from judicial offices. In the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Justices of Appeal, the First and Deputy First Minister are no longer to be merely consulted, but henceforth will "make a recommendation" to the Prime Minister. I note that the noble Baroness spoke of recommendations—however, the Bill refers to "a recommendation". In other words, before an appointment can be made, the First and Deputy First Minister must agree on a candidate to recommend to the Prime Minister who, in turn, makes a recommendation to the Queen. If this does not increase the potential for political influence, I do not know what does.
"A recommendation" obviously implies a single candidate. But what happens if the First and Deputy First Minister fail to agree, which is, I suggest, not beyond the bounds of possibility if the DUP and Sinn Fein hold those offices? And what if the Prime Minister rejects that recommendation? What happens then? The clear perception will be that the process is politically influenced. The "my turn now, your turn next time" syndrome comes into play.
Clause 5 weakens the power of the Lord Chief Justice in relation to the suspension from listed judicial offices at the expense of the executive. In the 2002 Act, the Lord Chief Justice has to agree before the First and Deputy First Minister can suspend a person. In this. Bill, he merely has to be consulted. I suggest that the independence of the judiciary is undermined; the influence of politicians is clearly enhanced.
These are the Opposition's criticisms of the Bill, and naturally we hope that the Government will reflect on them and agree to amend the Bill as it makes progress through the House. We do not object to the remainder of the Bill and can support some parts of it. We strongly welcome the fact that the Government have listened to some of the recommendations put forward by the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Hugh Orde, particularly on bail. There is also the power to arrest disqualified drivers, another concern of the Chief Constable.
It is a shame, however, that the Government could not have included other changes to the law that the Chief Constable believes are essential to tackling Northern Ireland's public order problem. For example, he has asked for the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to be extended to Northern Ireland. Why can this not happen? If it is not possible to have the Act in full, he has set out

1099
certain measures that would be beneficial, such as anti-social behaviour orders, parenting orders, local curfew schemes, racially aggravated offences and the removal of truants to designated places.
We appreciate that there are some administrative difficulties in that the functions of local authorities in Northern Ireland are quite different from those in England and Wales. Yet these difficulties should not be insurmountable—and surely what is good law for England and Wales ought to be good law for Northern Ireland. I believe that, in this respect, Her Majesty's Government have missed an opportunity.
This is our approach to the Bill. We look forward to working with the Government to improve it when we return in the new year.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for introducing the Bill with clarity. We on these Benches were critical of one of its predecessors, the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, in that it created an extraordinarily complex judicial infrastructure for the size of the population it serves of some 1.5 million. It mimicked that of England and Wales in every way and every detail. An opportunity was missed to produce a system commensurate with the size of Northern Ireland which would have been more streamlined, efficient and cost-effective.
This side of the pearly gates—and even, dare I say, the other side of those gates—Northern Ireland is a lawyers' paradise. It will be interesting to see whether the provisions of Clause 17, allowing barristers to enter into contracts for the provision of their professional services, will be seen as adding further enhancement to that paradise.
I accept the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, of the timing of the Bill, although I put a different construction on it. I hope that it will encourage Sinn Fein to join fully in Northern Ireland's legal and judicial system, and I believe it will, with goodwill, help to maintain the momentum of progress for the Belfast agreement.
While we broadly accept and welcome the Bill, we have some concerns. With regard to Clause 1, we welcome the decision to press ahead with the establishment of the Judicial Appointments Commission before devolving responsibility for criminal justice matters to the Assembly. It is good to have a transparent process as soon as possible. However, we stress again the importance of lay members not being seen as political appointees. We asked a series of questions during the passage of the 2002 Act, which could be raised again. We believe that Assembly Members and Members of Parliament should be excluded—but should lay members be councillors or members of a political party? Should they be members of the security forces or of the police? Should they be on a district policing partnership? Should they be involved in community safety organisations? How will the Secretary of State ensure that the lay members do not suffer from a clash of
1100
interests? How will he or she ensure that the lay members of the Judicial Appointments Commission are representative in terms of gender, as the report of the Criminal Justice Review suggested, or of other ethnic minorities?
On Clause 2, I thank the Minister for generously acknowledging our contribution to the lexicon of Northern Ireland by talking about reflectiveness rather than representativeness. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, sees the matter in a different light, but we believe that it is not merely an attempt to dilute things. In fact, it gives a greater precision in the sense that the word "representative" does not easily translate across the Irish Sea. In Northern Ireland, it tends in our view to mean something more like a delegate. We believe that "reflective" is a better way in which to describe the sort of balance that one would want to achieve between both communities, and gender and, if necessary, disability. I am glad that the Northern Ireland Office has taken our concerns on board.
Clause 4 deals with the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justices of Appeal. I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in that the Bill somewhat dilutes the roles of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in the appointment of those posts, but I differ in the interpretation. The Prime Minister must consider their recommendations, whereas previously the Prime Minister was to make appointments on the basis of their recommendations. Why has that change come about?
Clause 6 deals with the duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions to refer certain matters to the Police Ombudsman. The review states:
"We recommend that a duty be placed on the prosecutor to ensure that any allegations of malpractice by the police are fully investigated, [para. 4.133]".
Any member of the public may report allegations of police malpractice to the Police Ombudsman. It would then be for the ombudsman to decide whether or not it would be appropriate for an investigation to take place. The Act added the head of the prosecution service to the list of those statutory office holders able to refer such matters to the ombudsman. The Government have given a commitment to introduce fresh legislation to place a requirement on the director to refer to the Police Ombudsman all cases in which a member of the police force may have committed an offence or behaved in a manner which would justify disciplinary proceedings. The timescale for that will coincide with the commencement of the phased implementation of the new Public Prosecution Service, following the pilot projects.
The Criminal Justice Review said:
"The early involvement of the prosecutor in a case raises the question of his or her role if he or she were to suspect malpractice on the part of the police investigators. We recommend that a duty be placed on the prosecutor to ensure that any allegations of malpractice by the police are fully investigated. This would be consistent with human rights guidelines and is in line with present practice. As for whether evidence secured in such circumstances should be deployed in court, that is a matter for the prosecutor

1101
who would take account of the human rights imperative of a fair trial and the need to avoid abuse of process. It would not necessarily be in the interests of justice for all such evidence to be excluded in all circumstances. The prosecutor, in deciding whether to use evidence obtained through malpractice or unlawful means, would make a judgment on whether it was likely to be regarded as admissible in court and on whether it would be proper in all the circumstances to use it".
Clause 7 relates to influencing a prosecutor. We welcome the clause, which is an essential ingredient of the Bill.
Clause 8 deals with the criminal justice organisations on human rights standards. We have always been committed to upholding the highest standards of human rights, so will want to see some of the questions that the CAJ raised answered. The area of concern relates to the Bill's failure to reflect sufficiently the review and the guarantees in the updated plan in relation to the role of international human rights standards in the reform process. The updated plan stated that all criminal justice agencies would be under a duty to have due regard to international human rights standards. However, that has translated rather differently in the published Bill.
The Bill proposes a curious and convoluted formulation whereby it will be for the Attorney General for Northern Ireland to issue guidance, as and when he or she thinks fit, to the listed criminal justice agencies, on the exercise of their functions, in light of relevant international standards. It is concerning that the provision has been drafted in terms of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, since that office is not yet operational and will come into effect only on the devolution of justice powers to Northern Ireland.
Given the huge degree of uncertainty over when justice powers will be devolved, it seems highly inappropriate that the section of the Bill on the role of international human rights standards should be made dependent on the creation of the local Attorney General. That raises doubts over the genuine commitment of the Government to find a greater role for the application of international human rights standards in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland, and, possibly, hints at some sort of delaying tactics in that regard.
It is also worth commenting that Section 8(8) exempts the Prosecution Service from having any regard to human rights guidance issued by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland where that guidance would be inconsistent with a code of practice issued under Section 37 of the 2002 Act. It is difficult to foresee how the new and first ever code of practice for the Prosecution Service, which is due to be published in draft form this month, long before the operation of this new Bill, would be inconsistent with international human rights standards.
It is important that those three clauses are amended during the passage of the Bill in order fully to reflect the Criminal Justice Review and meet the promises made by the Government in the updated plan.
I was heartened to have the Minister's assurance on Clause 13 and the transfer of prisoners. We trust that transfer will be a last resort. It is desperately important to maintain security in prisons in Northern Ireland
1102
and to ensure safety of staff and other prisoners. However, we are concerned at the difficulties that will be placed on families being able to visit prisoners, and for their ability to have adequate legal representation. However, I am very reassured by the Minister's comments.
On my final point, I endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I am at a loss to understand why there has not been some attempt to apply the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to Northern Ireland, as the Chief Constable requested. He made a very convincing case for the transfer of that Act, so that it would apply to Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Minister could explain why the opportunity has not been taken to incorporate it on this occasion.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Laird: My Lords, as you are aware, Ulster Unionists are wholly committed to the removal of anomalies from and improving the effectiveness of our criminal justice and justice systems both in Northern Ireland and indeed throughout the United Kingdom. We share such commitment with right-minded thinking people in Northern Ireland and indeed many in this House.
What we do not share, however, is this Government's persistent green agenda in the field of criminal justice. We have witnessed the introduction of three Police Acts in the space of six years and now are confronted with a second justice Act in only two years. Only two explanations are possible for repetitive legislating. Either there is negligent or incompetent translation of policy into the draft legislation—and so it follows that we, in the system of checks and balances, have failed to pick up on these failures, or indeed have been unable to halt their introduction—or the goals are continually shifting. Perhaps the truth in relation to this continuous legislating for criminal justice in Northern Ireland must be a bit of both.
Provisions on bail in Clause 10 regarding the right of appeal for the Crown where a defendant is granted bail in the magistrates' courts are welcome. However, I look forward to pressing the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council on why the proposed appeal system should differ from that provided for England and Wales by the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993.
Equally welcome are provisions contained in Clause 15 which remove a rather peculiar anomaly in relation to the offence of driving while disqualified—one of the most serious of road traffic offences, certainly in terms of punishment.
However, there is no reason whatsoever why either Clause 10 or Clause 15 could not have been contained in the original justice Bill published and enacted last year. These are certainly not new matters which have arisen in the space of the past few months, and their inclusion here gives this Bill the strong whiff of a mopping up exercise in curing omissions. I do not expect that the Government will be bringing forth, for example, a new Criminal Justice Bill for England and

