Sitting of 13 January 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  WORK AND PENSIONS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  WORK AND PENSIONS

    Child Benefit
    Andrew Mackinlay: If he will make a statement on planned improvements to child benefit and its delivery. [89700]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): This Government have shown their commitment to universal child benefit as the foundation of their support for children, with record increases and child benefit for the first child up by £4.70 a week-a 25 per cent. real-terms increase. From April, the Child Benefit Agency will transfer to the Inland Revenue, so families will receive Government financial support for their children from a single Department.
    Andrew Mackinlay: Bearing in mind that hundreds and thousands of mothers who are currently recipients of child benefit will also be beneficiaries of the new child tax credit, is it not possible that all the money could be paid in one lump sum through the payroll taxation system? Will not many people who currently receive child benefit be confused by the similar names of the benefits and not understand what they will soon be entitled to receive through the child tax credit?
    Mr. Smith: I take my hon. Friend's point, but I would have thought that most parents, and mothers in particular, would like to know what they are getting in child benefit as well as what they are getting in child tax credit. The key issue is how much better off they will be as a consequence both of the increase in child benefits and the introduction of the new child tax credit.
    Sir Archy Kirkwood: I acknowledge that the Government have done much to increase the volumes of money that are paid through child benefit, which is welcome. The Secretary of State mentioned that a major transformation is coming in April, when the child benefit centre goes to the Inland Revenue. Is he not concerned that the decision-making report that he made to the House last July indicated that some 57 per cent. of child benefit calculations for
    390
    decisions against which appeals could be made were accurate? That means that 43 per cent. were inaccurate. Surely, that needs to be sorted out before the transfer is effected in April.
    Mr. Smith: I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns about that issue and note his comments. Work is being undertaken by the Child Benefit Agency specifically to improve its performance. I am pleased to say that its performance has been improving in many respects and I am confident that it is well placed to make the transfer to the Inland Revenue satisfactorily.

    Means-tested Benefits
    Mr. Peter Viggers: What proportion of pensioners are eligible for means-tested benefits. [89701]
    The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker.
    About one third of pensioner benefit units have been in receipt of income-related benefits over the past five years. We want all pensioners to have a decent and secure income in retirement. Our first priority was to help the poorest, which is why we introduced the minimum income guarantee. As a result, no pensioner has to live on less than £98.15 a week or £149.80 for a couple. From April this year, the level will be £102.10 for a single person or £155.80 a week for a couple.
    Mr. Viggers: The Chancellor of the Exchequer once memorably told the Labour party conference that he wanted to end the scourge, as he called it, of means-testing pensioners. Of course, this Government have done exactly the opposite, and by April about 60 per cent. of pensioners will be means-tested. Has the situation developed to such an extent, undermining people's independence, as a result of a sequence of incompetences and serious blunders, or, as I suspect, because of a cynical and deliberate intention by this socialist Government to undermine people's independence and increase their dependency?
    Mr. McCartney: Christmas has come early; that is a second present for me. The hon. Gentleman accused me of being a socialist. I plead guilty.
    It is bit rich to hear Opposition Members talking about means-testing. This Government are not means-testing; we are targeting poverty, not pensioners—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Hon. Gentlemen should listen for just a second. We are ending the weekly means test. Those aged 65-plus will need to report major life events. Instead of a weekly means test, financial circumstances over a period of five years will need to be reported. We are abolishing the upper capital limits of £12,000 and £16,000 for people in residential care and waits for hospital operations are down from 13 to six weeks. On calculations relating to personal injury awards, notional earnings for unpaid work, charitable donations, credit or insurance and disability allowances, this Government are getting rid of the means-testing created by the previous Tory Government.
    Lynne Jones: The Secretary of State is on record as describing the pension system as

    391
    an incomprehensible maze. Does my right hon. Friend accept that part of the incomprehensibility is due to the increase in means-testing in the system for helping pensioners, and that the Green Paper deals with the complexity of only the private pension scheme? As one socialist to another, I ask him whether the Government will examine more closely the relationship between private pensions and the basic and secondary systems that the state provides to simplify that incomprehensible maze.
    Mr. McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. In the Green Paper and through modernising the public pension system, the Government are simplifying the system. The amount of money that we spend on pensioners' income, not bureaucracy, is growing. The pension credit alone means an additional £2 billion a year to tackle pensioner poverty. I make no apology for doing that.
    Mr. Steve Webb: In order to evaluate the Government's strategy of mass means-testing for pensioners, we need information on the number of pensioners who are entitled to means-tested benefits but do not claim them. The last figures show that hundreds of thousands of the poorest pensioners were missing out, but they relate to the previous century. When will we get figures for this century? Is the delay due to incompetence or a more sinister reason?
    Mr. McCartney: In this House, the hon. Gentleman has from time to time tried to put pensioners off claiming their entitlements, whether the minimum income guarantee, winter fuel payments or t he pension credit. Instead of dancing on a pinhead about uptake, he should say whether Liberal Democrats support the introduction of the pension credit, which means an extra £2 billion a year for pensioners. He can either support that or continue his campaign of denigration and put pensioners off claiming their rights.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: There can be no doubt that pensioners are better off under the Labour Government than under the Conservative Government. Indeed, the Conservative Government broke the link between pensions and earnings. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that the next logical step forward to overcome the problems of means-testing and take-up is converting the minimum income guarantee into the state pension? That would automatically link pensions with earnings again and overcome the problems of means-testing.
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend's proposal would mean an additional £10 a week for all pensioners, but a reduction of £17 a week for the poorest pensioners. We want real distribution of resources, which means tackling poverty. If we want to do that, we must put our resources where they are required for pensioners who do not get a decent income.
    Mr. James Arbuthnot: Does the Minister accept that if he does not do what the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) suggested, the minimum income guarantee and pension credit will act as a serious disincentive to save for those who are on
    392
    average and lower incomes? Will not that ultimately mean more rather than less means-testing under the Government?
    Mr. McCartney: This is the first time in history that a Government are rewarding savings through the pension credit. The Conservative party opposes the minimum income guarantee and winter fuel payments and wants to privatise the basic state pension. That lies behind the right hon. Gentleman's question. It is time that Conservative Members told the British public what they are up to with pensions. While the right hon. Gentleman tries to hide that, we shall get on with eradicating pensioner poverty.
    David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend remember that however cold the winter months became before 1997, pensioners did not receive a penny, and that since we have been in office, the £200 per pensioner household has been a good socialist move? Why did not the Tories do that? Why were they so mean that they deprived pensioners? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister does not need to answer that.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: When the Chancellor spoke of getting rid of means-testing, did he mean, as the Minister suggested, simply renaming it as "targeting"? Is not it time that the Government accepted that they have increased the number of people who do not claim the benefits to which they are entitled? Millions of people live on 30 per cent. less than what the Government consider appropriate. It is estimated that 1 million people will not claim the pension credit, even by 2006, according to the Government's figures. All those involved with pensions are devising proposals to restructure the basic pension system so that people receive a larger state pension, yet the Government complacently sit on their hands. They simply twiddle and produce a Green Paper that recycles old information, which we have heard time and again. Is not it time that the Government did something to help poor pensioners?
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman should calm down. I can answer the point about 1 million people not claiming the pension credit-that policy has not yet been implemented. The hon. Gentleman should ask a sensible question. The one organisation that brutalised pensioners is the Conservative party. The Government inherited a legacy of pensioner poverty and are eradicating it.

    Economically Inactive
    Mr. Wayne David: What measures he has taken to encourage into work those in the most deprived communities who are counted as economically inactive. [89703]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): Our active labour market policies are helping people to move from welfare to work in all parts of the country, and tax credits are making sure that that work pays. The new deals have already helped three quarters of a million

    393
    people into jobs, and jobcentres are notified of more than 10,000 new vacancies every working day. Moreover, in the most employment-deprived areas of the country we have introduced specific initiatives such as action teams for jobs. The action team working in my hon. Friend's constituency has so far helped 275 people into jobs.
    Mr.David: I know the Minister will agree that this is a huge issue. In some parts of the south Wales valleys, as many as one in four of the working-age population are categorised as economically inactive. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that it is necessary to improve the health and well-being of many in our poorest communities, and that healthy living programmes must be a vital part of our ongoing strategy?
    Mr. Brown: I do agree; I represent a constituency with similar problems. We must consider people on "inactive" benefits who might be able to do some work if the opportunities and the encouragement were there, and work with the national health service to establish rehabilitation programmes. That, indeed, is the thrust of the Green Paper on which we are now consulting.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: The Minister will know that there are now 4 million income support claimants, more than there were when the Government came to power. He will also know that the number of incapacity benefit claimants is back to the 1997 level. Of the lone parents who were promised—if that is the right word—mandatory interviews enabling them to seek employment, only 14 per cent. have been given such interviews. What has gone wrong?
    Mr. Brown: The problem arose, of course, under the Conservative Government, when the number of people receiving incapacity benefit and its predecessor trebled. It was, indeed, the unstated policy of the Conservative party to move people from unemployment benefit on to the inactive benefits, because unemployment was at its peak: some 3 million people a year were becoming unemployed.
    We must see what we can do to return to work people receiving inactive benefits who would like to work and who could do something. That means working with the NHS and others to find pathways back into work. We are consulting on precisely those matters by way of the Green Paper.
    Linda Gilroy: My right hon. Friend will know from his several visits to Plymouth of the spectacularly successful work done by the employment action zone and the Employment Service in tackling unemployment there. How will the partnerships be helped through the operation of employment action zones after October this year to help the "hardest to help" back to work?
    Mr. Brown: Those matters are under review. The Government's core policy is, of course, the roll-out of Jobcentre Plus. I have just written to Members describing the programme, and there is a copy of that letter in the Library. The future of the employment zone model is under consideration, but the Government will want to continue the partnership work that underpins it.

    Incapacity Benefit
    Mr. James Gray: What targets his Department has for getting people who claim incapacity benefit into work. [89704]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): None in that form. Our target is to increase the employment rate of disabled people, and to reduce the gap between their rate of employment and the overall employment rate. The proposals in our Green Paper "Pathways to Work" aim to help more people in receipt of incapacity benefit move into jobs.
    Mr. Gray: The Government may have no targets now, but when they launched the new deal for disabled people their target was to return 90,000 disabled people to jobs within three years. However, Disability Now magazine—which I am sure the Minister respects as much as I do—tells me that the current figure is not 90,000 but 1,400. Why is that?
    Mr. Smith: If I recall correctly, 8,000 people have moved into jobs through the new deal for disabled people. We need to do more in terms of our overall policy, but we are making good progress on the employment rates of disabled people.
    The employment rate for disabled people rose by 4.5 per cent. between 1998 and 2002, and the difference between the disabled and the overall employment rate has fallen by 3 per cent., so the gap is being narrowed. Of course we want to do more—for example, by acting against discrimination against disabled people through building on the experience of the new deal and through the new pilots that we are launching later this year.
    Jonathan Shaw: I recently visited the social security office that provides services for my constituency. The staff there embraced and welcomed the new Jobcentre Plus approach. They are on the third phase, but there was a concern that those on the final stages of the roll-
    out of the new programme will not necessarily get the benefits that those involved in the pilot programme will receive. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that those at the end of the programme will be as well furbished and established in our constituencies as those who are at the beginning?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. The whole object, as we develop new programmes and pilot new initiatives, is to learn from experience so that we can ensure that the service improves—for example, through the programme support and personal advisory support that is available, and which, reports tell me, is greatly appreciated by clients of our services.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: I am sure that the Secretary of State and, in this respect at least, the whole House may wish to agree with the Prime Minister, who said in a speech last year that it was "a scandal" that 2.7 million people on incapacity or other disability benefits are
    "written off, left to drift into long-term incapacity and unemployment".

    395
    After the Conservatives introduced changes in 1995, the incapacity benefit count fell inexorably for five years. Is it not, therefore, genuinely disturbing that, under Labour, it has now bounced back to above the level at which it started, and that the trend, despite the Prime Minister's remarks, is resolutely upwards? When can we have slightly less consultation from the Secretary of State—be it pathways to work, or whatever—and slightly more effective action to tackle this scandal?
    Mr. Smith: We have already had action, which is why the annual inflow on to incapacity benefit fell by one quarter between 1997 and last year, from 840,000 a year to 640,000. That compares with an inflow rate of 940,000 a year when the Conservatives were in government. Of course we want and need to do more to help people on incapacity benefit who want to work, and are able to work, to get into jobs. Some 150,000 a year move into work at the moment, and I would have hoped that there would be support from the Conservative Front Bench and, indeed, from all hon. Members, for helping still more disabled people to fulfil their potential through work.

    Antisocial Behaviour
    Mr. James Plaskitt: What plans he has to link housing benefit penalties to antisocial behaviour. [89705]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): The inclusion of an antisocial behaviour Bill in our legislative programme underlines the Government's determination to tackle this problem, which blights the lives of so many of our constituents. We shall include in that Bill whatever measures will act as a real deterrent. We are considering a range of options, including housing benefit sanctions.
    Mr. Plaskitt: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that nuisance neighbour problems can be some of the hardest that we have to deal with in our constituencies. Constituents can become really frustrated at the inability of housing authorities or the police to take the action necessary to fix the problem. Does my hon. Friend agree that their frustration can be further aggravated by the knowledge that, in some cases, the law-abiding innocent neighbour may be subsidising the rent of the nuisance neighbour through their taxes?
    Malcolm Wicks: I certainly understand that frustration. There was widespread support in the House for the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and it was our job in the Government to try to make that a workable and legal Bill. It would have been on the statute book now but for the successful filibuster by the Liberal Democrats, who will have to account to their electorates for their behaviour.
    Bob Spink: Does the Minister consider it to be antisocial behaviour for a council not properly to deal with housing benefit claims from constituents who are vulnerable and need help? What action would
    396
    he propose taking against a council that has been found by the Audit Commission to be failing in payment of housing benefit?
    Malcolm Wicks: We are taking a wide range of measures and action to improve housing benefit administration. We have a performance framework and extra funding for local authorities, and housing benefit performance is increasing, but I recognise that there are problems in some local authorities. We are tackling them as fast as we can.
    Mr. Frank Field: As the Government kindly took over the Housing Benefit (Withholding of Payment) Bill—and rewrote every clause and every word in it, including the long title—what would be the Minister's response if, after the support that No. 10 has provided, its provisions do not appear in the antisocial behaviour legislation that the Government are to introduce later this year?
    Malcolm Wicks: To use my right hon. Friend's phrase, we took over the Bill simply to make it legal and workable, and he must forgive us for that. The serious point is that there is a range of ways to tackle antisocial behaviour. The Police Reform Act 2002 introduced changes that will strengthen antisocial behaviour orders, because we know that too few have been enacted. Also, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's consultation paper, "Tackling Anti-Social Tenants", includes a range of ideas about tenancy agreements and the rest. Those and my right hon. Friend's ideas are ones that we are considering actively in terms of the antisocial behaviour Bill that will be brought before the House.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Concern about such disgusting behaviour extends to all parts of the House, and I am sure that all Members present have had brought to their surgeries, as I have, harrowing cases involving frightened or terrified people—pensioners, young families and others—some of whom have even been driven from their homes. The Minister has rightly drawn attention to the shameful role of the Liberal Democrats in talking out the measure. When will he be able to tell his hon. Friends whether the proposal is to be enacted this year?
    Malcolm Wicks: We all recognised during the deliberations on the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead that, at best, it would be a minor weapon in the armoury and that antisocial behaviour orders—this we stated at the time—and tenancy agreements were the stronger. I can only repeat that we are considering all those ideas, and our proposals will come forward with the Bill in due course.

    Benefits (Poverty Threshold)
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: What his targets are for reducing the number of households that receive benefits and which are below the poverty threshold. [89706]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): On 18 September 2002, we published a new edition of "Opportunity for All", which provides a detailed account of our strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion as well as the range of indicators and targets against which we measure progress. The report shows that we have achieved a great deal and that our approach is working. We will continue to deliver on that challenge over the years to come.
    Mr. Jenkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. We are all aware that work is the only way out of poverty for many and that we are encouraging people in areas where the number of vacancies is greater than the number of jobless to take a role, but what is he doing to protect the vulnerable innocent—the children—who all too often live in households where income falls below that which we deem necessary?
    Malcolm Wicks: We all recognise that over, perhaps, the past 30 years, due to economic as well as social and family factors, poverty in this country began to wear a younger face—child poverty increased significantly. Back in 1996–97, one third of children lived in low-income households. I am pleased to say that, compared with 1997, there are about half a million fewer children in low-income households, based on a relative measure. Given the real increase in incomes, and therefore the moving target that we face, that is a real improvement in tackling relative poverty as it affects too many of our children.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I n the words of the question, what are the Minister's targets? Has he achieved them, or is he going to?
    Malcolm Wicks: The Government have a strong ambition to eradicate child poverty—[Interruption.] If the House will listen, we also have a public service agreement to reduce child poverty by a third. So far, we have gone a third of a way in a third of the time towards achieving that target.
    David Cairns: Thirty-nine per cent. of people of working age in my constituency are economically inactive, and we have the third poorest average wage rates in the whole of Scotland. Will my hon. Friend therefore consider urging his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to site one of the six new pilot schemes giving people on incapacity benefit extra help to get into work in my constituency, as that will go some way towards tackling one of the most serious causes of poverty households?
    Malcolm Wicks: I am afraid that the decision on the pilots has not yet been made, but I am sure that my colleagues have heard my hon. Friend's genuine concern. We all recognise that incapacity issues are some of the most taxing facing our society, and our recent document shows our determination to tackle those issues effectively.
    Hywel Williams: Work is the best way out of poverty. However, the rate of economic activity in Wales is much lower than in the south-east of
    398
    England—61.3 per cent. in early 2000 for people over 50 compared with 76.8 per cent. in the south-east. Can the Minister assure us that that gap is being closed?
    Malcolm Wicks: We are conscious of regional and local variations in unemployment. So far, the success is that some 75 per cent. of people of working age in Britain are in jobs, which puts us more or less at the top of the European league table—only two smaller countries have a slightly better record. We are not complacent, however, and now realise that our understanding of the causes of unemployment has to be more detailed and specific if we are successfully to tackle them and the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: My hon. Friend is correct to draw attention to the action taken by his Department to eradicate child poverty. However, will he explain what he intends to do to ensure that the Child Support Agency, which is not collecting maintenance so some families are driven into greater poverty, becomes more efficient and provides maintenance for the 30 per cent. of children who are losing out at present?
    Malcolm Wicks: Certainly, I alluded earlier to family changes that have affected Britain and the fact that many of our children are now growing up in one-parent, rather than two-parent families. That is a major contemporary cause of poverty, hence the introduction of the Child Support Agency, whose performance is improving year by year. We have, of course, introduced proposals for reform. When we are in a position to implement them after thoroughly testing the system and after my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is able come to the House with dates, they will further improve the situation. With a simpler formula, our colleagues in the CSA will be able to spend more time on enforcement, which is a major step in the right direction.

    Pensions Funding
    Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the minimum funding requirement for pensions. [89707]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): Our Green Paper on working and saving for retirement sets out proposals for replacing the minimum funding requirement with scheme-specific requirements that will allow schemes to chose investment strategies more appropriate for their own particular circumstances.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for her helpful reply. Given the widespread and justified concern about companies which, in choosing to wind up their final salary schemes, universally renege on their pensions obligations to their staff, can the hon. Lady tell the House and me whether, under the new arrangements, companies will be better or worse placed than under preceding arrangements to keep their pension promises to their employees?
    Maria Eagle: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Back Benches—the last time that we jousted in the House he was in a different place. Since he moved, I have

    399
    found that I agree with more and more of what he says. For example, I agreed with him the other morning when he said on television that the Tory party's chances of winning the next election are about as great as finding an Eskimo in the desert.
    I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has just said—he is referring more than anything else to the Maersk situation. Certainly, what that company has done is currently lawful, although we would probably both agree that it is pretty disreputable behaviour by any standards. The Green Paper includes proposals to share out scheme assets more fairly on wind-up and to strengthen protection for members of pension schemes caught in such situations. Pension provision will work into the future only if all parties can trust other parties to keep their pension promises. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's response, and perhaps that of some of his constituents, to the consultation on the Green Paper.
    Mr. Bill Olner: My hon. Friend will know that the trade union movement has made specific demands for the Government to protect workers' pensions. Far too many companies have got away with pension holidays and are now reneging on final salary payments. It really is time for the Government to get tough on employers who scandalously expose their workers to poverty when they retire.
    Maria Eagle: I strongly agree. My hon. Friend will have noted that the Green Paper contains proposals for stiffening the obligations on companies to consult their employees and unions before making unilateral changes to their schemes. Unfortunately, the current minimum funding requirement did not provide the level of security that many thought it might, and that is why there is widespread agreement in the industry and across the field that we are right to be considering changes to the MFR. One of the difficulties is that it has led to short-term decision making and inflexibility. In a time of fluctuating stock markets, to say the least, short-term decisions are not necessarily the best thing for pensions, which are of course a long-term business.
    Mr. David Heath: Does the Minister agree that, when one considers the whole spectrum of investments, including pensions, split funds and life insurance, one can see, without wanting to appear too alarmist, that there is a real risk of people losing confidence in all financial instruments. Is it not therefore incumbent on the Government to apply their mind to the problem with rather more urgency than is suggested by a Green Paper process, which may mean that effective remedy is years and years away?
    Maria Eagle: We have to strike a balance between responding urgently to daily headlines and situations that change very quickly and bearing in mind the fact that pensions are a long-term business. We will not get the best framework for private pensions saving over the long term if we react daily and make changes that deal only with issues that are in the headlines. We will not ensure that people save enough in private pensions for their retirement if we do not have the right framework in the long run, so the most important thing is, with as much consensus as possible in the House and across the
    400
    industry, among employees and employers, to get the right system in place to provide the protection and balance that will enable people to save appropriately for their retirement.

    Action Teams for Jobs
    Mr. John Lyons: If he will make a statement about the effectiveness of action teams for jobs. [89708]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): Action teams are performing well, so far helping over 57,000 jobless people in the country's most deprived areas to move into work. An evaluation study of the first year of the initiative found that 80 per cent. of people who found work through action teams moved into sustained jobs.
    Mr. Lyons: In parallel with the work of the action teams there are some outstanding local developments and initiatives that are trying to deal with some of the long-term unemployment problems in rural and semi-rural areas. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that we continue to encourage such initiatives so that we can really tackle the problems?
    Mr. Brown: I strongly agree. We have to provide a whole range of modern, labour market-oriented services to sparsely populated communities. The Department takes its outreach work very seriously. We are considering initiatives such as mobile centres to give advice on jobs that are available, and indeed on benefits.
    Michael Fabricant: But does the Minister believe that the 1 per cent. employment tax starting in April will improve job opportunities?
    Mr. Brown: The public services have to be funded.
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Action teams for jobs have been a great success in my constituency, and there are some wonderful examples of how that initiative has got people back into work. However, does my right hon. Friend accept that its effectiveness is limited in part because it is targeted on priority wards, rather than being provided for the whole district? Can he understand how frustrating it is for somebody to discover that they might be denied help from an action team simply because they live on the wrong side of a road?
    Mr. Brown: My understanding is that the action teams are not too prescriptive about this, but I do appreciate the point that my hon. Friend makes. Nevertheless, I think it right that scarce public resources be targeted where the need is greatest, and I do not think that such projects would be helped by the £20 billion cut in public expenditure that we understand is on offer from the Opposition.

    Minimum Income Guarantee
    Andrew Selous: What level of savings fund is necessary for a person not to qualify for the minimum income guarantee. [89709]
    The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): The level of pension savings needed for a person not to qualify for the minimum income guarantee will depend on the level of entitlement to state pension benefits that has been built up over individuals' working lives. The introduction of the pension credit ends the unfair, absolute penalty on savings, thus encouraging people to provide for their own retirement. The existing capital cliff edge will disappear, so those with savings of more than £12,000 will no longer be automatically excluded from help.
    Andrew Selous: Is the Minister aware that a pensioner couple in receipt of both housing benefit and council tax benefit need a fund of £142,000 in order not to be subject to means-tested benefits? Does he not agree that letting pensioners keep 100 per cent. of their savings and giving them a higher basic state pension as of right would be the most effective ways to assist saving among the poorest of the population?
    Mr. McCartney: I wonder how the hon. Gentleman squares that view with the intention, expressed by Opposition Front Benchers, of cutting public expenditure by 20 per cent., some of which would fall on the poorest pensioners. His party is against the minimum income guarantee, the pension credit and winter fuel payments. The fact is that this is the first Government in history, through the pension credit, to give people the incentive to save—unlike the previous Conservative Government, who imposed a 100 per cent. marginal tax rate on savings, thus forcing many pensioners into poverty.
    Mr. George Mudie: Can the Minister confirm that since 1997, the minimum income guarantee has led to a real-terms increase in the pensions of the poorest pensioners of 37 per cent., taken 1.1 million pensioners out of absolute poverty, and provided an average additional sum of £30 per week for the poorest pensioners? However, can he also confirm that this is the same MIG as the Leader of the Opposition described as having nothing to recommend it?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That was two questions: the Minister should answer the first one, not the second.
    Mr. McCartney: That was always my intention, Mr. Speaker—although perhaps I should ask my hon. Friend to repeat it, as I cannot remember it.[Laughter.] He is absolutely right, and perhaps the most important point to make is that, hopefully, hon. Members on both sides of the House will come together from April of this year and adopt a bipartisan approach to securing the successful implementation of the pension credit. It will provide more than £2 billion in the way of additional
    402
    income for the poorest pensioners and, for the first time, for those who suffered under the previous Conservative Government, when they saved a little and lost a lot.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Can the Minister confirm that under the pension credit, which will affect the majority of pensioners, any pensioner will keep only 60p of every extra pound of pension income that they save?
    Mr. McCartney: When the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State., pensioners got nothing: for every pound saved, they lost a pound. He gave with one hand, and took with the other.
    Mr. Lilley indicated dissent.
    Mr. McCartney: Perhaps I should start again. The right hon. Gentleman owes this House and our country an apology for the way he managed this Department as Secretary of State. He introduced rules that meant that for every pound a pensioner saved, their entitlement was reduced by a further pound. The pension credit has at last put right the mistakes that he made.

    Pension Yields
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What his estimate is of trends in average pension yields over the next decade. [89710]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): The Government do not make an official estimate of future investment returns. Over the past 10 years, overall pension investment returns have been 7.5 per cent., and private sector estimates suggest that they will be around 7 to 8 per cent. over the next 10 years.
    What is clear is that people need to put sufficient aside for their retirement and regularly monitor their level of saving. Many of the proposals in our recent Green Paper "Simplicity, Security and Choice" will help them do this.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: It is surprising—is it not?—that one? can have an answer to a question like that without any mention of the £5 billion a year taken from pension funds by the Government since they abolished the tax credit on dividends in 1997. The Under-Secretary was waxing eloquent about the iniquity of firms in closing final salary schemes, but does she accept that the Government's pensions raid has little to do with those firms doing what they have done? They could have absorbed it, they should have absorbed it, but if the Government had not taken that action, the problem might not have arisen.
    Maria Eagle: No, I do not accept that. The Conservative party is for ever talking about the £5 billion without mentioning the offsetting corporation tax cuts, for a start. As is well known in the House, throughout the industry and by anybody who considers these issues, many factors have led to some of

    403
    the problems in respect of defined benefit schemes and their closures, not least the stock market falls that have been taking place over the past couple of years.
    Kevin Brennan: I know that my hon. Friend is aware that the pension yield for ex-Allied Steel and Wire workers from Cardiff over the next 10 years may be as low, according to some predictions, as 16 per cent. of the pension they expected on retirement. I know that she will want to join me in welcoming last week's announcement that Celsa is reopening the steel plant in Cardiff, which will save many hundreds of jobs. Will she also agree to look at the plight of those workers who lost their pension as a result of losing their jobs at a time when the pension fund was at a low ebb?
    Maria Eagle: Yes, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions has met some of the workers affected in this particular case. Much of the Green Paper deals with issues that have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House in respect of those who work and save into occupational pensions and whose legitimate expectations are not met. We must get right the changes that will arise following the consultation on the Green Paper. If we do not, it is much less likely that people will be confident enough to save into occupational pensions the amount of money that they need to ensure a secure retirement.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Minister agree that the fall in pension yields has been particularly serious for annuitants? As the Government have held at bay the amounts for compulsion in other elements of pension policy, why do they cling to compulsion in this area rather than allowing pensioners to make their own investment decisions?
    Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that annuities are the only way of securing an income for the lifetime of a person who has saved, and of course we all celebrate the fact that people are living longer. That is what pensions are for, and that is why annuities are important. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his party will be responding in full to the Green Paper consultation, and I look forward to seeing what they have to say.

    Retirement Savings
    Hugh Robertson: If he will make a statement about the rate of saving for retirement in the United Kingdom. [89711]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): As set out in the pensions Green Paper, we believe that as people are living longer and want good standards of living in retirement, they need as a whole either to save more, to work longer, or a mix of both. That is why we are consulting on a range of measures to improve simplicity, security and choice in pension saving as well as making it easier for people to carry on working longer when they want to.
    Hugh Robertson: I n view of the problems of last year's Office for National Statistic figures, is the Secretary of
    404
    State convinced that people are now saving enough for their retirement? If not, what is he doing to encourage people to save more?
    Mr. Smith: I already said in my initial answer that we recognise that if people want good standards of living in retirement, and as people are living longer, they will clearly need to save more, work longer or a mix of both. The ONS conducted a review of the statistics, and I think it wise to treat all pensions statistics with caution until that review has been fully implemented.
    Alan Simpson: Is not the greatest sense of insecurity about people's pension contributions to be found in the 40 per cent. devaluation in the value of their pensions that is a result of frittering that away in a gamble on the stock exchange over the past year? If we are to encourage pension contributors to make larger contributions, should we not also consider allowing workers to have a greater choice about the direction in which their savings are going? I refer specifically the prospect of workers being able to choose to have their contributions paid into infrastructure investments, which would provide security of assets, certainty of return and a social dividend on top?
    Mr. Smith: The Green Paper's proposals radically to simplify the framework for pensions saving, not least as far as tax treatment is concerned, will increase existing flexibility, which has already been enhanced, not least by the introduction of individual savings accounts.
    Mr. David Willetts: The Secretary of State has just said that it is wise to treat pension statistics with caution. Why, then, having come to the House last month to claim that our pension contributions had increased by 40 per cent. since 1997, did he use that statistic as justification for the complacency of his Green Paper? I welcome the fact that he has not repeated that statistic today; has he seen sense and abandoned his claim that our pension savings are zooming upwards? If that figure really is so shaky, why did he rest his policy on it last month?
    Mr. Smith: There is no complacency about pension savings or the way in which the statistics are assessed. That is why I announced the review on which the ONS has now embarked. That is also why, as I said, it is wise to treat all statistics with caution until the review has been fully implemented. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the pension commission that we are establishing as part of the Green Paper process will, as one of its first tasks, undertake a baseline audit of the adequacy of long-term savings for pensions, including the adequacy of the information available.
    As for the figures cited by the hon. Gentleman, I and other Ministers are right, when asked, to report to the House the figures that we are given by the ONS. We should be criticised if we did not give those figures. The figure of 40 per cent. was cleared with the ONS, and I checked it again before Question Time today.
    Mr. Willetts: I t is always the fault of the Office for National Statistics. The fact is that Ministers used the statistics as the basis for their complacent policy. I do

    405
    not believe, and have set out my arguments for not doing so in The Times today, that we are saving £46 billion a year, another statistic that the Secretary of State has repeated. The correct figure is £32 billion a year. The Secretary of State is able to claim that we are apparently putting more and more money into our pensions only by counting the extra money that companies must put in to offset the effects of the tax increase. If he were to put another £5 billion a year tax on pensions, and if companies had to put more money into their pensions funds to counteract it, he would claim that we were saving more for our pensions. Does he realise what an absurd position he has got himself into?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman has been very assiduous on this matter, and I have been happy to come to the House to acknowledge the service that he has provided in questioning the statistics. Indeed, that is the job of the Opposition.
    That said, so far as the hon. Gentleman's claim to be specific about the level of pensions saving is concerned, I treat his statistics with at least as much scepticism as I regard those that come from the ONS.

    Redundancies
    Tony Cunningham: What plans he has to help people affected by large-scale redundancies to find new work. [89712]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): In April 2002, we launched the rapid response service to provide a coherent, tailored response to help people affected by large-scale redundancies. The service provides advice and support to enable people who are made redundant to make the transition into new jobs. By December, the rapid response service had provided support nationally to more than 200 companies and made its services available to more than 67,000 people facing redundancy.
    Tony Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and for his keen interest in my constituency. Does he agree that one problem in constituencies such as mine is that while jobs tend to be lost in the manufacturing sector, the jobs that are created tend to be in the service sector? What is being done to help people who find themselves in those circumstances?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. The labour market circumstances in west Cumbria are specific to that area. The response led by the local authority in my hon. Friend's constituency is the right one. The authority has brought together all elements in the community to consider areas in which new jobs can be created, to do what they can to assist and to work with the Employment Service, and to offer proactive advice to those who are displaced in the labour market, most of whom, as my hon. Friend said, have been displaced from manufacturing enterprises.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: The Minister will be aware that most large-scale redundancies in the Vale of York are in the farming community. Can he confirm that there will be training opportunities for those who
    406
    have lost their jobs on farms, and that, for example, those who may have been well qualified to drive tractors will be eligible for training to drive light goods vehicles? To whom should such people apply, and could the training eventually be extended to heavy goods vehicles as well, as that is far too expensive for individuals to pay for out of their own pocket?
    Mr. Brown: I am more than happy to help the hon. Lady's constituents where I can. Of course, I have sympathy for those in farming communities who are displaced. The fact is, however, that employment trends in agriculture are remorseless, long term and very clear. May I write to the hon. Lady on the specifics that she raised? As for where people should apply, it is of course to the nearest jobcentre.
    Andy Burnham: I very much echo the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) and draw my right hon. Friend the Minister's attention to my constituency, where there were four large-scale manufacturing redundancies in the past year, resulting in 1,000 job losses. Many of the people affected are in their 40s and 50s and have done only that one job throughout their working lives. Although the local jobcentre has provided them with an excellent service, I am aware that few of them have taken up the offer of retraining. Will my right hon. Friend investigate why so few people take up such offers, and will he consider how to improve retraining opportunities for people who are moving from manufacturing to other industries?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right: age is a factor in those considerations. There is a range of options in the Department's armoury and we want to explore all of them, including the possibility of finding similar employment with employers in similar areas of activity. I shall look specifically at the issues that my hon. Friend raised in relation to his constituency and write to him about them.

    Child Support Agency
    Bob Russell: What progress he has made to check the validity of financial returns to the Child Support Agency by absentee fathers who use the services of accountants or other financial advisers. [89713]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): The agency applies the same level of verification to a case, irrespective of whether its client has used a financial adviser.
    Bob Russell: May I ask the Minister to reflect on that answer? If an absentee father can afford the services of an accountant or financial adviser to show that he cannot afford to look after his children, there is a strong possibility that somewhere along the line somebody may

    407
    not be telling the truth. May I suggest that inspections of the lifestyle of some of those absentee fathers, who can afford financial advisers but cannot afford to pay for their children, would be well worth pursuing?
    Malcolm Wicks: Since October 1999, the Child Support Agency has been able to share information with the Inland Revenue and to base liability for maintenance on self-assessment returns. It would not make sense for the agency to duplicate the work of the Inland Revenue; if people think that fibs are being told to the Revenue, they should be reported. On the hon. Gentleman's final point, the system allows for what is technically known as a departure to be made where it is absolutely clear that the lifestyle of the non-resident parent, or the absent father, does not seem to be in kilter—if I may put it in that way—with their declared income. Those are difficult cases and depend very much on proving, one way or another, whether the income as reported is correct.
    Mr. Russell Brown: I concur with the sentiments behind the question put by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), but may I point out to my hon. Friend the Minister that there is another side to the equation? What does he think about a situation in which the agency determines that the profits of a self-employed business man, which are aimed for investment in his company, are in fact income that he can use weekly or monthly? Those profits thus count against him.
    Malcolm Wicks: The problem—the rub—in cases of family breakdown is that there are two sides to the story. That is the difficulty. If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind, I shall ask the agency to look into it, but there are clear rules about what does or does not count as income and we try to apply them. I shall be happy to look into the particular case raised by my hon. Friend.

    Statutory Retirement Age
    Helen Jackson: If he will make a statement on his proposals for changes to the statutory retirement age. [89714]
    The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): There is no state retirement age, only a state pension age—the age from which people can receive their state pension, regardless of whether they have retired or are continuing to work. We have no plans to change that. However, under age legislation, which will be implemented by 2006, compulsory retirement ages are likely to be unlawful unless employers can show they are objectively justified.
    Helen Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but may I suggest to him that men and women in their 60s may start to suffer from a bit of an identity crisis unless there is a little more clarification about the age at which they can start genuinely to feel that they ought to be real pensioners and therefore have access to the great variety of Government benefits that are accessible to pensioners?
    Mr. McCartney: There are two issues. First, the Government have for the first time launched a pre-retirement guide to help older workers to plan their retirement.[Interruption.] I hope that, instead of boo-hooing, Opposition Members will read the damn thing. Secondly, the big problem in Britain has not been workers being able to work up to retirement age, but discrimination in stopping them doing that. Under the last Conservative Government, people with skills, knowledge and commitment were thrown on the scrap heap when they were as young as 45. This Government will end age discrimination and give people a choice to remain in work, and, if they want to work part-time when they retire, we will give them the choice to do that too.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many of our constituents are puzzled—that is somewhat of an understatement and a polite word for it—as to why it was possible for the Ark Royal to set sail, for our troops to go to Kuwait, for the Prime Minister to hold his press conferences and for the press to discuss that endlessly, yet seemingly impossible for the House of Commons to address those very important issues. What does it take in terms of an emergency application to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that the House of Commons ought to be able to pass judgment on these momentous events?
Glenda Jackson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been widely advertised that the Prime Minister held a press conference today where the sole topic of questioning was apparently the Government's approach to whether or not there will he a war in Iraq that this country would support. The House has not been afforded the opportunity to question the Prime Minister exclusively for an hour on that issue. Have you received any request from the Prime Minister to afford such an opportunity? If not, what can we do to ask the Prime Minister to attend the House?
Paul Flynn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since this matter was discussed last week and had great publicity, I have been approached by many constituents, not a single one of whom believes that going to war is justified and that there is sufficient evidence to show that Saddam Hussein intends to use his weapons of mass destruction. If the possibility of going to war, putting at risk the lives of our constituents and possibly increasing the risk of terrorist attack are not fit subjects for an emergency debate, what on earth is?
Alan Simpson: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), will you, Mr. Speaker, give the House some guidance about the circumstances in which war-creep became war without the House having the right, according to a democratic process and in line with the rights of the House, to vote on a substantive motion that endorsed or rejected that proposal?
David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that, on the very first day that we came back from the recess, the Secretary of State for Defence made a statement and answered questions for quite a long time and that, on the following day, the Prime Minister had a number of questions on this subject? Is it not important that the House should be kept informed, as my hon. Friends have stated, but that it should also be borne in mind that not all of us take the same line and do not accept the Iraqi regime's propaganda about weapons of mass destruction?
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There may be a solution with which you may be able to help the House. The Prime Minister has just given an hour's press conference to the media, which was mainly dictated by the subject of Iraq. I understand from press reports that the Prime Minister is also due to meet something called the parliamentary Labour party this week, and perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you could organise for the television cameras in the relevant Committee Room to be turned on, so that we can all find out exactly what the parliamentary Labour party thinks on this subject. Obviously, that is one way in which the British people may be able to find out exactly what the PLP feels, as we know that the Prime Minister does not like coming to the House of Commons to answer questions too often.
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose
—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This must be the last point of order; I have forgotten what was the first.
Mr. Skinner: I agree with my hon. Friends who have raised this matter, as you probably know, Mr. Speaker, as I have already voted that way. If you allow cameras into Committee Room 14, however, I have news for you: we want the cameras in the 1922 committee, too, and we will cause mayhem.
Mr. Speaker: I am at a disadvantage as far as the parliamentary Labour party is concerned because for two years I have been debarred from attending meetings of the PLP, and that also applies to the 1922 committee. I understand hon. Members' concern. In response to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), the Prime Minister can be brought to question in the House of Commons at Prime Minister's Question Time. In addition, I understand that, next Wednesday, there will be a defence debate, which will be an opportunity for the House to examine these matters. I reiterate once again that I am guided by the rules of the House, which I have been given. All that I can say at this stage is that I would hope that Ministers would come to make statements at appropriate times, and that hon. Members who wish to catch my eye should make applications for the debate, which is not too far away.
Mr. Dalyell: On a last point of order, Mr. Speaker, will the motion on Wednesday week be amendable?
Mr. Speaker: At the moment, it is a debate on the Adjournment.
Mr. Dalyell: Does that mean that it is not amendable?
Mr. Speaker: It is a debate on the Adjournment of the House, and it is not amendable.

Opposition Day
[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Criminal Justice System
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.38 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: I beg to move,
  That this House views with great concern the rise in gun crime and domestic burglary, the growing demoralisation of the police, the increasing sense of helplessness of the honest citizen and the apparent inability of the Government to provide a coherent, longterm strategy to resolve these problems; and deprecates the Home Secretary's resort to short-term, irrelevant and illiberal measures to conceal this failure.
  As the Home Secretary is well aware—incidentally, I welcome him back to the Green Benches, which is a place that he properly occupies—last night, in Tankersley, not far from his own backyard, there was a dreadful stabbing associated with a dreadful robbery. I wish that I could tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I was nae enough to suppose that the House would be shocked to hear that. Neither the House, nor the country, however, is any longer in a condition to be shocked at the news that such a dreadful event has taken place.
  The Home Office's own figures show that, in the last year, there were some 9,000 reported violent crimes. I am afraid that that is part of a set of statistics that makes dismal reading: we have all become accustomed to such statistics, and we saw them again last week. Robbery—by the Home Office's own account and after its own adjustments—rose by 13 per cent. in the last year. That is on page 10, in table A, of the Home Secretary's own productions. He demurs, but I think that he has some difficulty in refuting what his own office produces. The figure on domestic burglary in the same table, after the same adjustments, shows a 5 per cent. rise. Other kinds of burglary—principally, retail crime-are up 6 per cent., and, by the same token, drug offences are up 12.3 per cent. Furthermore, as the Home Office has spent a great deal of time saying in the last week, gun crime is up—probably by more than the Home Office started by admitting—indeed, it is up dramatically.
  If all that was happening was that we had a sad blip in the reported crime figures and if the underlying truth was that the Government had a well-worked-out strategy for dealing with what has been a long-running problem for this country, I do not suppose that I would have bored you, Mr. Speaker, and the House with this debate. However, the sad fact is that over the past five years the Government have shown no signs of having a coherent long-term strategy for addressing this problem.
  On 16 July 2000, a newspaper produced a leaked and now famous report from Downing street in which the Prime Minister asked for what I believe he described as "eye-catching initiatives". He has been well served by his Ministers in that regard. We celebrate today—if "celebrate" is the right word—a centenary by our account. As far as we can make out, there have been
  412
  about 100 eye-catching initiatives in criminal justice since the Government came to power. However, I regret to say that they have largely been in response to headlines and show little sign of achievement.
  Twenty-four out of every 25 of the famous antisocial behaviour orders promised by the Prime Minister have not been implemented; instances of benefit docking for the breach of community sentences, which is critical to the Government's current policy—if policy it be—run at 78 a year; child safety orders, another initiative, run at three a year; mandatory seven-year sentences for third-time drug dealers run at one a year; and child curfew orders run at zero a year. Those are the lucky initiatives. Many others have not even started their lives. Benefit docking for truancy has been abandoned; on-the-spot fines at cash tills have been abandoned; and vouchers for good behaviour have been abandoned. I fear that the Government have given us initiative after initiative in response to headline after headline, but the initiatives have often failed and have often never been implemented. There is very little sign of a coherent strategy.
  There are two critical elements to a proper long-term strategy for dealing with crime. The first is to get police on to the streets. I do not believe that there is a great difference of view on that between the Home Secretary and me. We shall soon hear from him, and I have never detected the slightest sign on his part of a reluctance to admit what is evidently the truth. The great difference between this country and the American cities that have cracked crime so well is the fact that they have—and that we do not have—police visible, proactive and effective in numbers on the streets.
  The problem is, therefore, not one of design but of effective delivery. The fact is that we do not have police on our streets. I do not know why the Home Secretary has not been able to get much help from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that, but I know that the Home Secretary has not helped the matter himself. He has been keeping the police off the streets, and he has been adding to the reasons why they are not on the streets. He has been adding targets, monitoring, standard units, bureaucracy and rules and he has been forcing the police to keep records and to make notes. That is not the way to have them on the streets. Making a report each time someone is stopped is not the way to increase the time spent catching crooks.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Right hon. Gentleman."] I apologise. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he is doing the House and the country a disservice in completely overlooking the role of intelligence-led policing and the way in which police efforts focus on the hard end of crime? Focusing on the activities of criminals is bringing down crime across a whole range of offences to the benefit of communities.
  Mr. Letwin: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to reply. I hope that at some time or another he will do what I have to do on a regular basis and talk to police constables the length and breadth of the country, because he will discover that the flip phrase "intelligence-led policing" means something on the streets in Britain by its very absence. In the

  413
  United States, as I have seen for myself, the police know the streets and the residents of them because they patrol up and down. As a result, they gain genuine low-level intelligence day by day and hour by hour. They have real-time information on the compliance status information system—the comstat system—and know where the patterns of crime are developing. That enables them to take the required forces to where the criminals operate. We, however, have to wait minutes, hours or days before the police arrive.
  What do we find has happened in this country? In the past 24 hours, the Metropolitan police force has been so hampered by the Home Secretary and the Chancellor that its policy of intelligence-led policing on burglary consists of giving up the investigation of all burglaries except those for which it already knows the crook in question.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I thought we would soon get around to that. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give me chapter and verse on what the Home Office has, or has not, said to the Met. Did it affect its decision last summer to introduce pilots in Enfield and Southwark? Did it affect the information that the force gave out on 2 December? We have done nothing that the right hon. Gentleman claims. Instead, we have done exactly what he asks us to do, which is to leave the decision making to the commissioner and the Metropolitan police.
  Mr. Letwin: I am sure that the Home Secretary is not to blame for that particularly lunacy. I suspect that he—[Interruption.] I will answer the Home Secretary. When some journalist rang him as he rang me, I suspect he thought, as I thought, that it was an April fool's joke. I suspect that he had no prior knowledge that the police were going in that direction. My accusation against him is that he has made it impossible for the police to adopt any other system of policing. I do not believe that the commissioner, for whom the Home Secretary and I have a high regard, chose that course of action because he woke up one fine sunny day and thought it would be fun not to pursue most burglars. I suspect that he is bound up with bureaucracy, as the president elect of the Association of Chief Police Officers said just a day ago, and is unable to provide the policing that is required because the Home Secretary has made it impossible for him to do so.
  Jonathan Shaw: The right hon. Gentleman says that he frequently speaks to police officers, and he criticises the intelligence-led model. Will he come to Kent, where the intelligence-led model has been extremely effective in cutting burglary and gun crime year on year?
  Mr. Letwin: I am a huge admirer of Sir David Phillips, the chief constable of Kent, who pioneered the intelligence-led model of policing. That has been a huge success in the restricted examples to which it has been applied at the higher end of crime. At the lower end of crime, however, intelligence-led policing is not possible
  414
  without having police officers on the street because they cannot collect the intelligence unless they are there to do so. That is what is lacking in this country.
  Jonathan Shaw: We have more police officers in Kent doing exactly what the right hon. Gentleman describes than we had last year and the year before that.
  Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman and his constituents have more police officers, but not enough of them by a large measure. When the BBC, which is not a supporter of the Conservative party as far as I am aware, discovers in a poll that 28 per cent. of the people in Britain cannot remember when they last saw a police officer, it behoves Labour Members not to make a great song and dance about policing on our streets.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. We both have flats in Lambeth and I have seen more policemen on its streets in the past few months than I have seen in the 25 years that I have owned a flat there, including two officers on the Brixton road in the past half hour.
  Mr. Letwin: I am tempted to say that the hon. Gentleman is in a privileged class of one. I know not what anecdotal evidence suggests about the police officers on the streets immediately adjoining his residence, but his colleague the Member of Parliament for that area does not share his view about the number of those officers or about the Home Office policy on drugs which is occupying most of their time because of the vast increase in drug-dealing networks.
  One half of a settled and coherent policy would be to get the police on the streets, but the other half would be to offer young people a way off the conveyor belt to crime, and I regret that the Home Secretary and his predecessor have been as deficient in that as in the matter of the police. We have not seen long-term rehabilitative sentences for young persistent offenders. We have riot seen mandatory drug treatment and rehabilitation for young cocaine and heroin addicts. Neither of those measures has been implemented in an effective form. Instead we have seen a rash of initiatives, some of which will be discussed in the next debate, and a flood of money. Those policies are very ill-focused and there is no clear means of lifting the majority of young potential criminals off that conveyor belt to crime. If we do not do that we will never make a serious impact on the causes of crime about which the Prime Minister spoke so eloquently in opposition.
  Simon Hughes: I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about that matter. He knows that I share many of his criticisms and those of the public of what the Government have done, or failed to do, in the last five years. However, will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the country why it should now have greater confidence in his party when crime doubled during its 18 years in power and violent crime increased in every one of those years? What would make the Conservative party deal more effectively with crime and law and order now, when during its 18 years in office it lamentably failed to do what the right hon. Gentleman is now calling for?
  Mr. Letwin: I do not believe that we can hope to make an impact on these problems without doing the very

  415
  things that I have described: getting police on to the streets and getting young people off the conveyor belt to crime. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the policies that we have been promoting for a year or more are new, and they offer the possibility of a serious attack on crime, in the way that American cities have attacked crime through policing and in the way that the Netherlands and Sweden have got young people off the conveyor belt to crime.
  I want to defend the record of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), because during each of his years as Home Secretary he remorselessly reduced levels of crimes such as burglary, both recorded crimes and those measured by the British crime survey. I shall tackle that in some detail, and I will reflect in a moment on what is happening to that record as a result of the Government's muddled messages and confused thinking.
  The second problem that we face, apart from the Government's failure to produce a serious long-term strategy, is the fact that the Home Secretary has sought to mask what people know are the realities of crime through irrelevant and illiberal high-profile measures in criminal justice Bills. That is the eye-catching initiative method of legislation. What has the proposed change to the double jeopardy rules to do with the kinds of crime that we are talking about today? Very little. What has the limitation of trial by jury in fraud cases to do with robbery, burglary or gun crime? Very little. The point of those eye-catching initiatives is to sound tough, and the tragedy is that in sounding tough the Home Secretary has succeeded in being illiberal without being effective. To be illiberal in order to be effective has a justification; to be liberal, admitting that one may be ineffective has a justification, but to be illiberal and ineffective is inexcusable.[Interruption.] I am charmed that the Home Secretary is so charmed by my remarks.
  Nowhere is that pattern of incoherence masked by lunges for ineffective, irrelevant and eye-catching initiatives more evident than in relation to recent sentencing policy. A little while ago, the Home Secretary made a magnificent discovery. He spotted ahead of the rest of us that his own figures—we had not seen them, but he had—were going to reveal a vast increase in gun crime. I imagine that an order went out in the Home Office saying "Do something—a headline is coming, so let us anticipate it." An order was eventually given: "Let us have mandatory sentences for gun crime." About 24 hours later—I am unable to ascertain the precise number of hours-a counter—order was given: "Let us have exceptions to the mandatory sentences for gun crime." There was a process of order, counter-order and disorder.
  The fact is that an initiative on sentencing was produced at short notice in relation to an anticipated headline and that it could not withstand even a day's scrutiny. However, that is small beer, as they say, in comparison with what has been happening on burglary. I admit that I should today very probably be tendering my resignation as shadow Home Secretary. I should have to do so on the ground of sheer mental inadequacy, as I have struggled mightily for many days now, but failed utterly to understand the Government's position on burglary sentencing. I do not know what it is that the
  416
  Government have been trying to tell us; my powers of intellect have not been up to the task. I hope that, at the end of this debate, the Home Secretary will rescue me from the need to resign by informing me and unclouding a mind that is currently unable to wrestle with the ghastly question of whether the Government have a policy on burglary sentencing, and if so, what that policy may be.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I have no intention of attempting to compete with him in my powers of intellect, but I suggest to him that the Government's policy is very simple. It is to say one thing and then appoint subordinates such as the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice who will quietly arrange for something else to happen at ground level.
  Mr. Letwin: I would assume because of the source and its plausibility that my hon. Friend is right, except that I think it is very difficult to describe the Lord Chancellor as a subordinate. Indeed, I suspect that, were it not said in this House, my hon. Friend's remark about the Lord Chancellor might lead to a legal action. I believe that the Lord Chancellor might think that it lowered him in the expectations of right-thinking men to be regarded as a subordinate. He may well believe that the Prime Minister is some form of subordinate; after all, I believe that he was one of the Lord Chancellor's clerks or pupils. The Lord High Chancellor of the United Kingdom is not a subordinate. He is clearly the most senior Law Officer of the United Kingdom, or at any rate of England and Wales—or at any rate of something.
  I heard with my own ears what the Lord Chancellor said when he appeared on a radio programme. It was not an April fools' joke; it may be that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis was merely trying to fool us, but he was not. In a briefing, Mr. Alastair Campbell or some other Downing street minion who is genuinely a subordinate said that they were not sure what he said, but I heard him, so I was sure. What I do not understand is what on earth he meant. I do not know what the Prime Minister's spokesman meant when he slapped down—I believe that that is the phrase-the Lord Chancellor. I would not like to try doing it myself, but he apparently did so. I do not know what the Home Secretary said when he stood with the Attorney-General and the Lord Chief Justice—
  Mr. Chris Bryant: Waffle.
  Mr. Letwin: Yes, that it is exactly it. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Nobody in the United Kingdom has the slightest idea what the Government's policy is on the sentencing of burglars, but the burglars are beginning to get an idea. Their idea is roughly that, on the whole, except in appropriate circumstances, as the Prime Minister said—we do not know what those circumstances are—they should not expect to go to jail. That is, of course, if they are investigated. If they are not investigated they are unlikely to go to jail because they will not be caught in the first place. However, if they are caught, and thus among the unlucky few who have been investigated, they might go to jail, but they will not.