1103
Wales next year to cure incompetent or negligent omissions from the Bill passed in the last Session, with which your Lordships are well familiar. The reason for that is simple, and I say this irrespective of the merits of aspects of that Bill: in the mind of the Government at least, they got it right first time. Surely, Northern Ireland and the people there deserve the same level of competence and care first time too.
Indeed, for that very reason I supported devolution in Northern Ireland, and in the right circumstances I would endorse devolution of criminal justice too. However, I do not in any way support the devolution of judicial appointments, whether or not we have effective devolved government. Devolution in Northern Ireland places it in a similar position to our other regions—Scotland and Wales. Devolution of appointments does not happen there. Furthermore, one does not go hand in hand with the other, and the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council may be aware of that strongly held view from when we last debated these issues two years ago.
Indeed, questions were posed on that occasion, in this House and in another place, as to what would happen to these proposals if devolution was not effective. The Government's stock answer was that they do not plan for failure. Of course, it is failure that has brought the Government to have to legislate for appointments during suspension: failure of the republicans to desist from paramilitary activity; their failure to disarm; and failure of republicans to disband, standing down their paramilitary machine once and for all.
Indeed, given the current climate, even if those obligations were to be fulfilled, it may well be that devolution would still not be viable. Yet this Government continue to pursue the green agenda that has brought us to such a position. Clause 8, for example, covers issues that the SDLP fought and lost in the debate on the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. Yet the Government continue to seek to indulge Northern Ireland's fourth party.
To me—though I will defer to the greater knowledge of your Lordships with legal expertise—Clause 7 adds nothing whatever to the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice. If my instinct is correct, why is this clause here? What is its source? Is it another SDLP request? I hope that the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council is able to reassure us in that respect. If not, I fear that we have reached a position where the quality of the law is secondary to whoever requested it.
Clause 6 further undermines protection from retrospective investigating by the office of the ombudsman. Time and again the SDLP has called for increased powers of the police ombudsman, and time and again the Government have assured us that her office cannot act retrospectively. That is clearly not the case here. I hope that the Government do not intend to introduce such a provision now.
Ulster Unionists, as I have indicated, do not support this devolution of judicial appointments, and we do not support this Judicial Appointments Commission. It sets
1104
us apart in a manner in which we do not wish to be set apart and it puts into legislation the shackles of phrases such as "reflective" and "taken as a whole". Given the broad composition of the judiciary, such provisions will actually guarantee that the lay membership will be anything but reflective.
We will not acquiesce in any attempt to politicise judicial appointments. Nor do we accept that judicial appointments should be based on anything other than merit.
It is time for the Government to ditch the continuous pandering to the agenda of the SDLP and Sinn Fein with regard to criminal justice. The noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council knows that this agenda will never satisfy the insatiable appetite of republicans, and they now represent the majority of nationalists. Have the Government learnt nothing from the results of the Assembly election last month?
It is, albeit late in the day, time for the Government to makes moves to restore Unionist confidence in devolution and restore Unionist confidence in the Belfast agreement. This Bill must change in order to reverse the Unionist drift away from the agreement. Otherwise I fear that in its current form the Bill will not only continue the drift but accelerate it.
5.57 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I do not see much harm in the Bill; in fact there is much good. On balance, however, I would not give it my wholehearted support at this time as it is yet more concessions in certain areas for no reciprocation from the hardliners. I do not wish to repeat everything that previous speakers have said about the critical issues, but I should like to make a few points, which noble Lords will be glad to hear are short ones. I shall leave the more technical aspects to subsequent speakers who will deal with them much better than I.
Clause 1 creates a Judicial Appointments Commission. This clause in particular should not be here at this stage. I believe that, 16 months ago, the then Minister in another place—without quoting him word for word—said that, in line with the recommendation of the Criminal Justice Review, the creation of this commission would not take place prior to the reinstatement of devolution. It was to be one of the carrots, if you like, for the hardliners to come on board for decommissioning and for support of the police and so on. We know what has happened since then.
I would add just one point to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, about appointing judges on merit and the matter of reflecting the make-up of the community—and at this point I must declare an interest as a member of the policing board. The one area where that has actually been practised is in the appointment of police trainees. The only way that the Government can satisfy both those demands—and one of them they will not satisfy completely—is by creating a merit pool. However, the number of judges is not so great that the merit pool will be very great anyway. However, they will have to say that those

1105
people have reached a standard. What standard is that, when we are talking of having the best of the best, at the top of that peak of experts?
That is all that I would say on that point. It has been practised before. The Government cannot reply to this and say, "We will find a way; don't worry". There is only one way, and that is by creating a level at which different people from the different communities in Northern Ireland who are judges or are going to be judges can attain a level above a certain line. It is impossible to work that entirely on merit. We have seen that, and in policing we accept it. However, as regards the judiciary, I hesitate to say that most people do not accept it.
Clause 6 seems to fall into the same category— eternally tweaking the law ahead of the planned timescale in order to appease hardliners who do not reciprocate. The position at present is that whenever there is a complaint against any member of the police, it goes directly to the Police Ombudsman. Whenever a member of the police is involved in a situation where there is no complaint but where someone has died, it is automatically referred to the Police Ombudsman. The DPP has always had the right to refer such matters. Therefore, this clause is not as important as it might seem. It ensures only that less serious matters—when there is no complaint or death and when the DPP does not wish to refer them, which he readily does—will have to be referred to the Police Ombudsman. The measure is of little consequence except for the timing, but it is clearly a concession to those who do not reciprocate.
The Government will no doubt say that they, as always, know what they are doing. I wonder whether they are right. I do not deny that all the communities in the Province are not in some way responsible to a great extent for what has happened in the past 33 years. However, the Prime Minister and the NIO were surprised and shocked by the failure of the system that they put in place finally to resolve decommissioning and to restore devolution. That has led to a complete polarisation, the election result and stalemate. The Government must realise that that is the single most damaging miscalculation that has occurred within the process over the past few years. Hindsight is, of course, a great thing, but I believe that I know what happened. When General de Chastelain first approached the IRA, it agreed to co-operate provided that it held the veto on transparency. I suspect that General de Chastelain reported back to the two governments, who agreed without realising that when the end game—the last move—came about, the IRA would still hold the veto on transparency.
In my case it is normal hindsight, or lack of foresight, but we have the right to expect that our Government will have the ability to outwit the terrorists and not the other way round.
Just over two months later, they are at it again— concessions for no gain from the hardliners. For those reasons I cannot give full support to the Bill. It is a question of the timing, not the content.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was at his gloomy best in criticising the timing and some of the content of the Bill. Perhaps I can give him just a crumb of comfort by asking the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council the following question. In future will the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, who will have a responsibility under this Bill, also have a duty to serve the interests of justice? That is something which has gone on for generations when these kind of duties have been in the hands of successive Lord Chancellors. That, I suggest, should be clearly spelt out in the future legislation that is still to come. There should also be a guarantee that the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will always have a seat in the Cabinet, and can thus make representations at the highest level.
I turn now to the Bill that is before us. There are just two points to which I wish to draw attention. They concern Clauses 6 and 13, and we shall certainly have to return to them in Committee. Clause 6 requires the Director of Public Prosecutions to refer to the Police Ombudsman anything indicating that a police officer may have committed a criminal offence. Surely the independent DPP should have discretion to decide whether he has sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution. If he has, the prosecution should go ahead, thus avoiding further delays caused by proceeding through the ombudsman.
The Government may argue that the Joint Declaration and the implementation plan call for this particular procedure, and there may be merit in some cases in investigations conducted independently of the police service. Her Majesty's Government may like to reflect whether the word "may" would be preferable to "shall" at line 33 of page three of the Bill.
As to Clause 13, I spent about seven years campaigning, eventually successfully, to enable prisoners to be transferred voluntarily between England, Northern Ireland and the Republic. I do not now want to see prisoners transferred compulsorily between jurisdictions. I believe that one has to consider the interests of their families and their own prospects of rehabilitation.
Of course I realise that problems of discipline and internal safety can still be very acute inside prisons in Northern Ireland, as the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, indicated in her opening remarks. There may well be cases when a strong sanction is needed. As the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, put it, this should, however, be used only as a last resort. I therefore suggest to the Government the inclusion of words in Clause 13(2) such as,
"because of his serious misconduct, or, with his consent, for his own protection".
I should also like to ask, what kind of order is intended at line one of page nine? Will it be subject to parliamentary scrutiny? Further, why is there no mention of transfer to Scotland? That might well be more satisfactory and more appropriate for many of

1107
the families. Finally, will the consent of the receiving jurisdiction always have to be obtained before a transfer is made?
I conclude by saying that many provisions of the Bill will be welcomed in Northern Ireland, not least, as has already been mentioned, that dealing with the arrest of disqualified drivers.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, the most far-reaching provisions in the Bill are those that relate to the judiciary in Clauses 1 to 5. Although it pains me to say so, as everyone who has held responsibility for Northern Ireland looks with sympathy upon those who succeed them, I believe that these provisions will lead us into a surreal world. In one respect they will lead us into a more dangerous one.
I preface what I want to say with the remark that security of tenure for senior judges is one of the most important safeguards for their independence and for the rule of law. Only last year the Government thought that it was a proper protection that the Lord Chief Justice's agreement would have to be obtained for the removal of a senior judge. Now it is to be sufficient only that he be consulted. He may disagree with the proposed removal but he can still be overridden. I hope that the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council—I know that she has many responsibilities—will find it possible to answer the following questions. Why has that change been brought about after so short an interval? Who prompted it and in what circumstances? What was the attitude to the change of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Robert Carswell, before he announced his retirement this week?
The Explanatory Notes suggest that the Criminal Justice Review's recommendation will be more closely matched, but the Criminal Justice Review was published two years before the 2002 Act, which is now proposed to be changed. There must be more to it than that. Whatever it is ought to be made known. It really is not enough for the noble Baroness the Lord President to say in introducing the Bill—I think that I accurately recall her saying—that every legal system has to evolve and cannot be allowed to ossify. That is a bit much. The ink is hardly dry on the statute of 2002. There is not much ossification going on; it is not even jelly. We would like the answers to those questions.
The driving force behind the remaining provisions in that part is said to be the objective of enhancing public confidence in the judicial appointments system and the judiciary. I want to examine that, but I would like first to pause. In five years as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and four years before that as the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, I do not recall any serious lack of public confidence in the judiciary ever manifesting itself. I suggest that there was a very good reason for that. Throughout the past 30 years, the judiciary of Northern Ireland, appointed as it has been by the Lord Chancellor, has earned a superb reputation for its fairness and impartiality, to say nothing of its courage and dedication to the rule of
1108
law. I am glad to say that I responded more constitutionally and less petulantly than Mr Blunkett when, as Secretary of State, I found myself on the wrong end of a judicial review.
Nor could anyone point to any significant or telling imbalance in the staffing of the High Court or the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. Their members were appointed by the Lord Chancellor, solely on merit and I am sure always consulting the Lord Chief Justice of the day. In my experience it so happens that, if anything, marginally more appointments were made from those with Catholic backgrounds than a strict reflection of the demography of Northern Ireland at that time would have warranted.
It is true that, at county court level, the picture was different, and probably still is, with Catholic backgrounds significantly under-represented. But that was principally, I believe, because county court judges could be required to take their turn sitting as Diplock judges in the High Court trying terrorist cases. Those with Catholic backgrounds, understandably perhaps, found that less attractive, as it was rewarded with neither status nor salary.
I believe that true public confidence in the judiciary has been deservedly very high. That surely has a bearing on whether we ought to change the way in which it is now appointed.
All the same, the Criminal Justice Review of 2000 recommended the establishment of a Judicial Appointments Commission when, but only when, devolution was in place, including devolution of justice matters. That derived in turn from the Belfast agreement, whose purpose was to secure devolution on a fair foundation underpinned by consent, something to which we all wholeheartedly adhere. It made some sense, although it wrongly discriminated against High Court judges, for instead of a Westminster Minister going on appointing judges at High Court level and below, they would be appointed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, acting jointly with other specified office holders. I can see the bones of a public confidence argument there, although I for one would have preferred the Lord Chancellor to have kept the responsibility, even after devolution.
What is proposed in the Bill is the institution of the appointments commission here and now, notwithstanding that devolution is suspended and looks like going on being suspended, unfortunately. There is and will be no First Minister or Deputy First Minister, so their places among those responsible for making nominations to the commission are to be taken by the Secretary of State. That will go on until devolution is restored and justice matters devolved within it. It is very hard to see how a recipe for enhancing public confidence can be found there.
The matter does not end there; in fact, that is only the beginning. Look at what the commission is charged with doing. It must make,
"arrangements in connection with the exercise of their functions … as will, so far as is practicable, secure that the membership of the Commission is reflective of the community in Northern Ireland".

1109
That applies to all the members, note—the judicial ones as well as the lay ones. The 2002 Act—only a year old—stipulated a qualification for only the lay members, who were required to be representative of the community. Why the change? Why are the judicial members now to have that qualification brought in? Why is the change proposed so soon? The commission itself, once in place, would have to do likewise to secure that the judiciary reflected the community similarly, consistently—it is true—with appointment being on merit.
But how, your Lordships may ask, after the recent elections do we define the "community in Northern Ireland"? Sinn Fein is now the majority party in the nationalist community, yet it is still inexorably and inextricably linked with the Provisional IRA, whose failure to decommission and to renounce so-called punishments like banishments and maimings was the cause of devolution being suspended. The Unionist parties were unable to go on working with Sinn Fein and still are.
The Criminal Justice Review was right to recommend an appointments commission, if at all, only once full devolution was in place. So long as devolution is suspended, and for the reason that it remains suspended, I am afraid that it is surreal to suppose that public confidence in the judiciary will somehow be enhanced by such a method of trying to make it reflective of the fractured community within Northern Ireland. I cannot dismiss the suspicion that the real reason for the proposals lies in the unplanned and feckless decision to abolish overnight the office of Lord Chancellor, which is where the responsibility for the time being should remain.
6.18 p.m.
Baroness Goudie: My Lords, I wish to declare an interest as the patron of the Northern Ireland Community Foundation, supporting people, strengthening communities and building peace.
I generally welcome the publication of the new Bill, which will undoubtedly advance the implementation of aspects of the Criminal Justice Review. I am particularly supportive of the fulfilment of the Government's commitment, in the Joint Declaration of April 2003, to bring forward the introduction of the Judicial Appointments Commission in advance of devolution of justice powers to Northern Ireland, as provided for in the Bill. I feel it important that the Government should be clearly seen to be proceeding with the implementation of essential aspects of the peace process in Northern Ireland. Confidence-building in the process requires no less.
There are a few points that I wish to make and comment on. The first is with regard to Clause 4 and concerns the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice and Lords Justices of Appeal. In the event of effective devolution in Northern Ireland, the role of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—acting jointly— in the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice and Lords Justices of Appeal should be strengthened
1110
rather than minimised. It is crucial that a devolved Assembly should have a sense of commitment to, and ownership of, the judicial system.
Clause 4, as published, arguably fails to meet expectations raised by the Government in their updated implementation plan, when they held that the Prime Minister would appoint persons to those positions,
"based on the recommendations of the First and Deputy First Minister".
Instead, the Bill before us today requires the Prime Minister only to "consider" any recommendation for appointment made by the First and Deputy First Minister.
I would argue that where there is agreement between the power-sharing First Minister and Deputy First Minister on the issue, the Prime Minister should then make the appointments based on this recommendation. However, where such an agreement cannot be reached, it might be feasible to empower the Prime Minister to consider the names put forward by both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. This, however, should be a position of the last resort.
I also welcome the provision under Clause 6 concerning the duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions to refer matters to the Police Ombudsman. I have had considerable personal contact with the office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and I am constantly impressed with her work. However, I am concerned that the wording of Clause 6(3) confers an excessive degree of discretion on the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether a matter of alleged police malpractice should be referred to the ombudsman. I would welcome further clarification as to the objective test on what might "appear" to the director as grounds for warranting reference to the ombudsman.
The other part of the Bill about which I must express certain concerns is Clause 8, with regard to the guidance for criminal justice organisations on human rights standards. The updated implementation plan stated that all criminal justice agencies would be under a duty to have due regard to international human rights standards. I support this approach, as I regard human rights standards as a protection for all— irrespective of their community background or political perspective. This, I feel, is particularly important in such a divided and contested society that Northern Ireland still remains.
The Bill as it stands, however, is less clear cut about the implementation of this provision. It proposes a rather curious formulation whereby it would be.for the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland to issue guidance, as or when he or she thinks fit, to the list of criminal justice organisations on the exercise of their functions in the light of relevant international standards.
However, there seem to be a number of difficulties with this provision. First, the office of the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland is not in existence and will come into existence only on the devolution of justice powers to Northern Ireland. Secondly, given the current uncertainties over the time-scale of any

1111
such devolution of justice powers, it is extremely problematic that this important section of the Bill on the role of international human rights standards should be made dependent on the creation of the local Northern Irish Attorney-General. Provision should be made for the effective application of these standards prior to the establishment of the local office of the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland.
Finally, I want to comment on Clause 13 concerning the transfer of prisoners. While I accept the thinking that gave rise to this provision, I would draw attention to the inevitable human cost of transferring prisoners from Northern Ireland to serve a term of imprisonment in England or Wales. The human cost of such transfer will most likely be borne by the family of the individual involved. I believe that any such course of action should be taken only in the most extreme circumstances, and I worry that the current stated conditions, which state,
"in the interests of maintaining security or good order in any prison in Northern Ireland",
are drawn too widely and may not take account of the disproportionate cost to the families involved. And we all know only too well the starkly adverse political influence of a disturbed prison situation in Northern Ireland. I commend the Bill to the House.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, as ever with legislation concerning Northern Ireland, it is obvious that even with today's small attendance in the House the Bill is not uncontroversial. Some people in Northern Ireland believe that the production of the Bill, which emanated from Hillsborough, is the result of serious political pressures placed on the Government. The cement which holds together a society or a community in the democracies of these islands is respect for the police and law and order. It is obvious, even from what I have heard today, that consent is not readily available.
It appears that too many concessions have been made to one section of the community in Northern Ireland and that will bring a reaction from another section. We see that reflected in the results of the elections which were held a fortnight ago. There is no great support—not 100 or 90 per cent—from the population for the Bill.
On appointments, I have listened to the lawyers speak here today. I want merely to indicate that the subject of the appointments commission will arise in the Committee. I remember discussing an issue in Committee some years ago and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was also present. I shall have to obtain Hansard for that occasion but I want to repeat what I then said. Between 1966 and 1970—I recall the years better than the people involved—a vacancy occurred for a Lord Chief Justice in Northern Ireland. One of the applicants for the position was a man who had given loyal service during the war years, receiving military commendations for the part he played. It seemed to everyone that he was the ideal candidate for the promotion. Then someone told me of
1112
rumours that there was no way in which he would get the promotion because he did not support the Unionist community.
I made recommendations to the then Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General. I had a great deal of paperwork relating to the identity of the judge and they agreed with me that he appeared to be a good candidate for the post. They came back to me a fortnight later and said that there was no way that the Northern Ireland Government would agree to the appointment.
The argument went on for weeks, and eventually they came to me and said, "There's only one way out of this; we will appoint two judges". The Northern Ireland Government had to get their judge and another one was also appointed. That is an indication of what was happening at that time and it is why I believe that an appointments commission may now be essential. I shall say much more about that in Committee.
My final point relates to the transfer of prisoners. Why can prisoners be transferred only to England and Wales but not to Scotland? Is it because of the devolution? Scotland would be a more appropriate place because it also has its religious and sectarian differences. I put that down merely as a marker because we shall debate the issue in Committee.
6.28 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, a number of views have been expressed about improvements to the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. As my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton said at the outset, we broadly welcome the measures.
It is not a large Bill, but its content is important for the people of Northern Ireland to be able to see clearly how their judicial system is working. My noble friend Lord Smith asked a question on the importance of lay members, which I want to reiterate. Who might be excluded from taking part in the process of the Judicial Appointments Commission so as not to be seen as political appointees? Would they be people such as Assembly Members or Members of Parliament, and what about members of the police or the security forces? On the other hand, who might be included? Would they be those involved in community safety organisations or members of a district policing partnership? How will the Secretary of State ensure that the lay members do not suffer from a clash of interests? Finally, how will he ensure that the lay members of the Judicial Appointments Commission are reflective of the community in terms of gender or ethnicity?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, expressed concerns about the tenure of judges. Like the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, he would prefer the Lord Chancellor to have responsibility for choosing members of the judiciary. It is a matter of regret that devolution of responsibility has not yet been achieved. However, we look forward to the day when it will be. Until then, the Secretary of State must take responsibility for ensuring that the Judicial Appointments Commission is set up. I

1113
hope that he will do it speedily and with full consultation with the various bodies which need to be involved in its formulation.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, expressed disappointment that the Lord Chancellor will not take responsibility for judicial appointments. However, in other jurisdictions, ministers of justice are not necessarily lawyers, and non-lawyers can certainly bring a fresh perspective to issues. I hope that that might be considered.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, that the roles of the First and Deputy First Ministers are strengthened. Together, they will be able to give the people of Northern Ireland confidence that the highest judicial posts in the land have been agreed across political divides. That is important and will certainly be a challenge to all the leaders in Stormont.
I move on to the changes in the Bill which alter responsibility for dealing with a police officer who may have committed a criminal offence or who, in the course of a criminal investigation, may be subject to disciplinary proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to that issue. I stress that it is better for the Police Ombudsman than the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland to deal with those matters. However, a number of noble Lords reiterated that the Bill is not entirely clear about the way in which that is to be undertaken. Perhaps the Minister can clarify the position—particularly in relation to when the DPP has discretion on whether or not to refer a matter to the Police Ombudsman. My noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton referred to that point, as did a number of other noble Lords.
I turn to the subject of human rights. The ability of the police to be guided by one document on the implementation of human rights should be brought into effect now and not left for any revision of their code of ethics. Can the Minister give us reassurance on that point? As we have already heard, human rights guidance will not come into effect until the office of Attorney-General for Northern Ireland has been created and justice powers have been devolved. My noble friend spoke of the convoluted way in which that is being handled. Again, can we be reassured that the Government do not intend to delay the introduction of human rights standards through the criminal justice system? The noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, also raised concerns on this issue. She was not clear about the implementation of the standards, and we on these Benches share that concern.
I repeat a question asked by my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton. Can we have further clarification on why the prosecution service appears to be exempt from having regard to human rights guidance, which will be issued by the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, where that guidance would be inconsistent with a code of practice issued under Section 37 of the justice Act? As we heard, the new code of practice for the prosecution service is due to be published very shortly, but it seems strange that there could be any inconsistency with international human rights standards.
1114
With regard to the transfer of prisoners—again, an issue referred to by my noble friend Lord Smith—we certainly want reassurance from the Minister that such transfers would be undertaken only as a last resort rather than as a first reaction. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, reminded us of the work that he has done on prisoners' voluntary transfers. He asked us not to take on compulsory transfers as a first reaction. It is desperately important to maintain security in prisons in Northern Ireland—we all believe that—and to ensure the safety of staff and other prisoners. However, we believe that it is still important to consider the rights of the prisoners' families. It should be as easy as possible for them to see their relatives in England and Wales. In that, I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie.
The noble Lord, Lord Laird, welcomed Clause 15, which deals with arrest without warrant for the offence of driving while disqualified. I did not detect any other enthusiasm for the Bill. No doubt as we go through its various stages, we shall examine the concerns that he expressed. I was pleased to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, cautiously welcome the Bill, but he also voiced the same concerns about its timing rather than its content.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, was concerned about the tenure of judges and gave us a very detailed run-through of how he sees that aspect being improved. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said that the Bill was not uncontroversial. He also echoed other noble Lords who spoke about the political aspect of the Bill, and he felt that too many concessions had been given.
We shall examine all those concerns in the Committee. We shall carefully consider any amendments tabled in Committee and later stages. However, generally, we feel that the Bill is a necessary step forward in Northern Ireland's justice provision and one which, as I said at the beginning, these Benches will support.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the Bill seeks to make additions and amendments to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. My noble friend outlined the areas that give us cause for particular concern: the definition of the Secretary of State; the extent to which merit, as an exclusive criterion for appointment, is being undermined by the addition of other criteria; the changes in the rules for the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Justices of Appeal; and the weakening in the power of the Lord Chief Justice in respect of the removal of listed judges, who include, as a category, newly appointed High Court judges.
Although much will be said on the first three of those issues in Committee and on Report, I wish to limit my Second Reading observations to the fourth—the dismissal of listed judges. In doing so, I have had, as have all your Lordships, the benefit of the characteristically perspicacious observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden.