  417
  Perhaps they will under appropriate circumstances or after the second or third time that they have been caught.
  Ian Lucas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Letwin: I shall give way shortly in anticipation of some blinding insight into the Government's policy.
  I have been jesting, but there is a serious issue. Confusion has been sown, affecting a subject that is not a laughing matter for many of our constituents. They regard burglary as serious and they want to be protected against it. They have noticed what we, the Home Secretary and his statisticians and researchers have noticed. The Home Office has paid for a thorough survey, entailing great expense, of sentencing policy and its effects on crime. Lo and behold, it shows that burglary is the one crime that tends to be significantly affected by sentencing policy. It shows exactly the same as the British crime survey and recorded crime figures.
  That is why I said to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that we would return to the efforts of my right hon. and learned Friend the current shadow Chancellor. From the moment he put pressure on the judiciary to increase sentences for burglary, the trend decreased. According to the BCS, that trend levelled off from 2000 and the burglary rate started rising.
  The announcements, counter-announcements, unannouncements and disannouncements of the past week will affect burglary statistics badly and they are therefore no laughing matter. They will affect our constituents adversely.
  Ian Lucas: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that sentencing individual burglars in individual cases should be a matter for the individual judge who has heard the facts?
  Mr. Letwin: Yes, but—[Interruption.] No, I unequivocally agree with the hon. Gentleman, but guidelines exist, and the Lord Chief Justice currently sets them. Under the Criminal Justice Bill, a sentencing council will set them, with some consultation with Parliament. We shall propose amendments. It is time to remove Ministers—of all parties—from the position, which they have held for many years, of well-informed commentators on sentencing policy, holding forth from the public bar of a public house. It is time for the House to take charge of sentencing policy guidelines.
  The judgments of judges in individual cases are properly the preserve of the judiciary, but I have long considered the matter in the past year and the events of the past week have crystallised my view.
  Mr. Blunkett: Does that constitute a sudden spasm, a new initiative, a knee-jerk reaction or has it taken 18 months, the Bill, our proposals for sentencing guidelines and our decision to involve Parliament for the
  418
  right hon. Gentleman to make the amazing intellectual leap to wishing to ensure that Parliament has control over sentencing guidelines?
  Mr. Letwin: Oddly enough, none of those things. I began speaking about the matter in July, having begun considering it in March.
  Mr. Bryant: Began.
  Mr. Letwin: No. "Having begun" is a form of the verb that takes one backwards, not forwards, for the hon. Gentleman's education.
  In December, I issued a statement that it was official Tory party policy to move an amendment to the effect that I described. Given the circumstances, I do not blame the Home Secretary for not noticing. However, I hope that we can reach consensus on the matter and give the Government room for manoeuvre. I accept that some members of the judiciary will be critical of the step that I would like to take. However, I hope that creating a clear distinction between an individual judge in a case and policy guidelines means that we achieve a lasting settlement.
  I am conscious that the Home Secretary's problems with, for example, gun crime, are not unprecedented.
  As things stand, Parliament has but three options. It can set a maximum that has little effect in practice, and is modulated through the guidelines into whatever the then judiciary seek to modulate it into; it can set mandatory sentences that are too rigid to accommodate the judgment of an individual judge; or it can set mandatory sentences with exceptions that quickly become the norm through policy guidelines set by the Lord Chief Justice.
  None of those methods is satisfactory. Our fellow citizens expect that, when they elect us and send us to this place, they will influence not just the legislative definition of crimes but the effect of so defining them. The ordinary person believes, I suspect, what I believed 18 months ago, before I took on this crazy job. I was under the lunatic misapprehension that Parliament set the basic sentencing framework and judges then interpreted it in individual cases, but that is not so at present, and it is the state of affairs that we need to achieve.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a case that arose in my constituency last week? Gary Callaby admitted three offences of burglary, one of theft and one of arson, and asked for four other offences of burglary to be taken into consideration. The judge said that if the latest guidelines had not come out, it would have been a prison sentence. There is one burglar in my constituency who is laughing, and one judge who is extremely angry about the way in which his hands were tied.
  Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend makes a serious point, which relates to a specific case. If he and I were judges, we would be bound to pay the most solemn attention to the guidelines produced by the Lord Chief Justice. That is the problem: there is a disjunction between the view of the very senior judiciary and what I think is the view of about 98 per cent. of our fellow citizens, and—this is the

  419
  irony—the joint view, I suspect, of the Home Secretary and myself. Both sides of the House overwhelmingly support a particular stance on the guidelines; many of the judiciary themselves support it; a vast weight of the population supports it; yet we are powerless to bring it about, which cannot be right.
  We find ourselves in a bizarre situation. The current Prime Minister came to power with some great slogans. "Education, education, education" I think I remember, dimly. I recall also "from welfare to work". Above all, however, I recall "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". That is well on the way to becoming this Government's version of "Crisis? What crisis?".
  The fact is that we have a crisis of police demoralisation. We have a crisis of confidence, or lack of confidence, of the people in the criminal justice system. We have a crisis of old people too frightened to leave their homes, who are in effect subject to a life sentence. We have a crisis of young mothers who dare not take their children to playgrounds. We have a crisis of streets and neighbourhoods that are under the control of gun gangs, pimps and drug dealers. We have a crisis that amounts to a retreat of civilisation and a loss of control of the streets for the honest citizen. The Government are failing on crime, and in so doing they are failing English society.
  4.8 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the steps the Government has taken and continues to take to reform all aspects of law enforcement including increasing police numbers to record levels and the 6.1 per cent. increase in police funding for 2003–04; further welcomes the steps the Government is taking to modernise the criminal justice system through the coherent long-term strategies and the introduction of the Criminal Justice Bill; notes that for the last five years crime rates have fallen by 27 per cent. according to the British Crime Survey, that burglary has reduced by 39 per cent. since 1997 and that the chances of becoming a victim of crime are as low as at any time in the last 20 years; and particularly supports the decisive action being taken by the Government to tackle street crime and the rise in gun-related crime."
  I ask the House to reject a motion, which, if it were not so serious, would be laughable. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has made a supreme bid to outdo the leader of the Liberal Democrats in joining "Have I Got News For You". I was going to say "Drop the Dead Donkey", but after last week I had probably better not.
  Let's face it: every time a set of statistics is published, every time a high-profile crime is committed, people believe the evidence of the front page but not the evidence placed before them. It behoves us, in a debate of this sort, to get to grips with the real issues. The right hon. Gentleman said, after an amusing interlude, that this was not a laughing matter, and indeed it is not. He said that confusion did "bad things" to the message to potential burglars, and of course he is right. He rightly said that we need to take much more control of the guidance that goes out, and we do. That is why we put such measures in the Criminal Justice Bill and published
  420
  them in the White Paper last July. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman was thinking about that at the time. I do not remember him saying anything when we published the White Paper or the Bill, but I am happy to be corrected on that.
  Confusion damages the signal that is sent out, and, therefore, the culture on the streets. The Lord Chief Justice is, rightly, independent—the judiciary must remain independent and I challenge any Opposition Member to suggest otherwise—and he will be as concerned as I am, and as I am sure the Lord Chancellor is, that we get the message right and that it is clear. I am sure that he will contribute, as I intend to do this afternoon, to ensuring that the guidance that has gone out is clarified, and that judges who misunderstand or misinterpret it are left in no doubt that there is a very clear policy coming out as part of that guidance.
  Simon Hughes: I absolutely agree with the Home Secretary; it is very important that accurate statistics are given, so that the media cannot misrepresent the truth. That being the case, what does he say to the chairman of the Statistics Commission, Sir John Kingman, who wrote to him on 1 October I quote accurately-to say:
  "We were, however, concerned that you had felt forced by ill-based comments to publish a set of interim figures on street crime in what could be seen as a selective fashion, rather than sticking to your guns and waiting for the national statistics. Not all management information can or should be published, but it is important that when such data are published, whether they are national statistics or not, that there should be no suspicion that Government is picking and choosing, publishing the good news and not the bad."
  Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely with that last sentiment. To publish only good news and not bad would be a luxury I could not afford, and one that we do not have. No one could pretend that we have hidden the facts. This time last year, we made it absolutely clear that we believed that street crime—robbery and snatch theft—had reached a point at which direct intervention was required, and, it has to be said, that intervention was successful. The reason that we published information in the autumn was precisely to avoid the complete untruth that was being perpetrated at the time and is being perpetrated now, namely, that the street crime initiative had failed. In March last year the main Opposition party declared it another initiative on another day, and that it was bound to be a failure, but by October, its own publication had acknowledged that it had succeeded. The reason that we published a full evaluation of the first period of the full street crime programme after six months was precisely because we had said that within six months we would reverse the trend, and that the incidences of robbery and snatch theft would fall. They have, and they are. The statistics that we published last Thursday showed a 10 per cent. drop in robbery figures. So the straight lies that were being told last week, and reiterated and perpetrated, for instance by the leader of the Conservative party on "The World at One" on Friday, when he simply lied [Interruption.]—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We had best have temperate language in the House. I would ask the Home Secretary to withdraw that remark. The right hon. Gentleman is a Member of this House.
  Mr. Blunkett: Of course, at your request, Mr Speaker, I will.

  421
  Let me put it another way. The Leader of the official Opposition completely misunderstood and misinterpreted the statistics that had been published the day before, by declaring that all sectors of crime had gone up when the vast majority of sectors of crime had just been shown to have come down. According to the official statistics, burglary has come down by 39 per cent. since 1997, and, according to the British recorded crime survey—the largest and most highly respected such survey in the world—has come down over the previous 12 months to September by 7 per cent. Street robbery has come down, and the police are proud of their record in terms of what they have done to deal with street robbery over the past nine months. I am proud of them as well, because they have made this work. If, however, someone says that street robbery has risen when it has fallen, I presume that they have either misinterpreted the statistics, that they have a problem with numeracy, or that they are just trying to make mischief. I presume, Mr. Speaker, that that language is acceptable to the whole House.
  Mr. David Cameron: The Lord Chancellor said on the radio that the Home Secretary agrees with the guidance given by the Lord Chief Justice on the sentencing of burglars. Was he right to say that?
  Mr. Blunkett: The Lord Chancellor was perfectly right to say that he, the Attorney-General and I had agreed with the Lord Chief Justice last March on a clear statement on sentencing, which followed the clear statement on sentencing that I made on 5 July, a month after taking over as Home Secretary and when we had the first ever national probation conference. I spelled out my intentions clearly, which were to ensure that we reduce the incidence of crime and, in particular, reoffending with the aim of cutting the number of people who go to prison through ensuring that they no longer commit crimes, rather than having the objective of sending more people to prison who then reoffend and have to be sent to prison again. I repeat that, because, in my view, it is straight common sense.
  I also believe that those who commit repeat crimes should, per se, be sent to custody. The introduction of custody minus was not included in the Halliday report, but it is, I think, a proposal that has commanded support across the House. I say "I think" because a number of proposals that commanded support across the House on 4 December appear not to command the support of the whole House just over a month later, even though the official Opposition did not vote against the Criminal Justice Bill on Second Reading as they agree with a large proportion of what we are putting forward.
  Mr. William Cash(Stone): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: Let me finish on sentencing before I let the hon. Gentleman intervene. Let us get it on the record properly.
  For the first time, we set out in the legislation the objective of sentencing, which is to ensure that our streets are safer whereby those who are dangerous sexual and violent offenders are put away, and put away for longer, and action is taken when they are away to ensure that they do not reoffend if and when they come
  422
  out. That is clear and I hope that anyone could agree with it. Those who have committed repeat offences—that includes committing a new offence for the first time—should expect to go to prison.
  We should expect to mix prison and community sentencing in the way described in the Bill and as I described on 4 February last year at the prison governors' conference—in a new, imaginative way to avoid reoffending. We should ensure reparation to the victim. We must ensure that we tackle the scandals of the intimidation of witnesses and the delays and repeat delays that they have to put up with, which ensure that they do not want to take part in the criminal justice system. Where people have offended non-violently for the first time, we make a sensible judgment in the courts, allowing the judiciary—the magistracy and the judges—to decide whether a new range of tougher community sentences should come into play to ensure that such people have the opportunity of rehabilitation.
  It seems to me that, unless we are to go down the road of spending all the money available to us through the criminal justice system on even more prison places year after year, there is no alternative but to have an incremental, stepped approach under which custody minus and custody plus play their part. I heard someone guffawing about tougher community sentences. Community sentences can be not only tough, but as effective as prison in terms of avoiding reoffending if they are rightly designed and if they involve, for instance, proper drug treatment after testing. The investment of £500 million, which we are making, over the next three years will make that real.
  A party that is against increased public expenditure, that has opposed the Chancellor's investment in public services and that would have prevented us from having the new deal programme, which has taken the very young people referred to from the Front Bench by the right hon. Member for West Dorset out of unemployment and despair, has no right whatever to take us to task. We have reduced crime, reduced burglary, reduced robbery and reduced street theft and we have turned around a system in which there was no Youth Justice Board and no programme of long-term investment in reducing young people's reoffending. We have turned around young people's reoffending by 14.6 per cent. That is an official figure, which is on the record—[Interruption.] I am being told that no one believes official statistics. Does that have anything to do with people who believe that they are intelligent, including highly intelligent and thoughtful leader writers for The Times, who have written about the publication of the national crime recording standard—recently revamped by chief constables, not us, so that it is more transparent and involves more recording, for example on CCTV, as well as crimes otherwise recorded? There is more recording, of course, because there are more police to undertake recording and greater confidence that they will do something. Who would believe that a leader writer for The Times would be so puzzled as to suggest that publishing that recording standard alongside the British crime survey, involving a 40,000 sample, was a deliberate ploy to confuse the British people? The answer is anyone who had not read previous leaders in The Times —for three years, they have been pressing us to publish both figures-or anyone who had not read previous editors of The Times,

  423
  such as Simon Jenkins, who pressed us to use the British crime survey rather than the national crime recording standard because it is more accurate and is not subject to the vagaries of recording methods.
  Michael Fabricant: Do not knock the media.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am not—I am taking up the point that no one believes the figures. Is it any surprise that that is so when people who have the intelligence to know better suggest that official statistics are either confusing or fiddled?
  Mr. Cash: Does the Home Secretary remember that during an interview on the "Today" programme about first-time offenders, and in the context of the agreement between the Lord Chief Justice and the Attorney-General, the Lord Chancellor used the words
  "only as a last resort".
  Does the Home Secretary agree with that statement?
  Mr. Blunkett: For first-time offenders, I agree entirely and have just said so. I have made it absolutely clear that people who have committed non-violent offences for the first time should be considered for tough community sentences or drug rehabilitation—that is not a mixed message. The right hon. Member for West Dorset, started off by saying that I would agree with him—I do, on the importance of community policing and the role of the community. I agree with what he said on the "Today" programme in December, which was reprinted in a number of newspapers. He said that
  "if we have serious community sentencing"—
  an Opposition Member just guffawed when I suggested that—
  "if people were engaged in things which were tough, if there was real rehabilitation for the drug addicts, then I think there is a great deal to be said for trying to distinguish between first-time burglars…and persistent violent criminals."
  I have this on the record. Surprise, surprise, on 9 January the right hon. Gentleman had changed his mind. When Jim Naughtie quoted his own words back to him, he said that, no, he did not have much sympathy with the idea, although he went on to say that he was looking carefully and learning. He had obviously changed his mind between the third week in December—when, in a spirit of Christmas cheer, he was going to give first-time offenders a chance—and 9 January, when it was expedient not to do so. That is the truth.
  Mr. Letwin: I am going to do something that the Home Secretary may or may not be surprised by. He is right: I changed my mind. Let me explain why. I started looking at what had happened to burglary, and I found that, since 1992, with more and longer custodial sentences, burglary rates, unlike those for many other crimes, really responded. That was the evidence from the Home Office's own publications. I hope that he will now join me and change his mind, too, because when the facts tell us that custodial sentences can impede burglary, we should listen.
  Mr. Blunkett: There are times, I hope, when I am prepared to change my mind. Indeed, I can think of at
  424
  least one in the past 18 months. However, I cannot remember changing my mind within a fortnight about something that I had said on the radio.
  Mr. Bryant: Mixed messages.
  Mr. Blunkett: Yes, it would be a terribly mixed message, because if the right hon. Gentleman were Home Secretary, he would have said something before Christmas and then, having heard the Lord Chief Justice, he would have thought about it, then he would have contradicted the Lord Chief Justice, who would then have had to go back to the position that he had held in the first place, before the right hon. Gentleman had had time to think about it.
  Mr. Letwin: The Home Secretary has now made my case for Parliament to consider and decide on the sentencing guidelines. Had we been in a position—as I hope he will agree that, through an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, we need to be—to debate these matters properly instead of having to react to a comment from the Lord Chief Justice one fine morning, we could have come to a settled view after sensible democratic debate. That is one of the reasons why I have become convinced that we need to make such a change.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am very pleased, because I do not disagree at all, other than to say that the suggestion about the Sentencing Guidelines Council was mine, not the right hon. Gentleman's—and it is in the Bill. I give him this pledge. I am very happy for Opposition Members in Committee to table amendments to strengthen the role of the Sentencing Guidelines Council vis-à-vis Parliament. Let us debate it, not least because, a year last July, when I talked about sentencing and we published the White Paper, I said that I would be happy for Opposition parties to make proposals on sentencing. That was part of the nationwide consultation process.
  We all suffer amnesia at one point or another. In chiding me about minimum sentences for the illegal carrying of guns, the right hon. Gentleman had a little moment of amnesia, having forgotten that on 2 December, before I went into hospital, I made it clear in Home Office questions, in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), that we were in the process of responding to the chief constables' call for a five-year minimum sentence.
  Mr. Graham Allen: I thank my right hon. Friend for saying again, as he did on Second Reading, that he is prepared to entertain rational, sensible change to make the Criminal Justice Bill a better Bill. That has been his position right the way through. I hope that he will allow sensible amendments not only from Opposition Members, but from his own colleagues. Many of us feel that any sentencing council should include members of the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary, and that had we had such a council, with all our political arms represented, some of the strange decisions that individual members of the

  425
  judiciary appear to have made might not have taken place. I thank my right hon. Friend again for his warm expression towards open government.
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall weigh those commendatory words very carefully. I am in favour of fewer but good amendments, rather than lots of them, and the Committee will no doubt share that view.
  Simon Hughes: This is a very important issue. As it happens, today I spoke to some circuit judges about how one establishes a sentencing guidelines council that reflects the community at large. Will the Home Secretary look seriously at a proposal that, unlike the current one, does not require all nominees to be nominated by the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice or the Home Secretary? There should be some way to enable people to put their own names forward, and to enable those who do not hold high office to choose who sits on such a body. Such people should range from 18-year-olds to 80-year-olds, so that the body is really representative of the public at large.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am in favour of trying to ensure that we get people on to the Sentencing Guidelines Council who reflect the wider views, age and make-up of the community whom we serve. Someone has to decide who sits on this body, and certain people—the Government—have to take responsibility for the medium and long-term consequences, including the reaction of the judiciary. We do have a separation of powers, and we walk a tightrope in terms of maintaining it. I say to the whole House that it is no good someone's being in favour of the independence of a particular sector of our balanced constitution one minute—or one fortnight—and being against it the next, when it is expedient to change their mind.
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way again—he is being very generous—as we are discussing a very important point and we are near to making progress. Our proposal is not that we should make some minor or major alterations to the Sentencing Guidelines Council, but that Parliament should take the power to set the guidelines. That is a critical distinction, which observes the independence of the judiciary—in the sense of the utter independence of an individual judge in an individual case—but gives to Parliament the right to set the guidelines. Will the Home Secretary consider that proposal?
  Mr. Blunkett: I certainly would not rule it out, and for this reason. Often—although not in every single detail, and not in respect of every one of the thousands of sentencing possibilities—for major sentences the House does take that power. What Parliament expects to be done is included in legislation, and that is what we are doing in respect of the Criminal Justice Bill. We are doing that by toughening up enormously on the most dangerous violent and sexual offenders, and I expect us to do so through legislation on sex offenders and sex offences that we will bring forward shortly. So the principle of Parliament's deciding on particular aspects of sentencing is already established; however, the extent to which it could cope with the work currently undertaken by the advisory panel—in future, it will be undertaken by the Sentencing Guidelines Council—is an interesting and moot point.
  426
  I know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), will want to mull over this issue before we reach the point in Committee where we have to consider how many hours are available in the day, and how many Members—on both sides of the House—would be able to spend their time on this issue. However, getting the principles right is unexceptionable, and we should do so for the sake of the British people's confidence in the criminal justice system, for the legitimacy of our democracy, and for the credibility of Parliament itself. I said all that on 4 December, when we moved the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill.
  Mr. Allen rose —
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd rose
  —
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), as I have yet to do so.
  Mr. Llwyd: I am much obliged to the Home Secretary, and I am listening carefully to what he has to say. A moment ago, he said that good rehabilitation is vital and he is absolutely right, but what would be his advice to sentencers in Wales, where there are fewer than 40 rehabilitation beds throughout the country?
  Mr. Blunkett: We should join together in the variety of funding streams and constitutional responsibilities that lie between Westminster and the Assembly in Wales, not merely in terms of those directly engaged in rehabilitation, but—as the shadow Home Secretary correctly said—in terms of investment in drug treatment and rehabilitation. Common ground would exist there, as it would on a number of the issues that we debated on 4 December, on which we were at one.
  Mr. Allen: I thank my right hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way again. Normally the House does what the Government of the day decide. If the Floor makes the decision, it will in effect be the Home Secretary who has the power to make changes to sentencing. He talks about mulling this over; I hope that he will also "mullin" it over with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. There are ways of involving the House other than the Floor, which is often in the pocket of the Executive. Involving the Select Committee might be a way for Parliament, the Executive and the judiciary to decide on a sentencing policy that will command public support and consensus.
  Mr. Blunkett: I reaffirm that I am certainly in nobody's pocket, and will remain that way for as long as possible. I remember responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on this point. I am very sympathetic to the idea of the Select Committee taking a powerful role in this area, and I think that we are moving towards a consensus.
  To give the rest of the House the chance to debate this, let me deal quickly with the two central issues raised by the right hon. Member for West Dorset, the first of

  427
  which concerned community policing. It was a year ago, almost to the day, that I asked Bill Braddon, the former commissioner for police in New York, now in Los Angeles, to speak to the second of the major meetings of all chief constables and police authorities that I had called in London. Bill Braddon spelled out his view of community policing and how we need to tackle antisocial behaviour so that we send the right signals to those who would otherwise grow into organised crime and therefore violent and, eventually, gun crime. In his view, we needed to ensure that the police were on the street, that they used the variation of the comstat system being developed in a number of police authorities in Britain, and that not only should we increase police numbers, we should consider, as the New York police did, integrating different elements of policing. That is why we were in favour of community support officers.
  All those things we have done. The 5,000 extra police officers whom I expect to have, over and above those we inherited, by later this year, the commitment that I have made for another 2,500 on top of the commitment for another 130,000 police officers for this time next year are not only articles of good faith but represent the reality of increased police officers available on the beat. The O'Dowd report on slimming down bureaucracy, the massive cut that we have already made in the amount of paperwork, the "Diary of a Police Officer" and the 400 examples drawn from it, which led to the O'Dowd report, are all examples of removing unnecessary paperwork and data collection. However, data collection still needs to exist. Understanding how we operate intelligence policing and the Comstat system depends on having the information in the first place. New technology, our investment in the new airwave system, people's ability to communicate adequately and quickly and forensic science all make a difference if—and this is the real issue—the chief constable and the immediate command are prepared to take on the challenge.
  There is a second difficulty with people saying that they want to be independent of Government In one breath and the tools of Government in the next. The difficulty that we have with the judiciary is mirrored by the police. Everyone, it appears, wants the police to be independent of Government, particularly the Home Office. Opposition Members speak about it all the time—they reiterated it this afternoon. They want the Home Office to be hands—off. They criticise the development of a standards unit. They criticise the direction that we give in the national policing plan. They criticise prioritisation, which includes everything that has been spoken about both today and at Home Office questions and over and over in debate. They cheer when chief constables have a go, as they did when the right hon. Member for West Dorset mentioned Chris Fox, incoming chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers. Let me quote what Chris Fox said so that we may all understand just what the position is and so that we are not total hypocrites. He said that new laws allow me to send in "hit squads", and that I have set a growing list of priorities for chiefs to concentrate on. He added:
  "The police's autonomy is being eroded and it's a dangerous development…Any student of political history will tell you that the first thing a revolutionary state does is take hold of the police."
  428
  I have read that out only because I want to reassure the Labour party in the weeks ahead that it at last has a "revolutionary state" at its disposal.
  What people really want is a police force that responds precisely to the priorities seen and felt by every Member of the House, irrespective of political party. They want antisocial behaviour to be clamped down on. They want a feeling of respect and safety on the street. They want their homes to be safe. They want the police to tackle burglary and to investigate wherever there is any evidence that can be followed up.
  As it happens, that is what the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis had in mind on 2 December when, independently from the Home Office and without interference from Ministers, he prioritised after an experiment in two boroughs. In one of those boroughs, the conviction rate for burglary increased by 21 per cent. Should I interfere? Should I tell him to reissue the guidance that he sent out on 2 December? The House cannot have it both ways. It cannot be that passing legislation is interference. It cannot be that issuing guidelines, creating a national policing plan and asking local police authorities to engage with chief constables on real prioritisation on behalf of the community are all considered to be interference, while Opposition Members demand in the next breath that I introduce community policing, order police on to the streets and change the policing priorities of chief constables. They cannot have it both ways.
  Nor can the Opposition have it both ways on the second of the priorities set out by the right hon. Member for West Dorset. We cannot invest in getting young people back into work through the new deal and then condemn it and say that there would not have been the funding for it. We cannot have a Youth Justice Board and then say that we would pull the money out. We cannot say that we would cut public spending, then demand more and more public spending, including £500 million on top of what we have announced, which, before Christmas, the right hon. Gentleman said he would invest in drug treatment. I do not know where he is going to get that money.
  Mr. Letwin: Not on top, but instead of.
  Mr. Blunkett: Instead of what?
  Mr. Letwin rose
  —
  Mr. Blunkett: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that we should go back to having fewer police, as was happening in 1997 when we came into office? There were no community support officers, street wardens had been condemned, there was lower investment in probation in the community and less investment in prisons. That is what was happening. We will have 3,500 more prison places on stream by the end of this year than we did last spring when it was announced in the Budget that we had

  429
  extra money. All that has cost us, but it would cost the public dear if we did not do it. Let us stop the hypocrisy—
  Mr. Letwin: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: Well done. That was just like Sheffield Wednesday on Saturday afternoon in that the right hon. Gentleman almost got me offside.
  Mr. Letwin: I am delighted. Before the right hon. Gentleman works himself up into too much of a lather, let me tell him that I shall argue in the next debate this evening that the Government's spending on getting people into contact with about 236,000 treatment agencies is heavily misconceived. That money should be used in the way that we have described. That would happen to cost less rather than more, and we would be able to spend even more than we want to without exceeding the right hon. Gentleman's budget for drugs.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am just as cheered by that intervention as I was on Saturday afternoon when Sheffield Wednesday was losing 2–0 but won 3–2, with a brilliant goal to put us into the lead.
  The right hon. Gentleman has not taken us any further forward so my diatribe will continue: more police; more community support officers; more street wardens; more prison places; more investment in probation; the Youth Justice Board doing the job we asked of it; and above all a changing culture and climate. That change involves parents and families and a different atmosphere in schools; it involves hope for young people, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, spelled out today with reference to the "splash" schemes that we introduced last summer and our investment in prevention and diversion.
  We are ensuring that there is an understanding between the Government and the independent judiciary and that the messages are clear and that they really count: If people commit violent, dangerous sexual offences, are repeat offenders, cause havoc or fail to avoid reoffending, they will go to prison. First-time offenders will be given a chance, which will be backed up by support to repair the damage so that they can put themselves on the straight and narrow.
  We want to get the message across: tough where we have to be and common sense where it is needed. We need a stop to the contradictions and, yes, the sneering coming from the Opposition. We need to get rid of hypocrisy and in its place send everyone the clear message that we are getting tough on crime, and that we will not get knocked off course by silly suggestions that thought-through policies are knee-jerk reactions because someone has not read about them in Hansard or has not checked their computer to find out what was said. The policies are sensible and address the needs of the British people so that there will be a reduction in crime and common sense will prevail.
  4.46 pm
  Simon Hughes: Following last week's publication of the recent crime figures, a debate on the criminal justice system and law
  430
  and order is especially timely. To that extent, I welcome the debate initiated by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and his colleagues.
  Despite some positive long-term trends, it is clear to us all that crime is a hugely unwelcome feature of everyday life throughout Britain. Statistics published last week show that one person in four was a victim of crime last year—an unacceptably high level.
  I want my remarks to be fair, so I must say that the Government have done some good things—but they have not done enough to reassure the public that problems are being brought under control and that crime is going down. The statistics are abundantly clear: the public are not persuaded that we are moving in the right direction. The result, sadly, is that people are losing faith in both the police and the criminal justice system. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who, like me, is a member of the Standing Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill, regularly makes the point that we are all trying to restore faith in the twin pillars of a civilised society: the belief that the police can and will do their job properly and that, thereafter, the criminal justice system will do its job properly; both might be trying hard, but at present they are not succeeding.
  In our view, which we share with the Conservative Opposition, one of the problems is that the Government keep trying to tinker with the system. There have been hundreds of targets and hundreds of headline-grabbing initiatives, but they do not amount to a coherent strategy. There have been too many instances of the Government manipulating the figures to try to make things sound the way they want them to sound. I gave the Home Secretary an example of that when, in respect of something that happened only three months ago, I referred to the remarks of the chairman of the Statistics Commission.
  After this debate, I hope that we shall achieve a better consensus, based on independently produced facts and figures. I pointed out to the previous Home Secretary, now the Foreign Secretary, who was keen that we should agree on such things, that if we could reach agreement on the statistics and the evidence about what does or does not work, we would make huge progress. I hope that that is the wish of the Government and I commend the work of Home Office research, development and statistics directorate. If everyone read its work rather than the front page of the tabloids, we should make much more progress.
  Policies must be seen to be fair to all people in society, because the poorest often suffer the most. The most deprived areas may suffer from the most crime, but they also have the most victims. Our police service must be much more effective at deterring and catching criminals. The clear-up rate is one in four across the country and one in eight in London, so the statistical odds for those who want to try crime are pretty good and they offer a high incentive to do so.
  We need an effective sentencing system. If someone asked me to give a quote or a soundbite, I would replace the soundbite that the Prime Minister used when he was shadow Home Secretary—"tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"—with "effective on crime, effective on the causes of crime", because sometimes what sounds

  431
  simplistically tough may not be nearly as effective as something that initially does not sound effective but proves to be so in practice.
  Mr. Allen: Achieving consensus on which statistics are accurate or even on the need for some new form of sentencing, whatever form the Sentencing Guidelines Council takes, might be classic territory for pre-legislative scrutiny. Instead of hurrying Bills into Committee, as it is apparently necessary to do, it would be better to have at least four, five, six, seven or eight weeks during which we could determine some of the core issues without partisanship. Surely that would be a better way to proceed than the sometimes rather sterile, lawyerly debates that we have in Committee.
  Simon Hughes: I agree. To their credit, the Government asked Mr. Halliday to review sentencing and Lord Justice Auld to review the criminal justice process, after which they published a White Paper. I compliment them on the fact that there has been much pre-legislative activity, but it would have been better if there had been pre-legislative scrutiny as well.
  Another suggestion is that bodies such as the Select Committee on Home Affairs could nominate people to the Sentencing Guidelines Council, thereby ensuring cross-party agreement. That would command more confidence than the current proposal. However much the Home Secretary does such things on the best evidence available, by definition they are perceived as being done by a party office holder, and I am sure that we could do better than that.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Is it not the case that parts of the Criminal Justice Bill have not been scrutinised in Committee because the Government's timetable fails to make enough time available? In fact, far from having pre-legislative scrutiny, we are enacting legislation that will not have been adequately scrutinised by a perfectly co-operative Standing Committee.
  Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will know that I agree with him about that. I see the Committee Whip on the Treasury Bench, and it is not at all his fault; he has been entirely co-operative and reasonable. We are constrained, and since the election the Home Office's legislative programme has been the greatest victim of such constraints. Bill after Bill has not been fully debated in the House of Commons. Additional amendments have been tabled in this House or the House of Lords, and large parts of Bills have not been debated at all. Whatever we think about the policies, that is clearly an absolutely crass way to legislate on issues of law and order, liberty and freedom, which matter to all of us and to all those whom we represent.
  I wish to mention one other general matter. Whether we are talking about the big villains or the little villains, we should not tolerate a lawless society. Violence must be met with a presumption of custody, as I have said at my party's conference and in other places.
  I would add three other categories for which the presumption should be custody. Those who drive in such a way that they risk and sometimes cause injury or
  432
  death should expect to go away. Many families are victims of so-called road accidents that are actually not accidents at all; they involve intentional or reckless activity by drivers. Those involved in child pornography should expect to go away, because it is such an abuse of innocence and childhood. Those who interfere with the course of justice should also expect to go away, so that everybody knows the score. I would include in the violence category those who burgle residential property when they know that there is somebody in the property or that there is a risk that somebody is in the property. For me, that crosses the line between something that does not personally affect or threaten somebody psychologically, mentally or physically, and something that does.
  Mr. Cameron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Simon Hughes: No.
  This is a difficult area, and it has been the subject of great debate recently. There are differences. I accept the attempts being made to make sure that the first-time burglar does not go to prison on that occasion, and I shall explain why that would be the wrong course. When somebody enters a property and frightens an elderly lady out of her wits, however, the egg-shell skull principle, as it used to be called in civil law, should apply: one must take a place as one finds it. If there are kids, people on their own, elderly or vulnerable people, the offender must expect the courts to punish him. That is why I am sympathetic to the constituency case raised by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), which was reported in The Sunday Times, where an offender was returned to live three doors from the person whose house he had burgled. The courts should have taken that into account: I t is improper for the victim of a first-time burglar to feel that that person is at liberty, three doors away, having been into their house only a few months previously.
  Mr. Allen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for being generous in giving way to me for a second time. One of the comments that we hear most when we are in our constituencies is that a sentence does not mean what is stated when it is passed. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that, in respect of the offences that he has listed or others that the Government may care to add, standard sentences should be set out in a schedule to the Bill that is being considered Upstairs? Everybody would therefore know exactly what the sentence would be in a normal case, and that information would be available in one place. Would he propose that to the Government, along with me?
  Simon Hughes: There are several things with which I hope the hon. Gentleman would agree. First, we must get all the legislation in one place so that it can be seen and read easily. At the moment, we struggle with amending Bills, and it is difficult to find things, which is unhelpful. Secondly, a penal code would be helpful—which, to his credit, the Home Secretary favours and which I support, as he has heard me say. I am in favour of there being easy access to information on what the maximum sentence should be for each crime, and to what the guidelines say that the sentence should be. I support both those proposals.

  433
  I am clear, however, as Liberal Democrats have always been clear, that there should never be mandatory sentences. We have argued against such sentences for murder and in respect of lesser crimes. In the case of murder, there is all the difference in the world between somebody who plans to go out and shoot somebody with whom they have had a row the previous day and somebody who kills their husband after 30 years of domestic violence. It is entirely inappropriate to have the same automatic starting sentence for those two incidents.
  Offenders who do not use violence, however, should expect that a custodial sentence would not be the presumption. I agree with the Home Secretary that we must guard against going down the road of arguing for prison to be the answer to a whole list of offences, especially non-violent ones. For those offences, the option should be supervision and treatment in the community wherever possible. To pick up the point of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North—this is why the Halliday reforms are welcome—we should have a sentencing system in which the first half of a custodial sentence is served inside, but the second half, which is equally part of the sentence, is served outside, as the Government, to their credit, are proposing, by and large, in their sentencing reforms. What has been hopeless in the past is that people have thought that their sentence finished the moment they came out through the prison door, but the reality is that, without support, supervision, probation, drug treatment or alcohol treatment they have started to reoffend. The sentence should continue for an equal period, or at least a significant period, outside as well as inside prison. That should be part of the sentence, and the offender should know that. If he reoffends in that period, he should expect to go back to court to be dealt with.
  My final general point relates to an issue that has been debated a great deal since the terrible killing of two young women on new year's eve in your part of the world, Madam Deputy Speaker. Those who carry knives or guns should absolutely expect to go away. Society has gone down the road so that people fuelled by drink or drugs often think that it is acceptable to carry such weapons. Ten years ago, they would have carried knives, but now it is more likely that they will carry guns. It is never acceptable to carry such weapons. There is a difference, however, between a 16-year-old who is given a gun to hold for 10 seconds while his cousin goes into a shop to pick up a newspaper and the 21-year-old who goes out carrying a machine gun as part of a gang. We must distinguish between the two, but the presumption should be that anyone who goes out armed and who is caught will lose his liberty.
  The messages must be clear. Anyone who is caught carrying a gun or a knife can expect to lose his liberty. Burglars who terrorise or intimidate people in their own homes should not expect to escape custody either. If we get the measures for such crimes right, dealing with low-level disorder will follow. We will be able to start work on the causes of criminal misbehaviour. As the right hon. Member for West Dorset rightly said, and as experience in New York and other places has shown, criminal behaviour often starts with children of five, six, seven or eight who live in disordered homes with bad parenting and no appropriate discipline at home.
  434
  The test is whether the punishments are effective. Sometimes the better punishment is to provide an alternative that offers a good option for lawful activity. That does not necessarily mean locking someone up or treating him in a disciplinary fashion. Other options can be effective in dealing with crime and with the causes of crime if they are used to deal with people who are young when they start their criminal behaviour. We must send clear messages, but I fear that the messages sent in the past few months have been unclear. However, I believe that we could deal with that problem.
  Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is considerable agreement between us on these matters, but has he considered the statistics that have persuaded me? Burglary is a premeditated crime and the statistics show that the imposition of custodial sentences appears to have had a very significant downward effect on the incidence of burglary as reported in the British crime survey figures and in the reported crime figures for burglary. How does he deal with that point?
  Simon Hughes: I have considered those statistics and I accept that point. Interesting articles appeared in the press this weekend. For example, an article in The Sunday Times by Minette Marrin went through many alternative statistics on what works and what does not. It quoted a set of statistics that suggested that alternatives to custody had a higher success rate than custody. However, other statistics suggest that that is not the case and that the different options have a similar success or failure rate. I accept that there are different rates of success depending on the offence and on whether the alternative to custody was attached to drugs or alcohol treatment, but if we had a clearer idea about what works we would be able to make progress.
  I agree with the Home Secretary that we should criticise those who misrepresent the position. I share his view that, last week, the Leader of the Conservative Opposition and, surprisingly but to a lesser extent, his shadow Home Secretary appeared to get so carried away with the thought that this was a good issue for them that they misrepresented the facts. I do not often criticise the Conservative shadow Home Secretary as he is normally meticulous in his approach to these issues, but my one criticism of him today is that he appeared to show total amnesia when he described the figures published last Thursday as truly terrible. It was a total misrepresentation of the figures that have just been produced independently.
  I am not here to sell other people's products, but I commend the Home Office's statistical bulletin, which clearly sets out the trends. For example, it shows that domestic burglary reached its peak in 1994 and has since gone down or steadied and has not gone up again. For the Conservative motion to claim that the number of burglaries is going up flies completely in the face of the evidence in the bulletin.
  Mr. Letwin: But it is.
  Simon Hughes: Not according to the evidence. The right hon. Gentleman and I are not statisticians, but the figures are clear. All that has happened is that the recorded crime figures show a recent increase, but the British crime survey figures, which are more respected,

  435
  show a decrease. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to page 6 of last week's document. He quoted from another part of it, so presumably we agree that the document is authentic.
  Mr. Letwin: Of course I agree that the document is authentic, including page 10, from which I quoted. The problem is that the British crime survey is woefully deficient in two significant respects because it fails to deal with retail crime and multiple occupation. As a result, it does not tell us the same story as the reported crime figures, other than on a broad-brush scale over a long period. Is not it clear that even after the adjustments for the new reporting system, the reported crime statistics show a significant increase over the past year in domestic burglary and other burglaries?
  Simon Hughes: I am keen to go outside and pore over the documents. I am willing to go by the work carried out by people who produce statistics independently on a regular basis. A big effort has been made to ensure that the statistics are more reliable and produced more frequently. If we want to reassure the public, it is better to concentrate on crimes, such as firearms crime, about which there can be no argument that they have increased. We should not frighten people about crimes, such as vehicle crime, if the evidence clearly shows that the trend is in the other direction.
  The right hon. Gentleman's party has an ongoing problem. Violent crime increased every year when it was in government. There were 2.5 million recorded crimes in 1979. That rose to 4.5 million in 1997, an increase of 81 per cent. The figure peaked at 5.5 million when the Conservatives were in government. In addition, the number of police officers, which had increased, decreased in their last five years in office, contrary to their promises. There were 469 fewer police officers in that period although the Government promised 5,000 more. In London, part of which I represent, there were 1,269 fewer officers. The number of convictions also fell from 1.8 million in 1979 to 1.4 million in 1996. In 1985, there was one conviction for every eight crimes; by 1997, there was only one conviction for every 14 crimes.
  The right hon. Gentleman will try to reinvent his party's policy on law and order, as he should do, but its record in office shows that it presided over an increasingly lawless society. In its last five years in government, police numbers decreased and crime increased, so he does not stand against the background of an effective alternative record when we judge his party's time in office. That is not his fault and I do not blame him personally, but the electorate need to take it into account. When they criticise the Government, which I am happy to do when they get it wrong, they also need to ensure that they do not forget what happened in those 18 years when the Conservatives got it badly wrong.
  Vernon Coaker: I am pleased to say that the number of police officers in Nottinghamshire increased by 10 per cent. in the past three years. On statistics, however, does the hon. Gentleman agree that they are most effective when considered on a local basis? We need to make local statistics more easily available to
  436
  local communities so that they can judge the effectiveness of the police or the crime prevention strategies in their communities. Surely the way to make communities more confident is to enable them to see the statistics for their own area.
  Simon Hughes: Absolutely. My local police force could tell the hon. Gentleman that one of my beefs is that I perpetually say that it is no good merely producing statistics for the past quarter. It has to compare those with the previous quarter, last year and statistics for surrounding areas; otherwise they are meaningless. I have never understood why it is so difficult for the police to produce comparable statistics on a local basis. I simply cannot understand it. It is a great failing that, in the age of the computer, statistics and technology, comparable statistics cannot regularly be produced.
  My final points will, I hope, be encouraging. The Opposition may try to exploit statistics, but the reality is that although crime is far too high, overall crime has been falling since 1995, and violent crime has fallen in some years since then. It is troubling that there was, as the Home Secretary well knows, a huge increase in robberies between 1997 and 2001, and the most troubling statistics are those for reported firearms-related crimes, which is why the Government are right to act, although I am critical of the sequence of their actions.
  In 2001–02, firearms were used in 10,000 recorded crimes—a rise of 35 per cent. Airguns were used in more than 12,000 crimes, which is a rise of 21 per cent., and handguns were used in nearly 6,000 crimes, which is a rise of 46 per cent. We have to deal with knives and guns, but people are now terrified by guns, either because of an encounter with one or because of the fear of an encounter. That is partly why the figures show that so many adults, 35 per cent., believe that crime has increased a lot, and 34 per cent. believe that it has increased a little. Locally, they do not see sufficient police officers, and they do not yet see sufficient numbers of other people, such as neighbourhood wardens and community support officers, doing a policing job, so they do not yet feel that the system has law and order under control.
  Vernon Coaker rose
  —
  Simon Hughes: if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will continue; otherwise I will never get to the end of my speech and he will not have his chance to speak.
  When MORI, a perfectly reputable opinion polling company—it is based in my constituency, so I would probably have had to say that anyway—did its two-yearly survey of my borough, it asked people what they were most concerned about. The poll went through all the usual crimes, beginning with low-level antisocial behaviour, and asked people about their responses and planned reactions to those crimes. One problem, which is now apparent to us all, is that the public have lost confidence in the system's ability to deliver. When asked why they had not reported a crime to the police, 50 per cent. of people said that there was no chance of catching the criminals.
  Until we make the public believe that reporting a crime to the police will deliver a result, they will not have confidence that the criminal justice system works.

  437
  I accept what the Met say they have done, although they have not done what they are represented as having done, but if somebody's home is burgled, a police officer should attend. The least that people can expect is that their home will be subject to proper policing and police support and advice. To send out someone who is not a police officer, or to send nobody, strikes me as an unacceptable response.
  Having made it clear that statistics must be true, I have also, I hope, made it clear that it is for Parliament to set maximum sentences but not specific sentences. Judges should do that, and just as judges must be autonomous if we are to have confidence in the judiciary, so the police must be autonomous. I share the Home Secretary's view expressed today on that, which is why Liberal Democrat Members have fought to resist Home Secretaries' interference with police authorities, commissioners and chief constables. There should be different responses in different places. What may work in Nottinghamshire, South Yorkshire or Dorset, may not work for the Met, and we have to allow the police to respond to their local community. Judges may be criticised, but in my experience politicians command less respect than judges, and if we tried to usurp their role, we would be in trouble.
  I turn now to an idea in which I believe the Home Secretary will be interested, although I understand the personal difficulties in pursuing it. One reason that our justice system is dysfunctional is that we have three Departments running it—the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Law Officers Department. My party has long argued that we ought to follow the model of other countries and have a Ministry of Justice with a Secretary of State or Minister responsible, in the House of Commons, to elected representatives. There would then be a considerable chance of achieving a more co-ordinated set of policies, and we would not hear the Lord Chancellor saying something on the radio one day, followed by a Home Office Minister saying something different the next.
  I have argued that we must not have mandatory sentences. I think that they are wrong in all circumstances, but I hope that I have been clear in saying that we should debate the guidelines. I have also argued that we should very clear about the presumption of what should happen regarding gun use and about the sort of burglaries in respect of which people should expect to lose their liberty. However, the real danger of the war cry of the tabloids is that they are increasingly calling for prison for everything. Prison is the last card that can be played in the criminal justice system; there is no other. Once somebody has gone to prison, no bigger penalty can be used. When that card has been played, by definition, it loses its strength and efficacy.
  Alternatives can work. In Committee, the Solicitor-General has been proposing conditional cautions, with support from the Opposition parties, as an additional weapon in the armoury at the bottom of the scale of punishment. Where there are enough officers to do the job, the probation service is often very good at ensuring that alternatives work in the community. Earlier today, I was at Snaresbrook Crown court, which is the largest such court in England and Wales. The resident judge told me that Snaresbrook regularly has one probation officer for its 18, 19 or 20 courts. One day recently, however, it had no probation officer at all. If the
  438
  Government do not proceed more quickly with the Chancellor's help to beef up the probation service, all the outside prison work will be at risk of being highly ineffective, instead of much more effective.
  I should like publicly to commend the Youth Justice Board. The Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport are right to draw attention to the programmes that it has been running in my constituency and elsewhere, which can divert energetic young people from criminal activity in the holidays and include all sorts of alternative activities that young people can do well, whether they involve drama, music or sport. We need more of those diversionary activities throughout the country.
  As Mr. Giuliani said in New York, one can make a difference, and a difference was made there. However, that requires more police, and I hope that the Home Secretary is now big enough to admit that one of the biggest mistakes that the Labour Government made after their election in 1997 was not to increase police numbers from the beginning. It is not only me who is saying that. The "Narrowing the Justice Gap" document produced by the Government states in very small print, under the title "Recent performance in bringing offences to justice",
  "Because there are so many points in the criminal justice system where a justice gap may occur, when performance gets worse, it can be difficult to pinpoint exactly why that has happened. The fall in police numbers in 1999–2000, which the Government has now reversed, is likely to account for at least part of the widening of the gap."
  I commend the Home Secretary for having record police numbers, which need to increase further, as he knows. However, it was a big mistake—it was not made under his stewardship of the Home Office—to let them decrease for the first three and half years of Labour government. If they had not done so, not nearly so many offences would have been committed and there would not be so much worry about crime.
  Vernon Coaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He is right to point to the welcome increase in police numbers and the fact that that should put more police on the street. Does he agree that we could consider how many extra police are on the street in relation to particular police forces? One police service with 2,000 officers might get 1,600 of them on to the street, while another with the same number might get 1,300 on to the street. Should not we consider that difference in performance and tell people how many operational officers they have got, as well as how many police officers?
  Simon Hughes: Absolutely. Like the hon. Gentleman, all my hon. Friends with all their different police forces know that we need auditing, comparisons and the sharing of best practice. The reality is that merely having more police does not deliver results. It is what they do that counts. I have suggested, including to the Police Federation—it did not like my doing so—that civilians should be allowed to do any jobs that they are capable of doing. That could even include taking witness statements. Volunteers can work on the desk in a police station during the night. As I discovered when I stopped in Exeter once, a volunteer was perfectly able to do the job and could call a police officer if that were needed.