1115
I make no apologies for repeating the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, expressed in the debate on the Second Reading of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill last year and already cited by my noble friend:
"It is clearly vital that a judge should be appointed on merit alone and that appointments should not be influenced by political considerations. That is all the more important in the highly charged political atmosphere of Northern Ireland. If judges are not appointed on merit, the administration of justice will suffer, as will public confidence in that administration".—[Official Report, 3/5/02; col. 969.]
What the noble and learned Lord said about the influence of political considerations on appointment applies, in my submission, a fortiori to the influence of political considerations on dismissals.
Until that Bill became law later in 2002, High Court judges in Northern Ireland could be dismissed, like High Court judges in England and Wales, only on an Address to Her Majesty by both Houses of Parliament. For reasons that were deplored by many of your Lordships in the course of Committee and Report stage debates, the Bill removed that protection, a protection that has existed since the Act of Settlement of 1701; that is to say, for over 400 years.
Following the implementation of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act, all subsequently appointed High Court judges will be dismissable by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister jointly, following a tribunal recommendation that they be so removed on grounds of misbehaviour. However, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister could not so act,
"without the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice",
a person who himself remains removable only on an Address presented to Her Majesty by both Houses of Parliament.
Even with the blocking power of the Lord Chief Justice, I remain at a loss to understand why the Government wished to make the changes in the rules for the dismissal of High Court judges that they made in the 2002 Act. The High Court judges are the cornerstone of criminal justice in Northern Ireland and their reputation for courage and independence has never been questioned by this or any previous Government. Yet now it appears that the Government wish to go even further than the 2002 Act by replacing the expression,
"without the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice",
in the existing law, with the Clause 5 proposal, "except after consultation with" the Lord Chief Justice. In other words, the safeguard of the Lord Chief Justice's consent to dismissal is to be removed.
What conceivable reason can the Government have for making that further revision so soon after the previous legislation had found its way on to the statute book? The noble Baroness said in her opening remarks that the justice systems should not be allowed to ossify; but as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, has already observed, as yet we have no experience at all as to how the 2002 Act will operate. Moreover, the proposed clause seems to move away
1116
from one of the cardinal principles of the Convention on Human Rights, the independence of the judiciary; a principle which, together with other principles contained in the convention, is purported to be the whole basis for these further changes.
6.42 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. We have had a very good debate, covering some very important issues of principle: the independence of the judiciary and the prosecution and the need to ensure that respect for human rights is at the heart of the justice system.
I shall start by dealing with the wider political context, which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Laird. We are clear that the agreements remain the only viable political framework that is capable of securing the support of both communities in Northern Ireland. A clear majority of the people who voted in the election—70 per cent— voted for pro-agreement parties. The vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland want to see devolved government.
A number of noble Lords including the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran, Lord Smith of Clifton and Lord Laird, raised the issue of the timing and asked why a second justice Bill is necessary. As I said in my opening speech, the Bill represents a continuation of the journey towards a better and a more modern justice system for Northern Ireland. It stands on its own merits and I would contend that it will bring forward changes that should be to the benefit of all in Northern Ireland. We have already embarked on a massive programme of criminal justice reform backed by widespread public support and we want to sustain that momentum and promote a culture of continued improvement.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, pressed me about the relationship between this Bill and the Bill that will be brought forward by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor with respect to changes in the constitutional reform Bill. We are mindful of the interrelationship between those two pieces of legislation. I have listened carefully to the concerns of the noble Lord and we shall ensure that there are no unjustified inconsistencies between the Bills provisions for a Judicial Appointments Commission in Northern Ireland and any wider constitutional reforms.
We shall also be mindful of the Government's decision on a Judicial Appointments Commission for England and Wales and the future role of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. We remain committed to the principle of an independent judiciary. I must underline that to all noble Lords.
With respect to the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice and Lords Justices of Appeal, which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Smith of Clifton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, the Criminal Justice Review recommended that the responsibility for making recommendations to Her Majesty the Queen would lie with the Prime Minister, as now, but on the basis of recommendations from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. That is what is being put in place.

1117
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked what would happen if there were a disagreement between the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. We cannot plan for failure. Justice will be devolved only when it is clear that the local parties are able to work together. That is part of the process in which we are engaged now.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, pressed me particularly on the issue of security of tenure. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, devoted his speech to that one issue. The 2002 Act provides a robust system to safeguard the independence of the judiciary. The provisions on removal are a part of that. A member of the judiciary cannot be removed without the recommendation of an independent tribunal which will include members of the judiciary. I underline that because I heard the concerns that were expressed around the House. Of course, I share the admiration of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, of the judiciary in Northern Ireland and the way in which it has served the community, sometimes in very difficult circumstances. The words used by the noble Lord were that public confidence in the judiciary in Northern Ireland is high.
The noble Lords, Lord Glentoran, Lord Laird and Lord Fitt, the noble Viscount, LordBrookeborough, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, all raised questions about the issue of merit. Section 5(8) of the 2002 Act, as amended by this Bill, continues to make very clear that appointments must be made,
"solely on the basis of merit".
It could hardly be more plain. As I made clear in my opening remarks, we are not in the business of appointing applicants on the basis of political opinion. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, that in seeking to ensure reflectiveness, we are trying to encourage a wider range of people to put themselves forward for consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, pressed me on the issue of lay members and possible conflicts of interest. I fully expect that the commission will command the respect of all sections of the Northern Ireland community. The reason why we are talking about "reflective" rather than "representative", which was pushed by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, is that we do not see members of the commission as representing any particular interest. I underline that.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, raised the issue of the establishment of the Judicial Appointments Commission before devolution. Recommendation 77 of the Criminal Justice Review envisages the establishment of a Judicial Appointments Commission post-devolution of justice. However, it is not against the early establishment of such a commission. We seek to put this in place because we feel that things have moved on.
On bail, a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Laird, it is inevitable that there are some differences between provision in Northern Ireland and the corresponding legislation for England and Wales. For example, an appeal of a magistrate's decision lies to the Crown Court in this jurisdiction but would fall
1118
to the High Court in Northern Ireland. The provisions we have included on bail have been developed at the request of the Chief Constable and supported by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Similarly, the power of arrest for driving while disqualified was brought forward at the request of the Chief Constable. It is the first legislative opportunity to resolve this anomaly.
The noble Lord, Lord Laird, asked why we have created a new offence of seeking to influence a prosecutor in Clause 7. We have linked the offence with the idea of perverting the course of justice so as to be clear about what would constitute criminal behaviour and avoiding criminalising apparently innocent behaviour.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, my noble friend Lady Goudie and the noble Lord, Lord Laird, asked questions about the duty to be placed on the Director of Public Prosecutions to refer all cases of suspected police malpractice to the police ombudsman. The review recommended that a duty be placed on the prosecutor to ensure that any allegations of malpractice by the police are fully investigated. The onus is now placed on the police ombudsman—and I was pressed on this point by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond—rather than on the director to apply discretion on how to deal with a police officer who may have behaved in a manner which would justify disciplinary proceedings or who may have committed a criminal offence.
The noble Lord, Lord Laird, pressed me on that duty. We do not intend it to apply retrospectively. We are creating this duty by amending Section 55 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was concerned that the duty to refer should not delay prosecutions. We do not envisage Clause 6 delaying the prosecution process. We simply want to ensure that any police behaviour which the ombudsman has an interest in investigating is drawn to her attention. It is right that any such necessary investigation is conducted by the ombudsman, who is independent of the police. The DPP has no power to conduct investigations.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, pressed me on whether the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs would have a duty to serve the interests of justice. Section 1 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 provides:
"Those with responsibility for the administration of justice must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary".
That, as I have stressed many times, continues to be our position.
With respect to other concerns raised by the Chief Constable, which were mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Smith of Clifton, discussions are continuing with the Chief Constable on his request. We are looking specifically at anti-social behaviour orders in Northern Ireland. We are also looking at racially aggravated offence legislation, which will be brought forward separately by order in council. We continue to work closely with the Chief

1119
Constable, in the same way as we have on bail provisions, to ensure that he has the tools he needs to tackle crime.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, my noble friend Lady Goudie and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, raised the issue of the commitment given to human rights. The Criminal Justice Review stated that listing human rights treaties and agreements on the face of a Bill would lead to confusion and unproductive litigation. Before devolution my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith will be responsible for producing guidance to draw attention to the correct provisions in treaties or agreements. After devolution this role will be passed to the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland. I can say to my noble friend Lady Goudie that the clause on human rights guidance is not dependent on devolution. The post of Attorney-General of Northern Ireland does exist: the office is currently filled by my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith.
A number of noble Lords asked why the human rights guidance does not apply to the DPP. The guidance will apply to the DPP's office.
I turn to the issue of the transfer of prisoners, which was raised by a number of noble Lords. I was pressed to say that this would happen only as a last resort. It will not be used if the particular prisoner could be dealt with in another way. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, my noble friend Lady Goudie and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, spoke of the human cost involved. Prison rules already require that special attention should be paid to the maintenance of relationships between the prisoner and his family. The Northern Ireland Prison Service attaches great importance to the maintenance of family links and will meet the reasonable travelling expenses of those going to England, for example, to visit a transferred prisoner.
I turn to the issue of why the power does not include Scotland, a matter raised in particular by the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Fitt. If the power were to include Scotland, a Sewel Motion in the Scottish Parliament would be required. We would not want to presume the outcome for such a Motion, so the Bill does not at present make provision for transfer of prisoners to Scotland.
I should be very happy to arrange further briefings before we move into Committee to address specific points raised by noble Lords. I am confident that the programme of change set out in the Bill will help us to achieve our aim of enhancing public confidence by creating an even fairer, more efficient and more effective justice system in Northern Ireland.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, before the Lord President of the Council sits down, does she agree that now would be an appropriate time to welcome the
1120
appointment of Sir Brian Kerr as Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and his immediate predecessor on his appointment as a Law Lord in this House?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I totally endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. I thank him very much for drawing the matter to the attention of the House.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, she will recall that a number of noble Lords have raised anxious questions about the change in the role of the Lord Chief Justice in the context of the removal of senior judges. Perhaps she will recall that I asked her some specific questions. Just now she said that the Bill stands upon its own merits. Why were those merits not perceived as recently as the legislation of last year and the Act of 2002? The noble Baroness will recall that I asked her some questions and I have not heard any answers as yet.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I had hoped that I had made the position clear in my comments on our continuing commitment to the independence of the judiciary; the fact that there would be an independent tribunal which would look at the issue of the removal of judges. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord that I did not make it clear that—and this is partly in response to the noble and learned Lord's questions— we have continued to look at these issues since the 2002 Act. We see this very much as a dynamic process. I shall be very happy to write to the noble and learned Lord to give him some further detail on the specific questions he has raised and to meet him to talk about these questions in a little more detail before we get to Committee.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Financial Statement and Budget Report
6.59 p.m.
Lord Mclntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That this House takes note with approval of Her Majesty's Government's assessment as set out in the Pre-Budget Report 2003 for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, each year, the Government report information to the Commission on our main economic policy measures. The procedure is set out in Articles 99 and 104 of the European Communities treaty, which relate to the broad economic policy guidelines, convergence and stability programmes and the excessive deficits procedure.
The objective is to ensure that member states' economic policies are consistent with the goals of the treaty, including non-inflationary economic growth, a high level of employment and social protection and better living standards for citizens across both the UK and the EU. Those goals are consistent with the

1121
Government's own approach to economic policy. The Government's strategy for economic policy is set out in the 2003 Pre-Budget Report, published last week.
Sharing the information in the Pre-Budget Report with our European partners allows us to influence the development of the European Union, bringing enhanced employment and growth to Britain and other member states. It is subject to the usual parliamentary scrutiny and approval under Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
Following the sharpest deceleration in both world growth and world trade growth for 30 years in 2001, world recovery began to pick up in early 2002, but lost momentum in late 2002. At the beginning of 2003, significant global uncertainties continued to weigh heavily on short-term prospects for the world economy with confidence and demand dampened by: geopolitical tensions, including the Iraq conflict; volatility on financial and exchange rate markets; and uncertainty regarding growth prospects—in particular in the euro-area.
However, the Pre-Budget Report presents a positive outlook for the UK economy, with British inflation at its lowest for 30 years, averaging 2.4 per cent since 1997; interest rates at their lowest since 1955, at 3.75 per cent; more people in work this Christmas in Britain than at any time in our history; and economic growth that is now strengthening.
So the UK is well placed to benefit from the strengthening global recovery. Gross domestic product is forecast to grow by 2.1 per cent in 2003— within the Budget forecast range—and by 3 per cent to 3.5 per cent in both 2004 and 2005. External forecasters continue to expect the UK economy, together with that of the United States, to continue leading the major economies this year and next. The Treasury growth forecasts for 2003 and 2004 are within the range of independent forecasts.
I now turn to public finances. Sound economic fundamentals, coupled with the Government's cautious approach, mean that the Government remain on track to meet the fiscal rules over the economic cycle and that public finances are sustainable in the long term. The average surplus on the current budget is projected to be positive over the cycle, meeting the golden rule. Net debt is set to stabilise at 35½ per cent of GDP—well below 40 per cent, to meet the sustainable investment rule. The UK now has the lowest level of net debt to GDP ratio in the G7.
When the economy was especially strong, we took tough decisions in 1997 to put money aside and reduce public debt when many of our critics were saying that we should spend it. It was that prudence during the years of strong global growth, building a safety margin through cautious assumptions and reducing debt when other countries were spending, that means that Britain is in a position to borrow to invest in our schools, hospitals and transport; successfully to support monetary policy to smooth the path of the economy during a period of global uncertainty; and fully to meet our international commitments.
1122
Our commitment to meeting our fiscal rules is, moreover, for the long term, so we have also published a report—the 2003 long-term sustainability report— which examines the sustainability of Britain's fiscal position decade by decade and compares our position with that of other countries. It shows that, taking account of population changes and the cost of ageing on public spending, the British fiscal position in this period is sustainable and in a strong long-term position compared to other countries.
The key pre-Budget announcements also included: setting out reforms that will promote business and enterprise across the UK by improving access to finance for small business, reducing red tape and promoting a culture of enterprise; taking further steps to extend employment opportunity for all, through measures which focus help on disadvantaged groups and deprived areas; tackling child and pensioner poverty, raising the child tax credit by £180 per year and providing further help with childcare and ensuring security in retirement; promoting fairness in the tax system by ensuring that everyone who can do so contributes to the extra investment in public services; and introducing further measures to improve the environment, including proposals to tackle climate change, reduce waste and protect Britain's natural resources.
On the basis of this Pre-Budget Report, we have a success story to report to the European Union. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note with approval of Her Majesty's Government's assessment as set out in the Pre-Budget Report 2003 for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.—(Lord Mclntosh of Haringey.)
7.6 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I draw attention to the entries in my name in the Register of Members' Interests. I thank the Minister for moving the Motion. It is right that the House takes the opportunity offered by it to have a proper debate on the Pre-Budget Report. The Motion might be regarded by some as something of a formality, but we certainly welcome the fuller consideration that your Lordships can give to the Pre-Budget Report in a debate such as this.
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rather teased the Opposition last week for not asking for a repeat of the Statement on the Pre-Budget Report. I did so in ignorance of the fact that it was to be debated today; I apologise to those whom I teased.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, it is courteous of the noble Lord to say so; I was not going to mention it.
I look forward especially to the speeches from my noble friends Lord Higgins, Lord Northbrook and, of course, Lady Wilcox, who will wind up for those of us on these Benches.

1123
As the Minister explained, the context of our debate is not the Pre-Budget Report itself but the report under Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993. The Minister explained what that report is about. It is appropriate to pause here to ascertain the relevance of the report to the European Community to our affairs.
It is clear that the Government have no current intention to take us into economic and monetary union—this side of a general election, at least; and the Chancellor's body language would suggest that some time beyond that would be an appropriate time scale. Doubtless, much will depend on the fight to the death going on between Nos. 10 and 11 Downing Street. We are promised a referendum Bill on the euro this Session, but we all know that that is simply to appease the Europhiles in the Cabinet and has no immediate importance.
The stability and growth pact is now in tatters. Only a few weeks ago, France and Germany collectively confined that pact to history. It does not apply to them; they will manage their economies as they choose without regard to treaty obligations.
It is a mystery why we bother to send a letter to Brussels about our economy. Will the Chancellor listen to what Brussels says, or will he join the Franco-German camp and tell Brussels to get its tanks off his economic lawn? I put my money on the latter. Indeed, the letter of 10th December that the Chancellor sent to Mr Pedro Solbes Mira at the Commission owned up to a deficit next year of 3.3 per cent—which is above the 3 per cent limit. But in the next breath, the Chancellor stated that that was within a prudent interpretation of the stability and growth pact. That is, Mr Brown is making up his own European compliance rules, just like the French and the Germans.
However, let us put aside that European irrelevance and concentrate on the Pre-Budget Report. The Chancellor inherited an extremely strong economy in 1997. I shall not argue that the economy is now weak, as it is not, but it has the seeds of weakness firmly sown within it. We now fear for the economy, or rather we fear for the citizens of our country, who will have to pay the price in higher taxes.
The Chancellor may well make it to the next election without an explicit tax hike, but he will have to continue with his relentless programme of stealth taxes. This Pre-Budget Report is no exception to the Chancellor's practice of hiding stealth taxes in the small print. One example is the freezing of the working tax credit and child tax credit limits, which will impose an extra burden of around £240 million, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. We can see in the aggregate figures that the fiscal burden will steadily increase, with the tax-to-GDP ratio reaching over 38 per cent and still rising by 2008—the highest level since 1984–85. With 60 tax rises since 1997, taxes are just short of £400 billion this year, already nearly 50 per cent higher than when Mr Brown became Chancellor.
1124
Let us now examine whether the Pre-Budget Report really shows that the Chancellor has a firm grip on the economy or whether it is starting to slide away from him. Mr Brown invented some golden rules as part of creating the aura of the prudent and trustworthy Chancellor. Those rules are under severe pressure, and, when we strip away some smoke and mirrors, we will find that the Chancellor may indeed be breaking his own rules.
Rule number one is that over the economic cycle the Government will borrow only to invest and not to fund current spending. Today I shall not get into the issue of the flexibility, which the Chancellor created, of defining when the cycle begins and ends. I shall take as read the Chancellor's interpretation that the cycle began in 1999 and will end in 2005–06. Mr Brown calculates that that will mean that he will have an average annual budgetary surplus over the cycle of 0.2 per cent, which, according to him, translates as headroom of £14 billion. But not only is that £14 billion down from £46 billion only eight months ago, it is calculated in a new way intended to deceive. It focuses on an average rate of surplus and thus, in effect, uprates the surpluses in the early years by inflation. The Institute for Fiscal Studies calculates the headroom on a correct basis as only £4 billion.
But the story does not end there. If one looks at the other assumptions affecting the calculations, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Chancellor must be crossing his fingers very tightly. I shall give just a couple of examples of the heroic assumptions lying behind those figures. First, there is a GDP growth rate of 3 to 3.5 per cent for the next two years— above trend, above independent consensus forecasts and heavily dependent on a recovery in business investment. Secondly, the figures include a bounce-back in tax revenues next year, after £5 billion of extra income tax and national insurance failed to materialise this year.
There are some unanswered questions. The rail regulator has just announced his determination of access charges, which will add another £1.5 billion or so a year to the Strategic Rail Authority's costs. I do not believe that allowance has been made in the Chancellor's calculations for those costs, which must be met under the terms of the franchise agreements. Will the Minister confirm the budgetary impact?
A detailed examination of the explanatory forecast shows that the totals are flattered by a staggering £14 billion turnaround in pension costs—from a cost in the 2003 Budget to a credit in the Pre-Budget Report—over the period 2002–03 to 2005–06. Can the Minister explain what is happening here?
There are strong grounds for believing that the first of the golden rules may well be bust over the next couple of years. But there is also another golden rule: borrowing must not exceed 40 per cent of GDP. We already know that the Chancellor's forecasting record on borrowing is tarnished. At the last election he told us that he would borrow £10 billion this year. That figure has been revised upwards at every opportunity, and last week the Chancellor admitted that it would be over £37 billion.

1125
In the Chancellor's figures, the percentage of GDP rises to 35 per cent by around 2005–06. Superficially, that looks okay, but we know that his figures exclude Network Rail's borrowing, as that day of reckoning has been deliberately deferred until 2007. We know that they exclude most PFI liabilities; we know that they exclude liabilities attached to meeting public sector pension obligations; and we know that they exclude the effect of all eligible people claiming means-tested benefits, including the one-third who the Government estimate will not claim their pension credit entitlement. We know that if we included all those figures, the borrowing percentage would be well over 35 per cent and, more importantly, we would see a much stronger rising trend.
All that glistens is not gold. The rules invented by the Chancellor seem to glisten and seem to be gold, but when we get close to them they look less bright, less consistent and less durable. Perhaps they are not gold after all. Perhaps they are no more than the alchemist's dream.
This Pre-Budget Report does nothing to reverse the continuing decline of manufacturing industry. It does nothing to raise activity rates, especially among work-less households. It does nothing to restore the rate of productivity growth to the levels in 1997. It does nothing to stop the dangerously high level of growth in household debt. Instead, we have rising public sector employment in unreformed and non-delivering public services.
We do not believe that the Chancellor will break his not-so-golden rules in the short term, but there will come a time when his optimistic assumptions catch up with him and he runs out of ways of fiddling the books. He will then have to raise taxes. He will eventually run out of ways to do that in a stealthy way and will have to raise income tax, or national insurance rates. If he is to avoid that outcome, he will need a miracle. I believe in miracles, but I do not believe that they are a sound basis for planning the finances of this country.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, this is a traditional annual occasion, and the Minister, in his opening remarks, was traditionally optimistic—not as optimistic as the Chancellor in his Statement, which went way over the top. It seems that the Chancellor was more optimistic than the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee. He forecasts for next year an increase in growth from 2 per cent to 3 or 3.5 per cent, a very substantial increase. But the Bank of England raised interest rates in November, which suggests that it is not as optimistic as the Chancellor. I ask the Minister whether the assumptions that the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee uses in making its decisions are the same ones as the Chancellor uses— the so-called audited assumptions? If so, how do we account for the apparent difference in approach between the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee and the Government?
The Chancellor sought to justify his optimism by two kinds of comparison—historic and geographic. In his research he might well have gone back to 1066,
1126
when perhaps a slight blip caused inflation, due, no doubt, to a Conservative government at the time. The Minister went further today. He said that on the population side of things it would be higher than at any time in our history.
But while it is absolutely right, as my noble friend said, that the present Government inherited a very benign situation—which has generally been taken to mean at the stage in the economic cycle that had been reached when the Government changed—that was fairly unusual. The reality is, as Mr Anatol Kaletsky has pointed out, that the improvements for which the Chancellor is taking so much credit started 10 years ago and reflect the improvements in the structure of our economy brought into operation by successive reforms under Mrs Thatcher. I was not a member of her government; I was chairman of the Treasury Committee at the time and responsible for holding her to account. But there is no doubt that the longer-term benefits of those changes are something from which the Chancellor and the entire economy are gaining. So one needs to take that into account as far as the historic comparisons are concerned.
As to geographic comparisons, the Chancellor referred to a number of comparisons with Germany, France and other countries. Of course this was justified because those countries have not carried out the kind of structural reforms introduced here under the previous government. More specifically, they have been suffering very much indeed from the fact that euro-land is now very much in an interest rate straitjacket. We are told that they have an interest rate where "one size fits all".
But it is blatantly obvious that the one size does not fit all. In fact, apart from three countries, the Netherlands, Portugal and Finland, which are more or less in line with the European Union's interest rate, for countries such as Germany, Austria, France and Belgium the 2 per cent rate is clearly too low; for Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland and so on it is too high. These differences, as a UBS study using the well-known Taylor rule to calculate them has pointed out, are very substantial and countries in the euro-zone are suffering greatly as a result of the fact that the interest rate imposed on them—the straitjacket in which they are suffering—is under strain. This is an important reason for the Chancellor being able to point out that our performance in this country has been significantly better than in other European countries.
Following the break-down of the European summit, there has been some talk in the press during the past few days that we are moving towards a two-tier Europe. My personal view is that, while I am strongly in favour of our being a member of the European Union, there is a strong case for having a two-tier Europe in the sense that there will be countries in the euro-zone and countries outside it. For the reasons I have mentioned, the one-size-fits-all problem will become bigger and bigger as the size of the area covered by that policy widens.
This will be so, to some extent, with the new accession countries. Although the total of their economies, in economic terms, is probably only about the size of that