  439
  Lots of jobs can be done in such a way. It is a question not only of more numbers, but of more numbers and more effective use.
  I am proud that we had an early neighbourhood warden scheme in Bermondsey. It has been in operation for a year and a bit and has been hugely effective in reducing graffiti, vandalism, antisocial behaviour, environmental damage and racist attacks. Members of the scheme have been able to do the work on the ground, thus releasing the police for other activities. That means that we are more effective across the board. Although I have argued about powers, I have always supported the family of the police.
  It is important that we do not change Ministers every two seconds and I therefore hope that the Home Secretary remains in post for the remainder of the Government's term of office.[Interruption.] I am serious about that. We need continuity.
  Mr. David Heath: We do not say the same about the Lord Chancellor.
  Simon Hughes: That comment does not need to be made more than once. But I ask the Home Secretary not to believe that an initiative a day keeps the criminal away. It does not. I hope that he will ensure that we aim for medium and long-term solutions, not short-term quick fixes. If the Prime Minister draws up an idea on the back of an envelope to catch people on a Friday night outside the pub, and delivers it in a lecture to academics in Tubingen, I hope that the Home Secretary ensures that it is examined, piloted and tested before it becomes policy—
  Mr. Cameron: And is subsequently ignored.
  Simon Hughes: I ndeed. If we had half the schemes and they were twice as effective, we would have done better than the record of the past four years shows. Labour Members and people outside share that view with Liberal Democrat Members.
  I hope that we can agree about statistics because we must take on the media distortion. I hope that we can agree about what works—that would be productive. I also hope that we can agree about good alternatives to custody and give them the necessary resources. I hope that we all realise that if young people get constructive things to do from their primary school, and if there are more male teachers, mentoring, good role models and much more sport, they have a much better chance of a productive life.
  My colleagues and I are not going to subscribe to talking up the crisis. The Conservative party is trying desperately to rescue itself and it therefore wants to make matters sound worse than they are. However, the weekend poll shows that eight out of 10 members of the public do not believe that the Government have law and order or crime under control. I hope that, from now on, the Government will lead the debate and therefore the media rather than following the media. There is a danger of government by headline; that is not the way to reduce crime.
  5.22 pm
  Ross Cranston: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has no case to answer on the motion. I commend the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) for his dispassionate approach to the problem in his 36 minutes. I hope to adopt the same approach in my 10 minutes.
  Let me begin by dealing with the figures because the Opposition tabled their motion on that basis. The recorded crime figures involve what the police set down about crimes. Any first year criminology student can say that that depends on the way in which the figures are recorded and the recorders' behaviour. For example, it depends on whether control staff deal with calls in a specific way, the behaviour of the police and the public. The number of victims with insurance policies might drive up the reporting rate.
  The new national crime recording standard, which was introduced in April last year, tries to take a more objective view. It adopts a prima facie approach to reports from the public and takes what a person reports at face value even if there is no sound evidence that an offence has occurred. None the less, grave problems are attached to recorded crimes. Page 342 of the most recent edition of the "British Handbook of Criminology" states that"variations in recording practices can have such a great effect on the totals produced as to render 'face value' comparisons almost meaningless."
  As I said, the recorded crime figures have been used by the Opposition. There is no doubt that the figures for the 12 months until September 2002 show a 9 per cent. increase on those of the preceding 12 months, although when the changes introduced by the national crime recording standard are taken into account the increase is only 2 per cent. The figures for the quarter between July and September 2002 show a 1 per cent. fall if the NCRS changes introduced in April 2002 are taken into account.
  As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey pointed out, the British crime survey involves asking people what crime they have experienced. I accept the shadow Home Secretary's point that that will not always represent all crime experienced—it may not take account of commercial burglary, for instance—but the important aspect is the 7 per cent. drop in all crime during the 12 months to September 2002. The BCS figures also show a 2 per cent. drop in violent crime, a 7 per cent. drop in domestic burglary and a 14 per cent. drop in vehicle theft. That is very good news. Nevertheless, even those figures show problems.
  As my time is limited, I will concentrate on firearms offences, especially in the light of the tragic deaths of Charlene Ellis and Letisha Shakespeare in the west midlands conurbation. Fortunately my constituency does not experience gun crime, but-like your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker-it is part of that conurbation, and it is worrying that those tragic deaths occurred in our region.
  According to the figures I have, firearms, excluding air weapons, were used in 9,974 recorded offences, an increase of 35 per cent. on the previous year. In 24 per cent. of those offences, the firearm was fired. Those statistics should be seen in perspective, and should be

  441
  compared with what happens in other jurisdictions. The n umber of firearms deaths per 100,000 of the population varies from 26.6 in South Africa to 6.2 in the United States, 0.4 in Australia and 0.13 in the United Kingdom—although that last figure must be adjusted in the light of last week's figures.
  I have acknowledged that the total number of firearms offences has risen in each of the past four years, although I should point out to the Conservatives that the current figures are only slightly higher than an earlier peak in 1993. 100 deaths and 558 serious injuries in crimes involving firearms represents a serious problem. The deputy chief constable of the west midlands struck the right note the other day when he said, according to the Birmingham Post,
  "Gun crime is increasing in many city areas and although it is still relatively rare, accounting for less than one per cent of all crime, it has devastating consequences…People are less likely to become the victim of crime in the West Midlands than they were last year or indeed for many years"
  I want to talk about three factors. The first is the guns themselves. We banned handguns, which obviously has not worked. According to a National Criminal Intelligence Service report picked up by some of the newspapers, many of the guns are coming from eastern Europe. Many are made in small back-street factories in Bulgaria, Croatia and Slovenia, and some have been bought on the internet.
  There is also the problem of replica firearms. Hon. Members will have read that the Manchester police recently seized nearly 1,800 replicas in a raid on three Manchester shops. The guns had been imported mainly from Italy. They fired blanks but could readily be adapted to shoot real bullets. There is also a problem of illegal firearms coming into the country through the post. Customs and Excise has found weapons hidden in parcels from a range of countries. Most are concealed alongside drugs. I welcome the measures taken by the Government to address the problem of guns. The national forensic firearms intelligence database will enable the Forensic Science Service to track the provenance of guns and ammunition more effectively, and there is also the possibility of an amnesty. We must, however, address the problem of guns getting into the country and being sold either by rogue dealers or through the internet.
  Who is using the weapons? Last week, I appeared on a media programme with a community activist in south London, Charles Bailey, who is also a producer of rap music. Charles explained to me that there had been an influx of people coming from Jamaica over the last 10 years, and that
  "a certain element of them are a criminal element and they've seen us as soft targets."
  His explanation was that, whereas in the past local criminals might have targeted banks or building societies, they are now targeting drug dealers, because drug dealers have cash. So the dealers arm themselves and those committing an offence by trying to get money from them are arming themselves as well. The shadow Home Secretary rightly pointed out the other day that the drug culture is an important contributory factor in the gun culture, so we also have to address the problem of drugs.
  My third point relates to culture. There has been some discussion about violent video and computer games, and about rap music. I do not want to make a point
  442
  about how they might contribute to the gun culture, but rap music can be used, as Charles Bailey explained to me, to counter the gun culture among young people. He is working with local authorities round the country to try to get young people away from the notion that violence is a good thing. I would commend to my hon. Friend the Minister Charles's latest rap CD, "Don't Shoot!". The Home Secretary will be as agitated as he was when he returned from Sheffield Wednesday's performance at the weekend when he listens to it, but I commend efforts such as this, in which young people can get the message that the violence associated with weapons is not a good thing.
  In conclusion, I agree that crime is a major social problem. Freedom from crime and from the fear of crime is as important for our constituents as improving standards in our schools and in the national health service. The figures demonstrate, however, that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Government are doing a good job, and the assertions in the Opposition motion are largely fantasy.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I agree with earlier remarks that the sooner the criminal law is codified, the sooner we will stop having these debates, because it will be so much easier for the Home Secretary of the day to understand what the law is, without having to leap unadvised, or ill-advisedly, on to the media.
  I do not want to spoil the very good speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), but I urge some caution on him in relation to sentencing guidelines. It seems to me from my experience—I sit as a Crown court recorder, although my practice as a barrister is entirely in the civil sphere—that the flexibility given to the guidelines by having them designed or promulgated by the Court of Appeal is far greater than that which would be achieved by having them set by the House of Commons.
  Parliament is usually several years out of date when it comes to discuss any particular criminal justice problem. It may be that we have a difference of language and that my right hon. Friend is not proposing that the House of Commons should play quite the same role as the Court of Appeal, criminal division. Anyhow, I urge a little caution there.
  Mr. Bellingham: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that burglary sentencing was going quite well and that it was unnecessary for the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor to intervene?
  Mr. Garnier: That involves two different problems. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has read the judgment issued just before Christmas by the Lord Chief Justice in the two cases that have caused the controversy, but it is well worth reading.
  Mr. Bellingham: I shall read it.
  Mr. Garnier: I am sure that my hon. Friend, as an assiduous studier of these matters, will rush to the Library and do so.
  The recent shootings in Birmingham have brought once again to public focus a particular aspect of the criminal justice system—namely, gun crime. It is right

  443
  that we are turning our attention to it once again in the House, although I am not sure, as other speakers have suggested, that the Government's response to those shootings has been thought through coherently.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said, the Government are notorious for their love of a good headline. Indeed, the Prime Minister desperately pleaded with his staff in the last Parliament to find him eye-catching initiatives with which he could be personally associated. Lately, he has had to contend with an eye—catching Lord Chancellor and a Lord Chief Justice—two figures at the very top of the judicial tree who are not quite so adept at anticipating the consequences of interviews with the press as he would like.
  The Prime Minister, of course, wants to be seen as leading a Government who are tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime; one of his glibber little phrases that was so pleasing to the eye and the ear when invented and first spoken, but which has returned to haunt him again and again as the public have come to realise that he and his Ministers have done nothing of substance to make this a safer country to live in.
  The Government have promised much and delivered little in a vast swathe of public policy areas, but in the sphere of criminal justice that criticism is particularly accurate. Much of their failure has been entirely of their own making. We have a Home Secretary who celebrates his antipathy to judges and lawyers—the very people who work hard to make the criminal justice system work—and we know that he is a reasonably canny operator who never says anything without having first worked out whether it will resonate well with his chosen audience.
  That is all, I suppose, the stuff of politics and one should neither be too surprised nor too precious about the approach of the Home Secretary or of the entire Government to public discussion of their failures, but I sometimes think that they would not be in such a muddle if the Government had occasionally thought before putting their spin machine into operation. The desire to fill the available air time or newspaper page has led them to believe that the announcement is the answer and that the soundbite is the substance.
  To identify a target is to hit it in the bull's-eye, so we had last week two conflicting messages and a lot of tongue-tied and confused junior Ministers trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. We must have tough new minimum sentences for gun crime, but we must not send burglars to prison.
  May I deal briefly with the second of those two issues? All criminal sentencing is based on both the offence and the offender. The first-time defendant is likely to receive a lesser sentence than a defendant on a similar charge who is back for his third or fourth offence. First-time burglars, be they burglars of domestic or business premises, are not sent to prison if at all possible because sentencers realise that jail is not always the answer to the defendant's problems, albeit that prison is likely where the victim would like him to go.
  The Lord Chancellor's remarks on the "Today" programme were, frankly, fatuous and an object lesson in that it is better to say nothing if one has nothing
  444
  sensible to say. Repeat, professional burglars must go to prison, because, to put it at its lowest, they are a public nuisance. If there are insufficient prison places, the Government must provide more temporary or permanent ones. They should not go on the radio to tell the public that their concerns about burglary and its consequences for the home owner and his family are exaggerated or misplaced.
  As for the five-year minimum sentence for gun criminals, yet again I fear that the Home Secretary said what he thought would go down well in a saloon bar, but failed to recognise what is already happening in the courts. It is hardly surprising that he has had to step back. Had he taken the trouble to find out what the courts are already doing he might not be in the mess in which he now finds himself. The offences and the penalties associated with them are set out in the Firearms Act 1968, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1994 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The existing penalties range from non-custodial sentences to life imprisonment and, in appropriate cases, the courts have imposed lengthy prison terms.
  However, the number of years' penalty determined by statute does not deter the criminal. By and large, if he thinks about the long-term consequences of his actions at all, he does not believe that he will ever be caught. Announcing new minimum sentences merely makes the politicians think that they are doing something positive, whereas what is needed is a vastly better resourced and increased police force, Customs and Excise service and intelligence service, and far greater co-operation between our drugs and gun-crime teams and those overseas. If £1 million is spent on diverting drug-crop farmers in south America or Asia, that is far more productive than spending the equivalent sum on the criminal justice system here to deal with the gangs, the guns and the dealers.
  However, that is not to underestimate the problem that we face. The unlawful possession and use of firearms has long been recognised as a grave source of danger to society. The reasons are obvious—firearms may be used to take life, cause serious injury or further the commission of other serious crimes. Often the victims are those charged with enforcing the law or the protection of persons or property. In conflicts between competing criminal gangs, often related to the supply of drugs, the use and possession of firearms provoke an escalating spiral of violence. When imitation firearms are used, the risk to life and limb is absent, but those weapons are often used to frighten and intimidate victims to reinforce unlawful demands. It is often hard to distinguish them from the real thing—for practical purposes, it is impossible in the circumstances in which they are used. Victims are usually as frightened and intimidated as they would be if genuine firearms had been used, and are often isolated and vulnerable. Sometimes, genuine firearms are disabled and cannot be fired, or cannot be fired for want of ammunition. In those cases, the risk to life and limb is again absent, but the use of the weapon to frighten or intimidate remains, and it may be used in earnest on another occasion.
  The appropriate sentence for a firearms offence, as for any other offence, depends on all the facts and circumstances relevant to the offence and the offender. It will, however, usually be appropriate for the sentencing court to ask a series of questions. First, what sort of

  445
  weapon is involved? Genuine firearms are more dangerous than imitation ones; loaded firearms are more dangerous than unloaded ones; unloaded firearms for which ammunition is available are more dangerous than firearms for which no ammunition is available. Possession of a firearm that has no lawful use, such as a sawn-off shotgun, will be viewed even more seriously than possession of a firearm that can be used lawfully. Secondly, what, if any, use has been made of the firearm? The more prolonged, premeditated and violent the use, the more serious the offence is likely to be. Thirdly, with what intention, if any, has the defendant possessed or used the firearm? Clearly, the more serious the intended act, the more serious the offence. Fourthly, what is the defendant's record? The seriousness of any firearms offence is inevitably greater if the offender has an established record of committing firearms offences or violent crimes.
  The cases decided in the Court of Appeal are diverse in nature. Any rigid and formulaic approach to sentencing could produce injustice in some cases. Even offences which, on the face of it, appear to be very grave may, on examination, turn out to be less so. Given both the clear public need to discourage the unlawful possession and use of firearms, whether real or imitation, and Parliament's intention, expressed in a continuing increase in maximum penalties, the courts should treat any firearms offence as serious-and they do. It is fair to say that some sentences imposed for such offences in the past have failed to reflect their seriousness and the justifiable public concern that they arouse. Save for minor infringements, which may be properly dealt with summarily, firearms offences almost invariably merit custodial terms, even on a guilty plea and in the case of an offender with no previous record.
  When the courts deal with serious offences under the legislation, the custodial term is likely to be of a considerable length. When the four questions that I have posed yield adverse answers for the offender, terms at or approaching the maximum may, in a contested case, be appropriate. We do not need more legislation to deal with gun crime but the sensible application of existing law and clarity of approach from the Government. I urge them not to rush to the newspapers and media studios to sound off the latest half-witted saloon bar idea that comes into their head. They should ask their advisers what the law is and how it is being applied, and if it is being applied sensibly they should leave it alone. We have far too much legislation mucking up the criminal justice system and confusing the courts. The Minister is a man of integrity and common sense, and I urge him to take that lesson back to his masters.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. David Kidney: I t is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who brings to the debate the perspective of today's sentencing judges. If he reflects judges' attitudes accurately, I would say gently to him that there is a little bit of complacency on the part of the Bench in relation to their role in assuring the public that everything is under control. The motion talks about the honest citizen's feeling of helplessness. It is fashionable to blame all woes on the Government, but as a constituency Member I hear complaints against the police, the prosecutors and, indeed, the judges. The feeling of helplessness has more than one source.
  446
  Before I begin citing statistics, let me make it clear that I never lose sight of the human effect of crime. Clearly, in serious crimes such as homicide people lose their lives and families lose loved ones, and crimes involving guns, violence or sexual assault can create an enormous amount of misery. We should remember that when we consider the dry statistics.
  Today's debate is based on figures from the Home Office statistical bulletin No. 2 of 2003. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) praised the accuracy and good work of the Home Office statistical unit. The figures show that the trend in overall crime continued to be flat up to September 2002, showing little difference from the year up to March 2002. That picture of crime neither going up nor down over 18 months or so is allied to the British crime survey picture of all crime having diminished by more than a quarter since 1997, which is a pretty happy picture, not a miserable one, even though we can all say that crime is still too high and more measures are needed to drive it down further. This is certainly not a crisis.
  It is easy for people to pick out the statistics that show a worse picture than the others. That is what the media did last week and what the motion is based on.
  Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman, whose constituency is adjacent to mine, confirm that, according to the figures for 2001–02, sexual offences in the Stafford area have increased by 42.4 per cent., and burglary from dwellings by 16 per cent? That certainly does not sound very good to me.
  Mr. Kidney: In the words of Ronald Reagan, there he goes again: the hon. Gentleman has picked out the statistics that show the worst picture. I pay great tribute to Staffordshire police and the agencies with which they have worked in partnership, because they have taken sexual offences and domestic violence very seriously and have encouraged the public to trust them and report such crimes in greater numbers. The increase in the statistics is partly the result of increased reporting of crime that was happening in any case, because people trust the police more.
  That brings me to the reliability of one set of statistics. In April 2002, those police forces that were not already doing so agreed to adopt the national crime recording standard and started to record figures more accurately for the crimes that were reported to them. That is bound to create a difference, probably for a couple of years, and I warn people not to take too much account of one set of reported crime figures until they have bedded down correctly and accurately.
  In support of that warning, I want to talk about the situation of Staffordshire police. While some reported crime has shown an increase in the quarter up to September 2002, Staffordshire police were able to announce, for the six months up to September 2002, that crime fell in their area by 8.8 per cent., putting Staffordshire at the top of the national crime reduction league table. In key priority areas, crime fell: burglaries dropped by 20 per cent.—the third biggest national reduction in this type of crime—and there was an overall decrease in vehicle crime of 24 per cent. There were also smaller falls in incidents of public disorder and nuisance complaints. In addition, the detection rate improved, jumping to 30 per cent., against a national average of 22 per cent.

  447
  Those are startlingly good figures, and I expect Members to listen raptly as I tell them Staffordshire's secret so that they can duplicate it in their constituencies. The truth is that there is no secret: Staffordshire adopted the new "ethical", or victim-focused, method of crime recording two years earlier than the rest of the country. Because we recorded more crime, we experienced an apparently big increase in crime two years before everybody else, and the Staffordshire police force was panned for those big increases. We appeared in The Observer as the fifth worst performing police force in the country, and yet just 12 months later, everybody else has adopted that method of recording figures. We have worked through those figures and maintained a steady sea, as it were. Now, we are somewhere near the top of the best performing police authorities in the country.
  That is not to belittle the efforts of all who have played their part in Staffordshire's good performance. The force is very well led by the chief constable John Giffard and his astute senior officers. All the officers are committed to their work, and they are supported by a large civilian work force that does dedicated work on their behalf. So everyone deserves credit for those figures, which show that the police are doing well.
  Nor are the police sitting on their laurels. This year, we are introducing a system of 219 designated community beat officers, whose job is to be seen on the ground and to talk to local community members, thereby picking up the street intelligence to which the shadow Home Secretary referred. Staffordshire is also slightly ahead of the game in terms of changing shift patterns to try to match police numbers and police presence to the places and times at which crimes are known to be committed. Indeed, the Police Reform Act 2002 has tried to establish that principle across the whole country. So the police are doing all the right things, and when we are satisfied that that is so, our job as politicians is to call for the public to support them. For me, that is the message that we should be sending through this debate.
  That is the statistical argument, and I am glad that other Members have accepted that, in statistical terms, more police officers are engaged in police work throughout the country than ever before in our history. That is a useful tool in the fight against crime, but there is more to that fight than policing. We should also consider the effectiveness of the prosecution service, and of the rest of the criminal justice system. That is why we are trying to make changes to ensure that every component of that system plays its part in reassuring the public about crime.
  An announcement has recently been made concerning mandatory five-year sentences for gun crime, and I want to say something about the reporting of such announcements. When the British crime survey released its quarterly statistics on reported crime, the media picked out the worst parts. They are entitled to do so, but I did not hear many of them balance that by pointing out that crime was flat overall.
  Mr. Grieve: Surely one problem is that the Government played exactly the same game in reverse in
  448
  respect of street crime. They can hardly be surprised if people apply the same importance to quarterly statistics as Ministers apply to street crime statistics.
  Mr. Kidney: I am not attempting to pick out the best statistics to enable Labour to justify the current situation; I am making a plea—the hon. Gentleman will have heard me make it a moment ago—for people to show patience over time, so that we can see how the trends develop rather than focusing on one set of statistics. I am not particularly interested in playing that game with the hon. Gentleman.
  My point is that, just as the media picked out the dramatic aspects of last week's figures, so when the announcement was made that the Home Secretary intended to table an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill—the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and I are currently deliberating that Bill in Committee—the media reported that announcement as the Home Secretary's changing the law by introducing five-year mandatory sentences. That plainly was not right. When the judges responded the next day by saying that there should be exceptions so that they can continue to use their judicial discretion, and the Home Secretary agreed, the headlines were, "Home Secretary does U-turn and changes the law". The truth is that we have yet even to debate either of those propositions.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman highlights one of our precise criticisms of the Government. Even after the Home Secretary accepted that mandatory sentences for firearms offences were not really what had been proposed, last Wednesday the Prime Minister repeated at the Dispatch Box a reference to mandatory five-year sentences for firearms offences—presumably precisely because he wanted to see that copy in the newspaper the following day. So again, the Government can hardly complain about the way in which they are reported, because that is exactly the spin that they themselves have tried to engineer, in order to cover discussion of the true nature of the problem.
  Mr. Kidney: I do not accept that it is spin; I regard it as inaccurate reporting of that announcement. There will be a discussion in Committee about an amendment to introduce mandatory sentences, and the hon. Gentleman and I will be among the first to have it.
  The final important aspect that I want to mention is the effect on the mind of the public, and the reference in the Opposition motion to the"sense of helplessness of the…citizen".
  The British crime survey tells us that a majority of the public still feel that crime is rising, even though it is in fact stable and has fallen for five years or more. We need to deal with that by addressing the public's concerns. Despite the seriousness of homicide, gun crime, violence, sexual offending and so on, what affects people most in their day-to-day lives is antisocial behaviour. As we debate serious matters such as gun crime, we must not lose sight of the fact that day-to-day issues such as antisocial behaviour still need to be tackled, and that is what we are going to do in this Session.
  5.57 pm
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: I congratulate the shadow Home Secretary on his excellent speech. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who made a thoughtful and well-informed contribution.
  A lot has been said about the comments of Lord Woolf and the Lord Chancellor, both of whom have shown that they are completely out of touch. Burglary is never a victimless crime. It often involves the threat or fact of physical attack, and many victims are permanently traumatised. Many move home because, once their home and their prized possessions have been violated, they feel unable to stay in the same place. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary made clear, the figures are rising at an alarming rate. In the year to September, burglaries were up by 8 per cent. to nearly 500,000. Robberies were up by 13 per cent., and firearms offences by 35 per cent. Handguns are now used in 5,800 crimes—a rise of some 46 per cent.
  We must have proper deterrents, and I really do feel that the statements by Lord Chief Justice Woolf and the Lord Chancellor are totally at odds with public opinion. The shadow Home Secretary made it clear that there is overwhelming evidence that custodial sentences for burglary do indeed deter. In looking at the new guidelines, we should note that a couple of cases have already shown clearly how much damage is being done. In an intervention, I referred to the case of Gary Callaby, who lives in west Norfolk. He admitted to three offences, including one of burglary and one of theft, and asked for four other offences of burglary to be taken into consideration. They were not minor burglaries. The first involved stealing a quantity of food and compact discs from Park lane, in Helhoughton; the second involved a break-in and the theft of £1,500-worth of property in West Raynham; the third, occurring four days after the second, involved the theft of a jewellery box and jewellery worth £1,500 from Weasenham. A few weeks later, Gary Callaby stole a number of fittings and other equipment from West Raynham farm.
  That person committed three burglaries and one theft; in court he admitted four other offences of burglary which he asked to be taken into consideration. Judge Darroch made it clear that he felt a custodial sentence was the only answer. However, he said:
  "If the latest decision had not come out, it would have been a prison sentence.
  These are very serious offences, and in my view there are two particularly aggravating features: One, they occurred over a period of time, and two, you misused information obtained from customers."
  This man was a painter and decorator; he used insider knowledge of the particular homes and the families whose trust he betrayed when he burgled them. That case rightly gave rise to a great deal of local and national coverage.
  Another case since then involved the Crocker family who live at Bedlington in Northumberland. A burglar broke into their house and tried to stab Mrs. Crocker with a kitchen knife. Fortunately, he was overcome and the police were called. He came up in court two or three days ago and has escaped a prison sentence, much to the dismay and anger of the victims.
  450
  Damage is being done, and I feel strongly, as do many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that Lord Woolf must move into the real world. An overwhelming number of people in my constituency believe that he is out of touch; I have had very many letters on the subject.
  I have had even more letters on the case of my famous constituent, Tony Martin, who is due to come out of prison next week. The facts of his case are well documented. He was a victim of crime; what happened was an appalling tragedy for him and for the people who were killed and injured. He has made it clear that when he comes out of prison, he will campaign for the victims of burglary. He will also push very hard for changes in the law on exactly what householders can do to defend their property.
  Rural police forces up and down the country are overstretched. Burglars know this and they are targeting homes in my constituency and in those of my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and for Stone (Mr. Cash). People in rural areas feel particularly vulnerable. Their natural instinct is to protect themselves. The law clearly states that one can use reasonable force, but recent cases have resulted in total confusion. Tony Martin fired at someone who was facing away from him and shot him in the back. A man was recently convicted for repeatedly stabbing a burglar who had broken into the flat where he believed his children were sleeping. However, when a householder stabbed to death one intruder and seriously wounded another, the Crown Prosecution Service found that the force used was reasonable and did not prosecute. Clearly the CPS cannot decide where the boundary between reasonable and unreasonable force lies and what the law actually is.
  How can it be right to prosecute people when the law is confused and contradictory? If lawyers, safe in their offices, cannot work out what is right, how can the householder be expected to weigh up the pros and cons in the middle of a violent struggle in the dark? Is it reasonable to expect that same householder, during a few fearful seconds on the stairs when he is being menaced by broken bottles, to guess what the law would say when lawyers themselves do not know?
  We do not want new, over-prescriptive laws; we certainly do not want a firearms free-for-all, but we need a much more sympathetic approach by the police and the CPS towards householders who defend themselves. There needs to be a presumption in favour of their innocence rather than the other way round, which appears to be the case at present. There needs to be a presumption against further prosecutions. I am not suggesting that the Government should immediately change the law, but we should have a report from the Law Commission. It should be tasked with examining whether we need a new law whereby the relevant test is not based on the "reasonable man" but a new, subjective test of what the householder believes to be appropriate at the time. That would allow for the fact that every case is different and every set of circumstances unique. As a result, householders would not be prosecuted unless they were launching revenge attacks on burglars.
  There is a strong feeling in west Norfolk in particular that burglars who enter properties should leave their civil rights outside. That, too, needs to be addressed by the Law Commission. At present, burglars and robbers can profit from their crimes if injured, which is

  451
  ludicrous. Brendon Fearon, who was injured during the burglary of Tony Martin's property, applied for legal aid, and tried to sue Tony Martin for damages and loss of earnings.
  I am not advocating American-style laws with people being shot for trespassing into gardens to retrieve footballs. However, homeowners and householders need to know that they can defend themselves. That would send a clear message to members of the criminal fraternity that if they enter other people's property, they do so at their peril. That would be a significant step forward in the fight against crime, which every party is rightly determined to win.
  6.6 pm
  Vera Baird: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) talked about the dangers of trying to understand crime by headlines. I suggest that this debate has been brought about by headlines, and misunderstood headlines at that. No sooner is there a headline about burglary and a difference in emphasis about what should happen to burglars than there is a debate demanding that the whole criminal justice system be saved from what is perceived as the brink of collapse.
  Even the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) could not sustain his scream of outrage at the outset of his speech. He concedes that there must be guidelines on sentencing and that judges must individualise the sentence in the specific case. In that situation, it is inevitable that some burglars will not go into custody. The right hon. Gentleman would not, I am sure, send to prison a 12-year-old who entered an empty house to steal scrap. He would not sentence a man of 16 or 17 who had committed that kind of burglary to prison, particularly if he had a drugs problem that could be dealt with far more adequately by a drug treatment and testing order. So the scream of outrage cannot even be sustained by the Conservative Front Bench.
  The criminal justice system is not just about burglary, important as that is, but about many more offences. Let us consider what the Conservatives did regarding two offences in which I am particularly interested. Home Office figures for 1985 showed that convictions for rape stood at 25 per cent. By the mid-1990s, the figure was 9 per cent. The Tories were firmly at the helm for all that time. What did they do about that? After all, it is of great concern to women. The evidence shows that one in four or five women is raped or sexually assaulted. With the Tories firmly at the helm, the conviction rate hurtled down a banana slide to next to nothing. What did they do?
  The Tories had the perfect opportunity to legislate in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. It has been well known in many circles for many years that the admission of previous sexual history is a massive deterrent for women to come forward and a huge block on them sustaining a prosecution when they have started. This is not about upping conviction rates but about the core of what the criminal justice system should do for victims—giving them support so that they have the confidence to come to court, do themselves justice and let a jury decide.
  452
  The admission of previous sexual history put the complainant on trial instead of the defendant, and women were discouraged. It is in all ways irrelevant to the issue before the jury in 90 per cent. of cases. Research shows that in so far as previous sexual history comes into a trial about a complainant, the jury's conception of the guilt of the defendant declines. That is true even if the woman or man complainant denies every bit of it. In other words, it contributed to wrongful acquittals.
  The Tories had the opportunity to legislate in the 1996 Act. Did they make any attempt to help with the vast decline in rape convictions at that stage? Was there any mention of it in any aspect of Tory debate on the matter? None whatever. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport, then in Opposition, introduced an amendment to that Bill to limit the admission of previous sexual history and to exclude it from being introduced to show consent. She and the then shadow Home Secretary, now my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, had, unlike the Tory Government, consulted survivors and practitioners, of which I was one, and they know of the importance of that amendment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport set out then everything that I have said now, but the Conservative Government simply voted it down. They were not interested in stopping the decline in the conviction rate.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. and learned Member give way?
  Vera Baird: I will in a moment.
  Change has since been enacted, and it is having an effect. Since 1999 no previous sexual history has been admissible to show consent. I suggest that when the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) stands up, he should apologise to those rape complainants who had to be cross-examined needlessly about their sexual past during the intervening three years between the Conservative failure to act and our acceptance of responsibility. Will he consider doing that?
  Mr. Grieve: I will not. I have two things to say. First, notwithstanding the amendment to which the hon. and learned Lady refers, the rate of conviction remains very low, as she is aware. Secondly, I am sure that a legitimate point was made at the time about concern that any change in the law should still ensure that a fair trial could take place, and I am sure that she was alive to that.
  Vera Baird: The reason given for rejecting the amendment at that time was that existing provision was perfectly adequate. In other words, the old law, which had repeatedly since the 1970s allowed previous sexual history to go into court, was considered perfectly sufficient and women's complaints were put at naught. There was little mention then of the other issues that the hon. Gentleman now raises.
  In addition to making an important change, the Labour Government have conducted a sex offences review, "Setting the Boundaries", they have produced a White Paper, "Protecting the Public", and they propose legislation. In addition, specialist prosecutors for rape now exist so that proper concentration may be placed on the issues in the case. Did the Tories take any of those fairly obvious measures, which are bound to be effective? They did not.

  453
  Codes of practice are in place for how the police and the Crown Prosecution Service should deal with rape. Did the Tories introduce any such thing? Not at all. There is a power for the Attorney-General to challenge unduly lenient sentences, which were a further reason why women did not come forward. Small sentences were insufficient satisfaction for women who managed to sustain their complaints. Did the Tory Government try systematically to use that power in the aid of rape victims? No, they did not.
  Mr. Cameron: I know that I am going back into ancient history, but the hon. and learned Lady will find that the power to challenge lenient sentences was introduced by the Conservatives and opposed by Labour.
  Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman will find that the Tory Government made no attempt at any stage to use that power to come to the assistance of women rape complainants in the way that the current Attorney-General has systematically done over the past few months. His action has resulted in clear and helpful decisions for women: for example, in sentencing for culpability, no distinction should be made between a rape carried out by a stranger and a rape carried out by an intimate. That important principle could have been established 10 years ago if the Tory Government had had the slightest interest in an issue of high concern to women.
  I acknowledge what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said about the conviction rate still being poor. It takes a long time for crime figures to come into the system and I have been trying, preparatory to consultation on sex offences, to carry out as best I can a survey to see what is happening. Chief Inspector Walton from Project Sapphire, the highly successful Metropolitan police unit at the forefront of dealing with rape, is pretty sure that conviction figures are improving. He told me last Wednesday that it is still too early to prove that, but that he knows more cases are coming to court. I had a meeting at the University of Teesside last Friday with people from my local rape crisis centre and women's support network. The women I met also know that more cases are coming to court and that more convictions are being sustained because the Government, unlike their predecessor, are tackling that aspect of criminal justice.
  Another aspect of the criminal justice system that received not a mention among the screams from the Opposition Front Bench was domestic violence. One quarter of all violent crime is domestic violence. One woman in four will experience it in her lifetime. The police receive a 999 call every minute about domestic violence. Between one quarter and one third of homicide victims are killed by a partner or former partner. The impact on children is monumental. The last domestic violence legislation was introduced in 1976, in the dying days of the Wilson Government by the then hon. Member for Barking, Jo Richardson. For 18 years was anything significant done by the Tories about domestic violence? I suggest that there was nothing whatsoever.
  When Labour came into office, there was a White Paper within months. There is now a ministerial group, and a specialist cross-departmental domestic violence unit that is recruiting an experienced head. It intends to
  454
  increase safe accommodation choices for victims of domestic violence, and that is in progress, and it is getting health care initiatives under way and improving the interface between civil and criminal law so that one court knows what another court is doing about domestic violence. It is ensuring that the police and the CPS, who are committed to best practice, play a supportive role. Now domestic violence cases can be prosecuted without the need for a victim to give evidence. A national network of domestic violence specialists co-ordinates prosecution policies. Did the Tories do any of that? They did not.
  Every domestic violence murder is now the subject of an inquiry to try to ascertain just where the risk factors should have been picked up to stop the case from escalating to its appalling conclusion. The Government have gone out to consultation and there will be domestic violence legislation, a free-standing Bill that will allow scope for amendments and expansion. That Bill has been announced well ahead of its passage, and there will be consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny with every prospect of significant steps forward in solving the epidemic of domestic violence crime that is not even mentioned by Conservative Members when they call a debate about the criminal justice system.
  I hope that the Conservatives will not, as they did with changes to rape law, oppose changes in domestic violence law. I have some hope. Domestic violence was not even debated at a Conservative party conference until this year, and I am pleased that a debate has happened. I hope that the Tories are turning the corner and will come along with us.
  To the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches who were rash enough to summon this debate, I must say that women are in no doubt about who failed to deliver on rape and on domestic violence. They are in no doubt about who is trying to assist them now.
  I have spoken of specific items and shall widen my speech for one minute. I shall go to Eston in Redcar two weeks on Friday to talk about crime and community safety. When I walk in, people will say to me that more needs to be done. They will add, however, that they are glad to talk to me rather than to a representative of the previous Government, during whose period in office recorded crime doubled—including that in my constituency—and the number of criminals convicted by the courts fell by a third. During that time, the chance of being a victim of violent crime trebled—including in my constituency—and crime increased faster than it did in any other western country. I can return to the source of the debate by saying that the chances of being a victim of burglary increased from one in 32 to one in 13 over the Conservative period in office. They criticise us, but we may ask whether they were generally effective on crime. The answer is no.
  The two gender hate crimes of high concern to women were not even on the field of play during those years. Thank goodness that the Labour Government are not only on the field, but scoring good goals.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. William Cash: I rise to speak in my role as a Back-Bench Member on a matter of intense importance not only to my constituents, but to the public at large.

  455
  When the Lord Chancellor was interviewed on the "Today" programme a week ago, I was astonished to hear him say that first-time offenders should be sent to prison only as a last resort. As I pointed out in this place, it had apparently been agreed between him, the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General that, in general, that methodology would be employed even for serious offences.
  Having criticised the tabloid newspapers for presuming to comment on such questions, the Lord Chancellor went on to assert that the people of this country were not so unworldly as to disagree with what he had to say. However, a west midlands newspaper, the Express & Star, held a poll a few days after the Lord Chancellor made his comments and I was asked to comment on the fact that no less than 98 per cent. of the respondents disagreed with his analysis and thus, by implication, that of the Lord Chief Justice as well. Furthermore, in a poll taken by The People on 12 January, 93 per cent. of people said that they want burglars to be locked up for a second or third offence rather than being given community sentences.
  One of the lessons to be learned from all that is that it is extremely important that our senior Law Officers and judges should have regard—as politicians do—to public opinion. Those extraordinary percentages suggest that the Lord Chancellor was entirely wrong, not only in what he said but in the way that he said it. I suspect that the publication of newspaper reports about the guidelines has, in effect, suggested to burglars that they have been given a green signal.
  One cannot draw criminological or academic conclusions about the construction of such guidelines because no one reads them, except to extract a few bits and pieces—as I shall do myself. I am extremely sceptical as to their value. When I was asked for my comments on them last week, I said that it would be better to put much greater emphasis on the judge's discretion—as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) also suggested. Furthermore, there should be much more parliamentary supervision or surveillance of such things. The law and political developments in the law should be kept in kilter with the needs of the times in which we live and with public opinion.
  I have read the guidelines with great care and I am deeply concerned about the emphasis in interviews with Law Officers and in the guidelines themselves that the reason for what is being done is to deal with overcrowding in prisons. There is a severe danger that judicial guidelines, which should be dealing with questions of justice, are actually being used for political purposes. The Lord Chief Justice may not have realised that, but the unelected Lord Chancellor should certainly have clone so and should not have associated himself with the tendency to focus on the question of prison populations.
  It is part of my job to read the guidelines, but I would not criticise hon. Members for not having done so. However, if they have, they will have been astonished to note that paragraph 10 states:
  "The pressures on our prisons and the extent to which it is possible to address an offender's criminal behaviour during a prison sentence are not matters of which the public can be expected to be aware."
  456
  That is an extraordinary comment of great complacency. Indeed, it is somewhat contemptuous of the public at large—to return to the point that I made earlier about the mismatch between public opinion and sentencing policy, especially on burglary.
  The guidelines send out hugely confused and contradictory messages, but there is a bottom line. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary suggested, it relates to the fact that, in the last resort, judges should be allowed to make their own decisions. Paragraph 19 states:
  "The width of the definition of burglary in section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 underlines the fact that the court can do no more than provide guidelines. The application of the guidelines must be subject to all the circumstances of the particular case and sentencers in applying the guidelines must tailor their sentence to meet those circumstances."
  To put it simply, that means that after considering all the facts of the case—as I hope any judge would—the sentencer considers the law and uses their discretion in reaching a verdict.
  There are serious questions as to the value of the guidelines. They create a theatre in which we shall see judicial dancing on the head of a pin, whereas I should be happier if much more emphasis was put on the discretion of the judge. I have faith in our judiciary, if it is given an opportunity. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) referred to a judge who felt constrained by the guidelines. One could enlarge on that example, although I do not intend to do so this evening.
  In a burglary, the most important fact is that of entry—no one knows what is going to happen after that. For example, in the Tony Martin case, with which I am not familiar in detail, things happened as a result of the burglary. We have heard ideas such as the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) about the burglar being able to guess that someone was in the house. However, the burglar does not, and cannot, know about that and we have to deal with the physical reaction that might result.
  It is wrong for the guidelines to suggest that there should be a presumption against prison. There should be a presumption in favour of prison, but extenuating circumstances should be taken into account and it should be left to our judges to form their own judgment in the courts. That would be a sensible way to proceed and I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset for his suggestion that such matters should be properly discussed in Parliament. They should already have been considered in this place and most people are astonished that that was not the case.
  6.30 pm
  Ian Lucas: I should like to focus my brief remarks on the statement in the Opposition motion that the Government have an"apparent inability…to provide a coherent, long-term strategy to resolve"
  the problems of crime. I profoundly disagree with that statement because I believe that when the Government took office in 1997 there was a major change in the approach to crime in our communities. The key word is

  457
  "community". It is much over-used, but, importantly, it was recognised from the outset that crime is a community issue.
  Another hackneyed phrase is "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". It may be a soundbite, but it has a resonance. It was important because it expressed our constituents' knowledge that crime cannot be confronted simply by sentencing criminals. Crime is a community issue that needs to be confronted jointly by all the organisations in our communities, and that has happened since Labour took office in 1997.
  We have had the introduction, for example, of crime and disorder partnerships and young offenders teams, both of which are highly respected throughout the criminal justice system. They reintroduced the role of local authorities, of which the Conservative party appeared to have a pathological hatred in the years leading up to 1997, to the extent that it would simply not recognise the fact that they had an important role in dealing with crime.
  Whenever I speak to those involved in the criminal justice system in my community—from the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the probation service to defence solicitors—they all praise the structure that has been set up, involving crime and disorder partnerships and young offenders teams, and the work that is being done in our communities.
  A coherent approach is being taken across our communities and it is having a major effect on crime, but we all recognise that there is a continued problem with persistent young offenders, on whom the Government's current policy is focused.
  The Government have confronted many offenders who committed crimes in the 1980s and the early 1990s by providing them with routes out of crime through work and other measures—for example, opportunities through the new deal scheme. Those measures have provided people with the chance to work in our communities and not to commit crimes. However, we still have a problem with the young people who continue to commit crime, often because they are drug-related offenders.
  The Government instituted a process to consider our criminal justice system—the Halliday report and the Auld review—and to try to find a better way to deal with repeat offenders. That coherent, measured and considered approach has developed over a number of years. It is important to adopt that approach, and I sometimes hear echoes from the Conservative party that it is buying into it, but it should try to avoid the temptation to create headlines such as those sought in today's motion.
  It is simply not true to say that there has not been a long-term approach to the proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill. Two years ago, I held a sentencing conference in Wrexham to discuss the proposals set out in the Halliday review. Victims of crime, magistrates and the police attended, and we put our submissions to the Home Office. Those submissions and many others led to the proposals in the Bill, so there is a coherent view.
  I share many hon. Members' great distaste of catching and seeking headlines, which, in my view, always creates bad law. We politicians must try to resist the temptation, which is felt by Members on both sides
  458
  of the House, to react by trying to introduce legislation to confront single events. We must follow the coherent, positive approach of consulting as widely as possible, trying to reach consensus on criminal justice matters if at all possible and introducing sensible measures that the courts can apply.
  We have debated the Sentencing Guidelines Council and the possibility of Parliament taking a more prescriptive role in setting sentencing guidelines. I have some sympathy with the suggestion that the courts should be more responsive to public concerns about certain offences. I suspect, however, that Parliament is not the right forum in which to devise a sentencing policy. I should want a much broader forum to be consulted, so that the issues raised by the victims of crime, the police and CPS could be taken into account more directly.
  The Sentencing Guidelines Council represents a sensible approach, but we need to ensure that we draw directly on the experiences of those in our communities who are concerned and feel helpless. I shall draw my comments to a conclusion by saying that I profoundly disagree with the suggestion that no coherent approach has been followed since 1997. The approach that has been taken has led to major improvements on our streets.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: I should like briefly to focus my remarks on the need for honesty in sentencing and on the effect of overcrowding on the quality of rehabilitation programmes for persistent offenders.
  First, let us deal with honesty in sentencing and consider the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. That Act provided for the imposition of mandatory minimum three-year prison sentences for adult domestic burglars thrice convicted. It is true—it is important to put this on the record—that the legislation contained a provision for the exercise of judicial discretion to facilitate a 20 per cent. reduction in a sentence when the person charged made a timely plea of guilty. However, the legislation specifically emphasised that the mandatory minimum sentence itself could be waived only in exceptional circumstances. So Parliament thought that it was legislating to create a new mandatory minimum sentence that would apply in the overwhelming majority of relevant cases.
  The legislation itself took effect in December 1999 to a fanfare of trumpets and was announced by the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). In rightly referring to burglary as a sickening offence, he emphasised:"People need to know that criminals who make a living from house breaking will face a period of imprisonment which reflects their crimes."
  Moreover, I must emphasise that the Government's apparent intentions and seriousness of purpose on that subject were further underlined by the then Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who is now, of course, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. He emphasised in an answer published at column 137W of Hansard on 23 April that the Government intended to persist with that policy and to undertake an evaluation of it

  459
  throughout the criminal justice system, including its effect on the incidence of burglary in 2003–04, with a final evaluation of its efficacy to be undertaken in 2010. As right hon. and hon. Members will have already noted from my remarks about the time scale, however, it has been in effect for more than three years, so we are entitled to take an interim review. At the end of two years of the policy, only six such individuals, thrice convicted, had suffered the mandatory minimum imprisonment term of three years. I have not so far been able to obtain the statistics, which would be significant as they would tell us the other side of the equation: the number of individuals to whom that mandatory minimum sentence could have applied. Has the mandatory minimum sentence been applied to a tiny minority, or has the incidence been relatively small? We do not know that for certain. What we do know, however, is that, during 1999–2000, the police in England and Wales recorded 442,600 domestic burglaries, and no fewer than 16,800 people were sentenced for the commission of that offence. It therefore looks at least dangerously as though what Parliament willed and intended to be the application of a majority cases policy has somehow transmogrified and deteriorated into a policy applied in exceptional cases, rather than one that is waived in exceptional cases.
  That leads to the obvious question: do the Government believe that their policy in the implementation of the mandatory minimum sentence is right, and that the judiciary has been wrong to circumvent it? Alternatively, do the Government believe that they are wrong in their insistence on the mandatory minimum sentence of three years and that the judiciary have been right to circumvent it? I put it to the Minister who will wind up the debate, to whose response we look forward, that only one or other of those positions can be correct. It is not possible for both to be correct. We need to know the answer.
  On the subject of parliamentary oversight and scrutiny of sentencing guidelines, I largely endorse what a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends said. I am bound to say in support of the eloquent testimony of the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), that a Sentencing Guidelines Council that is chaired by the Lord Chief Justice and appointed by the Lord Chancellor is no substitute for the rigorous parliamentary scrutiny that I favour. That scrutiny could, and, I would suggest, should take place under the auspices of the Home Affairs Committee, which is admirably chaired by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). What is not an option is the do-nothing approach. What we need—I say this to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and not in a partisan spirit—to counter the pervasive cynicism that characterises the conduct of our public life and the attitude of most people towards politics is demonstrable evidence for the public to observe that we say what we mean and we mean what we say. To do nothing would be an abdication by the Government of the responsibility to Parliament, and would simultaneously be an abdication of responsibility by Parliament to the public, who desperately seek the reassurance of a predictable, robust, credible and honest sentencing framework. That is the first issue of importance.
  460
  The second issue is the impact of overcrowding. We know that, in June 2002, the prison population was 71,220. It is variously predicted to rise to 99,000 or 100,000 by 2009, and, dependent on the incidence of criminality and the length of sentences imposed by the courts, to as high as 109,000 or 110,000, even before we take account of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill. It is estimated that 14,000 current prisoners are effectively doubling up in shared cells that were originally designed for occupation by only one person.
  What more do we know about the effect of that overcrowding? We know that, in young offender institutions, for example, what operates is the phenomenon entitled "the churn": the process of constant transfer and movement of prisoners, including young offenders, from one institution to another, often taking place with little or no notice. That is exemplified by Glen Parva young offenders institution in Leicestershire, where, astonishingly and shamefully, only 4 per cent. of the 800 occupants are there for more than a month. We know the damage done to rehabilitation programmes and to the opportunity of training, education and job preparation in those circumstances.
  We know, too, because the evidence testifies to it, that purposeful activity has been declining since this Government took office. In only one of seven years, to the eternal discredit of Labour Members, has the target for purposeful activity, which is critical to the chances of reformation of character of criminals, been achieved. Six out of 15 key performance indicators have been flunked. The people affected are those persistent offenders in aid of whom the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) spoke sincerely and with integrity a few moments ago. Eighty-four per cent. of 14 to 17-year-old young offenders are reconvicted within two years of release from custody—we are talking about people in secure training centres, typically aged 14, who have been brought up in local authority care and have had no fewer, on average, than 22 convictions. Those people need more, better-funded and increasingly effective and tailored programmes of rehabilitation if they are to get off the conveyor belt of crime and have a chance of success in the future.
  My judgment is that the Government are guilty as charged of two serious offences in relation to sentencing policy and the effects of overcrowding on the critical objective of reforming prisoners. That reform must not be a Cinderella service, an optional extra or a belated afterthought in pursuit of the banner headline for the eye-catching initiative, the effect of which, whatever its intention, is invariably to betray the very people whom it intends to serve.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). He can speak for many hours without a note, to which it is always good to listen, but he has given me a couple of minutes to raise a particular constituency case to which I would like the Minister to listen.
  Many residents in my west Oxfordshire constituency have been terrorised by a particular criminal gang of violent burglars, who are believed to live in Cheltenham, next door in Gloucestershire. They have been

  461
  responsible for dozens of burglaries. To illustrate, the Heyworth family, who live in the Cotswold wildlife park, said:

  "Often burglaries are repeated in the same houses, leading to great stress for the occupants. One house of a couple in their 70s was broken into, at night, twice in 48 hours."
  Another lady from Bampton told me:"At least six friends and acquaintances have recently been targeted, the majority of whom like ourselves are elderly. The situation is intolerable."
  Clearly, this gang are causing great distress to all concerned.
  The police have had some success, but there are problems, which I would like to share with the Minister. One problem is that, while the clan or group believed to be responsible for these burglaries live in the Cheltenham area, they rarely commit offences on their own patch. John Liversidge, the area commander concerned in the Thames Valley police force, has written to me:"Consequently, the level of importance attached to the group by Gloucestershire is less than that given by surrounding forces, who bear the brunt of the gang's criminal activity."
  His second point is about the difficulty of calling on central resources when there are so many other calls.
  I have met the chief constable of the Thames Valley force and have visited, with Lord Hurd—my predecessor but one—the assistant chief constable of Gloucestershire. One issue arose, which I would like to raise in the remaining minute. I am concerned that some of the crime is falling between what the regional crime squads used to do and what is done now, on the one hand, by the National Crime Squad—which was set up to replace the regional crime squads—and, on the other, by the county forces. If we look at the National Crime Squad's mission document, we see that it is focused very much on class A drugs, organised immigration crime and high-tech crime. There is very little about cross-border burglary and I hope that the Minister will consider that point. The report refers to a"perceived void in relation to activity…which deals with cross force/regional crime."
  The crime has been identified, but an answer to it has not been found.
  I wish to make three quick pleas to the Minister. First, will he not give forces too many targets that mean that they cannot deal with crime outside their own area? If he does, they will not deal with such crime. Secondly, will he ensure that the national crime squad deals with burglary because that is a serious problem? Thirdly, after this debate, will he also give the attack on burglary a much higher priority than it has had so far?
  A huge problem has not been mentioned sufficiently in the debate. The Lord Chief Justice's sentencing guidelines overturn what the sentencing advisory panel recommended and, God knows, that was weak enough in the first place. Ministers say that the Lord Chief Justice is talking only about not imprisoning a few first-time burglars, but they should read his judgment in the cases of Regina v. McInerney and Regina v. Keating. In two instances, which include aggravating circumstances and in which people could be put in fear and victims experience a dreadful burglary, Ministers will see that he is saying that the starting point should not be custody. Conservative Members firmly believe that it should be.
  6.51 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: We have heard a great deal in the debate about statistics. Several Labour members, including the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) and the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), made the point that it was possible to be blinded by statistics. I entirely agree with them. Statistics should be approached with the knowledge that we all get from our constituencies, from what people tell us and from the experience of our lives. In that context, I point out to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) that the suggestion that the Conservative party does not take an interest in neighbourhood and community issues in respect of crime is bunkum. I was the vice-chairman of a police community consultative group in Lambeth and those of us who have been involved in groups dealing with local crime prevention will find that a startling assertion.
  I always start not with the statistics for what has happened over the past five years but with the statistics for what has happened in this country over the past 50 years. Although those statistics may be misleading in their detail, the picture that they paint is horrific. I receive from septuagenarian constituents angry letters telling us that this country is an entirely different place in terms of crime from that they remember from their childhood, and they are absolutely right.
  I take as just one example the offence of wounding or other acts endangering life. In the year in which I was born, 1956, 1,227 such offences were committed. In 2000–01, the figure was 15,662 offences and, even under the old rules, there was a consistent upward trend in the late 1990s. Burglary has been spoken about at great length in the debate. In 1956, 85,000 burglaries were committed and we know that the figure peaked at 1.3 million. By 2000–01, the figure was more than 800,000 and surely the most significant thing about the latest statistics is that they strongly suggest that the bottoming out and gentle reduction have now been lost. If that is not the proper basis for an Opposition to initiate this debate, I cannot think what is. We should also consider the statistics for violent crime. The figure was as low as 3,000 in 1942, but it is now at an enormously high level.
  The Government say that things have not got so bad over the past five years. They are entitled to be judged by their performance and, over the past five years, it has been extremely poor. They came to office committed to building on the improvements of the previous four or five years of Conservative Government in matters of crime. They told us that they would be tough on crime and tough on its causes, and they have had five years in which to show their mettle. As has been pointed out in the debate, the statistics for burglary—but, above all, those for violent crime—show that, in the past 10 years and particularly since the Government came to office and notwithstanding a rising tide of national prosperity, the willingness of people to resort to casual violence, to violence for the sake of gain and to graduate from the punch-up to the use of the knife and to the use of the gun is one of the most worrying aspects of our society. I would have thought that the Government would agree with us on that. I also assume that the Government would agree with us about burglary in the mid-1990s. That is an example of what happens when a particular crime is targeted.