1127
of Belgium, nevertheless they will have difficulties. We would certainly have them. Indeed, I believe that, were we to join, the unbalancing effect—given the problems with interest rates and monetary policy generally— would put the system under such strain that it might well break down, despite the immense problems once one has got a single physical currency in operation.
For those reasons I believe that this is a relevant consideration in the context of the report that we are making to the European Union related to Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the side heading of which refers to convergence, excess deficit and so on.
I leave on one side the fiasco over the stability pact and the fact that what is supposed to be a binding agreement has been broken completely by both Germany and France, and turn to the question of the Government's borrowing. The figures can be put in a more dramatic context than they were by my noble friend on the Front Bench a moment or two ago. At the time of the general election the Chancellor was anticipating that this year he would borrow £10 billion. In fact, the increase over the past eight months has been £10 billion, the size of borrowing that the Chancellor expected previously to be the total. This raises very serious questions.
When he first became Chancellor, he was anxious to stress that the burden of national debt imposed a considerable cost in terms of interest rate payments by the Treasury. Can the Minister tell the House how much extra will be paid in interest rates by the Government as a result of the increase in borrowing from the originally expected £10 billion to the now expected £37 billion or more?
There are real problems as far as financing the debt is concerned. You cannot borrow £37 billion at the same interest rate at which you can borrow £ 10 billion. While the Chancellor has given the Monetary Policy Committee control over short-term interest rates, at the time he did so he clawed back to the Treasury the responsibility for long-term interest rates in the sense that the Treasury would be responsible for funding, which in turn determines long-term interest rates. Can the Minister tell the House—I hope he can give a very clear answer—whether it is the Government's intention to fully fund the £37 billion deficit or whether they will not do so? Whether or not they do so is extremely important in terms of future inflation.
Although it is true, as Keynes often pointed out, that fashions in economics change, we used to be obsessed by the money supply. That of course is determined to a large extent by how the Government deficit is funded. I have searched in vain through this enormous tome to find any reference whatever to the money supply. But it is still not unimportant. It may be that I have missed it and the Minister can point me to the appropriate page, but certainly it is not exactly a headline in the way that it used to be.
1128
I fear the prospect for interest rates as a result of the Government having to fund or attempting to fund this enormous deficit. It will have a serious effect on those who have borrowed money. One only has to look at the mass of headlines which refer to,
"Spending on credit cards to go up 38%",
and,
"Christmas debt crisis",
to realise how important this is. The combination of these two things—the immense borrowing by the Chancellor, on the one hand, and the extent to which borrowing has been extended in the private sector, on the other—is potentially a very serious time-bomb indeed. I do not think that the conjunction of those two things can be ignored. To a large extent, it undermines the confidence with which the Chancellor put forward the proposals in the pre-Budget speech.
One could speak about many other issues. It is always helpful to have this debate. I merely say that, in many respects, the Chancellor's obsession with the five tests on the euro on the one hand and the golden rules on the other, combined with the absolute obsession about multiple tax credit schemes of one type or another is not a helpful way of managing the economy.
Finally, I pick up a phrase that the Minister used in his speech. He said that they were "ensuring security in retirement". That is profoundly untrue. I fear that the generation of pensioners about to retire will be significantly worse off as a result of the Government's policies than those who are retired at the moment. That is a tragic situation and reflects the way in which the Government have managed the economy.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I declare an interest as an investment fund manager. I will concentrate on examining the detail of the Pre-Budget Report, and will try to demonstrate how this is not, in several ways, helping the economy. I will then examine the broader economic picture.
As usual, there were some positive details in the 2003 Pre-Budget Report, but this year I had to look a lot harder to find them. The Chancellor said that he would look at ways of widening existing tax breaks on research spending by businesses and would enhance tax relief on North Sea oil exploration, which I welcome. He also announced moves to make it easier for small and medium-sized businesses to claim tax relief on investment in new facilities and machinery. The Chancellor said that that would provide a £400 million boost to small firms over the next three years, which is welcome.
I also welcome the additional encouragement to the venture capital industry by proposing to raise the annual limit for trust and enterprise schemes to £200,000 and the increasing, for two years, of income reliefs for VCT investments to 40 per cent. I also welcome the launch of enterprise capital funds that are designed to bridge the gap for smaller businesses seeking capital in the £250,000 to £2 million range and

1129
the Government's decision to contribute up to two thirds of the capital of funds established to target this segment.
Plans to simplify the audit requirements for smaller companies are also welcome. The initial reaction of the head of the CBI, Digby Jones, was similar to my own. He said:
"This was a positive pre-budget report for business … but we remain concerned about the outlook for the public finances".
However, as usual, the small print of the speech needs subsequent examination. I have unearthed an interesting example of the Chancellor seeking to take back with the other hand what he gives to smaller businesses with the one hand. In its Pre-Budget coverage on 11 th December, the Financial Times states on page 10:
"Gordon Brown unveiled plans to crack down next year on owner-managers of smaller businesses avoiding tax. The Treasury said. The Government will bring forward specific proposals for action in Budget 2004 to ensure that the right amount of tax is paid by owner-managers of small incorporated businesses on the profits extracted from their company'".
The article continued:
"The Government is concerned by the scale of individuals who have taken advantage of big tax cuts in corporation tax rates for small businesses and exploited different tax rates on dividends and earnings".
But hold on, who introduced all those measures? Yes, it was the Government. In 2000, the Government introduced a 10 per cent corporation tax rate for small businesses, cutting it to zero in 2002, both of which I applaud. As the Financial Times continues, not surprisingly:
"This encouraged thousands of self-employed owners of small businesses to incorporate their businesses and",
quite legally,
"roll up their profits without paying tax and pay themselves in the form of low tax or tax-free dividends".
The Government are intent on closing the loophole which they created. How helpful is that to a small business? How can small businesses plan ahead when the Chancellor offers them incentives that he removes only a year or so later?
Is the Treasury statement true? Will the Chancellor make a national insurance charge on dividends withdrawn from those companies? That would come as a nasty sting in the tail for those small businesses that decided to incorporate.
In another area—company regulation—the Chancellor trumpets how the Cabinet Office is planning to scrap 147 regulations under its regulatory reform action plan. How does that square with the huge extra administrative burden that will be inflicted on businesses by changes affecting two very technical areas—transfer pricing and thin capitalisation? That may seem esoteric, but firms of accountants are getting very excited about the proposals in the Budget. According to the Financial Times on 1lth December,
"Grant Thornton the accountants have warned that the moves represented a stealth tax as they would restrict the ability of businesses to take advantage of some £70 billion of historical losses within UK group companies".
1130
PricewaterhouseCoopers director, Lyn Young, stated:
"The Government has ignored pleas for more time by businesses to adjust to what is going to be a significantly increased administration burden".
David Nixon, tax partner at Ernst and Young, stated:
"There will be a significant increase in red tape with little apparent benefit for the UK economy. UK business is footing the bill for the incompatibility of— tax law with the rest of Europe".
Will the Minister persuade the Chancellor to consult closely on this issue before the deadline of 10th February?
On the whole issue of red tape, I echo the comments of the shadow Chancellor, who said that repealing 147 regulations would not compensate for a big increase in red tape since the Government came to power. He said that:
"At his present rate, it would take [the Chancellor] 10 days to add that many regulations to the burden on business".
I now turn to the economy as a whole and to the Chancellor's forecast for GDP growth and borrowing. As has been stated, GDP growth for 2003 is predicted at 2.1 per cent. Although that is within the Budget forecast of 2 to 2.5 per cent, it is well below the forecast made at the time of the previous 2002 Budget of 3 to 3.5 per cent. How much of that 2.1 per cent growth figure will come from the public sector?
I repeat my caution expressed in July for the 3 to
3.5 per cent growth targets made for 2004 and 2005. The Minister said that the 2004 forecast was within the range. Actually, it is at the top of the range, because the average forecast quoted in the Pre-Budget Report is 2.6 per cent for 2004. I continue to be concerned about the rate of increase in the Budget deficit. In reply to my Question on 5th February 2002 about the importance of the stability and growth pact as a discipline for the UK economy, the Minister stated:
"The stability and growth pact is an additional criterion to which we pay considerable attention".—[Official Report, 5/2/02; col. 502.]
Does the Minister retain that view now that the upper limit of 3 per cent of GDP will be broken?
The Chancellor now expects the Government to borrow £37 billion in the financial year ending next March—up from a forecast of £27 billion in April and £13 billion in his 2002 Budget. The Treasury forecasts that annual borrowing will be about £30 billion in each of the next two financial years, until spring 2006, although the respected economic team at DrKW forecasts £41 billion and £40 billion for 2004–05 and 2005–06.
The Chancellor justifies his increased borrowing by saying that the Government are still on target to meet his two fiscal rules. The first is the golden rule that the Government will borrow only to invest, not to fund current spending. The second is that net public debt will be held at prudent and stable levels, which, as has been said, the Treasury has defined as being less than 40 per cent of GDP. Crucially, both are assessed over the economic cycle.

1131
The golden rules turn slippery under inspection. Although the Government are spending £19 billion more on current outlays than they will receive this financial year, the rule says that that is all right, as the conditions must be met only over the economic cycle. I shall not go into detail, but it seems rather arbitrary for the Treasury to have decreed that that started in 1999 and will end in 2005. Conveniently, that allows the Chancellor to count the big surpluses amassed when revenues were buoyant in the dotcom boom against the deficits now being run.
The interpretation of the rule is shaky on two fronts. First, it is far from obvious when the present economic cycle started, let alone ended. Secondly, the procedure of adjusting for the cycle is legitimate only if it strips out the impact of temporary shocks. It simply becomes an excuse for inaction when there is a permanent deterioration in the public finances, as seems to have occurred in the UK. Many independent commentators believe that the Chancellor will have to raise £10 billion in taxes but that such a move will be conveniently postponed until after the next general election.
Fiscal rules that have that level of expediency are not worth having. Voters would benefit from an independent watchdog like America's Congressional Budget Office to assess the health of the public finances. That would protect taxpayers more than the fiscal rules set by the Chancellor—the very person whom they are supposed to constrain.
The final area that I will comment on is the way in which public money is spent and whether it is spent effectively. Extra money spent on health and education is welcome but only if not wasted. The headline in the Financial Times on 12th December suggested the opposite. The paper revealed that Britain's army of regulators was costing the taxpayer £12 billion a year. It went on:
"The level of spending is likely to lead to accusations of excessive bureaucracy and waste".
It is no wonder that a Populus opinion poll last week showed clearly that a majority of voters believed that higher taxes were making no improvement to the public services, particularly to the health sector. Government statistics also prove the point. They show that, from 1999–2000 to 2001–02, health spending increased by no less than 37.5 per cent but that activity in hospitals was up only 5 per cent.
That conveniently brings me to my conclusion. Although I have no objection to increased government spending on health and education, I believe that, more and more, the general perception is that a great deal of the extra spending is unproductive. How will the Minister ensure that spending in those areas is more carefully monitored, so that it can be reported to Europe next year?
7.43 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I was going to say something about macro-economic management, but quite a lot of it has been said and I do not want to repeat it. I start by saying that the Chancellor has been
1132
successful in his macro-economic management. However, I sometimes think that he should pay a little more generous regard to the foundations that were laid beforehand. The fact is that much of our steady progress was due to the actions of Chancellor Lamont, who curbed consumption at a time when that was an unpopular policy. That policy was also followed by Chancellor Clarke. Nevertheless, he has been a successful Chancellor.
I too was going to ask questions about the golden rule. There were some pertinent questions and criticisms in this week's Economist, but, as they have been put effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, I will leave them aside. Forecasts are always uncertain. I have no idea whether the situation will improve next year. I see no particular reason why the deficit should disappear. It may be that, in due course, the Chancellor will face the uncomfortable choice between cutting spending and raising taxes. I shall say no more about macro-economic management, as it has all been said.
It seems to me that the weak spot in the Government's economic record has been their disappointing record on productivity. We must remember that, although we boast about how much more successfully we manage the economy than the wretched French or Germans, our productivity is 23 per cent below productivity per hour in Germany and, for that matter, the United States and 25 per cent per hour less than that of France. Incidentally, those figures show that the sclerotic European model of enterprise is not that sclerotic, when compared to the United States. The only reason why productivity per man is higher in the United States is that they are uncivilised about holidays and working hours. They work much longer hours and have ridiculously short holidays. The Europeans are far more civilised about hours and holidays, and their productivity is just as high—in many cases, it is higher. We fall behind it.
The Chancellor has sought to improve our productivity through a large number of tax incentives. The Government have also provided subsidies. They have not worked. The whole philosophy and approach is mistaken. One may be able to justify a particular measure by saying that it works. However, the Government's approach has made the tax system more complex—it has been distorted by the subsidies—and the overall result has been not beneficial but adverse. The Chancellor would have done better to concentrate on simplifying the tax system, instead of immensely complicating it.
That is only part of a general disease. We are the most over-regulated advanced industrial country. We have developed a mania for regulation in any number of spheres. The targets set by the Chancellor are part of the reason for that. Doctors, teachers and—most certainly—small businesses will say that there is no question but that we are grossly over-regulated. I have come across the problem running a charity concerned with drug treatment. The rules for residential care have been ridiculous. Nobody benefits from that. It is part of the no-risk society, with civil servants seeking to

1133
justify themselves and protect themselves against criticism. It is done by Ministers trying to protect themselves against criticism and avoid blame.
The Chancellor claims that he has made the tax system fairer. I am not sure that he can claim such a marvellous outcome, when the richest 20 per cent pay 34 per cent of their income in tax and the poorest 20 per cent pay 42 per cent of their income in tax. Apparently, there is a general revolt against taxation. I am not sure how deep it goes. Probably one of the most unpopular taxes is the council tax. I must say that I applaud the Liberal Democrats' approach to the matter.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: Good.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I do not always necessarily agree with the Liberal Democrats. I am speaking from the Front Bench now, so I have to.
The Liberal Democrats propose that the council tax should be replaced with a local income tax. Ever since the Layfield report, I have been strongly in favour of a local income tax. That is not because it will be more popular. If the Liberal Democrats think that a local income tax will be more popular than the council tax, they may be mistaken: any new tax is unpopular. However, the great advantage of a local income tax is that it gives more independence to the local council to make a reality of local government and removes some of that centralised control, of which we have an excess in this country. In fact, one could put the same argument in favour of top-up fees, if they lessen, to some extent, the dependence of universities on centralised control. However, I would not dream of advancing that argument in my present position, speaking temporarily as a member of the Front Bench team.
There is no doubt that in this country we are over-centralised. It is a weakness of the Chancellor that he has tried to control too much. He has not achieved his goal of increasing productivity by his various efforts at target setting. He has not increased them by complicating the tax system. If we decentralised by, for example, abolishing council tax, we would do a great deal more for effectiveness and productivity in this country.
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I am pleased to participate on one of the few occasions that we have in this House to debate money matters. It is a great shame that the huge wealth of experience and expertise to be found down this end is not mined more often. Whenever it is, the ensuing discussion is, without exception, of the highest quality. Tonight is no exception. We have covered a broad range of issues. I shall neither manage to mention them all nor delve too deeply into the detail of the proposals set out last week. Suffice to say that I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, who spoke interestingly and eloquently on simplifying the tax system. I am sure that we agree with him on much of that.
1134
My noble friend Lord Higgins asked some important questions, to which we will be interested to hear the Minister respond; in particular, the questions about the Bank of England and the monetary committee. My noble friend Lord Northbrook asked questions about small businesses and growth in the public sector, which I shall not cover, but to which I shall be interested to hear answers.
Perhaps I may outline some of the issues that are most important to us in the debate. The Chancellor painted a very rosy picture in his Pre-Budget Report. But I would suggest that he should take a closer look at the situation on the ground. The Government's record of "tax, spend and fail" is one of the most depressing truths of our present time. One could perhaps forgive—or at least see some justice in relation to—a government who taxed aggressively, but spent money wisely to the benefit of high-performing schools, hospitals or transport systems of which we could be proud. Equally, we may feel more sympathetic to a government who rigorously pursued a low tax policy and, as a consequence, had less tax revenue to inject into public services. But it seems that with this Government we are caught with the worst of both worlds.
As my noble friend Lady Noakes said, there has been 60 per cent tax rises under Labour, but what has been achieved? There are more National Health Service hospital administrators than there are beds. There are endless bureaucrats generating targets and more bureaucrats, as my noble friend Lord Northbrook outlined so well.
My noble friend Lady Noakes gave an excellent and full account of the Chancellor's "golden"—or, as we have learnt, not so "golden"—rules, to which he referred in his Pre- Budget Report. The first rule of borrowing—only to invest and not to fund current spending—is met only when dubious assumptions are made. As we have heard tonight, independent forecasts suggest that Gordon Brown's £14 billion annual surplus figure is out by a significant margin. As my noble friend Lord Northbrook rightly said, those golden rules have turned awfully slippery under inspection.
The Pre-Budget Report included an announcement that the measure of inflation will change from the old RPIX to the harmonised consumer prices index. It is claimed that that will give a better indication of spending patterns. That seems to be yet another attempt at creative accountancy by the Chancellor, given the fact that the harmonised consumer prices index fails to take account of housing costs, such as council tax. I was very interested to share with the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, what were, I think, his party's views on the subject, as well as his own, which I hope are coincidental.
Surely, it is not coincidental that in the same year as some people have experienced council tax rises well into double figures—such as the Telford and Wrekin council rises of 25 per cent—the Treasury tweaks its measure of inflation to ensure that those hikes are not included in the calculation.

1135
As other noble Lords have mentioned, the occasion for our debate today is Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993. This calls on Parliament to assess the extent to which we are meeting the convergence criteria, especially those set out in Article 2. It states:
"The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market, an economic and monetary union and by implementing the common policies … the promotion, throughout the Community … a high degree of convergence of economic performance".
All the while—as has been aptly brought to the attention of the House by my noble friend Lady Noakes—the growth and stability pact is being made a mockery of by France and Germany. How are we expected to endorse ever-closer integration while an agreement at the very heart of it is being so openly flouted? It certainly does not help to boost confidence in the system that we are being asked to put our faith in.
The Pre-Budget Report that we heard last week drew a picture of the British economy that few of the listening public would recognise. The Chancellor seems to be over-optimistic in his forecasts, in denial about failures of the Government's public sector policy and oblivious to the dangers ahead that are being consolidated with every new stealth tax rise. He would do well to be more cautious or we all shall be paying the price for years to come.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this certainly has been a wide-ranging debate, which is quite remarkable and admirable considering how few noble Lords have taken part. I congratulate the Official Opposition Benches on the way in which they have clearly considered their speeches, avoided duplication and covered the waterfront in a very effective manner. That has not always been the case, but it was tonight. I am not saying that in anything other than admiration for a professional Opposition. It was excellent. I was also glad to hear the intervention made by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne.
There are three major sections of the debate to which I must reply: first, the issues about the economy; secondly, the issues about our public finances; and, finally, the issues which relate to the stability and growth pact. I made a note that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made almost no reference to the wider economy, except to say that there were seeds of weakness in the wider economy. I must say that the Opposition and Liberal Democrat Front Benches have been saying that for six-and-a-half years. They have been proved wrong on every occasion. I wish that I had political researchers available to me who could show that from Hansard and I could expound it in some detail. But I do not. However, if anyone looks back he will see that it has always grudgingly been said, "Yes,
1136
the Chancellor's doing quite a reasonable job now, but it's all going to come to grief in the next 12 months". It has not.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I have not said that.
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord has not done so from the Front Bench, but the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Oakeshott, have done it on many occasions.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, with respect, I said that in the short term I did not think that there would be a problem. I was referring to more than 12 months.
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a fair comment. The other argument that I always hear—I have heard it again from the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Taverne—is that, "It really is no credit to Gordon Brown because it was all the wonderful Thatcher government that put us in such a good position".
If anyone refers back to my closing remarks on the Queen's Speech debate on 27th November, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, they will see how far that is from my views, but, more importantly, from the truth. Yes, I have always acknowledged that after the debacle of the fall from ERM in 1992, Chancellor Clarke, in particular, pursued policies which were continued by Gordon Brown. I acknowledge that there has been a continuity of success over a period of about 10 years.
At the same time, when one looks back at the record of the Thatcher government as a whole, all the economic indicators on which we pride ourselves now are particularly different from the failures of the Thatcher government on almost every economic indicator. Of course, we are still paying the price for under-investment in our public services over a considerable period, which is notably the period of the Thatcher government.
Nevertheless, it is the case that the United Kingdom has had 45 consecutive quarters of unbroken economic growth, which is a period of 11 years—and that is what I acknowledge. UK growth has been above that in the euro area for nine of the past 11 quarters.
We have low inflation, averaging 2.3 per cent on RPIX criteria since 1997, which is the lowest level for 30 years. Our interest rates are close to their lowest level since 1955. Unemployment is close to its lowest level for a generation at 5 per cent, while employment, as I said in my opening remarks, is at record levels. So I do believe that we are well placed to benefit from the strengthening global economy
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, both made the accusation that the change to a CPI-based target for inflation was somehow suspicious. That was my impression, but if I am wrong then I apologise. However, the change to a CPI-based target is not only a precursor to joining EMU, but is worth while even outside EMU. It is a better measure of inflation for monetary policy