  463
  What has been the Government's reaction? There has been plenty of discussion in the debate about two examples that show the Government's muddled thinking. The first example is the so-called mandatory sentence for gun crime, and the second is the message that they have put out about burglary. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made a powerful speech about the way in which the mandatory three-year sentence for the repeat offender was implemented by the Government. They did not need to implement it if they did not want to, but its implementation has led nowhere.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) pointed out, the judicial guidelines have been tailored and transformed to meet the immediate crisis in prison numbers. There is no other explanation and the public are entitled to question the new guidelines when they do not appear to have any other basis and when the evidence is that the introduction of tougher guidelines in the mid-1990s was the very thing that brought about the one reduction in crime for which the previous Government and this Government could claim some credit. The Conservative Government could claim credit for initiating that policy and the present Government at least maintained it. I fear that that policy has now been almost totally abandoned and we will rapidly see the consequences of that. They are already manifest in the rising rate of burglary.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) made the same point and made a plea for flexibility in the sentencing guidelines. He is absolutely right. Mandatory sentences in themselves very rarely work, so what happened at Prime Minister's questions 24 hours after the Home Office had accepted that the mandatory sentence for gun crime was nothing of the kind beggars belief. In answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk), the Prime Minister said:
  "The five year mandatory sentence is not yet law, but we want it to be, and of course it would apply to such a person."—[Official Report, 8 January 2003; Vol. 397, c. 170.]
  He was referring to someone carrying a gun. In one of the most unpleasant passages that I have heard in the House, the Home Secretary suggested that my right hon. Friends the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and the leader of the Conservative party were—he used an unparliamentary expression—being misleading, so what on earth are we to make of a Prime Minister who, 24 hours after the Home Office had corrected a wholly mistaken impression, decides to reinforce that impression in the House because he believes that that will make good copy? That was a disgrace.[Interruption.] The Home Secretary only has to read Hansard or to have it read to him to discover what was said. It was a wholly misleading statement, and quite deliberately so.
  The Home Secretary has also told us how things will improve in future. For example, he told us that the Halliday report on sentencing would be implemented in the Criminal Justice Bill and that we would have custody plus, custody minus and greater flexibility. In fact, that will not happen. He knows that, although the Bill will introduce many changes—including the possibility of custody plus and custody minus—the Government have
  464
  already indicated that the changes cannot, at present, be implemented, presumably because the resources are not available. I have to say to the Home Secretary that that was another extremely misleading comment.
  The remedies that the Government have come up with are a series of ersatz ideas. We have talked about the 100 initiatives and mandatory sentences, but all the Government do is make headlines saying that they will attack and undermine the principles of jury trial—we will consider that tomorrow in the Committee considering the Criminal Justice Bill—when the number of people affected by that in terms of reducing crime is totally irrelevant. Yet the Government's proposal is an illiberal measure characteristic of their approach.
  Then the Home Secretary told us about Mr. Braddon's visit. That fascinated me. He came over to tell us how New York has achieved its lowest violent crime rate—indeed, its lowest crime rate overall—since 1900. That is a complete contrast to this country and the Home Secretary seems to have accepted that we should study that example. This Home Secretary's tenure, however, has been characterised by a period of maximum police demoralisation because they are unable to carry out the task that they want to do. It is small wonder, therefore, that the crisis is so marked in my area of Thames Valley and no surprise that the Dyfed-Powys police force has the highest clear-up rate for crime. Dyfed-Powys police has the highest number of police officers per head of population; Thames Valley has one of the worst clear-up rates and one of the lowest number of police officers per head of population.
  The Home Secretary has been unable and unwilling to tackle that issue. It is ultimately a matter of priorities. So let us consider the Government's priorities. At the moment, they are happy to spend £2.5 billion per annum giving us bureaucratic structures for regional government. If they had different priorities, that could be used instead to provide 25,000 police officers. The choice is theirs. They know from our Committee work that they will have reasoned support from us for sensible measures, but they have chosen to hide behind a series of spins and deceits to conceal the fact from the general public that they know, just as much as the public do, that there is a serious problem with violent crime. The Home Secretary is like a raging bull in a china shop: he can smash the crockery and smash civil liberties in the process, but he produces limited results for his exertions. He would do well to step back, consider the matter carefully and embark on sensible and long-term policies rather than a series of gimmicks.
  7.2 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): I think we were subjected to the nice cop, nasty cop routine at the beginning and the end of the debate. I definitely prefer the nice cop even if there were elements of Gilbert and Sullivan to the speech by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). I am grateful to him for being honest enough to admit that he had changed his mind on sentencing. I agreed with him wholeheartedly on one thing. He said that we were debating a long-running problem. He is right about that. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made the same point. In anticipation of tomorrow's debate, let me make it clear that the hon. Gentleman's criticism of

  465
  changes to jury trial does not bear examination if one considers the measured comments of the Home Affairs Committee, which did not manage to get as excited about our proposed changes as he did.
  The debate focused on several issues. Statistics received a great deal of attention. I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that we must have faith in them, but my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) gave the most balanced account of the Government's record on crime.
  On gun crime and firearms, I listened with great interest to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who dissected the circumstances that might arise when dealing with possession of a firearm. I think he acknowledged, however, that the existing law is not being properly applied. That begs the question of how it can be better applied. There is no doubt of the need for the changes proposed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary so that the exceptional circumstances are clear. Of course the judiciary have to judge what the sentence should be for carrying a firearm in public. What possible purpose could someone have for doing that? There is also a strong case to ban the carrying of replica weapons in a public place.
  The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) spoke with passion about the position in which householders find themselves when faced with burglars. He knows that the law allows someone to use reasonable force. For the reasons that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough gave, that has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. I do not understand how a subjective test, which is what the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk argued for in relation to the use of force against burglars, could replace it. From a different perspective, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) spoke with equal passion about the need to take the crimes of rape and domestic violence seriously. She welcomed the Government's steps to do precisely that.
  We also heard a range of views on sentencing. I am sure that we will have a lively debate when we discuss the clauses in the Criminal Justice Bill in Committee and on Report which deal with the Sentencing Guidelines Council. I hope that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will support the proposed changes. The position on third-time convicted burglars is not as he set out. To get to a third conviction under the Crime (Sentencing) Act 1997, a burglar would need to have two previous convictions and sentences since the Act came into force in December 1999, so the clock needs to tick a little longer. However, I am happy to write to him with more information on that. He is right about the impact of the "churn" on the prison population.
  The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) raised the problem of burglary. He may be interested to know that Peter Hampson, the chief constable for West Mercia, is leading ACPO's work on that.
  Notwithstanding the ritual denunciation of the Government by the Opposition, the truth came out in patches. We are trying to deal with a problem—the causes of crime and its terrible consequences—that will not be solved by soundbites issued by any party or by a
  466
  fruitless argument about who is harder than whom when it comes to punishing criminals. Of course people must be called to account for what they have done, but surely years of experience under Conservative and Labour Governments have taught us that the real question is what will work best, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said. We need to consider what we need to do to prevent people from offending and reoffending.
  Those of us who represent inner-city constituencies understand perhaps better than anyone the effect that crime and the fear of crime have on the people we represent. I am sure that we have all had constituents in our surgeries who have been in tears and in despair, and wondering why they are forced to live in a certain way. No doubt every MP has shared my feeling of anger and helplessness at that time. Even though crime overall has fallen under the Government, that does not matter to that person at that moment because he or she has experienced a crime. The challenge is to put the emotion felt by our constituents, by us as Members and by society as a whole to effective use. That is what the Government and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary are trying to do.
  We have heard contradictory criticisms of the Home Secretary. On the one hand, he is accused of trying to do too much; on the other hand, he is not doing enough. One of his defining characteristics is that he will try to make a difference.
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield asked what are our priorities. Very simply, they include a determination to increase the number of police officers, which is why we now have a record number, after the disastrous decline that occurred under the last Conservative Government. We are determined to give community support officers better equipment, so that they can support police authorities by talking to communities about what kind of policing they want. We need to audit what the police do, and we need to try to cut bureaucracy.
  It is determination that lies behind changes to the criminal justice system. The proposal for street bail in the Criminal Justice Bill has been welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. That is a practical measure to cut bureaucracy and to help police officers to do their job. We are determined to provide new sentences for the courts—indeterminate sentences, which will mean at last that people are not released when everybody knows that they are still a risk to the public. We are determined to invest more money in offending behaviour programmes, drug treatment and sex offender treatment. We are determined to support people who are imprisoned by their drug habit, which is the subject of the next debate.
  In the best example of the Government's priorities, we are determined to tackle offenders when they are young. Members on both sides of the House have paid tribute to youth justice reforms because, despite the cynics, they recognised that something could be done. We have halved the time that it takes to get people from crime to sentence, and we have reduced reoffending.
  Finally, I concur with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) because we cannot solve this problem if we leave it only to the police, the courts, the probation service and the prisons.

  467
  This is a problem for the community and for society. We have to make clear our values: we want to treat people with dignity and respect; we call on people to account for what they have done; we want to protect ourselves from those against whom we need protection; we want to give help to those who have offended, if they are prepared to change the way they live. If we do not have those values in our society, we will never solve this problem and find effective ways of tackling crime and building a safer society.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 365

  Division No. 46]

  [7:11 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Amess, David

  Gray, James(N Wilts)

  Ancram, rah Michael

  Grayling, Chris

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Green, Damian(Ashford)

  Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

  Greenway, John

  Bacon, Richard

  Grieve, Dominic

  Baldry, Tony

  Gummer, rh John

  Barker, Gregory

  Hague, rh William

  Baron, John(Billericay)

  Hammond, Philip

  Beggs, Roy(E Antrim)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hayes, John(S Holland)

  Bercow, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hermon, Lady

  Boswell, Tim

  Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia(SW Surrey)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Horam, John(Orpington)

  Brady, Graham

  Howard, rh Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Hunter, Andrew

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Burns, Simon

  Johnson, Boris(Henley)

  Burnside, David

  Key, Robert(Salisbury)

  Burt, Alistair

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Cameron, David

  Knight, rh Greg(E Yorkshire)

  Cash, William

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Lansley, Andrew

  Chope, Christopher

  Leigh, Edward

  Clappison, James

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Clarke, rh Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Collins, Tim

  Lidington, David

  Conway, Derek

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Cran, James(Beverley)

  Loughton, Tim

  Curry, rh David

  Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

  Davies, Quentin(Grantham & Stamford)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

  Maclean, rh David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Duncan, Peter(Galloway)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Duncan Smith, rh lain

  Maples, John

  Evans, Nigel

  Mates, Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Maude, rh Francis

  Fallon, Michael

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

  Flight, Howard

  Flook, Adrian

  Moss, Malcolm

  Forth, rh Eric

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Norman, Archie

  Francois, Mark

  O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

  Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

  Osborne, George(Tatton)

  Garnier, Edward

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

  Page, Richard

  Paterson, Owen

  Syms, Robert

  Pickles, Eric

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Taylor, Ian(Esher)

  Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

  Taylor, John(Solihull)

  Redwood, rh John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thomas, Simon(Ceredigion)

  Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

  Tredinnick, David

  Robinson, Peter(Belfast E)

  Trend, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Trimble, rh David

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

  Ruffley, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Walter, Robert

  Selous, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Whittingdale, John

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Simmonds, Mark

  Wilkinson, John

  Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

  Willetts, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Wilshire, David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

  Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

  Spring, Richard

  Yeo, Tim(S Suffolk)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Young, rh Sir George

  Steen, Anthony

  Streeter, Gary

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hugh Robertson and

  Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

  Angela Watkinson

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Burgon, Colin

  Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

  Burnham, Andy

  Ainger, Nick

  Burstow, Paul

  Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Allan, Richard

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Allen, Graham

  Cairns, David

  Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Anderson, Janet(Rossendale & Darwen)

  Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Casale, Roger

  Austin, John

  Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Challen, Colin

  Baird, Vera

  Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

  Banks, Tony

  Chaytor, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Chidgey, David

  Barrett, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough)

  Battle, John

  Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

  Beard, Nigel

  Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clelland, David

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V)

  Bell, Stuart

  Coaker, Vernon

  Benn, Hilary

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cohen, Harry

  Benton, Joe(Bootle)

  Coleman, lain

  Betts, Clive

  Colman, Tony

  Blackman, Liz

  Connarty, Michael

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cook, rh Robin(Livingston)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cooper, Yvette

  Blunkett, rh David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Corston, Jean

  Borrow, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

  Cousins, Jim

  Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

  Cox, Tom(Tooting)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cruddas, Jon

  Brake, Tom(Carshalton)

  Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

  Breed, Colin

  Cummings, John

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack(Copeland)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

  Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

  Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Bryant, Chris

  Davey, Edward(Kingston)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

  David, Wayne

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

  Illsley, Eric

  Davis, rh Terry(B'ham Hodge H)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Denham, rh John

  Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jamieson, David

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

  Johnson, Alan(Hull W)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

  Doran, Frank

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Doughty, Sue

  Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

  Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Drew, David(Stroud)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Keen, Alan(Feltham)

  Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

  Keen, Ann(Brentford)

  Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

  Keetch, Paul

  Edwards, Huw

  Kelly, Ruth(Bolton W)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kemp, Fraser

  Etherington, Bill

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Farrelly, Paul

  Kidney, David

  Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

  King, Andy(Rugby)

  Fisher, Mark

  King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Flint, Caroline

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Flynn, Paul(Newport W)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Follett, Barbara

  Lamb, Norman

  Foster, rh Derek

  Lammy, David

  Foster, Don(Bath)

  Laws, David(Yeovil)

  Foster, Michael(Worcester)

  Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Gapes, Mike(Ilford S)

  Lepper, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lewis, Ivan(Bury S)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Linton, Martin

  Gilroy, Linda

  Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Love, Andrew

  Goggins, Paul

  Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

  Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

  Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

  Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Grogan, John

  McCafferty, Chris

  Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hanson, David

  MacDougall, John

  Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  McFall, John

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Healey, John

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Heath, David

  McKechin, Ann

  Henderson, Doug(Newcastle N)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hendrick, Mark

  MacShane, Denis

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Heppell, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Heyes, David

  McWilliam, John

  Hill, Keith(Streatham)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  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 Shettleston)

  Hope, Phil(Corby)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

  Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Meale, Alan(Mansfield)

  Hughes, Beverley(Stretford & Urmston)

  Merron, Gillian

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

  Miliband, David

  Hughes, Simon(Southwark N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

  Hutton, rh John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Mole, Chris

  Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Moran, Margaret

  Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Mountford, Kali

  Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

  Mudie, George

  Smith, John(Glamorgan)

  Mullin, Chris

  Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Soley, Clive

  Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

  Southworth, Helen

  Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

  Spellar, rh John

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Squire, Rachel

  Norris, Dan(Wansdyke)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)

  Stevenson, George

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Olner, Bill

  Öpik, Lembit

  Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

  Organ, Diana

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Owen, Albert

  Stringer, Graham

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pearson, Ian

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tami, Mark(Alyn)

  Pike, Peter(Burnley)

  Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, David(NW Leics)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

  Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

  Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

  Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

  Thurso, John

  Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

  Timms, Stephen

  Prescott, rh John

  Tipping, Paddy

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Touhig, Don(Islwyn)

  Purchase, Ken

  Trickett, Jon

  Purnell, James

  Truswell, Paul

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

  Turner, Neil(Wigan)

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

  Twigg, Stephen(Enfield)

  Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

  Rendel, David

  Tynan, Bill(Hamilton S)

  Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

  Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry NW)

  Ward, Claire

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Rooney, Terry

  Watts, David

  Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

  Webb, Steve(Northavon)

  Weir, Michael

  Ruddock, Joan

  White, Brian

  Russell, Bob(Colchester)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Williams, rh Alan(Swansea W)

  Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

  Williams, Roger(Brecon)

  Salter, Martin

  Wills, Michael

  Sanders, Adrian

  Winnick, David

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Sawford, Phil

  Wood, Mike(Batley)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Woodward, Shaun

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Woolas, Phil

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wright, David(Telford)

  Short, rh Clare

  Wright, Tony(Cannock)

  Simon, Siôn(B'ham Erdington)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

  Singh, Marsha

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. Ivor Caplin and

  Smith, rh Andrew(Oxford E)

  Derek Twigg

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added,put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,That this House welcomes the steps the Government has taken and continues to take to reform all aspects of law enforcement including increasing police numbers to record levels and the 6.1 per cent. increase in police funding for 2003–04; further welcomes the steps the Government is taking to modernise the criminal justice system through the coherent long-term strategies and the introduction of the Criminal Justice Bill; notes that for the last five years crime rates have fallen by 27 per cent. according to the British Crime Survey, that burglary has reduced by 39 per cent. since 1997 and that the chances of becoming a victim of crime are as low as at any time in the last 20 years; and particularly supports the decisive action being taken by the Government to tackle street crime and the rise in gun-related crime.

  Drugs Policy
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I must announce to the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.26 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: I beg to move,That this House recognises the fundamental importance of the link between hard drugs and crime; and believes that the only means by which an effective onslaught on the hard drugs culture can be made is through mandatory intensive treatment and rehabilitation for young heroin and cocaine addicts.
  We have already had a rather vigorous debate, part of which the Under-Secretary was lucky enough to miss, and inevitably a rather political one, about the Government's record on crime in general. I should like to take the opportunity of this second and slightly shorter debate to do something quite different. I want to try to make a plea to the Under-Secretary which I do not expect him to accept on the spot, but which I hope may influence his thinking and perhaps lead us to some sort of agreement over the coming months on what I regard as a critical and tragic error that the Government are currently making.
  I do not doubt for a second the genuine intention of the Government and indeed the Under-Secretary, who has spoken about the matter frequently and passionately, to reduce significantly the menace of hard drugs in Britain. That is common ground in all parts of the House. Nor do I doubt for a moment that the hon. Gentleman and the Government are willing to devote resources to the effort to reduce the menace of hard drugs, both in pursuit of the supply side and the drug dealers themselves—both remotely and in the United Kingdom—and through demand-side measures, if I can put it that way, or the effort to rehabilitate those who are caught in the vortex of heroin, cocaine and crack cocaine. I do not doubt that, alongside the resources that the Government have already devoted and the increased resources that they are now devoting to that pursuit, they intend to construct what they conceive to be the best possible way forward.
  I doubt none of that, but I genuinely believe that the method that the Government are currently employing will mean that a large proportion of the very many hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of taxpayers' money that they are spending on this matter will be tragically wasted. I believe that the sort of proposals that the Opposition have been making offer not necessarily the only alternative, but a serious and plausible alternative that could provide some serious and lasting benefit to society.
  It is the Minister's regular taunt that, roughly speaking, I became interested in drugs at the last Conservative party conference. That is not so.
  At the beginning of last year, I began investigating what was happening to young people who were on drugs. I freely admit that until I occupied my current position, I knew little about the subject. When I began investigating and talking to young people who were caught in the nexus, to those who had been caught in it, to those who were on the way out of it, and to those not only in this country but in the Netherlands and Sweden

  473
  who had been trying to help young people out of it, I realised that there is an appalling gap between reality and rhetoric confronting this country.
  The Minister tells us that 118,000 people have contact with drug treatment. He also said—honestly and correctly, I am sure—that he intends roughly to double that number through hundreds of millions of pounds of further expenditure. In practice, that means that many young people visit a form of agency or doctor's surgery and receive something that keeps them going. It may be heroin, methadone or counselling. It may help them for a while to remove themselves from the crime statistics. However, in many cases, it does little or nothing to remove them permanently and properly from the vortex into which they have descended.
  Mr. Robert Key: Does my right hon. Friend remember visiting my constituency and the drug abuse resistance education—DARE—project, which is run so successfully in our local primary schools by the Ministry of Defence police? Does he realise that, despite the Government's good intentions, the alcohol and drug advisory service in south Wiltshire is so understaffed that it takes six months before people can see a counsellor?
  Mr. Letwin: I remember the visit. I have the highest regard for DARE and its work and I am aware of the overstretch in referrals. However, even if the alcohol and drug abstinence service in my hon. Friend's constituency receives additional funding in the next round, referrals will be almost useless in many cases. They will maintain and perhaps reduce the ability, desire and, in some cases, need of some young people to engage in criminal activity, but they will not reconstruct lives.
  All my experience shows that reconstructing a life that has been severely damaged and almost destroyed by heroin, cocaine or crack cocaine addiction, almost always accompanied by a cocktail of other drug and alcohol-related problems and a range of psychological and social problems, cannot be done on the cheap. Such a life cannot be reconstructed in an amateur fashion or by maintenance. That can be achieved only through repeated, intensive psychological effort in residential or crypto-residential care. If the House were so organised, a stream of witnesses could appear to testify to that from their experience.
  I do not claim that every young life that needs rescuing can be saved only if the young people live on top of the shop. However, there is a chance of genuine success only if the relevant people are, from morning till night and through the night, in conditions that allow them to focus entirely on rebuilding their lives. Even then, all my experience shows that the success rate is far from 100 per cent. Relapse will occur, and people will have to go through the system twice and sometimes thrice to escape.
  The power of the drugs that we are considering for an addictive personality is so great that rescue is an arduous undertaking. I do not believe that the Under-Secretary and I would disagree; I suspect that he has seen and heard many of the same things as me. I am sure that he has talked to the same sort of people as me. Much of what I am saying probably rings bells in his mind, too. I appreciate that the Government do not
  474
  have a bottomless coffer and I therefore recommend focusing and using the limited available resources, including the additional money, on the youngest who are caught in the vortex, and not trying to deal with every case.
  It is evident that if we can deal with the flow, we will tackle the stock over time. When I visited the Netherlands, I was told that the average age of cocaine and heroin addicts is currently increasing by 360 days a year. Almost no one is joining the queue. That is the most striking statistic that I know, and I have mentioned it before. The Netherlands has reached the tipping point and succeeded in persuading young people that the drugs are loser drugs and worth avoiding. That has also happened in Sweden. Enough people have been cured to begin to make the cure social. At that point, funds can be released for referrals for older people who are on drugs and to place them in intensive treatment.
  We will reach the tipping point in this country by focusing and spending the money on the young and subjecting them to intensive, residential rehabilitation. We must find a means of forcing those young people into treatment. Without that, nothing else will work. Offering treatment is not enough because although the offer may be taken up, in most cases it will happen four or five years later.
  Ms Dari Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman support supervised prescriptions of heroin? That was one of the most strategic planks of the policy in the Netherlands to persuade young people not only to accept treatment but to get out of the dealer's grip.
  Mr. Letwin: The techniques that have been used in the Netherlands vary. However, the genuinely impressive part of the Netherlands experience is not the maintenance programmes for those who are old, but the intensive rehabilitation through abstinence of young people who have subsequently managed to escape the vortex. I do not discount the possibility of what the Under-Secretary effectively sanctions in the United Kingdom—maintenance of older drug users. It is better for people to receive methadone—bad as it is—than to rob old people to pay for that or heroin. However, that is not a cure; it simply dockets the problem. I urge moving young people out of the drugs culture through intensive, rehabilitative abstinence programmes. It is impressive that the Netherlands and Sweden have managed to achieve that.
  Ms Taylor: Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have considered the way in which the matter is tackled throughout the world as well as in Britain. All the evidence shows that if young or older people do not wish to come off the stuff, it does not matter how much we try to force them. Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept the research?
  Mr. Letwin: No. That is not my experience from talking to people who are in the programmes or those who are conducting them. I have been told repeatedly that the hon. Lady's contention is false. I am prepared to subject the matter to empirical investigation. I do not propose leaping at the problem. I propose conducting pilot studies of mandatory treatment for the young and

  475
  ascertaining whether that works. The hon. Lady and I would not then have to hold a discussion in the abstract, because we would know. We should conduct the world's first serious experiment to ascertain whether we can crack the problem empirically.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: What my right hon. Friend is saying is compelling, but does he agree that we also need dedicated, determined, committed GPs who understand drug addicts and want to work in drug rehabilitation clinics? Will he look at the case of my constituent Dr. Adrian Garfoot, who, having been struck off by the General Medical Council, is doing absolutely nothing and who wants to be out there helping to save drug addicts' lives?
  Mr. Letwin: I will indeed look at that case. I have been vastly impressed by the work of people in or near my constituency. GPs involved in the Providence project have reached the same conclusion as my hon. Friend's constituent and are devoting their lives to exactly the same goal—and it is working.
  Ms Diane Abbott: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the prevalence of drugs in our prisons? It is possible to go into a prison such as Holloway drug free and come out with a drug habit. I think that, before embarking on extensive treatment programmes, Ministers could do more to make our prisons drug-free zones.
  Mr. Letwin: Over the last week or two I have observed an alarming tendency on my part—which I had never suspected probable—to agree repeatedly with the hon. Lady. That may be as disturbing to her as it is to me. In my view she is undeniably right.
  I find it extraordinary that there are still drugs in prisons. I do not find it extraordinary that there are drugs anywhere else; but if a prison is about keeping people in, one would have thought that it might be able to keep substances out. I do not speak for open prisons, but one would have thought that making closed prisons drug-free zones was a feasible operation. Not only are they not drug-free zones but, as the hon. Lady says, in some cases—tragically—people go in unaffected by drugs and come out affected by them.
  I hope the Government will produce measures to make the Prison Service more effective in excluding drugs. I think we shall have to accept more restrictions on visiting by relatives. That will be a sorry loss—there is no doubt that physical barriers distance prisoner from visitor, and there is no doubt that that may have an effect on rehabilitation—but so bad is the drugs menace in our prisons that we may have to contemplate it.
  Paul Flynn: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on what strikes me as the most courageous and pragmatic Front-Bench speech made during my 15 years in the House. During his observations on Holland, he accurately stated that heroin and cocaine were seen as the drugs of losers. Is that not the result of 25 years in which Holland has separated the markets for hard and soft drugs? Soft drugs are seen to be undesirable, but are not associated
  476
  with an underworld or with low life. As a result, those taking or selling hard drugs are isolated, which has led to a reduction in the use of all drugs and a marginalisation of suppliers and users of hard drugs.
  Mr. Letwin: As I think I have said here before, two models appear to have been successful. One is, indeed, in the Netherlands, where the very strategy described by the hon. Gentleman has been adopted—separation of the markets. The other is in Sweden, where serious efforts have been made to eliminate both markets. The one strategy that shows little or no promise of success is, I regret to say, the Government's approach to soft drugs—a muddled approach that neither separates the markets nor seeks to eliminate them. I will continue to inveigh against that approach.
  Mr. Michael Weir: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Letwin: I will give way one last time.
  Mr. Weir: The right hon. Gentleman seems to see intensive treatment in prisons or young offenders institutions as in-patient treatment of a sort. Specialist drugs corps are about to be piloted in Scotland. They will deal not just with drug-dependent but with criminal behaviour, and try to get young people off drugs in that way. I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott): unless people are willing to stop taking drugs in the first place, no system will work.
  Mr. Letwin: I repeat my view—and, as I have said, I am prepared for the Government to subject it to empirical investigation. I do not think it essential for people to want to stop at the beginning of treatment; what is essential is for the reconstruction of a life to be such that by the end of the treatment the person wants to stay off drugs. I do not envisage programmes in young offenders institutions or prisons; on the contrary, it is clear to me that they should take place in clinics. They are separate from the issue of punishment, and need to be kept separate from it. But a life can only be reconstructed in the right way if the person concerned is purposeful, and that must involve constructive rather than criminal purpose. For many of the young people who commit today's burglaries and robberies crime is virtually a necessity, because it is impossible to feed a drugs habit without being either very rich or prone to crime.
  Bob Spink: I think my right hon. Friend is on the right track in considering compulsion in rehabilitation, but will he also consider prevention? As he knows, the first use of any drug by a young person often occurs under the influence of alcohol. Is it not regrettable that, in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, Labour removed police officers' right to take unopened cans and bottles of alcohol from young people in public places? Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Government to reinstate that power, so that the police can save youngsters from getting involved in drugs in the first place?
  Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend is right to mention the severe problems of binge drinking among the young.

  477
  We need to think again about how we can prevent the habit from becoming widespread. There is no doubt that it is associated with being dragged into the drugs culture as a whole.
  I am outstaying my welcome—[HON. MEMBERS: "More!"] No. This is a short debate, and I want both my hon. Friends and Labour Members to have a chance to speak.
  I hope I have made clear the contrast between this debate and the earlier piece of splendid political knockabout on both sides of the House. In this second debate, I have argued passionately for a position I believe to be right, which need not separate the political parties. It can be adopted by the Government now. It could prevent a tragic waste of resources, and—at least as important—could save thousands of young people from being drawn into the vortex that so afflicts not just them and their families, but the many victims of the crimes that they find themselves compelled to commit.
  7.48 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "recognises that focusing on Class A drugs, educating young people about the dangers of all drugs, preventing drug misuse, combating the dealers, reducing availability and treating addicts are all essential in tackling drugs; and welcomes the Government's updated Drug Strategy and the 44 per cent. increase in planned expenditure on combating drugs. from £1.026 billion in the current financial year to nearly £1.5 billion in the year starting April 2005."
  I thank the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) for the serious way in which he presented his case, and I will try to respond seriously. I must say that so far I have not taken his alternatives to the updated drugs strategy very seriously, for what I believe to be good and practical reasons. I see a number of holes in what he suggests, and a number of real inconsistencies in what we hear from the Conservatives about drugs strategy.
  I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman some questions—let him by all means intervene if he wishes—about his proposals. He seems to be suggesting that an awful lot more should be spent on the rehabilitation of relatively few people. It would be good to know exactly what he proposes. Does he propose a substantial increase in spending, or does he propose to take money away from some parts of the strategy in order to pay for others? I understood him to say the latter—that he intended, in large part, to abandon rehabilitation treatments for many people in order to concentrate on the young.
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Minister for the spirit in which he is approaching this, and I will answer his question. I do not have the precise figures in my mind, but I believe that his intention to increase by about 118,000 the number of people in contact with treatment is scheduled by the Government to cost about £325 million, or perhaps somewhat more—perhaps even £400 million. The proposal that I make to the Government today—because I understand the requirements that the Home Office faces in dealing with the Chancellor—is that that money, which would
  478
  otherwise be increasing the numbers of those in contact, in some vague sense, with some set of agencies, should instead be spent on the kind of programme that I am describing. We have costed such a policy at £460 million a year. Almost the entirety of that sum could be found from the additional sum that the Minister has in mind. For our own part, I have agreed with my colleague, the shadow Secretary of State for Health, that if we were in government we would find the money from the health budget, because the savings to the national health service alone would, over time, justify that. I am not, however, asking the Minister to agree to that. He already has a budget of the same order of magnitude as ours—perhaps not to the last £10 million, but of the same order none the less—and if he could spend it on the policy that we are proposing, it would be vastly better spent.
  Mr. Ainsworth: Presumably the right hon. Gentleman would spend that money by withdrawing interventions that are available for other people who would then not be covered. So, under his proposals, there would be no new money such as that outlined in our updated drugs strategy. Let us take an example of what that money needs to be spent on. One of the biggest gaps that we have identified is the need for through-care and after-care for people leaving prison. We have found that, unless there is adequate provision for picking those people up as they are released and carrying them through into community treatment services, they will go straight back to the market, and to the dealers. They will begin committing crimes again, and that is one of the main causes of the revolving door syndrome in which people go back into criminality almost as soon as they are released from prison. I suppose that that money provided in the updated drugs strategy would no longer be there under the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, because he would just have spent it on rehabilitation. That is one example of an important gap that we are seeking to plug and to provide for effectively being taken away by the Conservatives.
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Minister for giving me the opportunity to engage in what I think is constructive repartee. Let us test his proposition. Why do we not try piloting the proposal that I am suggesting, and the one that he is suggesting, in relation to picking people up as they come out of prison? Both are worthy objectives, but I suspect that the empirical evidence would show that his methods would fail to have much impact on ex-prisoners and that my methods would succeed in getting those people off drugs. If I am wrong, however, the empirical evidence would show that, and we need not nationalise it.
  Mr. Ainsworth: It would be worth the right hon. Gentleman's while considering his own policy and putting it up against some of the proposals in the updated drugs strategy. I do not know what opportunity he has had—with all his different responsibilities—with the research facilities that he has available to him, to go into the detail of where we are planning to spend the additional money. One of the other areas is that of making early interventions through the criminal justice system to oblige people into treatment. That is something that the right hon. Gentleman is advocating, yet he seems to think that he can lift the pot of money

  479
  allocated for piloting presumptions against bail, for extending the drug testing programme, and for doubling the amount of drug testing and treatment orders. I know that there has been criticism from the Conservatives about the failure rate, or success rate, of DTTOs, but when we look at the kind of people we are dealing with in relation to the orders, we can see that, in the circumstances, we are doing very well in terms of the interventions that we are trying to make. All that additional money would be taken away by the right hon. Gentleman to provide residential rehabilitation across the piece for a particular group of people.
  The right hon. Gentleman asks for empirical evidence, saying that he believes that the Government are honest in their intentions, but misguided. Well, from whom should we get our information? I would have thought that we should get it from people with a long record of working in the field, who have experience of providing drug treatment and services in our communities. In preparation for this debate, I spoke to Geoff Cobb, the chief executive of the Swanswell trust, which provides drug and alcohol services in Birmingham, Coventry and Warwickshire. He has had 30 years' experience of working in that area. He said of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal:"Residential rehabilitation is very expensive, and very often inappropriate. Increasingly, those who need it are getting help because of the growth in the quantity and quality of community services."
  He makes a plea:
  "Let the NTA"—
  the national treatment agency—"get on with the work that they are doing, because we are beginning to get to the point that we need to get to."
  The right hon. Member for West Dorset must have received DrugScope's response to his consultation on the proposals that he is now putting before the House. He is asking the House to consider the evidence. I do not know what he thinks of DrugScope. It does not agree with Government policy in every area, but it appears to he one of the more serious organisations and it is taken seriously by almost everyone working in drug rehabilitation, treatment and services in this country. DrugScope's response to the Conservatives' consultation states that their costings are incorrect, their policy is too rigid, there is no evidence base to support what they suggest, and the basis on which they make their analysis is flawed. Its recommendations to the Conservative party go on to say:
  "We would urge the Conservative party to reconsider their proposed drugs policy."
  DrugScope suggests that the evidence on which the policy is based is "partial and inaccurate", and says that it is worried that the policy would be "unworkable" and that it would
  "harm the young people it seeks to help".
  There is the first evidence in response to the right hon. Gentleman's proposals.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: I know that the Minister takes this issue very seriously and, like the rest of us, is keen to do what he can about the issue of drugs. Is he sure, however, that his existing policy is
  480
  working? The police in Plymouth told me last Friday that, of 38 DTTOs issued to people in Plymouth over the last few months, 28 of those people were arrested while still subject to one of those orders for offences related to their drug habit. They were committing crimes while still subject to a DTTO. That is the picture that is emerging from the police's empirical studies of the Minister's current system. If it is not working, why does he not open his mind to alternatives?
  Mr. Ainsworth: If the hon. Gentleman wants to examine whether there is a local anomaly in Plymouth, compared with the national situation, I would be happy to study that with him. Yes, there are failures relating to DTTOs, but the orders are aimed at people who would otherwise go to prison because they have a drug problem that has led them into serious crime. Yes, there are people who fail, and who are brought back in, but taken overall, when we consider the nature of those with whom we are dealing and the size of the problem, DTTOs are working in a high proportion of cases.
  One of the areas of funding that the Conservatives are suggesting that we remove relates to the ability to introduce DTTO-type policies for a lower level of criminality at an earlier point of intervention, as an addition to community sentencing. We would then be able to put a requirement for drug testing and treatment on the very people whom the right hon. Member for West Dorset says he is trying to cut off before they become serious drug offenders and provide us with the levels of crime that we are experiencing. That is the funding that is in the updated drugs strategy, which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to remove to pay for expensive rehabilitation that everybody working in the field says is inappropriate in the overwhelming majority of cases.
  Simon Hughes: The Minister has preyed in aid the views of DrugScope, which is well respected and which I have visited as it is based in my part of south London. Is he willing to take its advice on other areas of drugs policy on which it suggests that the Government ought to choose a different route? In particular, does he accept that DrugScope is clear that if public policy concentrated on the class A and serious drug users and did not pursue people who possess cannabis for their own use and the like, there would be a much clearer message, much more concentrated resources and, on the basis of all its evidence, a much more successful policy on separating the casual user, referred to by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), from the addict, who regularly uses criminals to supply his addiction?
  Mr. Ainsworth: I always take seriously what DrugScope says and I am always prepared to listen to it, but the Government do not agree with it on every single area.
  Mr. George Osborne: So DrugScope is right only when it attacks Conservative policies, not Labour ones.
  Mr. Ainsworth: The comments on the Conservative party paper are a little more scathing than anything that has been said about the updated drugs strategy.

  481
  DrugScope has not said things in such strong terms in response to our updated drugs strategy.[Interruption.] We began the debate with a serious attempt to study the issue, but if we are going to descend into heckling, we can do something else by all means.
  Let me say to the right hon. Member for West Dorset that that is not the biggest dispute between the Government and DrugScope. The Government have moved on the issue and we want the police to concentrate their efforts on the dealers and traffickers. We do not want the police to let up on cannabis traffickers, because they are often the same people who deal with class A drugs, but nor do we want them disproportionately concerning themselves with simple possession cases, which is why we reclassified cannabis. I know that the Liberal Democrats would go a lot further, but we have decided not to. However, we certainly listened to the sense of what was being said.
  I have tried to take the right hon. Gentleman's comment seriously and I abandoned the speech that I had prepared so as to run across all our proposals on the updated drugs strategy, but the problem is a lot more complex than he seems to think, with his single initiative, which appears to be rehabilitation, rehabilitation, rehabilitation. We must try to hit the drug problem across the piece. We must tackle supply as best we can. We must co-operate with Governments abroad, such as those of Afghanistan, Jamaica, Turkey and our European partners, to try to cut off the supply.
  We must improve our policing. We must improve the input against what we call the middle market—the linkage between the traffickers nationally and the problem on the streets. We plan to apply money to that. We must have intensive policing in those areas that suffer from problems of crack cocaine with all that flows from them, such as the connections with violence and gun crime. We must protect our communities by having a comprehensive programme of inputs, using the criminal justice system wherever appropriate, to oblige people into treatment. We do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman on that in principle. At every stage, we want to use the criminal justice system to get people into treatment.
  We are going to run a pilot involving presumption against bail. We are going to have new community sentence DTTO alternatives. We are going to double the number of DTTOs. We already have mandatory testing in nine police force areas and we are going to roll that out to all high-crime areas. There are a lot of issues on which we do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman in principle.
  Mr. John Bercow: Given that the Minister is arguing for a multifaceted approach and that he has criticised what I thought was the shrewd and noble focus of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset on a specific and valuable proposal, can he tell me and the House his specific proposal today to tackle the horrifying exacerbation of the drugs problem that comes about through the virtually unrestricted circulation of drugs in prison, to which reference was made earlier?
  Mr. Ainsworth: If the hon. Gentleman believes that there is some easy answer on the total eradication of
  482
  drugs in prisons, please let us have it, as we have put in a lot of effort on that over some time. We have mandatory testing in prisons and the positive results have fallen considerably, which probably indicates a degree of success. The comprehensive counselling, assessment, referral, advice and through-care services programme is considering how to advise people and providing them with treatment wherever possible, carrying them right through. We are looking to beef up the back end of the CARATS programme to provide effective through-care and aftercare for prisoners, but of course the Prison Service needs to do everything it can to try to keep drugs out of prisons. All of us in the House would urge it to continue to do that.
  Mr. Osborne: My constituency contains Styal women's prison, which is the second largest women's prison in England. The chief inspector of prisons, who recently inspected it, estimated that some 40 per cent. of the prisoners were on heroin, although the Government think that the figure is much higher. Styal still does not have a proper drug detoxification unit, partly because it has changed from a small to a large prison in the past couple of years. Will the Minister consider the particular case of Styal prison and its desperate need, as identified by the chief inspector, for a drug detoxification unit?
  Mr. Ainsworth: Yes, I will. We are happy to consider that case, but I ask the hon. Gentleman—this is as true in the community as it is here—to consider who should take the decisions as to where and whether a detox programme is needed in a particular area or in a particular establishment. I suggest that there are many other issues on which he would come to the House and argue that, in imposing a rigid system, rehab would be provided across the board, even where it was not necessarily the most appropriate input, which is exactly what I am arguing now. That is not a decision for Ministers, it would be far better taken in the locality following consideration of its needs. Detox is about 10 times more expensive than some other interventions, so we are talking about big money here. If we provided residential rehabilitation where it was not needed, we would be wasting money that badly needs to be spent in other areas.
  Ms Abbott: On the question of drugs in prisons, my hon. Friend will be aware that I was a graduate trainee with the Home Office many years ago, and I worked in the prisons department. There are no easy answers, but some straightforward things could be done, including regularly searching warders for drugs, which does not happen at present. Restrictions on visitors were referred to earlier. Also, we must make absolutely sure that there are no vestiges of the attitude that I saw in the prisons department 20 years ago among those at prison governor grade—at least if the prisoners are spaced out of their heads, they are easier to manage. I do not have a magic solution, but those simple things would go some way towards clearing drugs out of prisons.
  Mr. Ainsworth: One hopes that those attitudes have been eradicated from the Prison Service and that we are seriously considering how to help people as much as we can, but, as the right hon. Member for West Dorset says, the drugs strategy also needs to address the problem of

  483
  young people, as the right hon. Member for West Dorset says. If we do not cut off tomorrow's problematic drug users, we shall wind up having treated one set of people as others are coming along behind them to provide the same problem. We estimate that there are about 250,000 problematic drug users in this country. If he is suggesting, as he appears to be, that many of them can effectively be abandoned so that we can spend the money that is available on a relative few, that will not help us to cut the crime that is caused by the drug problem in our country.
  John Mann: My hon. Friend says that decisions on what forms of treatment should be available need to be made at local level. Who should make those decisions, and what criteria and evidence base should they use to judge success?
  Mr. Ainsworth: In the first instance, it has to be the drugs action team. We must ensure that the DAT is properly structured and can make a good analysis of all the area's needs, and that all the relevant local agencies have a proper input. It is our responsibility to ensure that there are adequate resources for DATs to commission services, and then we must hold them to account. I do not see how we can impose a rigid system from the centre on every area, insisting that there should be so many rehab places. People nearer to the problem in a particular area will understand its size, structure and complexity and will seek to commission services to deal with it. That is common sense, and it would use the money available in the most cost-effective way.
  John Mann: The majority of people on my DAT, like every other, are not from the health professions. What other part of the national health service makes health decisions through people such as council officers, police and probation officers, rather than health professionals?
  Mr. Ainsworth: DATs cannot consist solely of health professionals. Other people, including some from the local authority, need to have an input.
  I have spoken for longer than I should. I commend the updated drugs strategy to the House. I ask the House to reject the motion and support the amendment. There are no simple solutions to this problem, but the updated drugs strategy builds on the work that has been done and the lessons that have been learned over the past four years. Only by pursuing it with vigour and ensuring that we deliver do we stand a chance of reducing the significant drug problem that we have in our country, which causes so much crime and misery. The Government are absolutely pledged to that. It is a major priority for us. I commend the amendment to the House.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. David Heath: Something rather interesting is happening. We are edging towards the point at which we have a sensible, rational debate on the problems of drugs in this country—the second debate on the subject in this Chamber in about five weeks, and that is a precedent. The issue is no longer a peripheral one and it is being approached sensibly, without sloganising or fixed attitudes. The Home Affairs
  484
  Committee report was a great help in that process, as was the approach taken by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). I do not agree with everything in the motion, and I will explain why, but I commend him for the manner in which he set out his ideas.
  We are witnessing a retreat from certainty, and that is a very good thing, because none of us can be certain about what is the right approach. There is conflicting evidence, and various initiatives have been tried but have failed. We all edge our way forwards. What is the firm ground? We can all accept—it is explicit in the motion—that the drugs trade is a motor of crime. I was certainly convinced of that when I was chairman of a police authority in Avon and Somerset. I saw that the drugs trade was a significant problem not only in inner-city Bristol but throughout the force area, driving burglary, street crime and car crime in rural as well as urban areas, as people often found that the pickings were richer out in the country, where property was perhaps less well defended. On the back of that, circumstances were created in which organised crime and gun crime could prosper, and many evils resulted.
  We can also all agree that we want to be effective in dealing with the supply and distribution of hard drugs. Importation is clearly a factor. I am still critical of the extent to which the Government's efforts have been focused on closing down some of the import routes, especially in central Asia. I have been concerned for some time that the diplomatic effort in that area has been insufficient. Police officers in Bristol have also complained strongly about the West Indies, suggesting that every plane arriving from Jamaica for some time has been a source of hard drugs in the Bristol area. I am not convinced that the interdiction efforts of either Customs and Excise or the intelligence services have been robust enough.
  I am sorry to say that recent figures from Customs and Excise show that, far from an improvement in performance, less cocaine and heroin have been seized recently. In 2000–01, 9,463 kg was seized; the following year it was down to 9,007 kg; and in the first half of the current year the figure was only 3,639 kg, which suggests a marked decrease in seizure rates. I accept that there is an element of serendipity about whether there is a big seizure at a particular time, but the figures do not suggest that Customs and Excise is winning the war. Perhaps more effort should be made.
  I hope that we can all agree that not all drugs are the same in their harmful effects. I find it hard to identify a psychotropic drug that does not have any harmful effects. However, even if we accept that all drugs have some harmful effects, it is nevertheless a nonsense to pretend that class A drugs—the hard drugs—are equally as dangerous as some of the drugs classified as class C, or which are about to be reclassified as such. The problem with not recognising that fact is that it undermines everything else that we say about the subject. It is no good asserting to young people that cannabis is as dangerous as heroin, because they do not believe it. They know that that is not true, and to do so undermines everything that we do. We must therefore look at the problem not only of insulting the intelligence of the community whom we are trying to influence but of misdirecting police effort and resources away from where they can be effective in dealing with drugs that are

  485
  proven to kill, towards those that are not proven to kill and which may have a less harmful effect than fully legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.
  My fourth point concerns dealing with the user, and this is where the motion of the right hon. Member for West Dorset really comes into effect. We are, I hope, reaching a consensus that dealing with the possession of drugs as if it were a criminal offence requiring a custodial sentence is nonsense. Apart from anything else, to do so puts the person in question into a context in which they will be encouraged to take drugs. Indeed, as has already been discussed, on coming out of prison they may find themselves on drugs that are harder than those that they were on when they went in. There is some evidence of an improvement in the Prison Service's performance in that regard; nevertheless, a very real risk exists.
  It is clear that that point does not apply when there are aggravating circumstances. Much was said in a previous debate about driving under the influence of drugs. We do not treat that problem seriously enough, and there should be greater awareness of it. It has been suggested, not least by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), that a halfway stage of "substantial possession" should be recognised. That would create a threshold that both the police and the user can identify and understand by establishing a quantity that is considered likely to be used for purposes other than personal, or directly social. In my view, there is a strong argument for that.
  The question, therefore, is: what do we do with the user? The motion of the right hon. Member for West Dorset advances the proposition that any new money should be put solely into the treatment of the young. Although I accept that his proposition would have merit in the context of a wider approach, my worry is that other improvements would not result. I am thinking of the older user, who needs continuing and enhanced assistance. As we know, the availability of facilities across the country is patchy, and in many parts there is an unacceptably long period of referral and an unacceptably weak support system.
  Pilot schemes and initiatives are under way to couple release from prison with continuing rehabilitation. Here, I pray in aid a chief superintendent in my constituency, who has written to me commending the pilot scheme in Bristol known as the prolific offender scheme. The Minister nods, so he is obviously familiar with it. The chief superintendent says that what is desperately needed is for that scheme—which provides continuing support for prolific offenders within a regulated environment outside prison, including support with drug addiction—to be extended across the police force area. That requires money and resources. It requires resources from the Home Office, and support from the health service in providing the right mix of personnel. I do not agree entirely with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who said that only medical staff have a role in this regard. A more holistic approach would be of benefit. The probation service clearly has something to say on the subject of prolific offenders in particular, and something to do if we are to protect our communities effectively.
  John Mann: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although drugs action teams should not consist
  486
  exclusively of health professionals, at least half of the membership of their governing boards, rather than a small minority, should consist of health professionals?
  Mr. Heath: I am less worried about that issue than the hon. Gentleman clearly is; I want the right package to he developed for the individual. I want that package to contain a very strong health component, and I want general practitioners to form a part, because they have something very important to say and to do. However, that is not to decry the efforts of others who are taking a sensible position on this issue, and who are able to provide support for the individual. Nevertheless, I do think that we need to establish a package that works for the individual concerned, and for the wider community, because the two are inseparable in this instance.
  There is a further point about the young drug user. Let us not lose sight of the need to prevent a person who is taking drugs from becoming addicted. If we put all our eggs in one basket and adopt the one-club approach, I am not convinced that we will have the additional support for education, youth services and the alternative opportunities afforded to young people that will prevent them from becoming involved with this pernicious trade in the first place. That would worry me; it is right to have several stages in an effective drugs strategy, and prevention is just as important as cure.
  I have a problem with the motion but not with the speech of the right hon. Member for West Dorset, which I found interesting. This debate is almost like a seminar; that is a good thing for this place because it does not happen often enough. It was spoiled by some of the barracking, but let us hope that this positive tone continues.
  We must not focus all our attention on the young addict, however important that is. Let me say gently that I am not convinced that the sums add up when it comes to providing the level of support that the right hon. Gentleman wants. I want to see a more diverse approach for young people to ensure that, as far as possible, we prevent them from becoming addicts in the first place.
  My basic motto in all matters to do with law and order is that the two most effective preventive measures regarding crime and the distribution and supply of drugs are the certainty of being caught—which, in turn, requires resources for policing, intelligence and other services—and the certainty of effective action, whether in sentencing, support or rehabilitation, for the people who emerge at the other end. I am not convinced that the right hon. Gentleman's formula achieves that, but it was a valuable contribution to the debate. I hope that continuing the debate in a similar tone and format will enable us to alight on the strategies that work. Not only will we spend our resources in the most effective way, we will ultimately move towards the position that we have heard about in the Netherlands and Sweden, where heroin and crack cocaine, instead of being cool, are identified as the killers they are.
  8.28 pm
  John Mann: I listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). In the spirit of the good dialogue that is breaking out tonight, I shall be visiting the same places, and some others, that he visited in the Netherlands and

  487
  Sweden. I shall be going with a couple of local general practitioners to see what evidence I can glean that could contribute towards our situation. I do not dismiss the proposals, although I believe that the Conservatives have fallen into the trap of looking for the simple solution to the drugs problem. There are no simple solutions.
  Following a public inquiry into heroin, I recommended that more residential rehabilitation provision should be made available to people in my area. Some people in the drugs world immediately leapt on that and proposed having a residential rehabilitation centre in the middle of the drug-dealing area in my constituency. I have nothing against having everything in my constituency. Rationally, however, as the social services department which holds the budget confirms, my local social services would not refer local people living at home to a residential rehabilitation centre in the middle of the drug-dealing area in their own town. That is clearly nonsense, but it has been proposed and I am trying to unravel bids to the Government for up to £500,000. I and others in my inquiry have drawn the conclusion that money itself is not the biggest problem. The issue is how it is used. Simply targeting young offenders is a fundamental error.
  My most important point relates to the figures. I have analysed drug and alcohol action team returns from Nottinghamshire, which contain interesting figures. I have challenged the way in which figures are quantified and the evidence base many times both in and out of the Chamber, and I shall do so again tonight.
  The DAT returns from Nottinghamshire tell us that all 58 secondary schools—100 per cent.—are providing anti-drugs education. Yet I have visited the schools and met many pupils, without teachers or others being present, and most of them have told me that they have had no anti-drugs education at secondary school. Something is clearly not adding up. I have recommended that the national curriculum should be tightened, and I believe that dialogue is taking place on that at present. I hope that other hon. Members will contribute on what the national curriculum should contain. The principle is clear, however, that a key part of the curriculum for every age between 11 and 16 should be coherent anti-drugs education. My schools clearly do not include it at the moment.
  Mr. Simmonds: To my mind, the critical question is who goes to schools to educate children on the dangers of drug abuse. Students at secondary schools perceive teachers, police officers and others to be part of the establishment and will not listen to the advice that they give. Systems should be in place to allow rehabilitated drug addicts and members of their families to go to schools to explain to pupils exactly what it means to be an addict or part of a family that contains an addict.
  John Mann: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I am offering local schools something that arose fortuitously on the back of my constituency inquiry. A television company made a hard-hitting programme that began with the drug addicts themselves and their view of life. They did not provide a positive role model. It then moved on to the families, particularly the mothers,
  488
  of those who have died from drug overdoses and those who have survived for a long time as heroin addicts. Their stories are powerful testimony, spoken by many local people.
  We need to consider what works. On education, I would not rule any method out or any method in. One thing is clear, however: young people in my area do not believe that they are receiving anti-drugs education, and we can therefore say unequivocally that they are, by definition, not receiving it, no matter what DAT returns or anything else might say.
  The DAT returns are even more interesting than that. For primary schools, the return says that 36 out of 36 schools are receiving anti-drugs education. I had to scratch my head when I read that because there are around 60 primary schools in my constituency alone. The statistics are becoming a little obscure.
  More important even than schools is drug treatment. In 2001–02 in Nottinghamshire, we are told, there were 1,473 new clients and 2,297 people receiving treatment. If we add the previous year's figures, we find that the same number of people appear to be receiving treatment. Some people—but not many—will have been on the lists in previous years. The evidence shows that many people who drop out of treatment programmes subsequently re-present themselves. People who want treatment are thus likened to those who are being treated and the numbers add up. Approximately, 2,400 people have asked for treatment, but 2,297—only 110 fewer—are receiving it.
  If we consider the average for waiting lists for all forms of treatment, we can discount the two most recent months, because those people will still be waiting, so again the figures add up. The statistics suggest that everyone who wants treatment is receiving it, yet in my constituency alone I have spoken to more than 150 heroin addicts and their families who tell me that they are not getting treatment. They do not say that they are not getting good or effective treatment or that they would prefer one form rather than another—although such information could be found out—but that they are not getting treatment at all.
  Angela Watkinson: When the hon. Gentleman refers to treatment, does he mean maintaining an addict's supply of clean needles and a safe form of the drug, or a programme of withdrawal and abstinence?
  John Mann: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. The DAT returns do not specify that point. That is one of my questions: what is the definition of treatment? In Nottinghamshire, it is clear: any relationship with the treatment services is defined as treatment. That is how we arrived at a figure of 118,000. That is not a criticism of the Government but of the professionals in the field—the drugs establishment— who create the statistics.
  I shall elaborate on waiting times in Nottinghamshire. According to the current DAT annual returns, the longest time that anyone has waited for residential rehabilitation is 10 weeks. However, person A and their parents visited my surgery 14 months ago and I followed person A's progress monthly. Person A requested residential rehabilitation and I followed the dialogue.

  489
  Person A's parents have visited me regularly. I encouraged that; indeed, in some ways, my office team and I have become part of the support mechanism for person A and their family. Person A went into a residential rehabilitation scheme only in late November, after I had raised their case in my inquiry. Perhaps it was a coincidence. Leaving that aside, however, person A had been asking for residential rehabilitation for 12 months.
  Although person A is happy to be named, I do not think that it is appropriate or relevant to the further details that I shall give about the case. Person A is in a stable situation. During those 12 months, they were not involved in any crimes although they had been previously. Person A is living at home with their parents—previously they were not. The father has been buying drugs for person A to ensure a downward progression of intake before rehabilitation. That is known and the father has, rightly, not been arrested—an instance of appropriate policing. The father has been maintaining person A, stabilising them and preparing them for rehabilitation, precisely as the national treatment agency suggests.
  I have two questions. First, why was person A not referred earlier, and secondly, why did the information given to the Government about waiting lists state that the longest waiting time was 10 weeks when person A had to wait 12 months?
  Mr. Streeter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  John Mann: May I continue my point before taking interventions?
  The waiting time for community prescribing is three weeks for priority cases and 11 weeks for non-priority cases. Clearly, I have a problem in judging what is priority and non-priority, but I have asked the questions and believe that person B is likely to be deemed a priority for various reasons.
  Person B has been involved in a range of semi-criminal activities. She may have been involved in prostitution, like many people of her gender. She has not volunteered that information to me, but the advice workers in the field suggest that the vast majority of women heroin addicts in my constituency are regularly involved in some form of prostitution to fund their habit. I believe that information to be accurate. Certainly, if person B has not been involved that activity, she is very rare among her cohort of young women drug users.
  Is person B in the three-week or 11-week category? I have followed person B's case on a weekly, not monthly, basis because she gave evidence at my inquiry nearly five months ago. Person B said, "I was due to meet a drugs worker outside Boots the Chemist for an appointment to discuss a potential detox." Why the meeting was supposed to happen outside Boots the Chemist is a separate issue, but it was not person B's choice. The drugs worker did not turn up. Person B then had to wait while the drugs worker went on holiday.
  Person B happens to have a mobile phone on which the drugs worker has left messages. I have listened to those messages. Frankly, they are extraordinary, showing the most patronising and worst aspects of any bureaucracy and any section of the health service.
  490
  Person B was asked whether or not she was ready for a detox. That is a professional decision. Who takes it? One person, not a team of people—it is not a multi-agency issue, like DATs or drugs reference groups. So person B has been waiting and waiting.
  I have a letter that was sent to person B on 24 December. It says:"We have recently received a referral on your behalf to our service at the Maltings"—
  the name of the drugs treatment centre—
  "Would you please telephone the referral worker…on a Monday, Wednesday or Friday afternoon…to confirm that you require contact with our service and to discuss your present situation? If we do not hear from you within the next seven days, we will assume that you do not require our service."
  That letter was written despite my involvement as the Member of Parliament and despite the fact that I and other people from my office and the community rang up the drugs treatment service on behalf of person B. Is person B on the waiting list or not? On what basis has that decision been made? Who is sending out a new referral letter, and how does that equate to the statistics?
  I could give many more examples, but the two that I have mentioned are particularly poignant, as they happen to be ones that I followed in the first instance purely because the people involved came to my surgery.
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth: We all appreciate the depth to which my hon. Friend has been prepared to go into this issue. I would not stand at the Dispatch Box and seek to suggest that every decision taken in his DAT or any other is right. Of course I do not know the identities of person A and person B, but no one seeks to pretend that we will provide residential rehabilitation on demand. My hon. Friend should talk to a number of people who work on drugs issues. The person whom I quoted, Geoff Cobbe, from my own area would say that providing such treatment on demand would be totally wrong and that many millions of pounds would be wasted on inappropriate treatment, as happened until 1993, when, in effect, such treatment was available in theory, but nothing else besides.
  John Mann: I thank the Minister for his intervention. My response is straightforward: person B does not want residential rehabilitation but community-based treatment. If person A is suitable now, why were they not suitable previously? What has changed, especially as the drugs treatment budget was underspent for the last year? I suspect that the only thing that has changed is that a year end is coming, there has been an inquiry and some pressure, and people are spending up the budget. I am not an advocate of residential rehabilitation as a panacea. People come to me for quick solutions, which I do not offer or recommend. A range of possibilities exists. All I wish to see in my area is a menu of treatment provided for people when they want it, straight away, and not further down the line.
  A Home Office written answer to me on 12 December stated:
  "DAT plans are analysed by regional teams consisting of Home Office officials, National Treatment Agency representatives…They give careful scrutiny to all the information provided. Any quantitative information is rigorously checked to ensure its accuracy."—[Official Report, 12 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 476W.]

  491
  I hope that the statistics for my DAT are unique in the country, but they are meaningless, fairy tale statistics, in relation to both education and drugs treatment. That is very worrying, because what I ask for repeatedly—I would ask for it from the Opposition, too, with regard to their proposals—is an evidence base in relation to what succeeds and what does not. Let us be honest with people. Of the 150 addicts in my constituency whom I have seen—the number is increasing, as more and more come to see me—and who are officially documented in the inquiry, all of them want treatment. Some of them will be good bets, and some will be bad bets. Some of them are heroin addicts who became criminals, and some are criminals who became heroin addicts. Some will get through treatment, and some will not. The one thing that is common to them is that they want treatment, and they want honesty. They want people to be straight with them. If they are told that they must wait six months for a residential rehabilitation place, but that, if they do certain things, they will get one, many of them—although they may not be delighted—will be prepared to wait on that basis. The problem in my area is that they do not trust a word that they are told by the drugs treatment services.
  To explain partly why that is, let me read from a leaflet produced by a neighbouring drug reference group within my DAT:
  "If you choose to use remember…The effects from eating dope are hard to judge. You will save your lungs but may lose your head—pace yourself…Sometimes using cannabis may not agree with you, it can lead to feeling sick or scared. Tell a friend, find a quiet place to relax, and in an hour the worst should be over…Use and possession of cannabis is illegal—a criminal conviction is nothing but hassle…One of the biggest risks to a user is being caught."
  The evidence from my constituents is that one of the biggest risks is moving on to other drugs. I would include cigarettes and alcohol in the same equation as cannabis in terms of drug experimentation by young people. Some young people in my constituency move on to heroin, and commit crime as a result of addictive use.
  That kind of publication is not what Government money should be spent on in my area. I want effective education. The question of DARE has already been raised in this debate. It originated in Nottingham, and it is education run mainly by the police in primary schools. There is no evidence base, although I am now constructing my own, with the consent of users: an effective database detailing when they started using, who they are, where they are from, and what interventions there have been. One thing that is interesting is that there seems to be clear evidence that DARE has had success: the 16-year-olds, 15-year-olds and 14-year-olds are not getting addicted to the extent that, three or four years ago, their older brothers and sisters were. It is early days, and we are dealing with the first group of 16-year-olds to go through the programme. However, I understand that the blueprint programme has a budget of £9 million while the budget for the DARE organisation is only £80,000, and that money is provided by local businesses in and around Bassetlaw. Let us consider what could be done if we experimented with DARE for every year in secondary schools, in sure start and, crucially, with parents. I would like pilots to do that.
  492
  DARE has recently extended successfully into parts of south Wales, and I would like the experience to be shared across the country. There is no question that it is beginning to have an impact. My view and that of many of the 16-year-olds to whom I have spoken is that, if the programme continues at ages 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, we will have informed school cohorts who, at a minimum, will not make irrational decisions. However, DARE provides more than that. It deals with issues such as bullying, pride and self-respect. That is why it works. It is not so much a drugs message but a message about an individuals' self-respect wherever they come from and whatever their parents are like. We face the problem of quite a large number of second-generation kids whose parents are heroin addicts. The sum of £80,000 is not a lot so let us imagine what might happen if the figure was doubled, tripled or quadrupled to allow DARE to expand and pilot other programmes in secondary schools. That would be a cheap, cost-effective and valid use of resources.
  I hope that the Opposition will take heed. They offer a simple solution and they need to get their line right. On 7 January in the Committee considering the Criminal Justice Bill, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) referred to their policy involving an eightfold increase, but I am sure that that was a slip of the tongue. More worryingly, however, he said that the money was for residential and non-residential treatment. I urge caution against accepting the view that there is a panacea for a particular age group. The proposal equates in my constituency, as in everyone else's, to 12 new places for young people, and we need considerably more than that in residential rehabilitation, community-based treatment and everything else. We need significantly more places and we need them now. The Opposition's policy must be reconsidered.
  I want in my area drugs courts that give people a choice. The moment that young people enter the criminal fraternity, they should be given immediate treatment. Drugs testing should also be introduced in the way that it has been by the chief constable at Worksop police station.
  I have a final request for the Government. Pilots have all too often been based on where the maximum amount of crime is perceived to take place—that is, the cities. One of the problems with pilots in cities is that the population in them is highly transient. The population in my area is highly immobile. Because it is not transient, we can provide better than any city an evidence base that shows what does and does not work. The same people who are in my area now will be there in 10 years. We should not work on the overall statistics that mean that my consistuency is masked by an average that relates to it and to the constituencies of the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping). The problem is in Worksop, and the drug-related crime rate there is as high as anywhere else. We want to be part of the pilots so that we can provide an evidence base and offer real hope to young people.
  8.54 pm
  Angela Watkinson: The motion recognises the irrefutable link between hard drugs and crime and the need for mandatory treatment and

  493
  rehabilitation for young heroin and cocaine addicts. I hope to persuade the House that the Government's updated drugs strategy published last December, focused as it is on providing more and more treatment, is deficient and is heading for inevitable failure. As admirable and as necessary as it is, the simple provision of treatment will do nothing to deter drug use or reduce the number of drug addicts.
  Such a strategy cannot succeed without robust prevention measures to stem the never-ending flow of new addicts and an equally robust enforcement of the law. Given that the majority of drug abusers come into contact with the police after committing another crime, such as burglary, shoplifting or assault, tolerance, understanding and the provision of treatment without meaningful sanction will do nothing to deter repeat offending. Indeed, it will encourage it. Nor will it bring offenders to understand the devastation that they have caused to their victims' lives. The violation of a family home and the loss of personal possessions, often of sentimental value and irreplaceable, can permanently deprive the victims of their sense of security and peace of mind.
  To the law-abiding majority in this country, the recent statements by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice were an outrage. They were a licence for burglars to go about their vile activities without fear of punishment. If the appalling crime of burglary is so widespread that the police do not have the means to deal with it and if our prisons are too overcrowded to accommodate all the burglars, the answer is to increase the number of police on our streets and to build more prisons, not to make burglary a non-crime, which is what happened with cannabis possession. When I opposed the downgrading of the law on cannabis in the Home Affairs Committee report on drugs policy, I asked, tongue in cheek, how long it would be before the strategy was applied to other crimes such as burglary. Little did even I think that it would happen so quickly. I shudder to imagine what will be the next crime to be neutralised in that way out of expedience.
  Let us not kid ourselves that lenient community sentences are anything other than a slap on the wrist. Many are never completed and monitoring of attendance is patchy at best because of a lack of resources. If offenders face no real consequence as a result of their actions, they will see the offence itself as being of no consequence, its effect on their victims as being of no consequence and, indeed, the victims themselves as being of no consequence. That is what the policy will teach them. Never has there been such a gulf between justice and the law.
  Similarly, just as treatment cannot succeed without prevention, so attacking the supply of drugs cannot succeed without also attacking the demand that sustains the market—although it is, of course, a fundamental element of drug strategy. It is unrealistic to regard all drug addicts as victims. They must take some responsibility for their actions alongside the dealers. The market is demand led. That is why prevention is so important in enabling the provision of treatment to be sustainable in terms of cost and the numbers needing it.
  The declassification of cannabis is pivotal to the success of any drugs policy. Whereas it is acknowledged that hard drugs such as cocaine and heroin do the greatest damage, there is overwhelming evidence from
  494
  both medical professionals and the police that the majority of hard drug users start on cannabis. I am utterly convinced by the gateway theory. That is why the reclassification of cannabis from class B to class C was so wrong. In February 2001, the Government rejected that idea, yet eight months later they changed their mind—a decision which I suspect owes more to the difficulty of managing the scope of the problem than to a reassessment of the inherent dangers.
  The message is now so confusing that many young people think that cannabis is harmless, legal or both. Its mind-altering capabilities are complex and the cannabis on sale today is several times stronger than it was in the past. It is able to induce psychosis, mood swings, confusion, delusions or even hallucinations.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: Is the hon. Lady aware that there are roughly 23 different forms of cannabis? If a person purchases cannabis in a Netherlands coffee shop, the person selling it will offer advice. It is not true to say that all cannabis available in this country today is of such high quality. There is a wide range of qualities.
  Angela Watkinson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should require dealers to explain the strength of the cannabis that they sell. I would much prefer it if they did not sell it at all.
  Paul Flynn: The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) is making is a fair one. In a market in which the consumer has a choice, most drug users, particularly alcohol users, choose the mildest form of drug, so most people use wine or beer rather than spirits. During prohibition in America all that was on offer was distilled spirit, which was highly concentrated. In a market such as that in Holland, in which there is a choice, the majority of people use a safer drug and take it in a way that avoids smoking, which is the most dangerous way of taking it.
  Angela Watkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but I would claim that all forms of cannabis are undesirable and harmful. I should like to eradicate it altogether—a rather long-term strategy, I know, but that should be our aim.
  The number of marijuana-related emergency room incidents in this country reached nearly 90,000 in 1999. Worst of all, the use of marijuana so often leads to a hard drug habit and all the misery that that entails. A sentencing regime that does not use the lighter penalties for class C drugs will inevitably find itself dealing with more and more class A offences, some of which could have been avoided. Reducing the number of cannabis users would in turn reduce the number of heroin and cocaine addicts. Cannabis is by far the most widely used drug, and a policy that does not take seriously the part that it plays in the spectrum of drug use cannot possibly succeed.
  The scale of drug-driving is also increasing at an alarming rate. In a snapshot survey by police over the Christmas period, more than half of those stopped for erratic driving were found to have drugs present in their bloodstream. The variety of illegal drugs commonly in use means that a roadside test would be much more

  495
  difficult to devise than the test used for alcohol, but research is urgently needed to find an effective test to help the police to start combating that growing problem.
  The first essential in prevention policy is proper drugs education. Some of the literature that passes for education in our schools is information of the most undesirable kind. We have heard something on that subject from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). Lifeline, a Manchester-based charity, in a booklet about cannabis, showed how a joint is rolled. The first piece of advice in "How to survive your parents discovering you're a Drug User" is "Don't get caught in the first place." Other Lifeline publications are full of four-letter words, shockingly graphic illustrations and instructions on how to inject.
  A favourite phrase is "informed choice". Anyone advocating informed choice for other widespread illegal activities such as speeding or shoplifting would be severely censured. Why is it tolerated in the case of drugs? Even if children were properly informed about drugs—and most are not—there should be no choice because drugs are illegal. Anyway, children are not mature enough to choose: they are not miniature adults and they should never be put in the position of having to make critical life decisions.
  In 2000, DrugScope, our largest drug charity, distributed a booklet on cannabis in its "What and Why" series. One illustration showed a young man in the midst of a crop of cannabis plants wearing a cap that says "Have fun, take care". What sort of message does that send to our children? Harm reduction education does not tackle drugs; it accommodates them. Ofsted inspections must start to address that problem.
  Thankfully, the majority of teenagers do not use any illegal drugs and never have. Our biggest weapon in prevention is normalisation. We must help those under pressure to see that abstention from illegal drugs is normal at any age—childhood, adolescence and adulthood. Prevention can and does work, as seen in America between 1979 and 1991. Parents got fed up with trendy excuses for drug taking, and collaborated with teachers, the police, Customs and Excise, social workers and students to foster the idea that taking drugs is not normal or socially desirable, and that it is indeed harmful. It worked. The number of drug users fell from 23 million to 14 million, a 60 per cent. reduction. Use of cannabis and cocaine halved.
  An American survey done at the time of the campaign is very instructive. More than 70 per cent. of high school students who were non-users of cannabis were concerned about psychological and physical damage. Parental disapproval deterred over 60 per cent. Some 40 per cent. were put off by illegality factor. More than 50 per cent. were worried about progression to stronger drugs and slightly fewer thought that they might become addicted. Real drugs education must carry robust warnings of the disastrous effects of ignoring all the available advice—damage to health, education, career prospects and financial stability, the slippery slope to criminal activity to fund a habit, the misery and worry caused to family and friends and the cost to society at large through the NHS and the police. Young people need to be told that when they are offered drugs, the dealer whom they may have thought was a friend does
  496
  not want them to have fun or a good time but simply wants their money—not only today or tomorrow, but next week and next month. In other words, the dealer wants a regular income and gives no thought to the suffering that lies ahead.
  Policy has to tackle two separate but very closely related issues: treating and rehabilitating existing addicts and preventing young people from becoming addicts. Without prevention measures to address the latter, the former will never be achieved. Let us have as our national aim a drug-free society. It may take a very long time to achieve, but it is a goal on which we should not compromise.
  9.6 pm
  Paul Flynn: The policies advocated by the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) are precisely those that this country and all parties followed from 1971 until very recently. The result of those policies is that the number of hard drug users has moved from fewer than 1,000 in 1970, when there was virtually no drug crime and drug death was very rare, to the current position, where there are 280,000 hard drug users. Perversely, it is prohibition that has caused that increase in drug use.
  I shall follow the example set by those on the two Front Benches and not speak from notes, but respond to the debate. It has been suggested, I know in good faith, that education is one of the ways in which we should invest very large sums on tackling drugs. The DART—drug abuse resistance taskforce—and DARE schemes have now been running in America for almost 30 years. A recent independent assessment suggested that they were ineffective. The people running the schemes said that they used to be ineffective, but that they now had a new approach. They made the same excuse eight years ago and also 15 years ago, but unfortunately the only genuinely independent and scientific examination that has been conducted of the effect on a control group of a drug education group has shown that there is no effect whatever.
  The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) proposed the new wheeze of sending ex-drug users to teach in schools. A celebrated study was conducted in America in about 1955, when drug use was endemic in cities but rare in the countryside, whereby ex-drug users were sent into the country areas. Ex-hippies in their late 20s or 30s, with long hair, handsome attractive figures and guitars, were talking to 15-year-olds and saying "We've been through all this; we've been through all the drugs and had it all, degradation and sexual orgies, and it was dreadful. You must not take drugs because your parents do not want you to have them and they are wicked and dangerous." Wickedness is just what 15-year-olds are after. Danger is what they long for, because they all know that they are immortal and will live for ever. Not unsurprisingly, drug use followed those anti-drug campaigns as surely as night followed day.
  Mr. Simmonds: The hon. Gentleman has long been a known expert on this subject, which is why I am slightly surprised that he is drawing a parallel between what happened during the pre-hippy movement in the 1950s in the United States and the serious situation of many

  497
  heroin addicts in semi-rural and town areas, about which we heard from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). Indeed, the problem is rife in my rural constituency.
  Paul Flynn: In trying to follow the spirit of this debate and the way in which it was opened, I want to say that none of us has fallen back into the armchair of our own certainties or believes that we have the answer. What we want is some humility, and an admission that decisions taken by serious and conscientious people in this House have resulted in an enormous increase in drug use. We have the worst instance of drug use in Europe. We have the most deaths per head of the population and the worst problems.
  I have been attending these debates for 15 years. The Government announce new plans, wheezes, money and programmes; the Opposition congratulate them and everyone makes speeches similar to that of the hon. Member for Upminster. They make hon. Members look tough and guarantee favourable headlines in the tabloids. However, that has not worked; indeed, nothing has worked.
  We are often in the distressing position of receiving calls about this matter from constituents, usually mothers. A mother will tell us that her daughter, who has been prostituting herself for years, has had a baby, and asks when she will receive treatment. Sometimes a mother will ring up about a suicidal son, who has had a distressing experience and perhaps reached the point where he might change. She asks whether treatment is available. Those are real cases in which I have been unable to help.
  Sometimes a mother says that she is buying heroin for her son because she has a clean source and asks what she should do. What can we say? We make the law. Can we tell people to break the laws that we make? I would break the law if I had a son, grandson or granddaughter in the position that I described. If we do not respect the laws, how dare we continue to impose them on the nation?
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary mentioned Afghanistan. We must examine our past failures and not simply say that we shall have great success in Afghanistan. When we went into that country, the Taliban had reduced the cultivation of poppies in their area by 90 per cent.; the Northern Alliance have increased theirs by 300 per cent. There is no reduction in the growth of poppies. We risk committing the same mistake as the United States did in Colombia two decades ago. The United States decided to sort out the problem in Colombia and coca growth in Bolivia. People used coca as an appetite suppressant because they were starving, and as an antidote to altitude sickness. Only western man—I am sure that it was a man—discovered that when the beans were ingested without touching the saliva in the mouth, coca was a powerful drug.
  If we take the same line in Afghanistan and follow President Bush, we will not stop the flow of drugs because they are being sucked in by demand in Europe and other countries. If cultivation ended in Afghanistan, it would improve in Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Burma, the current source of many drugs. If we took the war against drugs to those areas, we would end up with the
  498
  Colombianisation of central Asia. In Colombia, a war is being waged between three armies, two of which are financed by the drugs trade.
  The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) took a pragmatic approach and did not go in for the cheap party political knockabout that would give him a headline in tomorrow'sDaily Mail. He has seriously considered two interesting countries, Sweden and the Netherlands. Sweden has achieved the most remarkable reduction in the use of a drug anywhere in the world. It has reduced by more than 50 per cent. the use of the most deadly and addictive drug, which, according to its maker's instructions, kills half its users. Sweden has achieved that by accident rather than deliberate policy. It is almost embarrassed about it. I refer to the use of smokeless tobacco.
  In 1980, 36 per cent. of Swedish males smoked cigarettes. That figure is now 17 per cent. The hon. Member for Upminster said that she was against drugs, no matter how they were taken or whatever their strength. Tobacco continues to be used in Sweden but by a method that avoids smoking. Nicotine is no more poisonous or harmful than caffeine, but when it is set on fire, the smoke contains carcinogens and other damaging chemicals. Drawing them into the lungs causes problems such as cancer and respiratory diseases. On average, Sweden's male population suffers half the deaths of the rest of Europe through smoking. The Swedish female population, which does not use the form of moist snuff, has exactly the average number of deaths.
  I am critical of Sweden in one respect. It is the only country in the world that has adopted a line we have never adopted—that of total non-drug use. As a result, it starts from a very low base. According to an analysis of changes that have taken place in Switzerland, Sweden, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom between 1987 and 1999, Sweden and the United Kingdom experienced the greatest increase in drug-related deaths—50 per cent. higher than in Switzerland and the Netherlands. The story is not all good: Sweden has its problems with illegal drugs.
  Again, there is no simple solution. The right hon. Member for West Dorset mentioned the Dutch experiment. Significantly, he accepted at least one thing. The average age of addicts in the Netherlands is rising: it was 28 in the early 1980s, and is now over 40. It may shock Members to learn that there is a home for geriatric heroin users in Rotterdam. They spend their lives there, and their grandchildren turn up to visit them. Perhaps it is shocking that they are still alive at that age.
  We should not dismiss those who are addicted to any drug, whether it is alcohol, tobacco—many people are addicted to tobacco, and will be for life—or an illegal drug. The best we can do is what has been done in the Netherlands, in Australia to a small extent, and in Germany, where such people are treated as patients rather than criminals. One celebrated centre in Rotterdam treats some 250 addicts who are supplied with clean needles and take their drugs under supervision, in hygienic surroundings. I visited the centre. It was upsetting and shocking to watch people abuse their bodies in that way, but I was struck by the contrast between what happened there and what happens in our constituencies. After people have taken their drugs they have someone to talk to; there is a social club and training in information technology, and they

  499
  even produce their own newspaper. In our country we see people taking drugs in foul back alleys, using dirty needles in unhygienic conditions and being helpless afterwards: someone is likely to kick the living daylights out of them.
  We can treat this issue with the seriousness that it deserves and with the humility that we should bring to it because of our past failures. It is not the best idea to go to the practitioners in the drug industry who, like us politicians, have been associated with failure for 30 years. It is time for fresh thinking. It is time to do what the present Government and the Opposition are doing—to look at what has happened elsewhere, and pursue policies that have worked to reduce drug use and the number of drug deaths.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. George Osborne: I have enjoyed listening to the debate. I was particularly struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). Like many others, I knew of the inquiry he had conducted in his constituency. He demonstrated the importance of a practical knowledge of the issues, and how that could inform a speech in the House. I also thought it courageous of him to attack the professionals and their advice rather than attacking Ministers and other politicians—we are not supposed to do that in politics. That was brave, and not just in a "Yes Minister" way.
  I know that others want to speak, but let me say a brief word about Styal women's prison in my constituency. I want to refer to it partly because, apart from Holloway, it is the largest women's prison in the country—it is known as the Holloway of the north; I am not sure whether that is something of which it can be proud—and partly because I visited it just before Christmas, at about the time when a report on a full inspection of it was published by the chief inspector of prisons. I have to say that it was one of the most depressing and enlightening experiences that I have had as a Member of Parliament.
  Styal women's prison has about 450 female prisoners. It has doubled in size in the last couple of years from a reasonably small local training prison to one of the major women's prisons in the country. There is a whole debate to be had, incidentally, about why the female prison population has risen so dramatically. When I spoke to the governor at Styal, what struck me was the endemic heroin abuse that takes place both in the prison and among those who come into it. The chief inspector of prisons estimated in her report that some 41 per cent. of prisoners in Styal were heroin addicts. The chief executive of the Prison Service thinks that that is a gross underestimate by the chief inspector, and the governor told me that probably more like 70 to 80 per cent. of her inmates at least came in as heroin users.
  The sad thing about Styal is the total devastation of the lives of the people there. The governor has spent all her professional career in the Prison Service working in male prisons. Interestingly, she said that there were problems with law and order and with control and security in male prisons, but that in female prisons she had found that the individual prisoners were much less
  500
  predictable and that they often came from much more difficult family circumstances. I was shocked to meet people who had been born in the mother and baby unit of the prison and were now back as inmates. I was physically shocked to meet people whose faces were almost skeletal through heroin use. I was also shocked to meet a lady who was about to be released the next day but did not want to be, because she knew that the following night she would be back on the streets of Manchester working as a prostitute, and that her food would be cold baked beans out of a tin in a bedsit somewhere. Indeed, she was asking the governor what she could do to stay in prison, saying, "What would happen if I attacked one of the warders?" The governor tried to discourage her from doing that.
  Mr. Simmonds: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is not unusual for heroin addicts to ask for longer sentences to be passed, so that they can spend longer in prison, for the very reasons that the case in the prison in his constituency highlights?
  Mr. Osborne: I am certainly aware of that now, after my visit to Styal. I have not had direct experience of heroin use, although I have had experience of other drug misuse in my family, and my visit to Styal was very striking.
  My point is that I would have thought that prisons would be the place to start if we are going to have a national drugs strategy. I am not making a party political point, because I do not think that previous Conservative Governments have helped these people any more than the current Government are doing. I would have thought that we would have started with these people. They are some of the most desperate heroin users, who happen to be in the total care of the state for a period of time because they are in prison, but Styal has no drug detoxification programme—a point that I made in an intervention on the Minister. When the chief inspector came to the prison, she found that to be one of the most serious problems that the prison is facing.
  The governor, Madeline Moulden, is doing a brilliant job, and the chief inspector praised the relationship between the governor and the staff, and between the staff and the prisoners. It is clear from going round the prison with the governor that she knows the names and histories of all the prisoners, but she is really fighting against the tide because she does not have the resources to provide a proper drug rehabilitation programme, despite that being the No. 1 problem in the prison. I want briefly to quote the chief inspector, who said that
  "at the time of the inspection, Styal had no proper detoxification unit, and the Governor's bids for funding such a unit had been rejected. We describe"—
  in the report—
  "women, in their early days there, fitting and vomiting in their cells, with staff unable to do more than observe and try to alleviate their distress. This is unacceptable. The lack of proper detoxification had profound and damaging effects, both in the short and medium term. Women were unsafe, in terms of their physical and mental health and the risk of self-harm and bullying. Their chances of effective education and training during their stay in prison were undermined, as initial assessments were carried out when they were virtually incapable of participating. It is clear that the absence of properly resourced and supervised detoxification was preventing Styal from effectively carrying out many of the tasks that it wants to, and needs to."

  501
  I accept the Minister's comment that it is not necessarily a ministerial decision as to what resources are put into the prison, but Ministers set an overall framework. If it was expected within that overall framework that all prisons of a certain size should have a proper drug detoxification unit, that would of course have an impact on Styal. The director general of the Prison Service, Martin Narey, said in December when the inspector's report was published that it was fair and that he shared
  "the inspectorate's anxiety about the need for proper detoxification facilities. I am determined to do all I can to find the resources, but they are not currently available."
  It costs about £25,000 to keep a prisoner in Styal every year. Surely, as a society and across all political parties and divides, we must start considering how we are spending the money on tackling drugs misuse in this country. If some of that £25,000 were spent on proper drug rehabilitation, a real strategy to help those women in Styal to kick the heroin habit and, in particular, helping them after their release—not just weeks, but hours after they leave prison, which is another matter to which the inspector referred—we would go a lot further in dealing with at least some effects of heroin abuse.
  I listened with interest to what others said about preventing people from using in the first place, but my speech is about dealing with those in our care in our Prison Service, particularly in women's prisons, where we can deal with such problems. We have good ideas for how to get them off their drug habit and we should implement them.
  9.26 pm
  Dr. Brian Iddon: This has been a good debate and I have enjoyed listening to it. It is interesting to consider how the spectrum of the drugs debate has moved. Due to my professional background, I have been interested in drugs, both illicit and licit, all my life. When I was elected to the House in 1997, there was a hard attitude to the misuse of illicit drugs by young and old alike on the streets. So hard was it that the focus seemed to lie strongly on the criminal justice aspects—lock them up and hope that the drugs problem goes away, but clearly it was not about to go away.
  I praise the Government for the attention that they have given to the problem and the money that they have put into all the wide-ranging services that we need to deal with it. I have observed the debate since 1997 and it has slid towards the treatment end of the spectrum, which I very much welcome. We have not heard the statement much this evening, but £1 spent on treatment saves about £3 on the criminal justice system, so that must be money well spent. I have been a great advocate of treatment and I have argued for more of it since being elected to the House, so I was pleased when the national treatment agency was set up over 18 months ago and I am looking forward to it beginning to deliver in the next few years. Its establishment is a welcome development.
  The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) made some interesting remarks and touched on a theme that has not been developed in the debate. He hinted as to the fact that there is a connection between the misuse of drugs and mental illness, but nobody else picked that point up. Sadly, I have to tell the Minister that it is not picked up strongly by the recently published updated drug strategy either.
  502
  The all-party drugs misuse group studied what is called dual diagnosis a few years ago, however, and that is what the right hon. Gentleman was referring to. About 40 to 50 per cent. of the people who are misusing drugs are also mentally ill, and the drug addiction cannot be treated without the mental illness being treated. One thing that we need is more and better-trained people who can recognise a dual or even a poly diagnosis when they see one and treat holistically people who are also misusing drugs, but have other serious problems. Some have benefits problems, some have housing problems and so on.
  The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the differences between how the problem is being tackled in this country, the Netherlands and Sweden. We must also remind ourselves that in different countries there are different cultures. Culture and fashion, particularly the youth and dance culture—the mood in the dance clubs and the shifting from one fashionable drug to another—are incredibly important and differ from country to country.
  One of my main concerns is the misuse of drugs in prisons—I am very concerned about what is going on in the Prison Service. More and more people are going to prison simply because they committed crimes to support a habit. I want to put on record a letter that I received on 6 September from one of my constituents, a father, who said:
  "The reason I am writing this letter today is because my youngest son…who is 27 years of age has just overdosed on heroin. We buried him yesterday on 5th September."
  My constituent wrote to me the next day, 6 September. He continued:
  "He died on 29th August, he came out of prison 6 weeks ago. He was given no program to help him, he was not given any money to help him by social security."
  Social security continually refused to pay even for the clothing grant of which he was in great need. Nothing was done to help him. My constituent continued:
  "Nothing seems to be done when our children are released from prison. We need something in the north-east where our kids can get real help, and not just get fobbed off all the time."
  He went on to talk about his second son aged 31, a heroin addict for 15 years. He was bringing him down here until recently to be treated in a private clinic with naltrexone implants, which, the father believed, were helping him. One night, however, the son got stoned out of his mind on heroin and left the house in his mother's cardigan, so was obviously easily recognisable. He committed a crime and ended up in prison, where he tried to commit suicide.
  That father almost lost two sons, not one, at the ages of 27 and 31, and wants me to bring to the attention of the House serious deficiencies in the criminal justice system, particularly in prisons, which has already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Minister. If there is one point that I want to get over this evening it is that we must improve treatment availability in all our prisons, or at least put prisoners with serious drug problems in the right prison, where they will be looked after and treated. Hopefully, when they are released, they will have not just the through-care to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred but, more importantly, after-care. If they have not been taking drugs while in prison, their tolerance level changes.

  503
  If they come out of prison and take the same amount of heroin as they took before, they will overdose and probably die. A lot of young people do not understand the heroin tolerance problem.
  I saw "Newsnight" on 2 December in which Mr. Hamer from Compass, an organisation which carries out CARAT—counselling, assessment, referral, advice and through-care—assessments in the Prison Service, admitted that an awful lot of assessments are carried out in prison, but are not matched by treatment programmes. Mike Trace, the deputy drugs tsar under Keith Hellawell, was also on "Newsnight" and was critical of the lack of monitoring of the spending of the £50 million allocated to the Prison Service for drug treatment. I raised in Health questions the problem of money not going where it is needed and, to be fair, the Department of Health believes that what was said on "Newsnight" was unfounded. Obviously, there is a dispute.
  I know that other Members wish to contribute to our debate so I shall conclude. When we allocated money for cancer networks, people in the national health service complained that the money was not getting to cancer patients, so the Government have now agreed to audit it extremely carefully, as cancer treatment is one of our top priorities. My final plea to the Minister is, therefore, please can we set up audit trails? We have invested enormous sums in drug treatment and education, but we must ensure, for the benefit especially of younger people but also of older addicts, that the money hits the right targets and is used for what it was intended to be used for.
  9.35 pm
  Mr. Gary Streeter: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), who has extensive knowledge of the subject. I, too, want to make the point that access to treatment is a key weapon in the war against drugs.
  Everyone who has contributed to this debate agrees on one thing: drugs are an enormous menace facing our society and the epidemic sweeping through many parts of the country is extremely serious, and the Government's current response, though well intentioned, has not yet delivered the success that we seek. I urge the Government to think again about the bold idea presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) today. They should not dismiss it because it has come from our party, as the current set of policies being pursued by the Government is not producing the fruit that we would want. I really believe that it would be right to set up a pilot to test my party's bold and radical proposal.
  I am concerned about some of the statistics on which the Government are basing some of their decisions. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann)—I enjoyed his speech—was right to draw our attention to some of the statistics. The updated drugs strategy paper is a good and worthy document, and I agree with much of it, but on page 11 it makes the unlikely claim that DAT returns suggest that the waiting time for treatment is 2.8 weeks for priority cases and 8.3 weeks for non-priority cases. On which part of the country are those statistics based?
  504
  The police and the drug action team in Plymouth tell me that if a heroin addict wakes up one day determined to kick the habit and goes to the Harbourside centre—an excellent charity in Plymouth that helps many people—for help, the response will be, "That is great, and we will do all that we can to help you, but there is a two-year waiting list for the treatment that you need." That is two years, not 8.3 or 2.8 weeks. I worry that Ministers are making decisions based on false information, and I urge them to check the waiting times for treatment of all kinds in all parts of the country. It is no use whatever telling a heroin addict who decides to kick the habit to come back in six months or two years. Think of all the misery and crime that will occur in that time.
  I want to ask the Minister a specific question about Plymouth. Heroin has long been a nightmare for many parts of Plymouth—I have known that for many years—but the police tell me that crack cocaine is now taking hold of the streets in some of our deprived areas. They tell me that we ain't seen nothing yet, and that worries me. They do not think that the DTTO scheme is working very well, and they have started what they call the targeted referral scheme, saying to heroin addicts or crack cocaine users upstream, before they are arrested or prosecuted for an offence, "Look, we know you are stealing or shoplifting to fund your drugs habit—we are watching you, and we will get you—but at this early stage we can offer you treatment." That is not to say that they will not prosecute them, but they give them a chance to make an upstream decision to change their lives at a better time than when they are already in the dock, at which stage we can only offer them the option of facing cold turkey or going on a DTTO.
  The Plymouth police have pursued the pilot scheme, which showed early promise, but there is no funding to develop it. Judge William Taylor went to Downing street on 12 November 2002—I hope that the Minister was aware of that—and asked for a specific sum to pursue that pilot scheme in Plymouth. He is a very experienced judge—the senior judge in Plymouth—and he believes that that could make a real difference in tackling the drug problem that our city faces.
  The Government have not responded to that request for extra money, and if the Minister does nothing else in her winding-up speech, can she please explain what has happened to that request, and say whether the Government are willing to make that money available to help us tackle the problem of drugs in Plymouth?
  9.40 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) opened the debate with a plea to the Government to look at this matter constructively, and this has indeed been an extremely thoughtful and thought-provoking debate. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) described it as a seminar, and I agree that, to some extent, we have looked at this issue in that spirit. Other Members spoke in some detail from their personal experiences. In his opening remarks, my right hon. Friend spoke of his fear that, if they do not understand the appalling gap between their rhetoric and the reality, the Government's current actions may mean that literally millions of pounds of taxpayers' money will be wasted. One had only to hear of the practical experience on the ground of the hon. Member for

  505
  Bassetlaw (John Mann) to realise the width of that gap, to which my right hon. Friend rightly drew attention. In addition to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, other Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) and for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), discussed that reality.
  Ms Dari Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hawkins: No, I am sorry. The hon. Lady was able to intervene earlier a couple of times, but time is so short that, if I am to do justice to the speeches in this debate, I cannot take her intervention.
  My right hon. Friend asked what the Government's contact with drug treatment means in practice for addicts on the streets. Does it mean that addicts are receiving something? It often means, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw pointed out, that they get letters offering them jam tomorrow—sometimes many months into the future. In most cases, whatever is offered by the different treatment agencies does not take them away from drugs.
  My right hon. Friend talked about the success of Ministry of Defence police DARE projects, but even in those cases referral can often involve a wait of six months before an addict sees a drug counsellor. As he said, that does not help in the reconstruction of addicts' lives. Of course, if those addicts continue to commit crime to feed their drug habit, they cause misery for the many law-abiding people whose homes are subject to the burglaries that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster talked about. The misery that they cause through the crimes that they commit to fund their drug addiction is at the heart of what we are trying to address in this debate.
  As my right hon. Friend said, what we need is intense and sometimes repeated residential or quasi-residential rehabilitation. However, we frankly admit that even that will not achieve 100 per cent. success; in many cases, addicts will need to go through such intensive rehabilitation more than once. We should target taxpayers' money on the youngest addicts in order to prevent extra people from joining the list of addicts.
  I, along with my right hon. Friends the Members for West Dorset and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), have seen the success that has been achieved in Sweden. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) always makes the same point about Sweden, but if I may I shall lay one canard to rest. He says that one effect of what happens in Sweden is an increase in drug deaths, but we were told firmly by all the experts whom we met in Sweden that the simple explanation is that they measure their statistics much more fully.[Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw is nodding in agreement. In Sweden, the death of anyone who has the remotest link with a drug is counted as a drug death. That is why the Swedish figures are higher—they are not evidence of a failure of Swedish policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster confirmed, Sweden is one of the success stories. I know that the Minister wants to take this matter seriously, and we need to learn the lessons of the success of the Swedish experience.
  In an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) pointed out
  506
  that many dedicated GPs are trying to help with this problem. I had a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said when he argued for the greater involvement of health professionals in drug action teams. It would help if there were a greater understanding of the health effects of drugs use by those who make the policy. My drug action team in Surrey involves health professionals a great deal, and I think that that could be repeated elsewhere with advantage.
  In a well-advised intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) talked about the prevalence of drugs in prison. We must ensure that our prisons become drug free. As my right hon. Friend says, we should be able to ensure that at least those who are in custody are not receiving drugs. There has to be more coercion and much tighter supervision of prison visits.
  It is essential that we stop spending British taxpayers' money on providing drugs to prisoners. The Minister may or may not realise it, but the Scottish Executive, to our amazement, have introduced a policy of spending taxpayers' money on providing drugs to inmates of Scottish prisons. I think that most people would be horrified to think that their taxes were being spent on providing drugs for prisoners, but it is happening in Scotland. If the Minister was not aware of that, I hope that he will look into it, because my colleagues in the Scottish Parliament have raised it.
  In an intervention on my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) talked about the difficulties of the drinking and drugs culture, which have been made worse by the Government's relaxation of policies against alcohol. He was quite right to raise that.
  When the Minister responded to my right hon. Friend, he said that he had not previously taken his alternatives terribly seriously but that he would do so now. We welcome that approach. The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted the Government to spend a great deal more. However, he has a problem in that the Government's much trumpeted drugs tsar, Keith Hellawell, was unable to support what the Government were doing; he was unable to accept their abandonment of their own drugs target and said that there was a lot of spin to disguise failure. Given that the Government's drugs tsar, so lauded when he was first appointed, talked about a culture of failure and about setting, missing and abandoning targets, the Minister has a real problem, despite his sincerity.
  As my right hon. Friend said to the Minister in an intervention, we need to pilot what we are suggesting. We are not suggesting that the Government should turn round the supertanker of Home Office policy instantly and abandon everything that it is doing. Instead, let us pilot what we are suggesting against the Government's proposals and see what works. We believe that what we have suggested, along the lines of what works in Sweden, would work here.
  There is undoubtedly a concern about some of the drugs charities and the way in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster said in an excellent speech, they appear to inform vulnerable schoolchildren about drugs rather than educating them away from drugs. I hope that the Minister will take the initiative of asking

  507
  the Charity Commission to look carefully at whether some of those organisations are entitled to charitable status. The kind of leaflets that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster talked about appear to promote drugs or concentrate on the policy of "harm minimisation", which is really code for legalisation. Perhaps they should not be charities; they certainly should not receive taxpayers' money.
  In an intervention on the Minister and in his speech, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon pointed out that the reality is that of 38 people who were arrested and received drug treatment and testing orders in Plymouth, 28 have been arrested and have committed further drug-related crimes while under the drug treatment and testing order. That is not an example of the Government's policy working but of the failure of Government policy that my right hon. Friend described.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) spoke, as he has done repeatedly, about the views of DrugScope—a rather discredited charitable organization—on cannabis. The Minister said that he always took notice of DrugScope. Perhaps, in the light of the leaflets described by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, he should not take so much notice of it.
  The problem is undoubtedly extremely complex. The Minister was right to talk about tackling the routes of supply of drugs. However, we need intensive policing, a point on which the Government—at least in their intentions—and the Opposition agree.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) talked about a retreat from certainty. He will forgive me for saying that the Liberal Democrats are never certain about anything, particularly not on drugs. He also said, however, that the drugs trade is a major motor for gun crime, and I certainly agree with that.
  This has been a high-quality debate and I hope that the Government will take seriously the ideas proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset and my colleagues.
  9.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): This has been a fascinating debate. Many speeches from Members on both sides have been thoughtful and full of information. I was particularly impressed by the contributions that Members based on experiences of services in their constituencies, which showed the scale of the difficulty that faces our country in trying to deal with the problems caused by drug addiction.
  At the start of the debate, the right lion. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) presented his case in quiet, measured tones, full of reason—
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): Not like this afternoon.
  Ms Blears: Perhaps that was in marked contrast to what happened in the earlier debate.
  508
  It has been fascinating to hear ideas unfold. Sometimes the most sinister ideas can be presented in the most measured, reasonable tones. The Opposition concentrated—almost exclusively—on the power of abstinence. Although abstinence, like reduction, counselling and treatment, plays a huge role in combating the problems of addiction, addiction is not a simple matter capable of simple resolution. The Opposition motion offers us a simplistic solution to a complex problem that affects the lives of thousands of people up and down the country. Those who are addicted to drugs differ in their needs and problems and in how the system needs to deal with them. Treatment programmes will succeed in the long term only when they are tailored to the individual needs and problems of those involved.
  For that reason, I am concerned by the surface simplicity and reasonableness with which the motion was presented. What lies beneath is an almost exclusive focus on abstinence that does not take into account the real need for maintenance, substitute prescribing and reduction programmes, and for ensuring that people can be treated in the community as well as in residential settings. A whole range of treatment must be brought to bear if we are to succeed in meeting the challenges that face us.
  I must remind the House that it was not until the Government adopted their drugs strategy that we obtained the national treatment agency. For the first time, we are beginning to have national standards in drug treatment—the same kind of national standards that we have in our national service frameworks for mental health, coronary heart disease and cancer. For the first time, we have a proper pooled budget so that we may put resources at the front line where they will make a difference. That budget will increase massively over the years to come. This year, every health authority has had an increase of at least 30 per cent. For next year, the average will be 23 per cent., with the minimum being 15 per cent. The Government are putting in resources because we know that funding is necessary to make the system work.
  We have the national treatment agency, national standards and a pooled budget; we had none of that under the previous Government.
  Mr. Streeter: I had not realised that things were quite as rosy as the Minister says they are. Why is there a two-year waiting list to access drug treatment in Plymouth?
  Ms Blears: We acknowledge that a great deal of work remains to be done because this field was completely underfunded for years. In the hon. Gentleman's area, the drug action team will receive an increase of 17 per cent. from the pooled budget, and that sort of increase requires resources.
  We want to ensure that the right treatment is available in the right place at the right time. The problem is more complex than has been portrayed by many Opposition Members. Counselling is needed as well as the 12-step abstinence programmes provided by many community resources. We need maintenance and lifetime support programmes, as well as residential places. I do not dismiss the role of intensive residential support for people for whom it is suitable. There are 138 residential

  509
  services that provide about 3,000 beds, but the treatment must be suitable and meet the needs of the individual involved.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) agreed with the Government that a variety of policies were needed to meet the problems. He emphasised the need for education and prevention work among young people to stop them becoming the next generation of addicts.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) made an excellent contribution. I pay tribute to his work in his constituency, in calling an inquiry and getting local people to give evidence. As he knows, his primary care trust is taking the matter very seriously indeed and has made it the top priority in the health improvement programme. The local strategic partnership and the local council are also taking the problem seriously and there are increased facilities in the area. My hon. Friend acknowledged that all kinds of treatment are needed—counselling, prescribing, abstinence and personal help. Help in finding employment and housing is crucial to enable young people to rebuild their lives.
  I agreed with the first point in the speech made by the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson): we need prevention and enforcement as well as treatment. However, I cannot agree that abstinence is the only way forward. For a rounded policy, we must have harm reduction programmes and maintenance prescribing. Does she think that we should not advise people on how to reduce drug-related deaths, that we should not offer counselling against overdose, or that we should not give people first-aid training so that they can help their friends and relatives to survive?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) was a little too pessimistic when he said that nothing that had been done in the past 30 years had worked. He was right to point out that we need drugs education. The blueprint programme has been well evaluated and will consider what kind of education works. My hon. Friend, with his innovative view, was almost at the opposite extreme from the hon. Member for Upminster.
  The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) made some important points about his local community. I think that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), has agreed to look into the provision of both a detoxification unit in the local prison and immediate treatment for people on release from prison.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) has constantly pressed for more treatment and for new developments in the drugs field. I am grateful to him for raising the issue of dual diagnosis. Many people with drug problems also have mental health problems. For the first time, the Labour Government have made mental health a top clinical priority in our national health service.
  My hon. Friend spoke of a tragic case in his constituency. He also made the important point that we should check exactly where the money goes. We could consider strengthening the role of the national treatment agency to tackle that problem.
  510
  The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) asked for more resources. Under the Labour Government, he is receiving them; that would not have been the case under the previous Conservative Government.
  The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said that we should learn lessons from elsewhere. Yes, we should, and the Government are beginning to learn those lessons. We are putting in the investment while making sure that the treatment on offer to people is appropriate and relevant.
  In the last few minutes of the debate, I want to highlight a programme that deals with street crime in Lancashire. In Blackpool, the tower project does not merely provide immediate treatment for people who have been convicted of offences, but targets the most prolific offenders in the community and gives them a choice: they can take part in structured drug treatment, or continue to have police surveillance, with checks made on them and their lives made very difficult indeed. It has got 54 of its most prolific offenders into drug treatment in Blackpool, and the effect on the area's crime statistics is absolutely stunning. Burglary in dwellings is down by 46 per cent. and other burglaries are down by 24 per cent.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 375.