1137
purposes and we have always made it clear that it would not apply to other matters such as pensions. It allows us to compare the economic performance of the United Kingdom with that of the euro area and we believe that that is the right thing to do. Indeed, Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, also believes that.
I want to refer to the issue of the convergence programme, which is in a sense a slightly, if not a very, popular summary of the PBR. That is the document which was sent to the European Commission at the time of the PBR, subject of course, as the Chancellor always made clear, to the usual parliamentary scrutiny and approval. The noble Lords, Lord Northbrook and Lord Higgins, both accused the Chancellor of ignoring the 3 per cent obligation for the stability and growth pact. The forecast for the United Kingdom economy and public finances set out in the updated programme shows that the UK's public finances remain robust and sustainable. Net debt is set to rise from 32.8 per cent in 2003 and is forecast to stabilise at 35.5 per cent in 2008–09. Since the general government gross debt is forecast to stabilise at 41.4 per cent, one of the lowest levels in the European Union, the Government are demonstrating their continued commitment to long-term sustainability.
In keeping with the 2003 broad economic policy guidelines, the programme also demonstrates the Government's commitment to address the historic under-investment in public services in the United Kingdom, to which I referred. We have given figures for the rise in public investment in cyclically adjusted terms, with the result that both public sector net borrowing and general government net borrowing will be 2.4 per cent in 2003–04, falling in the following years.
General government net borrowing will be 3.3 per cent in 2004, falling to 2.6 per cent in 2004–05 and to 1.8 per cent by the end of the projection period. What I say, and what we have always said, about the stability and growth pact is that the United Kingdom continues to meet a prudent interpretation of the pact that reflects low-debt, long-term fiscal sustainability more generally, the need for public investment in the United Kingdom and takes into account the economic cycle.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does he agree that the figure of 3.3 per cent does exceed the 3 per cent obligation under the Maastricht Treaty?
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, strictly speaking, we are not in EMU and so we do not have an obligation, but I do not seek to make anything other than a debating point. No, I do not agree with the noble Baroness. While I agree that if you take the imprudent interpretation of the stability and growth pact and if you ignore what we have always said to be the important considerations, which are the need for public investment,
1138
long-term fiscal sustainability and the economic cycle, then we have met the prudent interpretation, which is the only interpretation we accept.
What I add today is that we have been told by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, among other noble Lords that the stability and growth pact is in tatters. It is not in tatters; what has happened is that others have recognised that our prudent interpretation is right and that the rigid interpretation of the European Central Bank is wrong.
I turn now to the issues relating to public finances. I want to answer first the accusations that our public finance projections are based on unrealistic assumptions and that our forecasting has deteriorated. In fact, as noble Lords will know, at the time of the publication of the Pre-Budget Report we published, as we always do, the assessment made by the National Audit Office of the assumptions made in the report. The NAO has been asked to audit and report on the conventions and key assumptions underlying the Treasury's projections, which are submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General by the Treasury to ensure that they are reasonable and cautious.
The three-year rolling review of assumptions established in Budget 2000 means that the NAO can provide a check both that the assumptions remain reasonable and cautious and whether they have proved to be reasonable and cautious since they were last audited. Those who read the NAO report will see that that has been achieved.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene once more and I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he believe that a three-year rolling review can provide in any one year a comprehensive so-called "audit" of those assumptions? In any one year, the National Audit Office reviews only some of the assumptions, not all of them.
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, knows far more about accountancy than I ever will. I think that is a technical question, and I will have to write to her about it. It sounds like an interesting point.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, made the accusation that public finances forecasting has deteriorated. In fact—
Lord Higgins: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the other point, may I say that I was not querying the assumption, although the idea that the NAO audits these assumptions, in any accountancy sense, is, of course, absurd? It is not an accountancy exercise at all. My question was whether the Bank of England and the Monetary Policy Committee are using the same assumptions as the Chancellor. If so, given the Chancellor's expectation of growth, why did the Bank of England put up interest rates in November?
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I had not attempted to answer that question but I was going to. The Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee is independent of government, and it is not up to me to query the assumptions it makes. We make the assumptions that we have to make and we submit to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for the purpose of the Pre-Budget Report. The Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee makes its own assumptions, and I would not dream of criticising it. I am certainly not saying that they are necessarily the same assumptions.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am sorry to come back on this point, but it would be really too silly if the Monetary Policy Committee and the Government were making different assumptions. This is supposed to be a unified economic policy.
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the only point I am making is that I am not answering for the Monetary Policy Committee. I will not go any further than that.
The end of the year fiscal report which we have published makes it clear that our performance compares well internationally, with the United Kingdom forecast being consistently more cautious than other countries over the period 1998 to 2002. We published this report alongside the Pre-Budget Report, as noble Lords will know. The absolute average difference between forecast and outturn for 2001 and 2002 was 1.5 per cent of GDP for the OECD and 1.6 per cent of GDP for the European Commission, compared with 0.9 per cent of GDP for the Treasury. So I rebut the accusation that our forecasting is in any way deficient.
I repeat that we are on track to meet our own strict fiscal rules over the economic cycle on the basis of our cautious assumptions, with the public finances remaining sound and sustainable in the long term. The average annual surplus on the current budget over the whole cycle to 2005–06—in case I forget to say so, we have declared this to be the economic cycle for a number of years now; there is no sleight of hand there—is around 0.2 per cent of GDP. The Government are therefore on track to meet the golden rule. Public sector net debt is projected to stabilise at 35.5 per cent, which is £64 billion below the 40 per cent level and, again, comfortably meets the sustainable investment rule. We have been able to allow fiscal policy to support monetary policy to meet our fiscal rules and to safeguard the increase in investment in priority public services.
I was asked in particular about borrowing. Yes, public sector net borrowing has increased over earlier estimates, but as a share of GDP, it is only 3.4 per cent in 2003℃04, compared with 4.8 per cent in 1995–96 and 8 per cent in 1993–94, in the golden age of Chancellor Clarke.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked me how our finances compared with the euro-zone. I rather think that he was not particularly praising the euro-zone. He
1140
was right—our finances compare favourably not only with the euro-zone but with other G7 countries. Our deficit is below the G7 average this year and next year, and the net debt is the lowest in the G7. We are well placed to meet the challenges of a long-term ageing population, to which the noble Lord referred, and which, of course, is universal.
The question arises of whether our fiscal policy is sustainable. I referred to that in my opening speech. It is clear that our prudence during the period of strong global growth, building a safety margin through cautious assumptions and reducing debt when other countries were spending, means that Britain can now borrow to invest in schools, hospitals and transport, support monetary policy during a period of global uncertainty and meet our international commitments while still meeting our fiscal rules and maintaining a sound long-term fiscal position. That is what Keynes would have said. It makes sense to borrow in difficult times if one has already put money aside, as we have, to pay off debt in the good times. As the economy gathers pace, the public finances are forecast to improve. As the economy returns to trend, fiscal policy will need to do less to support monetary policy. As I said, the UK is forecast to have lower borrowing than the majority of major economies in 2003–04.
I shall try to deal with as many detailed points about public finances as I can, but I know that I am straining the tolerance of the House. I have dealt with the question of the economic cycle. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, queried our forecast of borrowing and gave figures for the increase of borrowing. Of course, those were cumulative borrowing figures over a period of time; we have sometimes been guilty of using such figures, but they can be very misleading.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the forecasts for Treasury borrowing have been a bit inaccurate? Could measures be put in place to improve them?
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already made the more general point that our forecasting has been better than anyone else's. I agree that in general terms—although I shall not go further than that—forecasting borrowing is particularly difficult to do, because borrowing is the difference between two very large numbers, in receipts and expenditure. That is inherent in the issue of forecasting borrowing.
Before I leave the issue of borrowing, it is important to recognise that the short-term widening of borrowing represents our commitment to address historic under-investment in our national infrastructure and public services and to meet our international obligations, while allowing automatic stabilisers to smooth the path of the economy.
Accusations were made about taxes, and the usual accusations were made about stealth taxes. I am afraid that I shall have to repeat what I have always said; that is, that OECD figures show that the United Kingdom is a relatively lightly taxed economy. We have one of the

1141
lowest tax burdens in the European Union, far below the EU average and lower than France, Germany and Italy, for example. Those are OECD figures.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, made a number of interesting but detailed points about small businesses. He referred to increased taxes on small businesses; however, business taxes in this country have been at a historic low in recent years. I was interested in his comments on transfer prices and capitalisation, but I have come to expect those comments from the tax partners whom he quotes. For the Treasury and the Inland Revenue, they are the
1142
opposition—they are the ones that we have to beat to maintain public accounts and to protect public services.
I am sure that there are other matters to which I could have responded. However, I have spoken for 21 minutes. I hope that the House will allow me to write to noble Lords about any issues that I have not covered. I shall be happy to do that. It is simply a matter of time and not, I assure noble Lords, a matter of resources that constrains me.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past eight o'clock.

  Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan: Social and Civil Development
  Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan: Social and Civil Development
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Northern Ireland: Ombudsmen
  Northern Ireland: Ombudsmen
  Northern Ireland: Oversight Commissioners
  Northern Ireland: Oversight Commissioners
  Strangford Lough
  Strangford Lough
  Afghanistan: Reconstruction
  Afghanistan: Reconstruction
  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  House of Lords: September Sittings
  House of Lords: September Sittings
  Northern Ireland: Inward Investment
  Northern Ireland: Inward Investment
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Parliamentary Pay and Allowances
  Parliamentary Pay and Allowances
  Council of Europe and Western European Union: British Delegation
  Council of Europe and Western European Union: British Delegation
  Prisoners: Heroin Users
  Prisoners: Heroin Users
  Young Offenders: High Intensity Training Programme
  Young Offenders: High Intensity Training Programme
  Prisons: Visitors' Centres
  Prisons: Visitors' Centres
  HM Inspector of Prisons
  HM Inspector of Prisons
  Criminal Offences
  Criminal Offences
  Mr Lumituri Shala
  Mr Lumituri Shala
  Counter-terrorism Activities Funding
  Counter-terrorism Activities Funding
  West Bank: Collective Punishments
  West Bank: Collective Punishments
  Iraq: Political Institutions
  Iraq: Political Institutions
  United Nations Convention Against Torture
  United Nations Convention Against Torture
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Travel Advice
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Travel Advice
  Democratic Republic of Congo: Arms Embargo
  Democratic Republic of Congo: Arms Embargo
  Service Attributable Pensions
  Service Attributable Pensions
  Armed Forces' Pay Review Body: Service Medical and Dental Officers
  Armed Forces' Pay Review Body: Service Medical and Dental Officers
  Schools: Attainment of Pupils
  Schools: Attainment of Pupils
  Schools: Parenthood Education
  Schools: Parenthood Education
  Speech Therapy
  Speech Therapy
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Elections: Postal Voting
  Elections: Postal Voting
  Radio Frequency Identification Tags
  Radio Frequency Identification Tags
  UK Space Strategy 2003–06 and Beyond
  UK Space Strategy 2003–06 and Beyond
  Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
  Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
  Olympic Lottery Games
  Olympic Lottery Games
  Sports Grounds
  Sports Grounds
  Consolidated Fund Bill
  Consolidated Fund Bill
  Public Transport: Disabled People
  Public Transport: Disabled People
  Roads: Private Finance Contracts
  Roads: Private Finance Contracts
  End-of-Life Vehicles Regulations 2003
  End-of-Life Vehicles Regulations 2003
  Rail Passenger Fatalities
  Rail Passenger Fatalities
  Regulatory Impact Assessment
  Regulatory Impact Assessment