  Division No. 47]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

  Duncan Smith, rh lain

  Amess, David

  Evans, Nigel

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Fabricant, Michael

  Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

  Fallon, Michael

  Bacon, Richard

  Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

  Baldry, Tony

  Barker, Gregory

  Flight, Howard

  Baron, John(Billericay)

  Flook, Adrian

  Beggs, Roy(E Antrim)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Bercow, John

  Francois, Mark

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Garnier, Edward

  Boswell, Tim

  Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

  Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Bottomley, rh Virginia(SW Surrey)

  Gray, James(N Wilts)

  Grayling, Chris

  Brady, Graham

  Green, Damian(Ashford)

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Grieve, Dominic

  Burns, Simon

  Gummer, rh John

  Burnside, David

  Hague, rh William

  Burt, Alistair

  Hammond, Philip

  Cameron, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cash, William

  Hayes, John(S Holland)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

  Heald, Oliver

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Chope, Christopher

  Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

  Clarke, rh Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Horam, John(Orpington)

  Collins, Tim

  Howard, rh Michael

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Curry, rh David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davies, Quentin(Grantham & Stamford)

  Johnson, Boris(Henley)

  Key, Robert(Salisbury)

  Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Knight, rh Greg(E Yorkshire)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  511

  Lansley, Andrew

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Leigh, Edward

  Selous, Andrew

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

  Lidington, David

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Loughton, Tim

  Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

  Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

  Spring, Richard

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Steen, Anthony

  Maclean, rh David

  Streeter, Gary

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Malins, Humfrey

  Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

  Maples, John

  Syms, Robert

  Mates, Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maude, rh Francis

  Taylor, Ian(Esher)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Taylor, John(Solihull)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

  Tredinnick, David

  Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Norman, Archie

  Walter, Robert

  O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Osborne, George(Tatton)

  Whittingdale, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Page, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Paterson, Owen

  Willetts, David

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

  Redwood, rh John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Yeo, Tim(S Suffolk)

  Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Robinson, Peter(Belfast E)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Hugh Robertson and

  Ruffley, David

  Angela Watkinson

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Brake, Tom(Carshalton)

  Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

  Breed, Colin

  Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Allen, Graham

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

  Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Anderson, Janet(Rossendale & Darwen)

  Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bryant, Chris

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Austin, John

  Burgon, Colin

  Bailey, Adrian

  Burnett, John

  Baird, Vera

  Burnham, Andy

  Banks, Tony

  Burstow, Paul

  Barnes, Harry

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Barrett, John

  Cairns, David

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Battle, John

  Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

  Beard, Nigel

  Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Caplin, Ivor

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Bell, Stuart

  Casale, Roger

  Benn, Hilary

  Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Challen, Colin

  Benton, Joe(Bootle)

  Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

  Betts, Clive

  Chaytor, David

  Blackman, Liz

  Chidgey, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clapham, Michael

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough)

  Blunkett, rh David

  Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Borrow, David

  Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

  Clelland, David

  Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

  Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Coaker, Vernon

  512

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Doug(Newcastle N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

  Coleman, lain

  Hendrick, Mark

  Colman, Tony

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Connarty, Michael

  Hermon, Lady

  Cook, rh Robin(Livingston)

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Heyes, David

  Corston, Jean

  Hill, Keith(Streatham)

  Cotter, Brian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cox, Tom(Tooting)

  Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Holmes, Paul

  Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

  Hood, Jimmy(Clydesdale)

  Cummings, John

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack(Copeland)

  Hope, Phil(Corby)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

  Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

  Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

  Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Davey, Edward(Kingston)

  Hughes, Beverley(Stretford & Urmston)

  Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

  David, Wayne

  Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

  Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

  Hughes, Simon(Southwark N)

  Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davis, rh Terry(B'ham Hodge H)

  Hutton, rh John

  Dawson, Hilton

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Illsley, Eric

  Denham, rh John

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

  Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Jamieson, David

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Jenkins, Brian

  Doran, Frank

  Johnson, Alan(Hull W)

  Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

  Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

  Drew, David(Stroud)

  Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

  Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

  Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

  Edwards, Huw

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Keen, Alan(Feltham)

  Etherington, Bill

  Keen, Ann(Brentford)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Keetch, Paul

  Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Fisher, Mark

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kidney, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Flynn, Paul(Newport W)

  King, Andy(Rugby)

  Follett, Barbara

  King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Foster, Don(Bath)

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Foster, Michael(Worcester)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Lamb, Norman

  Gapes, Mike(llfordS)

  Lammy, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Laws, David(Yeovil)

  George, Andrew(St. Ives)

  Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Lepper, David

  Gidley, Sandra

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gilroy, Linda

  Lewis, Ivan(Bury S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

  Goggins, Paul

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

  Linton, Martin

  Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

  Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

  Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Grogan, John

  Love, Andrew

  Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

  Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

  Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

  Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

  Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hanson, David

  McCabe, Stephen

  Harvey, Nick

  McCafferty, Chris

  Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Healey, John

  MacDonald, Calum

  Heath, David

  McDonnell, John

  513

  MacDougall, John

  Ruane, Chris

  McFall, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Russell, Bob(Colchester)

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

  McKechin, Ann

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Salter, Martin

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sanders, Adrian

  McWalter, Tony

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McWilliam, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Sawford, Phil

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Marshall, David(Glasgow Shettleston)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Short, rh Clare

  Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

  Simon, Siôn(B'ham Erdington)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Singh, Marsha

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan(Mansfield)

  Smith, rh Andrew(Oxford E)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Miliband, David

  Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Miller, Andrew

  Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

  Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, John(Glamorgan)

  Mole, Chris

  Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Soley, Clive

  Moran, Margaret

  Southworth, Helen

  Mountford, Kali

  Spellar, rh John

  Mudie, George

  Squire, Rachel

  Mullin, Chris

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

  Stevenson, George

  Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

  Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Norris, Dan(Wansdyke)

  Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

  Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  O'Brien, Mike(N Warks)

  Stringer, Graham

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stunell, Andrew

  Olner, Bill

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Öpik, Lembit

  Tami, Mark(Alyn)

  Organ, Diana

  Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

  Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

  Taylor, David(NW Leics)

  Owen, Albert

  Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

  Pearson, Ian

  Thomas, Simon(Ceredigion)

  Picking, Anne

  Thurso, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Timms, Stephen

  Pike, Peter(Burnley)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Plaskitt, James

  Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

  Touhig, Don(Islwyn)

  Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

  Trickett, Jon

  Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

  Truswell, Paul

  Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Neil(Wigan)

  Purchase, Ken

  Twigg, Derek(Halton)

  Purnell, James

  Twigg, Stephen(Enfield)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Tynan, Bill(Hamilton S)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

  Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Rendel, David

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

  Ward, Claire

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry NW)

  Watts, David

  Webb, Steve(Northavon)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Weir, Michael

  Rooney, Terry

  White, Brian

  Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  514

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Woolas, Phil

  Williams, rh Alan(Swansea W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

  Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

  Williams, Roger(Brecon)

  Willis Phil

  Wright, David(Telford)

  Wills, Michael

  Wright, Tony(Cannock)

  Winnick, David

  Wyatt, Derek

  Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wood, Mike(Batley)

  Mr. Nick Ainger and

  Woodward, Shaun

  Mr. John Heppell

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question put, That the proposed words be there added,put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 368, Noes 142.

  Division No. 48]

  [10.13 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

  Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Allen, Graham

  Casale, Roger

  Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

  Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

  Anderson, Janet(Rossendale & Darwen)

  Challen, Colin

  Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Chaytor, David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Chidgey, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clapham, Michael

  Austin, John

  Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

  Baird, Vera

  Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Banks, Tony

  Barnes, Harry

  Clelland, David

  Barrett, John

  Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Coaker, Vernon

  Battle, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Beard, Nigel

  Cohen, Harry

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Coleman, lain

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Colman, Tony

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Connarty, Michael

  Bell, Stuart

  Cook, rh Robin(Livingston)

  Benn, Hilary

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bennett, Andrew

  Corston, Jean

  Benton, Joe(Bootle)

  Cotter, Brian

  Betts, Clive

  Cousins, Jim

  Blackman, Liz

  Cox, Tom(Tooting)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cruddas, Jon

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Cummings, John

  Borrow, David

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack(Copeland)

  Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

  Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

  Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

  Brake, Tom(Carshalton)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Breed, Colin

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Brennan, Kevin

  Davey, Edward(Kingston)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

  Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

  David, Wayne

  Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

  Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

  Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Davis, rh Terry(B'ham Hodge H)

  Bryant, Chris

  Dawson, Hilton

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Burgon, Colin

  Denham, rh John

  Burnett, John

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Burnham, Andy

  Dismore, Andrew

  Burstow, Paul

  Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Cairns, David

  Donohoe, Brian H,

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Doran, Frank

  Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

  Doughty, Sue

  Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

  Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

  515

  Drew, David(Stroud)

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

  Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

  Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Edwards, Huw

  Keen, Alan(Feltham)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Keen, Ann(Brentford)

  Etherington, Bill

  Keetch, Paul

  Farrelly, Paul

  Kemp, Fraser

  Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Fisher, Mark

  Kidney, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Flint, Caroline

  King, Andy(Rugby)

  Flynn, Paul(Newport W)

  King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Follett, Barbara

  Foster, rh Derek

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Foster, Don(Bath)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Foster, Michael(Worcester)

  Lamb, Norman

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Lammy, David

  Gapes, Mike(llford S)

  Laws, David(Yeovil)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

  George, Andrew(St. Ives)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lepper, David

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gidley, Sandra

  Lewis, Ivan(Bury S)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Goggins, Paul

  Linton, Martin

  Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

  Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

  Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

  Love, Andrew

  Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

  Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

  Grogan, John

  Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

  Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Hanson, David

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Harvey, Nick

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  MacDonald, Calum

  McDonnell, John

  Healey, John

  MacDougall, John

  Heath, David

  McFall, John

  Henderson, Doug(Newcastle N)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Hendrick, Mark

  McKechin, Ann

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hermon, Lady

  McNamara, Kevin

  Heyes, David

  MacShane, Denis

  Hill, Keith(Streatham)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hinchliffe, David

  McWilliam, John

  Hodge, Margaret

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Holmes, Paul

  Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

  Hood, Jimmy(Clydesdale)

  Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

  Hope, Phil(Corby)

  Marshall, David(Glasgow Shettleston)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

  Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

  Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Martlew, Eric

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Hughes, Beverley(Stretford & Urmston)

  Meale, Alan(Mansfield)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hughes, Simon(Southwark N)

  Miliband, David

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Miller, Andrew

  Hutton, rh John

  Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Moffatt, Laura

  Illsley, Eric

  Mole, Chris

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

  Moran, Margaret

  Mountford, Kali

  Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

  Mudie, George

  Jamieson, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Jenkins, Brian

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Johnson, Alan(Hull W)

  Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

  Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

  Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

  Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

  Norris, Dan(Wansdyke)

  516

  Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

  Southworth, Helen

  O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)

  Spellar, rh John

  O'Brien, Mike(N Warks)

  Squire, Rachel

  O'Hara, Edward

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Olner, Bill

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Organ, Diana

  Stevenson, George

  Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

  Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Owen, Albert

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

  Pearson, Ian

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Picking, Anne

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stringer, Graham

  Pike, Peter(Burnley)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Plaskitt, James

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pollard, Kerry

  Tami, Mark(Alyn)

  Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

  Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

  Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

  Taylor, David(NW Leics)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

  Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

  Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

  Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

  Thurso, John

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Timms, Stephen

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

  Purchase, Ken

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Purnell, James

  Touhig, Don(Islwyn)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Trickett, Jon

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Truswell, Paul

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

  Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

  Rendel, David

  Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

  Turner, Neil(Wigan)

  Twigg, Derek(Halton)

  Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry NW)

  Twigg, Stephen(Enfield)

  Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Tynan, Bill(Hamilton S)

  Rooney, Terry

  Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

  Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Ruane, Chris

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ruddock, Joan

  Ward, Claire

  Russell, Bob(Colchester)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

  Watts, David

  Webb, Steve(Northavon)

  Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

  White, Brian

  Salter, Martin

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Sanders, Adrian

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Williams, rh Alan(Swansea W)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Williams, Roger(Brecon)

  Sawford, Phil

  Willis, Phil

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wills, Michael

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Winnick, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wood, Mike(Batley)

  Simon, Siôn(B'ham Erdington)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

  Woolas, Phil

  Singh, Marsha

  Worthington, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, rh Andrew(Oxford E)

  Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

  Wright, David(Telford)

  Wright, Tony(Cannock)

  Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

  Smith, John(Glamorgan)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

  Mr. John Heppell and

  Soley, Clive

  Mr. Nick Ainger

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

  Beggs, Roy(E Antrim)

  Amess, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Arbuthnot, rh James Atkinson, Peter(Hexham) Bacon, Richard

  Bercow, John Beresford, Sir Paul Blunt, Crispin Boswell, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

  Barker, Gregory

  Bottomley, rh Virginia(SW Surrey)

  Baron, John(Billericay)

  517

  Brady, Graham

  Key, Robert(Salisbury)

  Brazier, Julian

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Knight, rh Greg(E Yorkshire)

  Burns, Simon

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Burnside, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Burt, Alistair

  Lansley, Andrew

  Cameron, David

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Cash, William

  Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Lidington, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Clarke, rh Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Loughton, Tim

  Collins, Tim

  Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

  Curry, rh David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Davies, Quentin(Grantham & Stamford)

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Maclean, rh David

  Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Malins, Humfrey

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Maples, John

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Mates, Michael

  Duncan Smith, rh lain

  Maude, rh Francis

  Evans, Nigel

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Fabricant, Michael

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fallon, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

  Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Flight, Howard

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Flook, Adrian

  Norman, Archie

  Forth, rh Eric

  O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Osborne, George(Tatton)

  Francois, Mark

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

  Page, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Paterson, Owen

  Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

  Gray, James(N Wilts)

  Redwood, rh John

  Grayling, Chris

  Robathan, Andrew

  Green, Damian(Ashford)

  Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b't]

  Greenway, John

  Robinson, Peter(Belfast E)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Gummer, rh John

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Hague, rh William

  Ruffley, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hawkins, Nick

  Selous, Andrew

  Hayes, John(S Holland)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Heald, Oliver

  Simmonds, Mark

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

  Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

  Horam, John(Orpington)

  Spring, Richard

  Howard, rh Michael

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Steen, Anthony

  Johnson, Boris(Henley)

  Streeter, Gary

  518

  Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

  Whittingdale, John

  Syms, Robert

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Ian(Esher)

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, John(Solihull)

  Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Wilshire, David

  Thomas, Simon(Ceredigion)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

  Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Yeo, Tim(S Suffolk)

  Viggers, Peter

  Young, rh Sir George

  Walter, Robert

  Waterson, Nigel

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Watkinson, Angela

  Hugh Robertson and

  Weir, Michael

  Mr. Desmond Swayne

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,That this House recognises that focusing on Class A drugs, educating young people about the dangers of all drugs, preventing drug misuse, combating the dealers, reducing availability and treating addicts are all essential in tackling drugs; and welcomes the Government's updated Drug Strategy and the 44 per cent. increase in planned expenditure on combating drugs, from £.1.026 billion in the current financial year to nearly 1.5 billion in the year starting April 2005.

  Drugs Policy
    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      NATIONAL LOTTERY
      That the draft National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts
      (Increase of Endowment) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 11 th
      December, be approved.—[Mr. Kemp.]

      Question agreed to.

    COMMITTEES

      TRANSPORT
      That Helen Jackson be discharged from the Transport Committee and Ian Lucas be added to the
      Committee.—[Mr. John McWillium, on behalf of the Committee of
      Selection.]

  Transport Infrastructure (East Kent)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this
  House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]
  10.26 pm
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Thank you, Mr.
  Speaker, for allowing me to raise another matter in an Adjournment debate. I
  also thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport for being
  present to respond. I realise that he is trying to get into the parliamentary
  book of records for making the most responses to Adjournment debates, so he will
  not be too upset. He also knows how important this matter is to my
  constituency.
  Before I speak about the needs for transport infrastructure
  improvements in east Kent, perhaps a little background is called for to explain
  exactly why we have those needs. Unless the House listens to all my speeches in
  great detail—I raise this issue in most of them—it will not be aware
  that Thanet has the third highest unemployment in England and among 288 travel-
  to-work areas throughout the country. Thanet's unemployment level is three times
  the Kent average and 60 per cent. of people in Thanet who are in work are
  working for less than the average income. Across east Kent, 40 wards are classed
  as high social deprivation wards using Government criteria. Thanet scores in the
  top 25 per cent. most deprived districts in England in all six deprivation
  categories given by the Government and we have the second highest deprivation
  index overall in the south-east.
  To address that situation, wards in Thanet and parts of Dover have been given objective 2 and assisted area status, and
  projects throughout east Kent have secured single regeneration budget funding,
  but unless we address the underlying problem that causes economic decline in
  east Kent, all that we are doing with such additional sums is treating the
  symptoms and not the illness, which in my view is the poor transport
  infrastructure.
  Our problem is that Thanet is seen by many investors as peripheral to south-east England, rather than, as I believe, central to the European Union. My plea to the Minister is that we should try to take the opportunity to construct a transport infrastructure in east Kent that will put it at the heart of the European Union and address firmly and in the long term the economic decline of the area. That is the vision. I believe that we have a unique opportunity to create a transport hub of road, rail, sea and air unlike anything else in the United Kingdom. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will try to realise that vision in the approaching months and grasp this important opportunity.
  Let us consider roads. We have a beautiful, new
  Ramsgate harbour approach road. From the edge of Thanet towards London, there
  are some good dual carriageways along the Thanet way to the motorway network.
  However, the roads around the east Kent access project between Ramsgate and
  Thanet Way, and Ramsgate and the Sandwich bypass, remain single carriageways.
  That project must be finished to complete our road infrastructure.
  As well as linking Ramsgate to the port of Dover, and to the motorway network and the
  M25, this project will solve another problem: the congestion around the Pfizer
  520
  site at Sandwich. Pfizer is a pharmaceutical company, which
  constitutes the biggest United States investment in the United Kingdom. It is
  the biggest employer in Kent and the great congestion around its site is a
  genuine problem. Completing the east Kent access project will therefore not only
  deal with economic decline in the area but be a major benefit to local
  people.
  We also need to complete our road infrastructure by dualling the A2
  all the way into Dover.
  Mr. Gwyn Prosser: I
  am pleased to be part of a joint campaign in east Kent that presses for better
  road and rail links. One of the campaign's key aims is dualling the A2. My hon.
  Friend knows that we have fought for that for more than 25 years. The port of
  Dover is expected to expand in the next weeks and months, and freight is
  expected to double in the next 10 years. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree
  that we are considering a burning issue and that we need to get on quickly with
  putting plans in place and regenerating east Kent?
  Dr. Ladyman: I agree with my hon. Friend and I am grateful to him for making those points. Dualling the A2 is vital not
  only to the port of Dover but to the success of the economy in Thanet.
  One of my main worries is the train service. If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary
  asks what is wrong with the existing service, I shall reply, "Only two things—the operator and the track." The fastest journey time from Ramsgate
  to London is one hour 45 minutes. Most services take longer. Let us contrast
  that with the journey from London to Doncaster, which is 100 miles longer but
  can be completed 15 minutes quicker.
  I worked for Pfizer before I became a Member of Parliament. When we showed people around the site, we used to joke that Pfizer located to Sandwich in 1952 because of the high-speed rail link to London. The same trains are unfortunately still running. The trains are old, the service is poor and Connex has defaulted on a raft of promises. It has been fined for late running, but not many people in Kent believe that there has been much improvement in its reliability. Its train modernisation programme has
  started but I have no confidence in its completion. I also have no confidence
  that the slam-door trains will be replaced in accordance with the Government's
  timetable.
  Connex won its franchise by making promises that it could not keep, at a price that it could not afford. That allowed it to outbid companies that made realistic cost commitment projections. When it first began to renege on its promises, the length of its franchise was extended because that was necessary to make future investment viable. Despite that, the Strategic Rail Authority had to invest £58 million in it a few weeks ago to prop up the service.
  A year or two ago, Connex said that it had no interest in running fast trains to London. When it became clear that it would be required to do that if it wanted its franchise renewed, it suddenly began to claim that it would try to run such trains. It then started blocking the efforts of other companies, such as NetRail, which was trying at timetable conferences to bid to run a fast train service to London.
  Despite this catalogue of failure, Connex recently
  had the brass neck to announce that it expects to be the preferred bidder for the new franchise in 2006. I hope

  521
  that the Under-Secretary will scrutinise carefully any bid from Connex and examine it in the light of its performance in recent years.
  A modern, fast train link is a prerequisite for regeneration in east Kent, especially in Thanet. It is also vital if we are to realise the potential of Manston airport and Ramsgate sea port. I do not believe that Connex will provide that. And unless the Government acknowledge the need for channel tunnel rail link domestic services to proceed to Ramsgate, no one else will be able to provide such a service either.
  A fast train link using the channel tunnel rail link would bring potential inward investors to Thanet. They frequently cite the poor train service as a reason for not investing there. As I have said, the fast link is a prerequisite for the expansion of Manston airport and Port Ramsgate. It would extend the travel-to-work area, allowing key workers to commute to Thanet and the east Kent area generally, thereby making business expansion practicable. It would also expand the commuting area, enabling the unemployed of Thanet to travel out of Thanet more easily to find work elsewhere.
  The main barrier to the provision of a fast train service is the Strategic Rail Authority, which is currently undertaking a review of the use of CTRL domestic services. I understand that a report has been presented to Ministers in the last few days, and that it may suggest that a fast train service should go via Ashford to Canterbury West and stop there—although we have, at Ramsgate, maintenance sheds that the trains are almost certain to use. If the trains did not proceed to Ramsgate it would be a disaster for us in Thanet and for Ramsgate, and it would be the epitome of ridiculousness to have empty trains running from Canterbury West to Ramsgate when they should be carrying passengers. Starting the fast train service at Ramsgate would improve the economic viability of CTRL domestic services, and would do a huge amount to regenerate the local
  economy.
  Port Ramsgate,as the Minister Knows, is a municipal port. It was taken back into council ownership when Sally decided to retrench to the Baltic some years ago Since then it has developed a highly successful freight business,but it has no passenger service. One reason why it is difficult to attract a new passenger is the fact that all the costs of starting such a service must be clawed back from the operator in one year, because the council is not allowed to borrow either to invest in the port's development or to spread the cost of starting a new service over several years.
  I know that we intend, under the Local Government Bill, to allow local councils to borrow again if they can afford to repay the money, but that will not start for another year at least. We already allow municipal airports to borrow; I wonder why Ministers will not consider allowing municipal seaports to borrow, so that they can spread start-up costs over a number of years. That
  would allow investment to be made in facilities at the port of Ramsgate.
  The Minister will know my view that continental and British seaports are not
  competing on a level playing field. I should like that to be reviewed. The
  Government have promised a review of municipal seaports for some time, but have
  not been able to start it yet. I should also like that review to begin as soon
  as possible.
  522
  Manston airport presents a huge opportunity. I
  know that the Minister is aware of that, because he recently opened on our
  behalf some major investments by the developer there. Manston already has a good
  freight business and a sound air-side maintenance business, but according to the
  local council's estimate it also has the potential to expand its capacity to 6
  million passengers a year. That would make a valuable contribution to the south-
  east's air capacity, and could create 10,000 jobs including those in the freight
  and air-side maintenance businesses.
  Here we have an opportunity provided
  by a potentially successful airport carrying passengers as well as freight, a
  potential successful seaport carrying passengers as well as freight, an advanced
  train service running rapidly into London and a decent road
  infrastructure—all located close to the busiest channel port in the
  country, Dover, and the channel tunnel rail link. It is a potential transport
  infrastructure hub, unique to the United Kingdom, and it could play a vital role
  in regenerating the local economy. It could solve our problems in the long term:
  the Government would no longer have to invest funds by means of, for instance,
  assisted area status to support us, and it would go a long way towards lowering
  the grossly awful levels of unemployment in Thanet.
  I hope that the
  Minister will acknowledge what we are trying to achieve in Thanet, and ask his
  Department to work hard on building this strategy in the coming
  months.
  10.39 pm
  The Parliamentary
  Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David
  Jamieson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member
  for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) not only on securing this Adjournment debate but
  on the clear and well-considered way in which he has presented his points. My
  hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) has been his useful aide on this
  occasion. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet asked whether I listened to
  his speeches. I can assure him that I listen to them avidly, and that those that
  I do not happen to catch I read in Hansard
  the next morning. My hon.
  Friend has painted a powerful picture in the Chamber on many occasions of the
  levels of unemployment in his constituency and the need for inward investment
  there. I can assure him that those are the Government's priorities, and using
  transport to help regeneration is one of our central aims.
  My hon. Friend
  has clearly explained the importance of Thanet and east Kent to both the
  national and regional economy. The Government certainly support that view. We
  also agree that the transport infrastructure is a vital component for assisting
  in the regeneration of this area. Before I respond to my hon. Friend's specific
  points, I should like briefly to outline what is already happening to improve
  transport. We have made it clear in the 10-year plan for transport that we are
  fully committed to improving the nation's transport infrastructure, especially
  through effective local transport schemes. We have introduced local transport
  plans to support this commitment. These five-year plans give local authorities
  such as Kent the freedom to deliver local transport schemes that meet the needs
  of their communities. We have already allocated more than £24 million for
  2003–04 to Kent county

  523
  council to increase investment in local transport schemes and maintenance. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noticed that that is an increase of £4 million over the 2002–03 allocation of £20 million. It is also more than double the allocation for 2000–01.
  I understand that Kent county council is spending more than £750,000 in Thanet in 2002–03. That includes spending on safety measures, rural schemes, the A254 Margate to Ramsgate cycle route, a safer-routes-to school project at Drapers Mill primary school in Margate, and the introduction of the Birchington 20 mph zone. We also continue to support schemes that will aid regeneration in north Kent, such as the south Thames development route and Fastrack. In recent years, we have given provisional approval for the A256 east Kent access scheme, and the Leybourne and West Mailing bypass. In total, the amount provisionally committed to major transport schemes in Kent amounts to just over £61 million.
  The Fastrack guided bus system is an example of an innovative public transport scheme, and we have committed £14.5 million to it. Its first phase will link Dartford station with Greenhithe station and Gravesend, taking in Bluewater and the Darenth Park hospital on its route. The concept of guided buses is being taken forward by Medway council, which is already planning a rapid transit system designed to link up with Fastrack and aid regeneration in Medway. We have also given £500,000 for complementary highway works to improve access to the proposed Turner centre in Margate. The centre is a key community development and will enable further regeneration of the waterfront at Margate. The south coast multi-modal study has now reached its recommendations and been supported by the south-east England regional assembly. Its recommendations encourage the use of rail for accessing the existing ports of Folkestone, Dover and Ramsgate. They also encourage the use of those ports for the transportation of freight, especially bulky goods such as aggregates.
  Let me deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, who will be aware that all road schemes are undertaken strictly on a priority basis. Currently, even at peak times, the levels of traffic congestion on the A2 do not justify the dualling that he mentioned. However, the Highways Agency is discussing with the port authority and other interested stakeholders how we can improve the flow of traffic by other interim measures, which I hope will bring my hon. Friend some relief.
  The report notes that the channel tunnel rail link provides the opportunity to operate domestic services that can also serve Folkestone, Dover, Canterbury and east Kent. That would significantly enhance accessibility in the area. In addition, depending on the future role of Manston airport, it may warrant a new rail access.
  The consultants' report also supports Connex's proposal to increase the number of trains between Dover and Ashford from two to four. It also advocates completing the east Kent access improvements, including provision of priority lanes, but it will be for the Secretary of State to take the decisions on the way forward.
  524
  I want to answer specifically some points that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet. The concern that he expressed on greater borrowing powers for local authorities will be addressed by the Local Government Bill, which had its Second Reading last week and which will allow local authorities to gain greater freedoms with borrowing. That will aid Thanet with its development of the port of Ramsgate, but it will be up to the local authority to manage its financial business using that new freedom. It will be able to determine how much money it can afford to borrow, and it will, of course, manage the debt.
  My hon. Friend has heard of that as the new prudential style of borrowing. Under the proposed legislation, the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State may also regulate how the new powers may be performed. Those are seen as safeguards for the authority. The powers can relate directly to ports, and where the port is commercially viable the authority will be able to borrow over the limit of current Government support for capital programmes. Where the port is not commercially viable, there will still be the avenue of grants.
  My hon. Friend also raised municipal seaport regulations and support, setting out how other European ports appear to have greater backing from their Governments. A European Commission paper on public funding and state aid in ports is due shortly, and I understand that it aims to clarify the position in more detail. I look forward to it with interest. We continue to work to persuade the Commission and other member states of the need for a level playing field across Europe, which my hon. Friend realises is important to him and to the ports in his area.
  The work on the proposed study of municipal ports has, I am afraid, been delayed for some time owing to the necessary temporary reallocation of staff caused by 11 September, but the aim is that it will be undertaken as soon as possible this year. I can reassure my hon. Friend that the review is important to the Government.
  The potential of the port of Ramsgate has been greatly aided by the opening of the Ramsgate harbour approach road. The scheme, which takes freight lorries and port traffic from the town centre directly to the port, was completed in 2000 at a cost of £30 million. It has improved port access and removed a major impediment to the development of the port and the marina.
  I am indebted to my hon. Friend for reminding me that I opened the new apron and taxiway at Manston airport on what I recall as an extremely hot day last year. I was made very much aware that the owners of Manston have indeed put considerable resources into developing the airport and the related business park.
  I understand that there are also proposals for a new passenger terminal at the airport. My hon. Friend will be aware that we are consulting on the development of airports across the south-east of England; indeed, I am sure that that has not evaded his notice. We expect the consultation to continue into the summer, and the aviation White Paper is likely to follow in the autumn. I am sure that he will contribute to the consultation exercise, as will those others with an interest in Manston

  525
  airport, and I can assure him that we shall consider the case thoroughly, although he would be surprised if I made any particular comment on it tonight.
  On rail services, I know that my hon. Friend met the Minister for Transport last week. The Strategic Rail Authority has been remitted by the Government to achieve train services that will create a strong intercontinental link to increase trade and tourism in Britain. Because the level of infrastructure required will impact heavily on Kent, a provision was made to allow domestic services in Kent to operate using the channel tunnel rail link. The difficulty is the way in which those services will link into the other railway lines already operating in Kent—the north Kent line and the east Kent line. The Strategic Rail Authority has undertaken an analysis of the options for providing services using the channel tunnel rail link and the way in which they can be delivered. That analysis included taking on board issues such as connecting to already existing tracks, the type of rolling stock required to operate on the different tracks, the difficulty of harmonising signalling and the cost to the train operators of services lost because of overcapacity. I hope my hon. Friend appreciates the complexities and difficulties that that has entailed.
  My hon. Friend proposed that the maintenance and storage of the channel tunnel rail link domestic stock be carried out at Ramsgate. The franchise for the full Kent domestic services will run from 2007, and all prospective tenderers will look at the resources available to them to make the most competitive tender. The siting of a train manufacturer with maintenance facilities at Ramsgate would seem to be an attractive package. My hon. Friend has made representations tonight, and I am sure that he is promoting the facilities at Ramsgate to all the potential franchisees. Once the consultations on the options identified in the SRA report have been completed, it will be for Ministers to examine all aspects and effects that they may have on the areas concerned, particularly the wider benefits for regeneration, employment and liveability in the area—I know that those are important issues for my hon.
  Friend. I can
  526
  assure him that any decision on the channel tunnel rail link consultation will take into consideration all the factors that I have outlined.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned the current services to his constituency provided by Connex, presenting them in his usual quiet but robust way. The present deal allows Connex to provide a level of stability to its customers. The package incorporates continuing measures to improve performance and secures commitment to the removal of mark 1 slam-door trains. Connex has already ordered 500 new vehicles to fulfil its commitment to replace that ageing rolling stock. My hon. Friend has the look of someone saying "Watch this space." I am sure that he will do so, and will inform us if that commitment is not met in the expected time scale. The shortened franchise will enable the SRA to market a new integrated Kent franchise from 2007, making use of the new high-speed channel tunnel rail link. As is normally the case, the bidding process for that franchise will be an open competition.
  I have already set out in general terms the support for the funding of local authority schemes through the local transport plan. Phase 1 of the east Kent access scheme has already received provisional approval, and funding has been set aside this year in readiness for the scheme achieving full approval. The next two phases have now been combined, and we are expecting a bid for that part of the scheme in this year's annual progress report.
  I hope that in the time available to me I have been able to cover the points made by my hon. Friend. If there are matters that I have not covered, I am sure that he will point them out to me, and we can deal with them in correspondence.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend not only for the way in which he has presented his case tonight but for the way in which he has conducted himself for a number of years in presenting most forcefully in the House matters of interest to his constituents. I commend him strongly for all the good work that he has done.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Poverty
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to announce a new definition of poverty. [89716]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Poverty is a complex multi-dimensional problem. The fourth "Opportunity for all" report (Cm 5598) sets out our strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion and presents the latest information on the indicators used to monitor progress against our strategy. Specifically on child poverty, last April we launched "Measuring child poverty: a consultation document". We will be in a position to publish preliminary conclusions from the consultation by this spring.

  Redundancies
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to help people affected by large scale redundancies to find new work. [89718]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  In April 2002 we launched the Rapid Response Service to offer a coherent, tailored response to redundancies and help those people affected make the transition into sustainable new jobs.

  By December 2002 in the North West region, the Rapid Response Service had provided support to 25 companies and made its services available to over 5,000 people facing redundancy.

  Pension Schemes
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he is taking to encourage companies to retain existing final salary pension schemes and to make them available to new employees. [89719]

  Mr. McCartney
  We published the Green Paper "Simplicity, security and choice: working and saving for retirement" (Cm 5677) on 17 December 2002. It provides a framework to help individuals save more in partnership with employers by providing a regulatory framework that supports employers in providing and contributing to good quality pension schemes. The Government's strategy is based on three linked proposals: major simplification of private pensions regulation and tax rules to ease burdens on employers and promote private provision; greater protection for scheme members to increase confidence and help to ensure that people get the pensions they expect; helping employers to provide better information for employees to help employees to understand the value of their pension scheme and to facilitate informed choice. The 362W
  Green Paper makes clear that different types of scheme suit employees with different characteristics and that overall no particular scheme type is invariably better than the others. Defined contribution schemes tend to be better for employees who move jobs more frequently. The focus, therefore, should be on building on employer commitment and emphasising the advantages to both employer and employee of workplace pension provision. The Green Paper proposals to radically simplify the regulatory regime for pensions could, in total, save employers £150-£200 million a year in administration.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the number of people of working age who are neither working nor registered as seeking work or as benefit claimants. [89720]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  About four million people of working age are not working or claiming unemployment related benefit but are claiming another out of work benefit.

  In addition other working age people, for example those who are financially independent, students and people looking after the family home, are not active in the labour market and are not claiming an out of work benefit.

  Second Pensions
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action the Government are taking to persuade people of working age to contribute to second pensions. [89721]

  Mr. McCartney
  We believe that if people have the right information and clear choices they will plan for their retirement sensibly. Currently, informed choice is frustrated by complexity.

  The Green Paper offers a simple framework to help people understand their options and to give individuals clear information tailored to their own circumstances so they can see how the choices they face relate back to their own retirement prospects. A new pensions advice line and an improved web-based retirement planner will be set up. This builds on the improvements already in train with the new Pension Service which is now rolling out nationally. York pension centre opened on 28 October 2002 and is establishing itself along contact centre lines. Proposals in the Green Paper include significantly extended coverage of combined state and occupational pension forecasts which early research shows have the potential to encourage many people to save more.

  State Pensions
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement about the Green Paper on Pensions, with special reference to plans for state pensions. [89722]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Green Paper, "Simplicity, security and choice, working and saving for retirement" (Cm 5677), set out our proposals to simplify
  363W
  occupational and private pensions saving and make flexible retirement easier, following our earlier reforms to state provision and to financial services. Our proposals will enable people to make informed choices about their retirement provision, building on the foundation of state pension support. As the Green Paper explained, we have already taken action to reform the system of state support for pensioners, focussing in particular on tackling pensioner poverty. Specifically, we introduced the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) which is currently worth £98.15 a week for single pensioners and £149.80 for couples. Around 2.1 million people in the UK are benefiting from the MIG now.

  From October this year the MIG is being subsumed by the more generous Pension Credit which will reward pensioners with savings, second pensions or earnings, yielding incomes up to £139 a week for single pensioners and nearly £204 a week for couples. In addition we brought in the State Second Pension from April 2002 to boost the pension rights of low and moderate earners and bring in groups of non-workers for the first time. Around 4.5 million low earners will build up an additional State Pension worth at least twice what SERPS would have provided. Two million carers and two million disabled people also build up pension rights for the first time. Also, from this April the basic State Pension will be worth £77.45 a week for single pensioners which is a 7 per cent. real terms increase since 1997. And in future years we are committed to increasing the basic State Pension by at least 2.5 per cent., even if the Retail Price Index (RPI) is below this.

  Other measures we introduced include free TV licences for those aged over 75, which benefits four million households and Winter Fuel payments now worth £200 each year for eligible households. Around 11 million people benefited from Winter Fuel payments for winter 2001–02. We considered that this state support for pensioners we have put in place provides the right foundation for retirement. We were not persuaded by calls to increase State Pension age for a number of reasons, including that such a change would have a disproportionate effect on the poorest pensioners. We are currently consulting on the proposals in the Green Paper.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what targets his Department has for reducing the number of incapacity benefit claimants. [89723]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We have no targets for getting people who claim incapacity benefit into work. Our Green Paper, "Pathways to Work", sets out our strategy for enabling people on incapacity benefit to move into work, and so become and remain independent.

  Child Poverty (London)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on progress in reducing child poverty in London. [89724]
  364W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The Government's commitment to tackling poverty and social exclusion throughout the United Kingdom is well known. In particular, we have made a clear pledge to abolish child poverty in a generation and to halve it by 2010. We will end the scourge of child poverty in London and in the rest of the UK.

  In the fourth "Opportunity for All" report (CM 5598), we describe the action we have taken to tackle poverty and social exclusion. Progress is monitored against a wide range of indicators.

  Benefit Fraud
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what security procedures he has put in place to prevent fraudulent claims for family credit, with special reference to the use of maiden names. [88229]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  All applications for WFTC go through a stringent verification process to ensure payment is made to the correct applicant. Use of a maiden name will not circumvent these checks on the applicant's identity.

  Benefit Inquiry Line
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the operation of the Benefit Inquiry Line. [R] [87914]

  Maria Eagle
  The Benefit Enquiry Line is a confidential telephone advice and information service for people with disabilities, their carers and representatives. It offers general advice and information about all social security benefits and how to claim them. It can offer advice and assistance with completing many disability-related claim forms and provides a leaflet and claim form distribution service. It will also sign-post people to other services where appropriate. The Benefit Enquiry Line answers approximately 23,000 calls per week.

  The Benefit Enquiry Line aims to meet the National DWP Call Centre Target of answering 90 per cent. of calls within 30 seconds. Currently the Enquiry Line answers approximately 55 per cent. of calls within this target.

  The Disability and Carers Service is reviewing the role of the Benefit Enquiry Line in the context of the changes being made by Jobcentre Plus and The Pension Service to provide a more complete service to their customers. The review is on-going and no decision has been taken by Ministers on any outcome.

  Bereavement Allowance
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many(a) claimants there were and (b) what amount was claimed in respect of Bereavement Allowance in each month since its introduction; and how many persons were eligible to claim the allowance but did not receive it; [88467]

  (2) how many and what amount of bereavement payments were made in each month since their introduction; and how many persons were eligible to claim such payments but did not receive them. [88468]
  365W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is published in the Work and Pensions Statistics 2002, a copy of which is in the Library.

  DLA Call Centre
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the operation of the disability living allowance call centre. [87913]

  Maria Eagle
  The disability living allowance and attendance allowance helpline provides advice and information on claims to these benefits and takes details of changes of circumstances, as well as explaining decisions, to customers or their authorised representatives. It answers approximately 80,000 calls per week.

  The helpline aims to meet the National DWP Call Centre target of answering 90 per cent, of calls within 30 seconds. It is currently only answering 25 per cent, in 30 seconds. An extensive programme of call analysis, recruitment and training is being undertaken in order to improve performance.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what impact on prospective tenants his Department expects to see from the pilot schemes for reforming housing benefit. [89702]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The standard local housing allowance means that, for the first time, tenants will know in advance what support they will receive, allowing them to make their own choices about the quality and price of their accommodation.

  I am pleased that Blackpool borough council, which includes my hon. Friend's constituency, has accepted our invitation to become one of the pathfinders for the new allowance, which marks a radical step forward in the simplification of housing benefit.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of how many people will qualify for the minimum income guarantee; and if he will make a statement. [89717]

  Mr. McCartney
  As at August 2002 there were 1.76 million pensioners receiving the minimum income guarantee (MIG) which means that they need not live on less than £98.15 a week, £102.10 from April. This is on top of our £200 a year winter fuel payments, free TV licences for the over-75s, worth £104 a year, and above inflation increases to the basic state pension.

  From October all existing minimum income guarantee recipients will be automatically transferred to pension credit, which will for the first time reward—not penalise—savings, ensuring those who have worked hard to save modest amounts will gain from having done so.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners have benefited from the minimum income guarantee in(a) Newcastle upon Tyne and (b) Gateshead; and what was the average uplift. [89528]
  366W
  Mr. McCartney
  As at August 2002, 12,800 pensioners in Newcastle upon Tyne received on average £43.63 Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) per week and 8,400 pensioners in Gateshead received an average weekly MIG of £41.92.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, August 2002.

CABINET OFFICE

  Capita Group
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the contracts that have been awarded to the Capita Group by the Department. [89963]

  Mr. Alexander
  Current Cabinet Office contracts with parts of the Capita Group are as follows:

  Capita Group

  Contract

  Capita Business Services

  Fast Stream Recruitment Support

  Capita Business Services

  Provision of Civil Service and Judicial Pensioner Payroll and Associated Services

  Capita RAS

  Recruitment of four Assistant Parliamentary Counsel

  Civil Servants
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many civil servants there were in each year since 1997. [90464]

  Mr. Alexander
  The number of permanent, full-time equivalent staff in April of each year is given in the following table:

  Year

  Number

  1997

  475,660

  1998

  463,270

  1999

  459,600

  2000

  475,420

  2001

  482,690

  2002

  490,220

  These figures, together with further information on Civil Service staffing levels, are published twice yearly by Press Notice. Copies are available from the Library of the House.

  Congestion Charge
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office who will pay the London congestion charge for ministerial cars. [90167]

  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.

  Energy White Paper
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what meetings his officials have had with representatives of the energy efficiency industry during the preparation of the Energy White Paper. [88538]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  As part of the preparation of the Energy White Paper my officials have held a number of meetings and expert workshops with representatives of the energy efficiency industry. Industry representatives attended opening workshops in London, Glasgow and Newport, and a final integrative conference in London covering a range of energy issues. They also attended workshops devoted exclusively to energy efficiency issues. Details are posted on the DTI website at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/developep/reports.shtml.

  The White Paper has also been an important theme in recent meetings between officials and industry bodies, for example the British Energy Efficiency Federation.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect of delays in her Department in payments to beef farmers in the South West who have prime organic cattle condemned as a result of the unavailability of abattoirs to slaughter under the Beef Assurance Scheme; and if she will make a statement. [89683]

  Alun Michael
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to payments for cattle that are slaughtered voluntarily under the Over Thirty Month Scheme (OTMS). The Scheme is open to cattle that are prevented from entering the food chain because of the Over Thirty Month rule, but which are otherwise fit for human consumption.

  During the life of the scheme up to the 2002–03 year the published timeliness target in respect of OTMS has been to make 98 per cent. of compensation payments to collection centres within 21 days of receipt of all correctly completed documentation establishing the claim.

  The target has been changed to making 85 per cent. of compensation payments within 28 days and is consistent with the new targets for all non Integrated Administration and Control Schemes (IACS) payments. The RPA's 2002–03 Business Plan includes its new performance targets. There is no change to the requirement for collection centres to pass on compensation payments to producers within 14 days of receipt.

  The new timeliness target reflects the RPA's budget allocation for 2002–03. RPA has been given more headroom in its targets to allow it to respond flexibly to the situation and to deploy its resources by means of a risk based approach which seeks to maintain vital scheme controls.
  368W
  To help offset the impact of the tighter budget allocation RPA has introduced an initiative to import data electronically from collection centres. Most abattoirs are already submitting kill data electronically and work has started on introducing mechanisms by which data can be submitted electronically from both liveweight markets and casualty centres. This initiative will greatly reduce the manual inputting of data currently undertaken when claim paperwork reaches Reading and will, depending upon take-up, realise staff savings which will to some extent reduce the full impact of the budget cuts.

  RPA will continue to make payments as quickly as possible within its resource allocation. In the 2002–03 year to date 98 per cent. of payments have been made within 28 days.

  Regarding the unavailability of abattoirs to slaughter under the Beef Assurance Scheme, all licensed abattoirs are permitted to slaughter Beef Assurance Scheme over thirty month cattle, provided they are willing to facilitate their testing for BSE. On receipt of a negative test result, the carcase must be sent to a licensed cutting plant that is separately licensed to remove the vertebral column and dorsal root ganglia before the meat is released for human consumption. All licensed cutting plants are free to apply to the Food Standards Agency for an additional licence to remove vertebral column. It is a simple process, no fee is charged, and all have been encouraged to apply. None have done so in the south west peninsular.

  Agricultural Protectionism
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations her Department has made to the European Union regarding reducing agricultural protectionism; and what research she has commissioned into the effects this may have on the United Kingdom economy. [86206]

  Mr. Morley
  We are committed to phasing out agricultural protectionism in the European Union. We seize every opportunity to make this clear to other member states, especially in the context of the current World Trade Organisation negotiations and the continuing discussions in the Agriculture Council on the mid-term review of the CAP. A recent estimate prepared for the Commission suggests that a 50 per cent. global cut in protectionism in agriculture could generate a welfare gain of up to $27 billion. The benefit for the EU as a whole was estimated at $17 billion.

  CAP Reform
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made towards reforming the Common Agricultural Policy; what factors she estimates will influence further moves to reform; and if she will make a statement. [88865]

  Mr. Morley
  The Agriculture Council has completed its reading of the Commission's outline proposals which were tabled on 10 July. The Commission will now reflect on the discussions in Council and produce the detailed
  369W
  legal texts which will be necessary to translate their proposals into changes to the CAP regulations. We expect these to be put to the Council in late January.

  I expect further reform to be influenced by a wide range of factors including the need to improve the sustainability of European Agriculture and to take account of its impact on international trade and development particularly with a view to a successful conclusion to the WTO round negotiations. I also expect the negotiations to take account of the setting of a ceiling for Category 1A expenditure for the period from 2007 to 2013 at the Brussels Summit.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason she has not replied to the letter from the honourable Member for Yeovil, dated 23 October 2002, on the Rural Payments Agency; and if she will make a statement. [90795]

  Alun Michael
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 9 January explaining the actions to be taken as a result of a careful review of the issues he raised in his letter.

  Environment Agency
  Mr Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the forecast budget is for the Environment Agency in the south west for 2003–04. [88300]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency has set a budget for its south west region of £62.3 million for 2003/04.

  Environmental Impacts
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 20 November 2002,Official Report, columns 158–59W, if she will make a statement on the new integrated policy appraisal tools to ensure that environmental impacts are considered alongside social and economic impacts. [89249]

  Mr. Meacher
  DEFRA's commitment to use integrated policy appraisal (IPA) was set out in the Department's Sustainable Development Strategy, "Foundations for our Future", published in June 2002. It is currently being piloted within DEFRA in a number of selected policy areas, and will be applied more widely in the coming year. The IPA provides a framework or template within which the economic, social and environmental impacts of policy options and their distributional effects in relation to different groups of people can be assessed. It allows decision-makers to:consider all the effects that a policy may have and identify which are potentially significant;
  highlight areas requiring more detailed or specialist guidance/further appraisal; and
  following any such guidance or appraisal, assemble evidence systematically to provide a summary of the impacts of a policy and the likely scale of the impacts.

  It is intended to contribute to the Government's goal of better policy making and to the achievement of sustainable development. The results of the pilot
  370W
  exercise in DEFRA, together with those being carried out in other Departments, will be shared across Government.

  Fisheries
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when her Department received the Opinion of the Legal Service, Council of the European Union No.13585/02, Limite, JUR424 PECHE164, dated 29 October; and when this was passed to the(a) Scottish Fishermen's Federation and (b) National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. [88199]

  Mr. Morley
  This document had been received in the Department on 1 November. I am not aware that it has been passed to either of the organisations referred to.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many UK vessels are involved in scallop fishing; how many people work in scallop fishing in the UK; how many people are employed in the scallop processing industry in the UK; and what estimate she has made of the value of the scallop fishery industry to the UK economy. [89451]

  Mr. Morley
  Details from Fisheries Departments systems show that 471 UK vessels caught scallops in 2001. The landings of scallops by these vessels in 2001 were valued at £29.9 million, compared with the total value of landings by UK vessels of £574.4 million. With regards to the information requested on levels of employment, estimates of employment are not made at the level of detail required in order for answers to be provided.

  Flower Imports
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what was the total(a) volume and (b) value of flowers imported into the UK from Kenya for each year since 1997; what discussions her Department has had relating to the involvement of UK companies in the import or production of flowers produced in Kenya using chemicals banned in the EU; and if she will make a statement; [88281]

  (2) What controls are placed on the import of flowers into the UK in relation to the use of (a) pesticides and (b) environmentally unsustainable practices; and if she will make a statement. [88282]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 January 2003]The total volume and value of imports of fresh cut flowers into the UK from Kenya since 1997 is set out in the following table:

  Year

  Total tones

  Total £000

  1997

  5,014

  13,430

  1998

  4,835

  13,950

  1999

  6,634

  19,427

  2000

  8,095

  22,817

  2001

  9,088

  28,073

  20021

  7,893

  25,093

  1 January to September

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise

  371W
  DEFRA has had no discussion so the use of chemicals in the production of flowers in Kenya.

  There are no controls on the import of flowers into the UK in relation to the use of pesticides or environmentally unsustainable practices, other than EU common quality standards which require that marketed cut flowers must be free of pesticide residues that affect the visual quality of the product.

  Imported produce is subject to checks for maximum residue levels, but these levels apply to consumable products and not to flowers.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much is outstanding in respect of payments for valuation fees during the foot and mouth outbreak in(a) Scotland and (b) the UK. [88602]

  Mr. Morley
  The amount outstanding in respect of payments for valuation fees during the foot and mouth outbreak in(a) Scotland is none and in (b) the UK is £9,970.

  There is a dispute between some valuers in Scotland and England over the basis of reimbursement. The claims in dispute are (a) Scotland £1,270,000 and (b) the UK £2,075,001. The UK figure is the total for Scotland and England. There are no outstanding payments or disputes in respect of valuation fees in Wales or Northern Ireland.

  Hunting
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the hunts active across the Vale of York in part in upland areas will be allowed to continue under the proposed Bill. [89010]

  Alun Michael
  The proposal in the Hunting Bill is to establish a system for making case-by-case decisions on whether hunting activities may take place, to ensure that unnecessary suffering is prevented. An applicant would have to show that both the tests of utility and cruelty are met in the case of the particular hunting proposal. It will be for the registrar to be satisfied, on the basis of an objective assessment of the evidence—which would cover any local factors—provided by both the applicant and the animal welfare body, that the proposed hunting satisfied the two tests, namely, that it would be for one of the purposes set out in clause 8(1) and that the purpose cannot reasonably be achieved by a method that would cause less suffering.

  Late Payments
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what targets exist for the Rural Payments Agency in respect of the deadlines within which payments must be made; and what(a) numbers and (b) amounts of payments have (i) been within the target and (ii) failed to meet it in the last 24 months. [88881]
  372W
  Alun Michael
  The Rural Payments Agency had two targets relating to the payment of valid claims within deadlines:1. To process and pay at least 96.14 per cent. of valid IACS claims by value within the EU deadline; and
  2. To process and pay 98 per cent. of valid non-IACS claims by volume within Ministerial deadlines and all claims within set EU deadlines or in their absence 60 days. For 2002 this percentage has been reduced to 85 per cent.

  Target 1

  Value of 2001 scheme year payments made within target (£)

  1,056,435,921

  Made outside target (£)

  146,908,512

  Number of 2001 scheme year claims made within target

  223,401

  Number outside target

  96,128

  For the 2002 scheme year, no IACS targets have been missed so far.

  The payment window for SAPS opened on 16 October 2002 and closes on 31 March 2003. As at 16 December, a total of 26,843 (99.2 per cent.) of Premium and National Envelope top-up payments have been made, of which 97 per cent. were issued in the first few days of the opening of the payment window. In addition, 8,327 producers (98.3 per cent. of those qualifying for the Less Favoured Area Supplement) have now received the supplementary payment amounting to £13.6 million.

  The payment window for AAPS opened on the 16 November 2002. As at 15 December, of the 41,345 AAPS claims received for the main scheme payments (excluding rejected and withdrawn), 37,597 (90.93 per cent.) had been authorised and 36,746 claims (88.88 per cent.) had been paid, with a value of £757,549,518.00 (85.69 per cent. of the estimated total to be paid). The target date is set at 31 January 2003. Progress is being made on Bovine Payments but the deadline is 30 June 2003.

  Target 2

  Value-of 2001–02 payments made within ministerial target (£)

  375,411,587

  made inside 60-day target (£)

  415,478,423

  Value of 2002–03 payments made within ministerial target (£)

  300,944,770

  made inside 60-day target (£)

  302,184,748

  Number of 2001–02 claims made within ministerial target

  774,860 (85.23 per cent.)1

  number inside 60-day target

  909,051 (99.99 per cent.)

  Number of 2002–03 claims made within ministerial target

  641,563 (99.42 per cent.)

  number inside 60-day target

  645,252 (99.99 per cent.)

  1The targets were missed because of prioritisation of resources to FMD related schemes including Livestock Welfare Disposal Scheme.

  Licensing
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department knew that drinks and entertainment organisations were clients of MCM Research Ltd. when it was commissioned by her Department to advise on proposed changes in the arrangements for alcohol and entertainment licensing. [89540]
  373W
  Alun Michael
  The research MCM is carrying out on behalf of Defra is to assist with the provision of best practice guidance for addressing potential noise from pubs and clubs. It is not to comment on proposed changes in the arrangements for alcohol and entertainment licensing. The intention is to support local authorities and the licensing trade both when working under the current licensing rules and in implementing changes under the arrangements currently proposed within the Licensing Bill.

  All applicants to the competitive tender for this research project were asked to give details of their relevant experience in this area. A number of drinks and entertainment organisations have been clients of MCM Research Ltd. as a result of its specialisation in the application of social science to alcohol-related problems. MCM Research Ltd. was appointed partly as a result of their knowledge and experience of the licensed trade.

  This research will be made publicly available and is expected to be published in spring 2003.

  Modulation Receipts
  Mr. David Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish an analysis of how modulation receipts for(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03, (i) have been and (ii) are planned to be spent, showing the main categories of expenditure and the amounts of money spent on each such category. [88277]

  Margaret Beckett
  Payments in England from modulation receipts are as follows.

  Scheme

  2001–02 £m

  2002–03 (April to November 2002) £m

  2002/03(forecast total) £m

  Countryside stewardship

  3.4

  2.2

  8.6

  Environmentally sensitive areas

  1.3

  3.5

  7.6

  Organic farming

  3.8

  4.4

  5.7

  Energy crops

  0.1

  0.03

  0.1

  Modulation receipts are used to fund new agri-environment agreements entered into since 1 January 2001; for every pound contributed through modulation, the Government provide a pound of additional finance through match funding so that double the figure raised goes back into farming. Expenditure funded from modulation will rise significantly from next year as existing agri-environment agreements come up for renewal at the end of their first ten year period.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total sum was of modulation receipts, in financial years(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03 to date; what the expected sum is of such receipts for the full financial year 2002–03; and if she will make a statement. [88278]

  Margaret Beckett
  Modulation was introduced in 2001 at 2.5 per cent. following wide consultation. The current rate of modulation is 3 per cent. and, under existing plans, this will rise progressively to 4.5 per cent. by 2005.
  374W
  Under the present system the Government match pound for pound the finance available through modulation so twice as much money goes back into farming. Modulation receipts and the Government's match-funding will increase funding for rural development under the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP) by around £600 million over the seven years from 2000 to 2006.

  The total sums of modulation receipts in England are:

  £million

  2001–02

  2002–031

  2002–032

  27.3

  30.0

  40.6

  1 April to November 2002

  2 Forecast total

  The Rural Development Regulation (Reg. 1257/99) enables member states to modulate CAP direct subsidy payments by up to 20 per cent. and to use the sums collected to co-finance new agri-environment agreements entered into since 1 January 2001. Sums collected in one year may be carried over to be used at any time in the following three years.

  Following the recommendations of the Curry Commission on the Future of Farming and Food the Government have also announced that an additional £75 million of domestic funding will be made available to introduce an entry-level agri-environment scheme, subject to successful pilots. EU co-financing will be made available either through an increase in modulation or as a result of wider changes to EU rural development funding.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost was of administering modulation in 2001–02; what the expected administrative cost is for 2003–04; if she will express those sums as a percentage of actual and expected modulation receipts; and if she will make a statement. [88279]

  Margaret Beckett
  The system for administering all CAP payments in England is fully automated. There are no significant additional administrative costs incurred in either collecting modulation receipts or in making payments using those receipts.

  The funds raised by modulation may be spent only on a limited range of rural development measures (in England, only new agri-environment agreements). Modulation receipts may not be used to cover the administrative costs of running the England Rural Development Programme.

  Nappies
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department has undertaken a life cycle analysis to compare the environmental impact of re-usable nappies and disposable nappies. [88709]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency is currently carrying out a life cycle analysis comparing the environmental impact of both types of nappies.

  It is expected that the work will be completed in the spring of this year.

  National Park Authorities
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the grant for(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04 to each national park authority is; and what the percentage grant uplift to each park authority is. [90442]

  Alun Michael
  The information requested is provided in the following table. The differences in the percentage increase reflect a number of different pressures on individual National Park Authorities and on effort to achieve a fair distribution of the available resources:

  Authority

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Cash rise (Percentage)

  Broads

  2,801,437

  2,996,877

  7.0

  Dartmoor

  3,721,705

  3,977,323

  6.9

  Exmoor

  3,059,765

  3,318,950

  8.5

  Lakes

  5,460,856

  5,907,102

  8.2

  Northumberland

  2,419,922

  2,682,555

  10.9

  North York Moors

  4,224,936

  4,477,842

  6.0

  Peak District

  6,721,617

  7,161,069

  6.5

  Yorkshire Dales

  14,583,616

  15,037,283

  9.9

  Total

  32,993,854

  35,559,000

  7.8

  1 Includes £0.5 million for new accommodation. This was announced in a press notice on 28 November 2002.

  National Parks
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to receive European Commission state aids approval for National Park farm schemes; and if she will make a statement. [88428]

  Margaret Beckett
  Further information was sent to the European Commission to assist their assessment of the National Park farm schemes' compatibility with state aid legislation in June 2002. The National Park farm schemes are being considered by the commission within regulatory requirements, and we will continue to work with the commission to gain approval for this scheme.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's pesticides voluntary initiative. [86593]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are committed to minimising the adverse environmental impact of pesticide use, consistent with adequate crop protection. A voluntary agreement on measures to reduce the environmental damage caused by pesticides was entered into by the industry and other stakeholders in April 2001. Provided the voluntary initiative is fully implemented, it should reduce the environmental impacts of pesticides and the Government remain committed to this approach. However, the Government are carrying out further work and analysis on a possible tax or other economic instrument, should the voluntary initiative fail to deliver its objectives within a reasonable timescale.

  Public-private partnerships
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many departmental minutes issued by her Department were outstanding on 30 November 2002, that referred to public-private partnerships, as included in Table B14 of the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts; and what their value was. [89422]

  Alun Michael
  Defra had no minutes outstanding at 30 November 2002 that referred to public-private partnerships. The Department has two contracts for delivery of flood defences on public-private partnership terms: as these are operating within the contractual terms, they do not require the issue of a departmental minute.

  Rabies
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library a copy of the Government's contingency plan for dealing with an outbreak of rabies in the United Kingdom; and what plans she has to review the contingency plan. [89012]

  Margaret Beckett
  The existing Rabies Contingency Plan is being updated to take account of lessons learned from our experience with foot and mouth disease. We intend to issue, in the spring of this year, a revised draft of the Plan., for consultation by stakeholders.

  Rural Land Register
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the projected cost is of completing the rural land register. [90396]

  Alun Michael
  The projected cost of completing the rural land register is in the order of £5.5 million.

  Rural Payments Agency
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many calls have been received by the Rural Payments Agency fraudline telephone number in each quarter since it was launched. [90401]

  Alun Michael
  The Rural Payments Agency Fraudline has received on average 205 calls each quarter from 16 October 2001 to 31 December 2002.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what has been the operating cost of the Rural Payments Agency fraudline since its launch. [90402]

  Alun Michael
  The operating costs of the Rural Payments Agency Fraudline from 16 October 2001 to 31 December 2002 was £1,035.29

  Slaughter Premium
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many claims for slaughter premium were refused for the reason that they were received more than six months after sale or slaughter of the animal in each year since the scheme began. [90394]
  377W
  Alun Michael
  The following figures are provided for 2000 Under Thirty Months, 2001 Adult and Veal and 2002 Adult and Veal. The figures refer to animals for which claims were late and so that the applicant was not entitled to a payment.

  Number

  UTM

  2000

  1,575

  Adult

  2001

  7,816

  2002

  6,428

  Veal

  2001

  22

  2002

  24

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government's policy is on the payment of slaughter premium in respect of stock slaughtered under(a) the foot and mouth cull and (b) the Livestock Welfare Disposal scheme; and if she will make a statement. [89014]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: FMD culled cattle did not meet the criteria for receipt of the Slaughter Premium subsidy. Eligibility for the subsidy for animals taken under the Livestock Welfare Disposal Scheme is a matter still under consideration.

  Third-party Legal Action (Environmental Grounds)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to allow third parties to take court action against projects on environmental grounds; and if she will make a statement. [86413]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]: The existing standing provisions for judicial review allow the courts to determine whether or not a specific party should be heard. They have demonstrated that they are willing to give standing to non-governmental organisations and members of the public in appropriate environmental cases.

  In order to gain a fuller insight into NGOs views, DEFRA is funding a research project by Capacity Global entitled "Access to Courts: Barriers and Opportunities for Environmental Justice". This will look at the experiences of NGOs and individuals. Results are expected to be available in spring 2003.

  Translation Costs
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what has been the cost incurred by her Department in providing translation of(a) forms and (b) publications for (i) Welsh and (ii) Gaelic speakers in the last 12 months. [90398]

  Alun Michael
  (i) The central Translation Section of Defra has spent the following amounts on translations of forms and publications into Welsh.
  378W

  Financial year

  Forms (£)

  Publications (£)

  Total (£)

  2001–2002

  486

  4,715

  5,2001

  2002–2003 (to 31.12.02)

  8,719

  11,198

  19,917

  (ii) The Translation Section has not provided any translations into Gaelic.

  Warm Front Grants
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the take-up of Warm Front Grants has been from families receiving Disability Living Allowance; [88017]

  (2) what the take-up of Warm Front Grants have been from families with a child under 16 receiving Disability Living Allowance. [88020]

  Mr. Morley
  To qualify for a grant under the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, now marketed as the Warm Front Team, the householder or their spouse must be in receipt of a qualifying income or disability related benefit. Children under 16 in receipt of such benefits do not qualify for assistance through the scheme. Householders in receipt of the Disability Living Allowance are currently entitled to assistance up to the value of £1,500.

  Between June 2000 and September 2002, 99,175 households received assistance where the only qualifying benefit was Disability Living Allowance.

  Water Framework Directive
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to revise the 1999 regulatory impact assessment of the water framework directive. [88435]

  Margaret Beckett
  A revised partial regulatory impact assessment (RIA) will be included in a third consultation paper which is due to be published later this year. A RIA was published with the first consultation paper on the water framework directive in March 2001. Chapter 4 of the second consultation paper published in November 2002 provided information about carrying forward the RIA. This work is now underway.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Diego Garcia (Anti-personnel Landmines)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what jurisdiction the United Kingdom has in respect of the anti-personnel landmines being stored by the United States on Diego Garcia. [88984]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am assured that there are no stocks of anti-personnel landmines stored on Diego Garcia by the US or any other country.

  EU Budget (Information Campaigns)
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to
  379W
  his statement of 16 December 2002, Official Report, column 547, on the European Council (Copenhagen), what rules govern the distribution and expenditure of EU budget funds in information campaigns. [89370]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  Funds are available from the EC Budget to provide general information on the implications of enlargement for candidate states. The Commission, assisted by a management committee of Member States' representatives, is responsible for distributing these funds under the EC Regulations giving assistance to candidate countries. Disbursement of EC Budget funds by the Commission is also subject to the rules and principles laid down in the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, and to external audit by the European Court of Auditors.

  GDP Growth Estimates
  Mr Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will identify the source of the GDP growth estimates given in his statement of 16 December,Official Report, columns 537–51, on the Copenhagen summit and enlargement of the EU. [89246]

  Mr. MacShane
  The estimate of nearly £2 billion as the benefit to UK GDP from enlargement is taken from a study by Baldwin R E, J F Francois & Fortes R (1997) "The costs and benefits of eastern enlargement: the impact on the EU and central Europe", Economic Policy, no 24, April 1997. The study estimates have been updated to 1999 GDP figures and prices. The estimate of a 1.5 percentage point boost to the GDP of the acceding countries is taken from a study by the European Commission (June 2001) 'Economic Impact of Enlargement' available at http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/publications/enlargementpapers_en.htm.

  Boundaries Commission (Bermuda)
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to introduce an Order in Council to progress the work of the Boundaries Commission in Bermuda and to introduce an electoral system which conforms to the objective of one person, one vote; each vote of equal value; and if he will make a statement. [87758]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Given the degree of consensus which has emerged on this matter, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is minded to recommend to Her Majesty in Council, in January 2003, an Order in Council to amend the Constitution of Bermuda to give legal effect to the Commission's recommendations to change the boundaries and the current 20 dual seat constituencies to 36 single seat constituencies. My noble friend, Baroness Amos, sent the text of the draft Order in Council to the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in Bermuda on 25 November and to the Chairman of the FAC and interested peers on 29 November.

  Constitutional Treaty of European Union
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy on the content of the draft Constitutional Treaty of European Union prepared by Professor Alan Dashwood. [89584]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government commissioned Professor Alan Dashwood, a constitutional expert, and his team at Cambridge to draft a constitutional text. Professor Dashwood retained editorial control throughout. We support many of his ideas, such as clearer dividing lines between EU and member state roles. The Prime Minister's speech CA clear course for Europe' of 28 November 2002, which can be accessed on the website www.number-10.gov.uk, sets out the Government's position.

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's aspirations for the Convention on the Future of Europe. [89583]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government believe the Convention on the Future of Europe is an important opportunity to consider how to make the European Union more effective and efficient. We want a Union that is better organised, more accessible, and better able to deliver real and practical benefits to citizens.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy on the principle of loyal co-operation proposed for inclusion in the conclusions of the Convention on the Future of Europe. [89585]

  Mr. MacShane
  The draft Constitutional Treaty of the Praesidium of the Convention on the Future of Europe makes provision for a phrase setting out 'the obligation of loyal co-operation of Member States vis-a-vis the Union'. The principle exists in the present Treaties (Article 10 of the Treaty on European Community and Article 11(2) the Treaty on European Union). The Government support this principle.

  Dame Shirley Porter
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the attendance by Dame Shirley Porter at a function held by the British Embassy in Israel; and what instructions have been given, and on what date, by his Department in respect of contact with, and the provision of hospitality to, Dame Shirley Porter. [90344]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Dame Shirley Porter accompanied her husband, Sir Leslie Porter, the Chancellor of Tel Aviv University, to a dinner at the British Embassy in honour of the Weizmann Institute Foundation on 10 November 2002. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not issued instructions about contact with Dame Shirley Porter.

  Goa (Terrorist Attack)
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his
  381W
  Department has made of the warning issued by the Israeli Government concerning a possible terrorist attack on Goa in the New Year; what intelligence reports his Department have received concerning the threat posed by terrorism to British citizens in Goa during 2002; what changes his Department has made to travel advice on Goa in 2002; what steps his Department plans to take to warn British citizens about reports of terrorists targeting Goa; and if he will make a statement. [88319]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]We have received no specific threat to British or other foreign interests in Goa in recent months. The FCO travel advice for India, including Goa, was last changed on 13 December to indicate that India is one of a number of countries where there is an increased risk from global terrorism. The British Government are in close touch with other governments, including the Israeli Government, about terrorist threats. Our travel advice for those planning to visit India, including Goa, highlights the global risk of terrorism, including in areas visited by tourists.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister why Worcestershire local authorities are not eligible for area cost adjustment. [90387]

  Mr. Leslie
  The area cost adjustment is based on evidence about average wages in each area of the country, adjusted so that like for like comparisons are made. Areas with a relative wage above a particular threshold are those that receive the area cost adjustment. Wages in the Herefordshire and Worcestershire area are below this threshold. A full methodology guide to the area cost adjustment is available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website, and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Best Value
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will publish the Best Value Code of Practice. [89539]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government have consulted on a code of practice and new statutory guidance which will ensure that all local authority service contracting takes proper account of the need for a high quality work force in order to deliver high quality services. We have considered the responses and intend to publish the code and guidance very shortly.

  Environmental Protective and Cultural Services
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister in respect of each local authority, how much money was distributed and is planned to be distributed through the environmental protective and cultural services standard spending assessment for each financial year from 1997–98 to 2003–04; what the total sum distributed via EPCS SSA was for each year; and if he will make a statement. [90657]
  382W
  Mr. Raynsford
  A table showing the EPCS SSA for the financial years 1997–98 to 2002–03 and the provisional 2003–04 EPCS FSS by authority has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The EPCS SSAs provided are not suitable for comparison purposes between years. Some of the major differences between years are as follows:
  The last tranche of local government reorganisation occurred on 1 April 1998; this created a further 19 unitary authorities;
  In 1997–98 the "Other Interest Receipts" SSA was included in the EPCS SSA; from 1998–99 onwards the "Other Interest Receipts" SSA was included in the Capital Financing SSA;
  The Greater London Authority came into being in 2000. Prior to this the policing in the capital was provided by the Metropolitan Police Service, while the fire service was provided by the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority;
  The Metropolitan Police Authority was subject to boundary changes in 2000. Before this certain areas of Essex, Surrey and Hertfordshire were policed by the Metropolitan Police Service;
  The Metropolitan Police Service provided Magistrates Courts and Probationary Services as well as School Crossing Patrols, for the period 1997–98 to 1999–2000;
  It is proposed that the GLA will cease to receive money for its EPCS services in 2003–04; instead these will be funded via the GLA General Grant.
  In 2003–04 SSAs were abolished and replaced with Formula Spending Shares (FSSs). The control totals for FSSs are much larger than those for SSAs as they have been increased to around the level of spending by all authorities in England for these services.

  The SSA and FSS amounts are not cash. Instead they are used in the distribution of formula grant to local authorities. SSAs/FSSs are not spending targets, authorities are free to set their own budgets subject to local spending priorities.

  Fire Service (Radio Network)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what estimate he has made of the cost to(a) the Government and (b) contractors of the aborted regional fire service replacement radio budget; [90436]

  (2) how many fire authorities made claims for compensation for the cost of abortive work undertaken in implementing the regional procurement strategy for a new radio system; what the total value of the claims was; and how much has been paid to each authority; [90439]

  (3) if he will make it the policy of the Government to reimburse Dorset Fire Authority for costs and expenses incurred in its commitment to the South West Radio Project prior to the project being curtailed by the Government. [90437]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No figures are available relating to the cost to Government or private sector companies of the fire service regional radio procurement strategy.

  44 fire authorities have written to the Office giving preliminary notification of their intention to claim for costs related to the adoption of the national radio strategy. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not expect to receive claims until March 2003.
  383W
  Framework guidance on making claims is to be issued by officials shortly. All claims will be considered on merit within the given guidelines. A copy of the Fire Service Circular will be placed in the Library of the House in due course.

  Flood Protection
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the impact the introduction of the new local government grant distribution formula will have on local authority budgets for flood defence and coastal protection. [89642]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The provisional settlement included a small change in the formula used to provide resources through FSS (formerly SSA) for flood defence and coastal protection. Actual budgeting and expenditure remain matters for the authorities themselves.

  Green Goddesses
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many Green Goddess fire appliances there are; what is the age of the(a) oldest and (b) newest; and what plans he has to replace them. [90363]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are currently 1,027 Green Goddess appliances, including 116 for Scotland. They were all acquired in the mid-1950s. The Government have no current plans to replace the Green Goddesses but a substantial number of more modern appliances have been deployed for use by the military during the current dispute and we will be reviewing their effectiveness.

  Housing (Private Rented Sector)
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to(a) increase supply and (b) improve standards in the private rented sector, and to enable it to play a bigger role in meeting housing need. [88549]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government actively encourage a private rented sector that provides a decent standard of accommodation throughout. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will regulate where needed and the Housing Bill, to be published in draft shortly, will provide for the compulsory licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation and the selective licensing of landlords in areas of low demand. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is consulting on tenancy deposits and is encouraging voluntary measures such as local accreditation schemes as well as streamlining Housing Benefit to improve delivery and to give tenants greater choice. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister continues to consider the scope for measures that could make long-term investment in private rented housing a more attractive proposition.

  Islington Community Groups
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what information he has collated on Government expenditure in the last 12 months on Islington community groups based in buildings the Borough Council is proposing to sell; and if he will make a statement. [89382]
  384W
  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what consultation there has been with the Government Office for London by Islington Council on the proposed sale of buildings used by community organisations; and if he will make a statement. [89385]

  Mr. McNulty
  There has been no consultation with the Government Office on the proposed sale of buildings used by community organisations.

  Local Government (Performance Assessment)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the Audit Commission's comprehensive performance assessment of single tier and county councils; and what assessment he has made of the reasons underlying the proportion of unitary authorities rated as excellent. [90694]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The assessments were a matter for the Audit Commission. The methodology was widely consulted on with local government, the Local Government Association and other stakeholders. The judgments made for individual authorities drew a great deal of information from varied sources to form an overall view of authorities' services and their capacity to improve. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister considers the assessments provide a robust basis for our programme of improvement.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has made no assessment of the reasons for differences in average scores in different types of authority. The advice of the Audit Commission is that there is no strong evidence of systematic differences between classes of authority and the key message is that it is possible for authorities of all types and with widely varying circumstances to be excellent.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the information used by his Department in deciding upon area cost adjustments in the provisional funding settlement for local Government in 2003–04. [90438]

  Mr. Leslie
  A full methodology guide to the area cost adjustment is available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website, and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. The guide explains how data from the New Earnings Survey is used to calculate the adjustment, and which areas of the country receive it.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his estimate is for each shire and metropolitan county and for the GLA of spending per head from all local government sources in the last year for which figures are available. [90009]
  385W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The budgeted spending per head for each shire county area, metropolitan county area and the GLA in the year 2002–03 is in the following table:

  Revenue expenditure per head for each shire county area, metropolitan county area and the GLA area for 2002–03

  Former county area1

  Revenue expenditure (£ per head)

  Avon

  1,211

  Bedfordshire

  1,257

  Berkshire

  1,020

  Buckinghamshire

  998

  Cambridgeshire

  1,089

  Cheshire

  1,171

  Cleveland

  1,479

  Cornwall

  1,049

  Cumbria

  1,241

  Derbyshire

  1,183

  Devon

  1,237

  Dorset

  1,089

  Durham

  1,278

  East Sussex

  1,376

  Essex

  1,182

  Gloucestershire

  1,130

  Hampshire

  1,153

  Hereford and Worcester

  953

  Hertfordshire

  1,184

  Humberside

  1,313

  Isle of Wight

  1,152

  Kent

  1,259

  Lancashire

  1,278

  Leicestershire

  1,172

  Lincolnshire

  1,132

  Norfolk

  1,144

  Northamptonshire

  1,132

  Northumberland

  1,149

  North Yorkshire

  1,123

  Nottinghamshire

  1,243

  Oxfordshire

  1,003

  Shropshire

  1,012

  Somerset

  990

  Staffordshire

  1,131

  Suffolk

  1,124

  Surrey

  1,073

  Warwickshire

  1,119

  West Sussex

  986

  Wiltshire

  1,085

  Greater London

  1,797

  Greater Manchester

  1,458

  Merseyside

  1,613

  South Yorkshire

  1,370

  Tyne and Wear

  1,510

  West Midlands

  1,476

  West Yorkshire

  1,319

  1 Shire county areas are based on pre-reorganisation boundaries (1995–96 to 1998–99) and include shire districts, unitary authorities, police and fire authorities. Metropolitan areas include metropolitan districts, police, fire, transport and waste authorities. The Greater London area includes London boroughs, City of London, GLA, waste authorities and the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority.

  Source:

  2002–03 GFRA budget estimates and the mid- 2001 population estimates from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his latest estimate is of spending per head from all local government sources for each region in England in the last year for which figures are available. [90037]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The budgeted spending per head for each region in England in the year 2002–03 is in the following table.
  386W

  Revenue expenditure per head in English regions for 2002–03

  Government office

  Revenue expenditure (£ per head)

  East Midlands

  1,181

  East of England

  1,165

  London

  1,797

  North East

  1,405

  North West

  1,394

  South East

  1,164

  South West

  1,136

  West Midlands

  1,292

  Yorkshire and the Number

  1,301

  Source:

  2002–03 GFRA budget estimates and the mld-2001 population estimates from the Office for National Statistics (ONS)

  Population and Electorate (Size)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what his latest estimate is of(a) the population and (b) the electorate of each metropolitan district in England and each London borough; [90012]

  (2) what his latest estimate is of (a) the population and (b) the electorate of each region in England; [90011]

  (3) what his latest estimate is of (a) the population and (b) the electorate for each shire and metropolitan county and the GLA area in England. [90010]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter to George Howarth from John Pullinger, dated 13 January 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your question concerning the latest estimate of (a) the population and (b) the electorate for each shire and metropolitan county of the GLA area in England. I am also including responses to your two related questions requesting the population and the electorate for each metropolitan district in England and each London borough, and for each region in England. I am replying in the National Statisticians' absence. (90010, 90012, 90011).
  Attached are three tables which relate specifically to your three requests. These show the total population and the 18+ population estimated for mid-2001, and the 18+ population registered to vote as at 1 December 2001.
  Even though figures are shown in the tables for comparable age-ranges, it is still not easy to make direct comparisons between the population and the electorate data. For one thing, there is a difference in timing: the mid-year estimates relate to 30 June 2001 whereas electorate data are as at 1 December 2001. In addition, there are differences in population coverage. The mid-year estimates include foreign citizens resident here who are not eligible to vote and people who choose not to register. On the other hand, there are a number of reasons why the electorate data may be higher than the mid-year estimates. Students are entitled to register both at their home and their term-time addresses, and second homeowners may also register in two places. Citizens who are not resident due to working abroad may be registered as overseas voters. In addition, electoral registers may be inflated if it is some years before non-respondents to the annual electoral canvass arc deleted from electoral registers.
  387W

  Table 1: 2001 population and electorate data for metropolitan and shire counties of England

  Thousands

  Persons all ages1

  Persons 18+1

  Electorate 18+2

  Metropolitan counties

  18,009.8

  13,829.8

  13,345.6

  Greater London

  7,188.0

  5,568.3

  5,169.9

  Greater Manchester

  2,482.8

  1,890.6

  1,903.1

  Merseyside

  1,361.7

  1,042.1

  1,041.1

  South Yorkshire

  1,266.5

  981.0

  953.9

  Tyne and Wear

  1,076.3

  839.9

  823.0

  West Midlands

  2,554.4

  1,923.9

  1,907.6

  West Yorkshire

  2,080.2

  1,584.0

  1,547.1

  Shire counties

  22,990.7

  17,904.4

  17,692.8

  Bedfordshire

  382.1

  291.4

  288.4

  Buckinghamshire

  479.1

  366.7

  359.7

  Cambridgeshire

  553.6

  433.1

  423.3

  Cheshire

  674.2

  524.8

  520.9

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  502.1

  397.0

  389.5

  Cumbria

  487.8

  383.9

  382.6

  Derbyshire

  734.9

  572.6

  575.5

  Devon

  705.6

  561.4

  554.3

  Dorset

  391.5

  312.2

  311.7

  Durham

  493.7

  387.1

  386.2

  East Sussex

  493.1

  388.6

  381.4

  Essex

  1,312.7

  1,018.7

  1,012.4

  Gloucestershire

  565.0

  439.9

  434.8

  Hampshire

  1,240.8

  960.1

  951.6

  Hertfordshire

  1,034.9

  794.9

  777.6

  Table 2: 2001 population and electorate data for districts in metropolitan counties and London boroughs

  Thousands

  Persons all ages1

  Persons 18+1

  Electors 18+2

  Greater Manchester (metropolitan county)

  2,482.8

  1,890.6

  1,903.1

  Bolton

  261.3

  197.5

  203.9

  Bury

  180.7

  137.0

  138.6

  Manchester

  392.9

  300.5

  312.5

  Oldham

  217.5

  161.3

  158.4

  Rochdale

  205.2

  152.6

  152.3

  Salford

  215.9

  166.2

  159.5

  Stockport

  284.6

  219.6

  218.4

  Tameside

  213.1

  161.9

  162.7

  Trafford

  210.2

  162.0

  163.7

  Wigan

  301.5

  232.0

  233.1

  Merseyside (metropolitan county)

  1,361.7

  1,042.1

  1,041.1

  Knowsley

  150.5

  111.3

  108.8

  Liverpool

  439.2

  338.5

  337.1

  St. Helens

  176.8

  135.6

  134.9

  Sefton

  282.9

  218.0

  213.6

  Wirral

  312.2

  238.7

  246.6

  South Yorkshire (metropolitan county)

  1,266.5

  981.0

  953.9

  Barnsley

  218.1

  168.3

  170.1

  Doncaster

  286.9

  219.4

  215.1

  Rotherham

  248.4

  189.7

  192.6

  Sheffield

  513.1

  403.6

  376.1

  Tyne and Wear (metropolitan county)

  1,076.3

  839.9

  823.0

  Gateshead

  191.2

  149.4

  150.2

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  259.6

  205.0

  198.3

  North Tyneside

  192.0

  150.5

  141.7

  South Tyneside

  152.8

  117.8

  115.6

  Sunderland

  280.8

  217.2

  217.2

  West Midlands (metropolitan county)

  2,554.4

  1,923.9

  1,907.6

  Birmingham

  976.4

  719.6

  714.3

  Coventry

  300.7

  229.2

  221.8

  Dudley

  305.1

  236.8

  236.5

  Sandwell

  282.8

  213.7

  213.0

  Solihull

  199.6

  152.4

  152.5

  Walsall

  253.3

  191.5

  188.2

  Wolverhampton

  236.4

  180.7

  181.3

  West Yorkshire (metropolitan county)

  2,080.2

  1,584.0

  1,547.1

  Bradford

  467.9

  344.9

  332.7

  Calderdale

  192.4

  146.4

  145.8

  Kirklees

  388.9

  294.6

  287.6

  Leeds

  715.5

  555.4

  533.0

  Wakefield

  315.4

  242.7

  248.1

  388W

  Table 1: 2001 population and electorate data for metropolitan and shire counties of England

  Thousands

  Persons all ages1

  Persons 18+1

  Electorate 18+2

  Kent

  1,331.1

  1,025.2

  1,006.8

  Lancashire

  1,135.8

  873.7

  868.9

  Leicestershire

  610.3

  476.1

  470.7

  Lincolnshire

  647.6

  507.5

  501.4

  Norfolk

  797.9

  634.8

  625.2

  Northamptonshire

  630.4

  480.7

  477.7

  Northumberland

  307.4

  241.5

  241.8

  North Yorkshire

  570.1

  445.5

  439.3

  Nottinghamshire

  748.8

  582.8

  580.6

  Oxfordshire

  605.9

  472.9

  460.0

  Shropshire

  283.3

  221.6

  220.5

  Somerset

  498.7

  388.5

  388.0

  Staffordshire

  807.1

  627.5

  627.5

  Suffolk

  669.4

  520.3

  512.3

  Surrey

  1,059.5

  828.6

  804.1

  Warwickshire

  506.2

  395.4

  388.8/

  West Sussex

  754.3

  592.3

  579.2

  Wiltshire

  433.5

  334.4

  328.6

  Worcestershire

  542.2

  423.1

  421.5

  1 Figures from the 2001 mid-year population estimates

  2 Figures from the Register of Electors as at 1 December 2001

  Note:

  Figures may not add exactly due to rounding.

  Source:

  Population Estimates Unit, ONS
  389W

  Table 2: 2001 population and electorate data for districts in metropolitan counties and London boroughs

  Thousands

  Persons all ages1

  Persons 18+1

  Electors 18+2

  London Boroughs

  Greater London

  7,188.0

  5,568.3

  5,169.9

  City of London

  7.2

  6.5

  5.7

  Barking and Dagenham

  164.3

  121.5

  115.4

  Barnet

  315.3

  243.7

  230.7

  Bexley

  218.8

  167.4

  167.5

  Brent

  263.8

  204.8

  179.5

  Bromley

  296.2

  230.5

  225.8

  Camden

  198.4

  161.4

  136.9

  Croydon

  331.5

  250.1

  239.9

  Ealing

  301.6

  234.4

  212.9

  Enfield

  274.3

  209.4

  198.8

  Greenwich

  215.2

  163.1

  155.1

  Hackney

  203.4

  150.6

  130.0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  165.5

  135.2

  114.0

  Haringey

  216.8

  167.0

  148.4

  Harrow

  208.0

  160.5

  157.5

  Havering

  224.7

  174.6

  176.2

  Hillingdon

  243.1

  185.7

  179.7

  Hounslow

  212.7

  163.4

  158.3

  Islington

  176.1

  140.2

  128.7

  Kensington and Chelsea

  159.1

  132.0

  98.9

  Kingston upon Thames

  147.6

  116.5

  100.1

  Lambeth

  266.8

  210.2

  194.1

  Lewisham

  249.5

  191.0

  179.8

  Merton

  188.3

  147.7

  133.3

  Newham

  244.3

  172.7

  155.4

  Redbridge

  239.3

  182.0

  178.4

  Richmond upon Thames

  172.8

  137.1

  129.0

  Southwark

  245.4

  190.5

  170.6

  Sutton

  180.2

  138.1

  131.2

  Tower Hamlets

  196.6

  146.4

  138.2

  Waltham Forest

  218.6

  166.3

  159.7

  Wandsworth

  260.8

  214.0

  209.1

  Westminster

  181.7

  154.2

  131.2

  1 Figures from the 2001 mid-year population estimates.

  2 Figures from the Register of Electors as at 1 December 2001.

  Note:

  Figures may not add due to rounding.

  Source:

  Population Estimates Unit, ONS.

  Table 3: 2001 population and electorate data for Government office regions of England

  Thousands

  Persons all ages1

  Persons 18+1

  Electors 18+2

  North East

  2,516.5

  1,954.5

  1,937.1

  North West

  6,731.5

  5,161.6

  5,167.3

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  4,967.2

  3,824.8

  3,752.1

  East Midlands

  4,175.1

  3,233.2

  3,185.5

  West Midlands

  5,267.1

  4,033.2

  3,995.5

  East

  5,394.9

  4,179.6

  4,118.7

  London

  7,188.0

  5,568.3

  5,169.9

  South East

  8,006.9

  6,124.9

  6,081.2

  South West

  4,934.2

  3,875.9

  3,824.7

  1 Figures from the 2001 mid-year population estimates.

  2 Figures from the Register of Electors as at 1 December 2001.

  Source:

  Population Estimates Unit, ONS.

  Private-Public Partnerships
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many departmental minutes issued by his Department were outstanding on 30 November that referred to 390W
  public private partnerships as included in Table B14 of the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts; and what their value was. [89424]

  Mr. Leslie
  The office of the Deputy Prime Minister had no departmental minutes referring to public private partnerships in Table B 14 of the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts.

  Room Areas
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the regulations prescribing the manner in which the floor area of a room is to be ascertained under section 326 (4) of the Housing Act 1985 were laid before Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [89526]

  Mr. McNulty
  Regulations governing the measurement of rooms were made in 1937 under that provision of the Housing Act 1935 which preceded section 326(4) of the Housing Act 1985. These regulations were revoked in 1990, and no alternative methods of measurement were specified.

  Room Definitions
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what definition of the terms(a) living room, (b) sitting room and (c) lounge exists in legislation. [89549]

  Mr. McNulty
  As regards Part X of the Housing Act 1985, which specifies the overcrowding standards, the term "living room" is used without definition to describe a room, other than a bedroom, that may be regarded as sleeping accommodation, subject to normal practice in the locality, for the purposes of determining whether a dwelling is overcrowded. The other terms mentioned by my hon. Friend are not used in Part X.

  Room Spaces
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if kitchens and bathrooms with a floor space greater than 50 square feet are counted as rooms available to sleep in. [89525]

  Mr. McNulty
  Under Part X of the Housing Act 1985, a room with a floor space of 50 square feet or more is considered to be available as sleeping accommodation if it is of a type normally used in the locality as a bedroom or as a living room.

  Smoke Alarms
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment the Government has made of the costs and benefits of making the fitting of smoke alarms a statutory requirement for(a) domestic and (b) other property owners. [89132]

  Mr. Leslie
  The possibility of introducing a mandatory requirement on all households to install smoke alarms was considered by the Community Fire Safety Task Force whose 1997 report, "Safe as Houses", outlined a strategy on reducing fire deaths. The Government accepted their finding that, although such a proposal does have attractions, the enforcement difficulties were likely to be excessive. Instead, it advocated a far greater level of publicity and education to build upon the significant improvement on ownership levels which have already been achieved.

  The fire safety aspects of the Building Regulations in Approved Document B were amended in 1992, to include provision for mains wired, interconnected smoke alarms to be provided in all new dwellings, resulting in new homes being provided with smoke alarms since 1992. This provision was extended in 2000 when, following a regulatory impact assessment, it was considered to be good regulation for smoke alarms to also be provided where a loft conversion is undertaken in an existing dwelling. This move, together with our wider publicity and educational efforts, has helped to raise smoke alarm ownership levels in all households to 82 per cent.
  392W
  Premises that require a fire certificate under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 and premises that are subject to the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 can be required to have fire detection equipment where this is reasonable and necessary in relation to the risks to persons who use the premises. This was reflected when the Building Regulations and Approved Document B were further amended in 2000 to require new and materially altered premises to be fitted with appropriate provisions for the early warning of fire.

  The Government have also recently consulted on proposals to reform general fire safety law by means of a Regulatory Reform Order. These proposals would extend the risk based requirements of the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations to most places, other than private dwellings, and would include provision of fire detection equipment where this is reasonable and necessary. The proposals will be subject to a full Regulatory Impact Assessment and this is currently being prepared.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate the Government made of the number of homes(a) equipped and (b) not equipped with a working smoke alarm. [89135]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Findings from the "2000 British Crime Survey" suggest that 77 per cent. of households in England and Wales were equipped with at least one smoke alarm. 23 per cent. of households were not equipped with a smoke alarm.

  Due to the nature of the question asked in the British Crime Survey, it is not possible to ascertain what proportion of households were equipped with a working alarm. However, evidence from the National Community Fire Safety Centre's annual Fire Safety Attitude and Behaviour Monitor suggests that in approximately 9 percent. of households containing fitted smoke alarms at least one alarm has either been disconnected or has had the battery removed.

  Social Services Expenditure
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the formula for funding social services expenditure of local authorities reflects a 20 per cent. higher cost of elderly residential provision in those areas to be subject to the higher differential rate of payments under the Delayed Discharge (Compensation) Bill. [89607]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The grant distribution formulae for social services have to be generally applicable across England. As such they are based primarily on broad indicators of population, deprivation and the area cost adjustment. Possible payments under the Delayed Discharge Bill would be calculated on a different basis. My right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) has announced that there will be an additional £100 million provided to local government for each full year of the reimbursement scheme.

WALES

  Bilingual Service
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his estimate is of the annual cost of his Department's bilingual service; and how many people used this service in the latest year for which information is available. [89953]

  Peter Hain
  My Department is committed to treating the Welsh and English languages on a basis of equality. It is not possible separately to identify the day-to-day running costs which arise from this.

  Most of our translation needs are met by the National Assembly's Translation Unit under the terms of a service level agreement. However, in 2001–02, £4,400 was spent on translation by outside contractors.

  No records are kept of the number of people who use Welsh in their dealings with us.

  Demographics
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his latest estimates are of(a) the population and (b) the electorate in Wales. [90007]

  Peter Hain
  The figures requested are contained in the Digest of Welsh Statistics 2002, which is available on the National Assembly for Wales website (www.wales.gov.uk).(a) 2,903,200 (2001 mid-year estimate based on 2001 census).
  (b) Parliamentary electorate, 2,238,200.
  National Assembly and local government electorate, 2,245,400.

TRANSPORT

  Airport Capacity (South-East)
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the community organisations, residents' associations and environmental groups which he, members of his ministerial team and officials have met with regard to the consultation on airport capacity in the South East up to 30 November; [88492]

  (2) if he will list the organisations from the aviation industry which he and any member of his ministerial team and his officials have met with regard to the consultation on airport capacity in the South East up to 30 November. [88491]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since the launch of The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East) consultation, Ministers and officials have held a large number of meetings with a wide range of individuals and organisations. This has included representatives of environmental organisations, local authorities, business groups and the aviation industry.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced to Parliament on 28 November that the consultation on airports capacity will be extended until we have consulted on proposals in respect
  394W
  of Gatwick. We will set out our plans for the remaining stage of the consultation process when we publish the further consultation paper early in 2003.

  Alternative Fuels
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the road haulage industry and vehicle manufacturers regarding(a) the use of alternative fuels and (b) the development and use of lean, clean and low noise engines. [90323]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ministers meet regularly with representatives of the road haulage, motor and oil industries to discuss the development of clean fuels and technologies, both individually and through a number of high level committees. The Road Haulage Forum, for example, discusses progress in modernising the industry, including through the introduction of clean vehicle technologies. The Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, which will be launched on 16 January 2003, will allow Ministers to work closely with all stakeholders to encourage the development and use of clean, low carbon vehicles and fuels.

  Central Railways
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the SRA report on central railways to he published; and who will be responsible for publication. [89690]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 11 December 2002,Official Report, column 351W, to the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley).

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the Strategic Rail Authority report on Central Railway; and if he will make a statement. [89691]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 11 December 2002,Official Report, column 351W, to the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malting (Sir John Stanley).

  Diesel Technology
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what incentives the Government have put in place to encourage(a) vehicle manufacturers and road haulage companies to cut emissions on existing diesel technology and (b) the wider use of alternative based vehicles. [90322]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government have introduced a number of incentives to encourage the wider use of cleaner vehicles and fuels, and has published the "Powering Future Vehicles Strategy", which provides a framework for future fiscal and other incentives.

  All new vehicles have to meet minimum European emission standards that are set to become progressively tougher over time. This will ensure that all vehicles—including heavy diesel vehicles—become less polluting over time. In addition, my Department sponsors the CleanUp programme that provides grants towards the cost of fitting trucks—and other vehicles—with

  395W
  pollution reducing technologies such as particulate traps. In many cases, trucks fitting such devices can also benefit from lower Vehicle Excise Duty.

  More generally, the Government are encouraging the wider use of cleaner fuels and vehicles through:
  favourable fuel duty rates for cleaner fuels, including LPG, natural gas and biofuels;
  company car tax and vehicle excise duty regimes based on CO2 emissions, with discounts for alternatively fuelled vehicles; and
  grants through Transport Energy programmes towards the additional cost of purchasing cleaner vehicles such as electric, hybrid and gas vehicles.

  Dismantled Railway Lines
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many feasibility studies the SRA commissioned in 2002 into the possible re-opening of dismantled railway lines; and if he will make a statement. [88957]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) does not commission feasibility studies into the re-opening of dismantled railway lines. Parties who intend to make bids for Rail Passenger Partnership (RPP) funding however, often carry out feasibility studies and three such bids have been received during 2002. Therefore, no specific studies into dismantled railway lines have been commissioned by the SRA in 2002.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many requests were received in the past 12 months to replace(a) photocard and (b) counterpart driving licences. [90024]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The photocard and the paper counterpart together constitute the complete driving licence. DVLA expects to process some 680,000 applications for duplicate driving licences (i.e. where the licence has been lost, stolen or defaced) by the end of the current financial year. Figures are not available for which part of the licence has been lost but DVLA believes that most cases involve loss of the paper counterpart.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide a breakdown of the average costs incurred, per application, by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency for providing(a) replacement photographic driving licences and (b) replacement counterpart driving licences in 2001–02. [90025]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The average cost of replacement licences of all types, per application, in 2001–02 is estimated to be around £5.60. DVLA does not maintain a breakdown of transaction costs into the categories requested.

  Freight
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what Government assistance has been given to UK freight transport since 1997. [90318]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Government policy is to promote an efficient, safe, and sustainable UK freight industry across all modes; rail, road, air, sea and inland 396W
  waterway. Since 1997 the Government have implemented a variety of fiscal and non-fiscal measures to support this policy.

  Detailed information in relation to all freight transport modes across the United Kingdom could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Investment
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what additional investment in travel by sea there is in his spending plans for 2003–04. [89566]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. The Department does not subsidise travel by sea.

  London Underground (PPP)
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how much money has been spent by his Department on(a) consultants' fees and (b) lawyers' fees for the London Underground PPP; [88978]

  (2) what has been the cost to his Department, and its predecessor Departments, of preparing the PPP for London Underground. [88977]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained when giving evidence to the Transport Select Committee on 18 December 2002, the estimated cost to London Transport and to the Department of preparing for the PPP, including the costs being repaid to all bidders, is likely to total around £500 million.

  The PPP amounts to an unprecedented modernisation of the entire underground network over the next 30-years. The level of bid development costs reflects this and also the lengthy duration of the bidding process, which commenced in October 1999. Nonetheless, the level of bid costs represents only an extremely small proportion of the value of investment that will be delivered over the life of the contracts.

  It is normal practice for eligible bid costs to be recoverable under PFI contracts. In this instance, the amounts to be recovered have been verified through an independent review to ensure that the costs have been reasonably and properly occurred and were appropriate for a transaction of this nature.

  The Department has sought to keep its costs to a minimum by making joint use of London Transport's advisers, expenditure on which is regularly reported to Parliament, mostly recently on 25 November 2002, Official Report, column 63W. As this made clear, London Transport's expenditure on external consultants, including legal advice, from 20 March 1998 (the date of the Government's announcement) to 30 September 2002, for work on the PPP and restructuring of London Underground, was £96.3 million. As a result of the delayed implementation of the PPP, London Transport currently estimate that the final amount should be between £103–£105 million, an increase of between £5–£7 million over its December 2001 forecast. Around £1.6 million of this increase arises from the Mayor's second unsuccessful legal challenge in July 2002. The court granted that these costs should be fully recovered from Transport for London.
  397W
  The Department has separately spent around £1.5 million on independent external advice where this has been appropriate.

  Manchester Airport
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many aircraft transport movements there have been at Manchester Airport in each month since December 2001. [90732]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is as follows:

  Air transport movements at Manchester airport

  Number

  2001

  December

  11,750

  2002

  January

  12,804

  February

  11,993

  March

  13,260

  April

  13,504

  May

  15,791

  June

  16,022

  July

  17,070

  August

  17,469

  September

  17,123

  October

  16,338

  November

  13,495

  Public Private Partnerships
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many departmental minutes issued by his Department were outstanding on 30 November, that referred to public private partnerships as included in Table B 14 of the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts; and what their value was. [89421]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport had no departmental minutes outstanding on 30 November referring to public private partnerships as included in Table B14 of the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts.

  Railway Investment
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the proposals received by the Strategic Rail Authority for investment in signalling, track improvement and platform lengthening in the areas served by(a) South-West Trains and (b) Island Line; and which are included in forthcoming investment programmes. [89567]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority announced a new approach to the South West Trains franchise on 6 November 2002. This involves a one-year extension to February 2004 and agreement of key principles with Stagecoach Holdings plc for a new franchise extending beyond then to 2007. The extension ensures the introduction of new trains and extra services but does not include infrastructure enhancements, which the Authority will develop separately. On 12 November 2002, the Authority announced that it had reached agreement with Stagecoach for the continued operation of the existing level of services on the Island Line until 2007. The Authority's Strategic Plan, the 398W
  second edition of which is to be published shortly, will list investment priorities for the short and medium terms, as well as long-term goals for the network.

  Shoreham Harbour
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with Shoreham Port Authority about levying charges on fishing cargoes landed at Shoreham Harbour; what the standard levy rate is for fish cargoes landed at trust ports; and which trust ports levy cargo dues on fish landed at their wharfs in addition to charges levied against the vessels themselves. [90026]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Fish landing dues are set by the harbour authority and are not a matter in which the Department has any locus. Therefore we hold no information about the level of dues set by individual authorities and have had no discussions with the Shoreham Port Authority regarding this matter.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many Statutory Instruments subject to negative procedure made by his Department(a) came into force and (b) were considered by a delegated legislation committee in each of the last three sessions. [88030]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport was formed on 29 May 2002. Since then 22 statutory instruments subject to the negative resolution procedure for which that Department is responsible have come into force. In the same period five statutory instruments for which the Department is responsible have been the subject of a debate in standing committee on delegated legislation.

  Vehicles (Pedestrians)
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to require the fronts of vehicles to be more pedestrian-friendly. [90248]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We supported a proposal by the European Commission in 2001 for a negotiated agreement with the motor industry to design car fronts to reduce the injury to pedestrians in the event of an impact, beginning with new models in 2005. We are now awaiting a further proposal early this year from the Commission to provide a legislative framework for this agreement.

DEFENCE

  Servicemen (Pension Rights)
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what his Department's estimate is of the cost of extending service pension rights to the second spouses of deceased servicemen who completed their period of service prior to 1976; [88954]
  399W
  (2) how many representations he has received concerning his Department's policy of refusing to transfer pension rights to the second spouses of servicemen who completed their periods of service prior to 1976; [88953]

  (3) what assumptions concerning survival rates of spouses are made by his Department when estimating the cost of financing the transfer of pension rights to spouses after the death of a serviceman. [88955]

  Dr. Moonie
  Post-retirement widow and widower pensions (PRWP) were introduced as a requirement of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. Provision was made in the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) for the payment of pensions to widow(er)s of service pensioners who married (or remarried) after retirement, but this change benefited only the widows of those giving service on or after 6 April 1978, and the widowers of those giving service on or after 6 April 1989. Only service on or after those dates was taken into account when calculating the level of pension. Against this background, it would cost in the order of £50 million to extend PRWP's to all current and deferred AFPS pensioners. This would be a one-off cost.

  It has been the long-standing policy of successive Governments that discretionary changes to improve the benefits from public service pensions schemes should be implemented from a current date for future service only. There is no distinction between servicemen and public sector employees with regard to the fact that the PRWP only applies to those with service on or after 6 April 1978, or 6 April 1989. To extend the post-retirement marriage concession to survivors of members of all public service occupational schemes would cost between £300 million and £500 million.

  There is no requirement for the Ministry of Defence to hold data on the number of representations it has received on this issue and the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The assessment of the costs of making the 1978 and 1989 changes retrospective was a broad actuarial estimate, carried out by the Government Actuary's Department. The assumptions used in making this assessment were derived from general UK population mortality statistics, supplemented by mortality experience analysis within the AFPS and other pension schemes. Detailed calculations have not been carried out due to the lack of readily available data. Full calculations could be carried out only at disproportionate cost.

  Aircraft Carriers (Deployment)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the development of RN/RAF co-operation in joint deployments on UK aircraft carriers. [89887]

  Mr. Ingram
  The three United Kingdom Invincible class aircraft carriers are capable of supporting and operating a range of RN and RAF aircraft, both fixed wing and rotary wing. In addition, RAF Chinook helicopters, based on either HMS Ocean or any of the Invincible class aircraft carriers in the LPH role, have been provided by the Joint Helicopter Command to provide essential heavy-lift capability to amphibious operations.
  400W
  The concepts of operations covering the employment of these aircraft from sea are firmly established and have been proven during both exercises and real operations. Already long-standing, the strong co-operation and resolute interoperability between the RN and the RAF continues to develop as defence strategies evolve.

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment Report
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Public Record Office a copy of the report produced in 1961 by the chemical and biological defence establishment entitled, "The change of size-spectrum of zinc cadmium sulphide particles with increasing distance of travel" (Porton Note 218). [89463]

  Dr. Moonie
  A copy of Porton, Note No. 218, entitled "The change of size spectrum of zinc cadmium sulphide particles with increasing distance of travel", has already been placed in the Public Record Office and can he found at WO 189/2388.

  Colchester Garrison
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many weapons have been reported as missing from the Colchester Garrison in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [90352]

  Dr. Moonie
  In the last ten years a total of two complete weapons and part of another weapon have been reported missing or stolen from Colchester Garrison. In 1999 the Birkhampstead Cadet Force reported an SA80 Assault weapon missing. In 2001 part of a bolt for an SA.80 Assault Rifle and a deactivated Lee Enfield rifle were reported missing.

  Departmental Properties (Scotland)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of his Department's properties in Scotland are awaiting disposal; and if he will make a statement. [86389]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are currently 26 separate Ministry of Defence properties awaiting disposal as at 7 January 2003:

  Defence Estates (Scotland): Properties awaiting disposal/under offer

  Garelochhead, Station road

  Bower, Comms site (site 1)

  Helensburgh Ardencaple dev sites (4)

  RAF Machrihanish

  Perth, St. Leonards Bank (3 and 7)

  Edinburgh, TA Centre Dalmeny street

  Edinburgh, TA Centre Chesser crescent

  Coatbridge, TA Centre Quarry street

  Falkirk TA Centre Bog road

  Campbeltown, TA Centre

  Buchan Claymore Estate (26)-phase 1

  Helensburgh Churchill Estate (4)

  Ayr-Belmont Avenue/Chalmers road (3)

  401W

  Irvine, 31–66 Dundonald crescent

  Helensburgh (seven blocks) Smuggler's Way

  Forres MQs-Pilmuir Estate

  Forres—76, 78, 80 Pilmuir (3)

  Buchan-Invernettie (3) Monument close-phase 1

  Glasgow, Kentigern House car park

  Thurso, 40 Ormlie crescent

  Aberdeen, 4 and 6 Ashwood circle

  Glasgow, 133 and 135 Carmunnock road

  Giffnock, 27, 29 Wellfield avenue and 27 Clifton road

  Ardencaple-Office West King street

  Inverness, dev site-Raigmore avenue

  Leuchars-Earlshall land

  Development Sites
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times since 1997 his Department has used confidentiality as a reason for not revealing details in connection with selling sites for development; what they were, and with which companies; and if he will make a statement. [90129]

  Dr. Moonie
  There have been cases in the past when, on grounds of commercial confidentiality, the Ministry of Defence has withheld information relating to the disposal sale price. Since 1999 it has been departmental policy to require all purchasers of surplus MOD land and property to be told, in writing, that the final sale price will be made known to any party who, in the future, requests that information. However, bidders/purchasers may still refuse consent to the sale price being made public on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  Specific details of the cases for which such information has been withheld are not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  HMS Ark Royal
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the capability of HMS Ark Royal to perform the functions of a Commando carrier. [89880]

  Mr. Ingram
  Maritime forces are inherently flexible and although not her primary role the Carrier Vertical Strike (CVS) can be operated successfully as a Landing Platform Helicopter (LPH). HMS Illustrious demonstrated this when, during operations in Afghanistan, she reconfigured from her role as CVS to that of LPH while at sea on deployment in the Gulf. Her primary role while configured as an LPH was to support joint and combined war fighting operations and to provide a platform for the rapid deployment of elements of Landing Forces by helicopter. HMS Ark Royal is fully capable of performing this task.

  HMS Nottingham
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the transportation of HMS Nottingham is expected to cost; and when the board of inquiry report into the incident which caused the damage is to be published. [89558]
  402W
  Mr. Ingram
  The cost of transporting HMS Nottingham from Australia to the United Kingdom on a Heavy Lift Ship is expected to be about £3 million.

  There are no plans to publish the Board of Inquiry (BOI) report into the incident in which HMS Nottingham was damaged. A BOI is an internal fact-finding investigation into the circumstances surrounding a particular incident, undertaken by the Services for internal use. Boards are convened to discover whether there were any procedural or other Service-related irregularities, or difficulties which could be identified and overcome. The main purpose is to establish the facts concerning an incident as quickly as possible and to make recommendations aimed at preventing a recurrence. The principle of confidentiality applied to BOI proceedings is designed to encourage witnesses to provide forthright evidence.

  HMS Sheffield
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what formal complaints he has received since April 2002 concerning the handling of the sailors' evidence on the loss of HMS Sheffield in May 1982; and if he will make a statement. [90127]

  Dr. Moonie
  A total of eight letters were received during April and May 2002 from MPs relaying concerns raised by their constituents relating to the conduct of the Board of Inquiry into the loss of HMS Sheffield during the Falklands Campaign. As I stated at that time, I am satisfied that the Board of Inquiry was conducted in a professional and proper manner and that no useful purpose would be served by reopening the inquiry.

  Honours
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects an outcome to the meeting of the sub-committee of the Committee on the Grant of Honours Decorations and Medals, chaired by General Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank on 22 November, regarding the case for a general service medal for Suez veterans. [90118]

  Dr. Moonie
  The report submitted by the subcommittee chaired by Lord Guthrie to the HD Committee will be considered by them before making a recommendation to Her Majesty the Queen. HD Committee's conclusions will be published in due course.

  Iraq
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what British(a) special forces and (b) other military personnel (i) are and (ii) were in 2002 (A) involved in operations and (B) present on the ground within the borders of Iraq. [89854]

  Mr. Hoon
  It is the longstanding policy of successive governments never to comment on the activities of special forces. I am therefore withholding the information requested in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
  403W
  Regarding conventional forces, there are and have been no military forces deployed on ground operations within Iraqi borders either currently or at any time in 2002. There are, however, 11 United Kingdom military personnel currently deployed with the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM)), the headquarters of which is situated just inside Iraq's borders, within the UN Demilitarised Zone.

  JSF Aircraft
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the progress of the JSF development programme and the likely date of availability of JSF aircraft for the future aircraft carriers. [89888]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme has been moving forward successfully since the development contract was awarded to Lockheed Martin in October 2001. United Kingdom companies have already secured significant roles in JSF as a result of their outstanding technology and ability to deliver value for money.

  It is planned that deliveries of the UK's JSF aircraft will begin in late 2009, in preparation for their entry into service in the CVF in 2012.

  Land Transference
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the value was of the land transferred to QinetiQ at(a) Farnborough, (b) Fort Halstead, (c) Chertsey, (d) Funtington and (e) Malvern; what assessment he has made of the potential for housing and other developments on these sites; and what clawback arrangements there are in the event of substantial increases in value for the properties transferred. [87714]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: In line with normal business practice, QinetiQ and its predecessor the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) frequently reviewed its estate in order to ensure that it was making efficient use of its property portfolio. Because a number of sites have already been scheduled for disposal, the value of the individual sites is commercially sensitive, and therefore specific details of the information requested are being withheld in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information which relates to commercial confidences.

  The majority of properties were transferred to QinetiQ on the basis of their value as part of the ongoing business and in most cases the value of the property as part of the business was higher than would be achieved through a sale of the land on the open market. These values were assessed by external valuers immediately before the properties were transferred to QinetiQ at vesting. The total value of the land and buildings transferred from the Ministry of Defence to QinetiQ in use in the continuing business was £342 million. Due to the specialist nature of QinetiQ's business the valuation is based on depreciated replacement cost, and this amount was £114 million greater than the open market value. This amount does not include surplus properties held for disposal which on transfer to QinetiQ in July 2001 had an open market
  404W
  value of £98 million, that was subsequently reduced by impairment of £20 million, as stated in the company's annual report 2002.

  The sale provisions contain clawback arrangements to ensure that the taxpayer receives a suitable share of any unanticipated or excess profits arising from land disposals.

  MOD Contracts
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure MOD contracts have at least 50 per cent. UK build content. [88573]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is the Government's policy to provide the armed forces with the equipment which they require at the best value for money for the taxpayer. Contracts are negotiated on an individual basis and there is no policy requirement for a particular percentage of work to be undertaken in the United Kingdom. However, as stated in our new defence industrial policy published on 14 October 2002, the benefit to the UK economy from Ministry of Defence contracts is taken into account when selecting contractors. A copy of the Government's defence industrial policy is in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. [89853]

  Mr. Ingram
  Britain has repeatedly made it clear that we will not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear weapon state not in violation of its nuclear nonproliferation obligations, unless it attacks us, our allies or a state to which we have a security commitment, in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.

  We would contemplate the use of nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances of self-defence. We would not use our weapons, whether conventional or nuclear, contrary to international law.

  The Government continue to believe that there is no benefit to be gained from speculation about hypothetical scenarios involving the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

  Overseas Forces (Decoding Cards)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will establish a decoding card for those serving in the Armed Forces overseas with a digital box so that they can receive BFBS radio and television; and what evaluation has been made as to the merits of providing these services. [89606]

  Dr. Moonie
  Use of a decoding card in conjunction with a suitable set-top box would not in itself enable reception of British Forces Broadcasting Service (BFBS) television and radio services as it is necessary to have an appropriately sized and correctly aligned satellite receiver dish in addition. The size and alignment of these dishes would not be the same as for those used by other broadcasters in the United Kingdom, e.g.BSkyB.
  405W
  Until recently all BFBS transmissions utilised low power satellites requiring large receiver dishes (of up to 4 metres diameter) not suitable for Direct-to-Home (DTK) down linking. This has meant that local transmission and reception has been via conventional terrestrial broadcasts requiring approval by the host nation and allocation of suitable frequencies.

  However, since December 2001 BFBS has used satellite capacity on Eutelsat W3 which enables radio and television broadcasts to be received on dishes no larger than 1.2 metres. As a result, it will become possible to dispense with local terrestrial transmission systems and move to DTH. Plans to do this in Germany are being finalised as part of the requirement to switch to digital broadcasting in that country and it is probable that other locations will follow in due course, dependent upon affordability.

  To protect programme rights holders, BFBS is introducing fully encrypted television services throughout the area covered by the Eutelsat W3. To date the Balkans and the Middle East are fully encrypted and proposals are being prepared to extend this to all other locations. The encryption service is delivered either via set top boxes (to single televisions) or via secure cable installations (again via decoders). Access at each set or cable head-end is controlled by digital cards.

  The BFBS radio channels can also be received via the set top boxes but in order to provide a MI service e.g. in workshops, cars etc., radio is normally delivered via local terrestrial transmitters in the overseas Commands and operational theatres.

  Overseas Service
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the places where British troops are serving abroad and whether they can(a) receive radio and (b) obtain newspapers; and if he will make a statement. [89605]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information on the location of British forces serving abroad can be found in Tri-Service Publication (TSP) 6, "Global Location of Service Personnel", a copy of which is held in the House of Commons Library. This is published quarterly, the latest edition is as at 1 October 2002.

  Availability of British Forces Broadcasting Service (BFBS) radio and/or television broadcasts depends upon a number of factors including host nation acceptance (including the provision of suitable broadcast frequencies where necessary), practicality and affordability; and is currently available in the following locations:

  Location

  TV

  Radio

  North West Europe

  Belgium

  No

  Yes

  Germany

  Yes

  Yes

  Netherlands

  No

  Yes

  Rest of World Garrisons/Units

  Ascension Island

  Yes

  Yes

  Belize

  Yes

  Yes

  Brunei

  No

  Yes

  406W

  Location

  TV

  Radio

  Canada (BATUS)

  Yes1

  Yes

  Canada (Goose Bay)

  Yes

  No

  Cyprus

  Yes

  Yes

  Falkland Islands

  Yes

  Yes

  Gibraltar

  Yes

  Yes

  Italy (Naples)

  Yes

  No

  Deployed Operational Theatres

  Afghanistan

  Yes

  Yes

  Bosnia/Kosovo

  Yes

  Yes

  Greece (Sindos Camp)

  Yes

  No

  Kuwait

  Yes

  Yes

  Oman (Thumrait)

  Yes

  Yes

  Saudi Arabia

  Yes

  Yes

  Turkey

  Yes

  Yes

  HM Ships

  1,2Yes

  2No

  1 Recorded VHS tapes

  2 Some larger ships are able to receive live satellite TV/Radio, others can receive when in port. Trials are being conducted on the practicality of providing BFBS to other HM ships via the "SCOT" broadcast system.

  Newspapers are supplied to HM Forces under a contract with Higgs International Ltd. to the following overseas countries/locations.

  Country

  Location

  Abu Dhabi

  —

  Afghanistan

  Kabul

  Belize

  —

  Bosnia

  Various

  Brunei

  —

  Canada

  Suffield; Wainwright; Ottawa; Goose Bay

  Croatia

  —

  Cyprus

  Akrotiri; Dhekelia and Ayios Nikolaos

  Falkland Islands

  —

  Germany

  Various

  Italy

  Naples and Valencia

  Kenya

  —

  Kosovo

  —

  Kuwait

  —

  Macedonia

  —

  Nepal

  —

  Norway

  Stavanger and Reitan

  Saudi Arabia

  Riyadh

  Sierra Leone

  —

  Turkey

  Incirlik

  USA

  Norfolk, Virginia

  Most personnel serving abroad, be they in permanent garrisons, training unit or liaison/exchange posts etc. will receive a Local Overseas Allowance (LOA) which is a compensatory, non-taxable allowance encompassing a wide range of factors including the ability to access English language radio, television and newspapers.

  Personnel deployed away from their normal place of duty on operation or exercise, in excess of two months, are provided with an Operational Welfare Package (OWP). The key elements of the OWP include 20 minutes of publicly funded telephone calls per week, internet access, mail, newspapers, books and where practical the provision of BFBS television and radio.

  Pension Benefits
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the educative
  407W
  measures his Department has taken to ensure (a) serving armed services personnel and (b) veterans are informed of the pension benefits veterans are entitled to. [89470]

  Dr. Moonie
  All Service personnel receive basic information about the benefits offered by the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) when they join the armed forces and further information, notably a statement of benefits accrued, when they leave. We also provide advice on the AFPS and the financial aspects of resettlement through briefings by specially mandated independent financial advisers. These presentations are not restricted to Service leavers; they are available to any member of the armed forces at any stage in his or her career. They are normally delivered at Regional Resettlement Centres, nine of which are in the United Kingdom, while the other is in Germany. Pensioners also receive an annual newsletter from Paymaster, the contractor responsible for paying their pensions, updating them on any changes that might affect them.

  The basic information material on the scheme had become out-dated and was not simply written. We have therefore been revising it and, in late autumn 2002, we issued to all serving members of the armed forces a pack containing a straightforward, easy-to-read new guide to the current AFPS and a short, pocket-sized summary which also gives the current pension code rates, details of additional booklets in the series and useful contacts. The general guide was tested with key ex-Service organisations and with representative Service personnel, and is now available on the MOD web and the internet. It will be issued to all new recruits when they commence their initial training. The pocket-sized brief will be updated and reissued annually, again on an individual basis, to incorporate each year's new pension code rates.

  Five supplementary booklets covering specialised pension topics were published at the same time; these are available to serving military personnel on request and can also be found on the internet and MOD intranet. Copies of the pack and the five booklets will shortly be placed in the Library of the House. A further three booklets are currently being written to complete the series; these are due to be published in late spring this year and will also be available electronically. This series of booklets has been publicised to ex-Service organisations, notably the Forces Pensions Society. However, they may not be relevant to all veterans, given the changes to pension benefits over time, and do not replace the information that will have been communicated to ex-Service personnel during their time in service and at the point when they left the armed forces.

  In addition to this general information on the Services' occupational pension schemes and the benefits they offer, specific information exercises are undertaken where changes take place affecting the entitlement of Service or ex-Service personnel. Examples of this include information on changes with respect to transfer rights between pension schemes, and on the introduction of Stakeholder pensions and pension-sharing on divorce.
  408W
  The War Pension Scheme is administered separately and, in addition to the AFPS, provides Service personnel with compensation for injury or illness attributable to service. We inform serving armed forces personnel of the provisions of the War Pension Scheme through their leaving-packs and, since the transfer of the Veterans Agency (VA) to the Ministry of Defence, the War Pensioners Welfare Service (WPWS) have attended resettlement events to give advice. In order to raise veterans' awareness of the War Pensions Scheme, we issue a range of information leaflets and posters to a variety of outlets such as post offices, regimental museums and GP surgeries. The VA works closely with ex-Service organisations and the War Pension Committees. In addition, the VA website contains comprehensive information and the WPWS holds advice days and surgeries using a mobile advice unit to reach more remote areas.

  RAF Welford
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what long-term plans he has for the future use of RAF Welford. [89443]

  Mr. Ingram
  RAF Welford will continue to be made available for the use of the United States Visiting Force. There are no plans to change the current mission of the base, which is that of a munition storage site.

  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps have been taken to assess the risks from accidents involving vehicles carrying munitions to and from RAF Welford and other military bases. [89447]

  Mr. Ingram
  All road movements are carried out in accordance with Ministry of Defence policy, which complies fully with national and international regulations. Formal assessments have been carried out by the MOD Explosives Storage and Transportation Committee on all types of munitions carried by road.

  Recruitment Initiatives
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on recruitment initiatives for(a) the Royal Navy and (b) the Royal Marines. [89872]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Directorate of Naval Recruiting continually utilises various advertising mediums for promoting careers in the Naval Service, and has an on-going programme of recruiting initiatives. Current initiatives include: the London Ethnic Minorities Recruiting Strategy, which commenced in June 2002—a dedicated campaign based on ethnic minority recruiting success in previous years; a campaign to improve submarine recruiting by offering acquaint visits to submarine facilities, and the production of a dedicated submarine recruiting video; and a proposal to use an external response handling agency to deal with the handling of potential recruiting inquiries to improve efficiency and effectiveness. In addition, visits to ships and establishments by potential recruits are encouraged and exhibition trailers participate regularly in local and regional events.

  RN Presentation Team
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the structure, role and programme of the RN Presentation Team. [89871]

  Dr. Moonie
  The role of the Royal Navy Presentation Team (RNPT) is to improve the public image, understanding and perception of the Royal Navy through the organisation and delivery of presentations to a wide cross-section of audiences around the United Kingdom.

  The team of nine personnel are all serving members of the RN or Royal Marines, led by Captain RNPT. They typically serve with the team for about two years. Four members comprise the road team, which delivers the presentations. Others are responsible for generating and directing the presentation events, while the remainder provide administrative support.

  The RNPT operates an annual programme of presentations commencing each September and ending in the following June. Between September 2002 and June 2003, the team aims to give over 90 presentations across the United Kingdom, including universities, and groups from industry and commerce. Presentations to school students aged 18 and under are given by a separate students presentation team.

  Scientific Advisory Council Reports
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department will deposit documents relating to the reports and papers of the Scientific Advisory Council in 1970 and 1971 into the WO 195 classmark at the Public Record Office; and for what reason these documents are not already deposited in accordance with the 30-year rule of the Public Records Act 1967. [89464]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Scientific Advisory Council was abolished on 1 April 1969 and was replaced by the Defence Scientific Advisory Council (DSAC). There are therefore, no papers held for the Scientific Advisory Council for the years 1970 and 1971. Papers relating to DSAC covering the years 1970 and 1971 have been deposited in the Public Record Office under class DEFE 10, which covers major Committees.

  Spending Review
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for his Department(a) those Comprehensive Spending Review 1998 targets that were outstanding at the time of the statement on the Comprehensive Spending Review 2002, (b) progress on such targets since then and (c) the expected date when targets not yet achieved will be met. [87692]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: The Ministry of Defence published details of achievements against current PSA targets with its Expenditure Plans (Cm 5412) in July 2002 and details of progress against all outstanding PSA targets in its Performance Report 2001–02 (Cm 5661) in November 2002.

  War Pensions
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many veterans from(a) the Second World
  410W
  War and (b) conflicts since 1945 are claiming (i) a war disablement pension, (ii) an armed forces pension and (iii) a war pension. [89471]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is not available in the format required and it could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Entitlement to War Pension and Armed Forces Pension is not dependant upon service during a war/conflict.

  As at 30 June 2002, there were 214,265 war pensions in payment in respect of veterans who have served since 1939, and there are currently 270,000 armed forces pensions in payment.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's policy is in regard to back-dating a claimant's war pension entitlements; and how many claims his Department received in(a) 1997 and (b) 2002 from (i) veterans of the Second World War and (ii) veterans of conflicts since 1945. [89472]

  Dr. Moonie
  The policy for commencing dates of war disablement pension (for ex-service personnel) is incorporated into Schedule 3 to the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983 (Statutory Instrument 1983 No. 883).

  The normal rules are that a pension is commenced from the date of claim or application for review.

  Statistics on claims to back-dating of war pensions are not kept by the Veterans Agency.

TREASURY

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in(a) Newcastle upon Tyne and (b) Gateshead are receiving working families tax credit; and what the average value of the credit is. [89527]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of families with children receiving Working Families' or Disabled Person's Tax Credit in each local authority, and the average weekly values, appear in "Working Families' and Disabled Person's Tax Credit Statistics. Geographical analyses". This is available on the Inland Revenue web site, at www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/wftc/wfdptc_geog.htm.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many recipient families live in a household receiving Working Families' Tax Credit but not housing benefit. [89693]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that a little over one million families in Great Britain were in receipt of Working Families' Tax Credit (WFTC) but not Housing Benefit (HB) at May 2001, the latest date for which such an estimate is currently available. This estimate is based on WFTC administrative data and an analysis of Department of Work and Pension's 1 per cent. sample of HB recipients; the latter is subject to sampling uncertainty.

  Accounting Officers
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on which occasions since May he has been informed of a Minister issuing a direction to an accounting officer as set out in paragraphs 12–15 of the Treasury document, The Responsibilities of an Accounting Officer; on which grounds the note of dissent was issued; and if he will make a statement. [88314]

  Mr. Boateng
  The circumstances in which an Accounting Officer should seek a direction from a Minister are set out in paragraphs 14–17 of the Treasury document The responsibilities of an Accounting Officer. The Treasury has not been informed of any directions issued by Ministers to Accounting Officers under this guidance, since the reply given by my predecessor (Andrew Smith) to the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) on 8 May 2002,Official Report, column 253W and my own further reply to the hon. Member (Mr. Bacon) on 10 June 2002, Official Report, column 1037W.

  British Supplies
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent calculation he has made of the cost to public funds if(a) the Army, (b) the Education Service and (c) the NHS were required to purchase all supplies from exclusively British sources. [90254]

  Mr. Boateng
  To purchase supplies from exclusively British sources could restrict the Government's procurement policy that all procurement decisions are taken on grounds of value for money and be contrary to international obligations. No such calculations have therefore been made.

  Christmas Expenses
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many departmental Christmas cards he and his Ministers sent in 2002; how much these cards will cost(a) to buy (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if he will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card he has sent this year. [88102]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: A total of 2,440 departmental Christmas cards were purchased for Treasury Ministers at a total cost of £1,912.18. All expenditure incurred in the purchase and despatch of official Christmas cards is made in accordance with the departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in Government Accounting. The Treasury Christmas card was produced by Card Aid which donates all profit to charity. A sample copy of the card will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Contingent Liabilities
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total Government expenditure on contingent liabilities which came to fruition was in each year since 1992. [89387]
  412W
  Mr. Boateng
  The information is not held centrally. When a contingent liability becomes an actual liability, the resulting expenditure is scored in both departmental accounts and national accounts.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the hon. Member for Christchurch will receive a response to his letter of 6 November to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury concerning correspondence from Mr. Hawksworth. [90720]

  Ruth Kelly
  I wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 10 January saying that I hope to provide a full response soon and noting the reason for delay.

  Departmental Expenditure (Newsprint)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total expenditure of his Department was on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002. [90543]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 228W.

  Departmental Research
  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list programmes of research being conducted by members of the countries and regions team within his Department. [89852]

  Mr. Boateng
  The devolved countries and regions team does not have its own internal research programme. The Treasury more generally is involved in some external research on regional issues, partly funded by the evidence based policy fund.

  Diversity
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the programme of activities aimed at raising awareness of diversity in his Department, as set out on page 38 of the HM Treasury Departmental Report 2002; and how much the programme cost. [89261]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: The Treasury initiated a programme to raise awareness of diversity among all staff in 2001. A number of events and seminars have been held. Diversity has also been incorporated into our management training courses, including induction, appraisal, recruitment and selection. Since January 2001, the Department has spent £96,000, partially funded through the Modernising Government Fund, on raising diversity awareness among Treasury staff.

  Diversity Objectives
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the diversity objectives set by members of the Senior Civil Service within his Department, as set out on page 38 of the HM Treasury Departmental Report 2002; to what extent these objectives have been met; and what measures have been put in place to monitor progress towards these objectives. [89262]
  413W
  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: The Treasury is committed to improving the diversity of its staff and has diversity targets to improve the representations of women, people from a minority ethnic background people with disabilities at all management levels. To help the Department to make further progress in this area. members of the Senior Civil Service have been asked to set themselves a diversity objective. These are monitored through the Department's internal performance management system. Progress against our diversity objectives will be published in the Treasury's 2003 Departmental Report.

  Euro
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the five tests will begin being conducted on UK entry to the euro; and who will conduct the five tests. [89386]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have said that they will complete an assessment of the five economic tests within two years of the start of this Parliament. The assessment will be a Government assessment and the work will be undertaken by the Treasury.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the proportion of small and medium sized companies that have made preparations for UK membership of the Euro; and if he will make a statement. [90171]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government has made no estimate of the proportion of small and medium sized companies that have made preparations for UK membership of the euro.

  Finance Regulation and Industry Section
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make a statement on the(a) activities and (b) purpose of the Finance Regulation and Industry Section of HM Treasury. [89264]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: The purpose of the Finance Regulation and Industry Directorate is to lead the Treasury's work in:

  (i) increasing the productivity of the economy;

  (ii) securing a competitive, efficient and well regulated financial sector;

  (iii) ensuring financial sector stability.

  The Directorate's teams pursue a wide range of activities that contribute to these three key areas.

  (i) the enterprise and growth agenda—a programme of reforms aimed at the key drivers of productivity in the economy;

  (ii) the framework for competition and economic regulation of private sector monopolies;

  (iii) Public private partnerships and the private finance initiative;

  (iv) The UK and EU legislative framework for regulation in the financial sector, including the completion of the EU single capital market;

  (v) national and international systems for fighting financial crime, especially money laundering and terrorist financing; and

  (vi) reforms to increase efficiency, competitiveness and fairness in the financial sector and to reduce financial exclusion.

  Financial Advice Network
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress since 6 November 2002 on a strategy for a national financial advice network and the extent to which(a) credit unions and (b) friendly societies can play a part in the process of providing advice to the financially excluded from. [89460]

  Ruth Kelly
  It is important that everyone should have access to appropriate financial education, information and generic advice to understand his or her options, as well as having access to regulated product specific advice where appropriate.

  We have noted the proposals for a new network to provide financial education, information and generic advice, with interest. Many organisations are already involved in the provision of those forms of help.

  I welcome the work the Financial Services Authority (the FSA) is undertaking to look at the feasibility of a new tool to help deliver consistent, high quality, interactive generic help for those who need it. We also welcome the work the FSA will be doing to develop a more general strategy for consumer education, information and advice. We understand they plan to consult on this in the summer of 2003.

  All financial services firms can support the provision of advice to the financially excluded.

  Government Accounts
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) for what reason government accounts have switched from gross domestic product of regions and nations of the UK to gross value added of regions and nations of the UK; [89388]

  (2) what elements of UK GDP are classed as 'extra regio' and what proportion of the total of 'extra regio' GDP each comprises for the current financial year; [89390]

  (3) whether a revised set of regional gross value added statistics for the period of 1989 to 1999 will be published. [89428]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter to John Pullinger from Alex Salmond, dated 13 January 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent questions on estimates of regional gross value added (GVA). I am replying in his absence. (89428, 89388, 89390).
  Current estimates of Regional GVA were published in February 2001 for the period 1989 to 1999. A revised series was published on 21 November 2002, but was withdrawn on 10 December 2002, when errors were identified by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and issues raised as to the quality of the underlying data. The ONS plans to publish estimates for regional, sub-regional and local area GVA in the spring of 2003. This will follow an investigation and detailed analysis of the compilation systems and component data to ensure their quality.
  Under the European System of Accounts 95 (ESA95) the economic estimates that are defined as Gross Value Added (GVA) at basic prices are broadly equivalent to what has been historically known as GDP at factor cost. ONS has effected the change from

  415W
  GDP at factor cost to GVA at basic prices as part of implementation of ESA95, along with all other EU countries. GVA at basic prices includes the effects of taxes less subsidies on production, but excludes taxes and subsidies on products, which are included in GDP at market prices under ESA95.
  The GVA for extra-regio comprises that part of compensation of employees and of gross trading surplus which cannot be assigned to any particular region. This mainly relateds to (1) the extraction of oil and gas and (2) public administration and defence (armed forces overseas and embassies). 1998 is the latest year for which industry estimates showing this breakdown are available.
  For that year the total estimate for extra-regio was just under £12 billion, of which 92 per cent. related to the extraction of oil and gas and 8 per cent. to public administration and defence.

  Government Documents
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what documents comparable to Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland are published for regions of the UK. [89427]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Alex Saltnond dated 13 January 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on what documents comparable to Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland (GERS) are published for regions of the UK. I am replying in his absence.
  GERS is unique, and there are no directly comparable publications for the English regions, or for Wales and Northern Ireland. Comparable information on Wales used to be published by the Welsh Office, but this was last published in 1996 and related to the financial year 1993/94.
  There is, however, information published by the office for National Statistics (ONS) and other Government departments on Government expenditure and revenue within the regions of the UK that can provide a partial comparison on some aspects of the data for Scotland presented in GERS, as described below.
  HM Treasury published a comprehensive account of regional (NJTS I) Government expenditure in its annual publication Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (HM Treasury (2002)) or PESA. The estimates show identifiable Government expenditure by function of government for Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the nine Government Office Regions of England. The PESA estimates do not cover Government revenue.
  On 31 October 2002, the ONS published experimental sub-national estimates of Government accounts for the calendar year 1998. The estimates show by region (NUTS1) where General Government output is produced, which regions and sub-regions have contributed to Government revenue and which regions and sub-regions have received Government expenditure. The ONS work, however, is not intended to give a complete picture of Government finances and certain aspects of revenue and expenditure are excluded from the analyses and hence the estimates are not directly comparable with GERS.
  Finally, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has commissioned a project to identify the flow of Public expenditure (UK and European) into the English regions (NUTS1) and the allocative mechanisms that underpin those flows. The project has close links with the PESA estimates and with the ONS Government accounts work, but is not looking at Government revenue. The project is expected to be completed by the middle of 2003.

  Landfill Levy
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the calculations his 416W
  Department has made concerning the value of the tax arising from the landfill levy that would have been forgone in 2002–03 if all the available tax credits had been claimed by landfill operators. [88582]

  John Healey
  Based on the predicted quantity of taxable waste going to landfill, the total tax liability of landfill operators in 2002–03 is estimated to be £675 million. Landfill operators can divert up to a maximum of 20 per cent. of this amount to the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme. Therefore, if all available tax credits are claimed in 2002–03, then approximately £135 million of potential landfill tax revenue will be foregone.

  Minimum Wage
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the impact of increasing the minimum wage(a) in line with average earnings, (b) to £4.17 per hour, (c) to £4.87 per hour, (d) to £5.00 per hour and (e) to £5.30 per hour, on the cost of salaries of departmental employees (i) in total and (ii) for each nation of the United Kingdom in the next financial year. [90596]

  Ruth Kelly
  Increasing the minimum wage by(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) will have no impact on the cost of salaries for HM Treasury.

  New Export System
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations he has received from trade associations and other business interests regarding the New Export System; [89130]

  (2) what the target time period is for Customs and Excise to clear applications under the New Export System. [89129]

  John Healey
  Customs and Excise's New Export System (NES) went live at all Maritime and Inland locations (including Inland Clearance Depots) throughout the UK on 27 October 2002. NES is an electronic-based system, which enables exporters and agents to send their export declarations to Customs electronically. It replaces the current paper-based system, facilitates legitimate trade and helps combat VAT and Excise fraud.

  NES provides a number of tailored models and procedures to meet the needs of different trade sectors. It allows Customs to target their controls more effectively, minimise disruption to legitimate trade and reduce the time it takes to process an export declaration.

  In order to utilise NES simplified procedures exporters must apply to Customs for specific authorisation. This involves completion of a form, possibly a visit from a Customs Officer and, depending on the electronic transmission route chosen, registering to use the Government Gateway. Each application is considered on its merits; there is no specific time frame for completion of individual applications. Customs make every effort to complete their part of the procedure as swiftly as possible. Exporters who need to obtain a digital certificate from the Office of the e-Envoy (to enable Government Gateway access) may wait approximately 7 days for delivery of access data.
  417W
  The Paymaster General received one representation on NES from the British International Freight Association (BIFA) on 20 December 2001, to which the Financial Secretary replied on 24 January 2002. A series of Questions relating to the use and provision of digital certificates was laid and answered in October 2002.

  Office of National Statistics
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the budget of the Office of National Statistics was in each year from 1992. [89389]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. Alex Salmond, dated 13 January 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on what the budget of the Office for National Statistics was in each year from 1992. I am replying in his absence. (89389)
  The requested information is shown in the attached table.

  Office for National Statistics Spending1

  £ million

  Financial year

  Expenditure2

  1992–93

  97

  1993–94

  90

  1994–95

  93

  1995–96

  103

  1996–97

  110

  1997–98

  95

  1998–99

  102

  1999–2000

  110

  2000–01

  156

  2001–02

  212

  2002–033

  163

  1 The Office for National Statistics was created as a Government Department and an Executive Agency on 1 April 1996 by merging the Central Statistical Office (CSO) and the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS). The figures for 1992–93 to 1995–96 reflect the combined outturn for CSO and OPCS.

  2 Expenditure figures from 1998–99 are presented on a resource basis. Figures for earlier years are in cash terms. Figures from 1998–99 onwards include additional provision for planning, fieldwork and initial processing of the 2001 Census of Population in England and Wales.

  3 Planned expenditure.

  Pensions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have informed his Department that they wish to(a) contract out of the state pension and (b) contract back in to the state additional pension in each three month period in the last three years for which figures are available. [87995]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]The information is only available for those individuals with Appropriate Personal Pensions (APP) and Stakeholder Pensions (SHP) for complete tax years. The table shows the number of APP and SHP applications and cancellations for complete tax years.
  418W

  Number of appropriate personal pension and stakeholder pension applications and cancellations received

  Number of applications1

  Number of cancellations1

  1999–2000

  116,600

  77,600

  2000–01

  143,300

  20,000

  2001–02

  207,000

  53,000

  1Rounded to the nearest hundred

  Scorecard Approach
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the scorecard approach based on departmental information used by his Department to measure Spending Review 2000 PSA Target 4, as described on page 26 of the HM Treasury Departmental Report 2002; [89266]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the scorecard approach based on departmental information used by his Department to measure improvements to the quality and cost-effectiveness of public services, as set out on page 58 of the HM Treasury Departmental Report 2002. [89269]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answers 7 January 2003]I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on 21 June 2002,Official Report, column 586W.

  SDA Target E1/
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the action his Department has adopted to meet Spending Review 2000 SDA Target E1.2, as described on page 32 of the HM Treasury Departmental Report 2002. [89267]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]The Treasury continues to make progress towards meeting its diversity targets. The Department has an action plan focused on achieving these targets and other diversity aspirations. Progress against our diversity targets will be published in the Treasury's 2003 Departmental Report.

  Tobacco Products (Revenue)
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total revenue from the sale of tobacco products was in each of the last five years. [90273]

  John Healey
  Total revenue from excise duty and estimated VAT receipts from tobacco for each of the last five years are below:

  £million

  1997–98

  10,106

  1998–99

  9,977

  1999–2000

  7,489

  2000–01

  9,413

  2001–02

  9,514

  Unemployment (City of Chester)
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were unemployed in the City of Chester in(a) May 1997 and (b) December 2002. [90282]
  419W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Ms Christine Russell, dated 13 January 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question regarding the number of people who were unemployed in the City of Chester in (a) May 1997 and (b) December 2002. I am replying in his absence. (90282)
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from surveys following the international standard International Labour Organisation definition. However the survey sample size is too small to provide estimates for the City of Chester. ONS also compiles claimant count statistics which represent claimants of the Jobseeker's Allowance working age benefit.
  The claimant count in the City of Chester parliamentary constituency, not seasonally adjusted, stood at 2,062 in May 1997 and at 879 in November 2002. Figures for December 2002 will be released on 15th January 2003.

  Waste Recycling
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the allocation of landfill tax credits was to waste recycling projects run by(a) local councils, (b) non-profit making charitable organisations and (c) industry in financial years (i) 2001–02 and (ii) 2002–03. [90452]

  John Healey
  Figures are not available in the form requested. In 2001, contributions of £34 million were made under the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme to projects that encourage sustainable waste management, the development of products from waste or markets for recycled products through research, education or information dissemination. The figure for 2002 is estimated to be £37million. All projects are run by environmental bodies registered with ENTRUST, the scheme's regulator. All such bodies are not-for-profit, but not all are charities. They may not be controlled by landfill operators or local authorities, but very often work in partnership with them.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Commonwealth Games
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her criteria are for assessing the success of the Commonwealth Games in Manchester; and if she will make a statement. [89581]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Public Sector Funders and Manchester 2002 defined the following shared objectives in relation to the Games:To position the UK as a Centre of International Sport, and to demonstrate the UK's ability to host a major international sporting event. To view the games as one means of strengthening sports participation at all levels
  To strengthen the economic and social capacity of the City/Region, recognising the importance of capturing maximum benefits to justify the significant capital investment in facilities
  To advance policies for greater social inclusion, promotion of diversity, access to sport and volunteering
  To showcase Britain internationally and to raise the profile of the Commonwealth
  420W
  An assessment of how well these objectives were achieved was included in an independent 'lessons learned' report, jointly commissioned by my Department, Manchester City Council and Sport England in June 2002.

  The full published report can be viewed on the DCMS website at www.culture.gov.uk

  Community Radio Station Licences
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to her answer of 11 December 2002,Official Report, column 39W, on community radio station licences, what organisations are involved in the pilot study of access radio stations, and at what cost; and whether non-returnable deposits are required for individuals applying for licences for community radio. [89436]

  Dr. Howells
  The access radio pilot schemes licensed by the Radio Authority are:

  Angel Radio

  Awaz FM

  Bradford Community Broadcasting

  Cross Rhythms City Radio

  Desi Radio

  Radio Faza

  Forest of Dean Community Radio

  GTFM

  Manchester Community Radio Group (Radio Regen)

  New Style Radio

  Northern Visions Radio

  Resonance FM

  Shine FM

  Sound Radio

  Takeover Radio

  The costs incurred are a matter for the organisations involved.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 25 November 2002, Official Report, column 39W, explaining that no charge (whether through a deposit or a licence fee) is made for licensing the current access radio pilot experiment.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how she is encouraging(a) individuals and (b) organisations to apply for licences for community radio stations. [89435]

  Dr. Howells
  It is up to individuals or organisations to apply direct to the Radio Authority for radio licences.

  Community Sports Initiatives
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to improve access to community sports facilities for volunteer organisations and the local community; and if she will make a statement. [89998]

  Mr. Caborn
  The new opportunities for PE and sport programme is committing £581.25 million in England to support projects designed to bring about a step-change in the provision of sports facilities for young people and their community generally. The programme will ensure that new and modernised facilities for school and
  421W
  community use promote social inclusion through access to and use of sports and outdoor adventure facilities by all groups in society.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to her answer, ref 88451, on Green Ministers, how often the Green Ministers Committee has met since the Baroness Blackstone was appointed. [89766]

  Dr. Howells
  The Green Ministers Committee has met four times.

  Olympic Games
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will make a statement on her policy on applying HM Treasury's Green Book assumptions, and the appropriate assumptions for inflation, when calculating the cost of staging the 2012 Olympic Games; [89582]

  (2) what measurable financial return on public investment she seeks in assessing the viability of bidding for the 2012 Olympic Games. [89580]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government use the guidance and procedures issued by the Treasury in their Green Book, (Appraisal and evaluation in Central Government 1997), in assessing the value of bidding for and staging the 2012 Olympic Games. This analysis complements an estimate of the cash flow for future public expenditure planning, which allows for inflation, which we are also undertaking.

  Sports Clubs-Schools Partnerships
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to encourage and support partnerships between sports clubs and schools; and if she will make a statement. [90001]

  Mr. Caborn
  We are encouraging clubs to forge strong links with schools and to build quality opportunities for young people that are safe, effective and child friendly through the PE, School Sport and Club Links project. Investment in child protection and club development (£10 million from 2004–05) and from the £60 million Community Club Facilities Fund will be used to encourage and support school-club links and junior provision.

  Sports Coaching
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what plans she has to compile a directory of the coaches that will be available to schools and community groups; and if she will make a statement; [89996]

  (2) what plans she has to introduce career structures for coaching of sport; and if she will make a statement. [89997]

  Mr. Caborn
  We are investing £28 million from 2003–04 to implement recommendations of the Coaching Task Force for: a five-level national coaching certificate; ring-fenced resources to enable a step change in national governing bodies' coach education systems;422W
  a network of community-coach employment agencies to provide the local infrastructure to recruit, employ and deploy professional coaches in their area; a network of 45 coaching development officers deployed locally to assist in the strategic planning, implementation and management of coach development; and a major Come into Coaching recruitment drive to attract more people to enter coaching. These proposals will tackle the shortage of coaches, both professional and voluntary, and recognise coaching as a profession, with accredited qualifications and a career development structure.

  Sports Facilities
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to(a) conduct a mapping exercise of local sports facilities, and (b) identify their usage and user profile; and if she will make a statement. [89995]

  Mr. Caborn
  We are in the process of planning a database that will include all significant sports facilities across England. It is intended that the databases will complement the Sport England Facilities Planning model and enable responsible organisations to make better informed decisions in planning the provision of sports facilities in the future.

  Sports Fields
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the new guidance for local authorities for assessment of sports fields will be published. [89684]

  Mr. Caborn
  New planning guidance (PPG17) and the accompanying notes for local authorities was published last year. The revised Playing Pitch Strategy, which up-dates the specific guidance on sports fields will be finalised by Sport England in the near future.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  A-levels (Pupil Expenditure)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average amount spent on each pupil studying two A levels was in each of the last five years at(a) a further education college and (b) a school. [88800]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is not available in the form requested.

  (a) Full-time students attending Further Education Colleges do not generally undertake a programme of study comprising two A levels only.

  (b) No account is taken of the number of examinations an individual pupil is studying when deciding on the level of funding a school receives.

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to ensure full resumption of beef exports from Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [88913]
  423W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Resumption of beef exports from Northern Ireland have been possible from 30 September 2002 following changes in the rules of the date based export scheme, as a result of intensive lobbying of the EU Commission by the UK Government heavily supported by the devolved administrations. The changes mean that animals destined for the domestic market may be slaughtered in the same plant, provided they are time dedicated.

  Efforts are being made by Government to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of eligible animals for this scheme by encouraging farmers to fully comply with EU Regulations on cattle identification and movements.

  Officials are also in discussion with Northern Ireland meat processors to facilitate exports through the DBES. Four NI plants have declared an interest. However none have as yet provided sufficient detail of their ability to meet the scheme conditions to justify approval. Until the registration process is completed, exports cannot commence. New markets have to be found, but at present market conditions do not favour exports and, moreover, the GB market provides the best return. There is optimism however that limited exports to premium outlets will commence later in the year.

  Bills (Late Payment)
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on Government policy with regard to the late payment of bills by large firms to other firms smaller than themselves. [88845]

  Mr. Pearson
  Government policy on this issue is the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Current legislation extends to Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom was one of the first countries in the EU to implement late payment legislation to help promote a culture of prompt payment. There has been a statutory right for interest for late payment for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) owed money by large firms or the public sector since 1 November 1998, when the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 came into force. Since 1 November 2000 SMEs have been able to charge each other statutory interest, as well as large businesses and the public sector, for the late payment of commercial debt.

  Amended late payment legislation came into force on 7 August 2002. The legislation fulfils the UK's obligations under European Directive 2000/35/EC on combating late payment in commercial transactions.

  Bone Marrow Database
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he has taken to extend the National Bone Marrow database to Northern Ireland. [88801]

  Mr. Browne
  The provision of tissue matched bone marrow is managed throughout the UK through the British Bone Marrow Donor Registry. The Blood Transfusion Service here, in conjunction with the local Tissue Typing Laboratory, is already a significant 424W
  contributor to this Registry. There are approximately 7,000 local donors, of which around 50 have actually donated bone marrow.

  The Anthony Nolan Trust and the International Bone Marrow Register also hold bone marrow registers, and there is co-operation between all registers.

  Departmental Underspends
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the extent of underspend in the Northern Ireland Departments; and what action has been taken to deal with this. [88844]

  Mr. Pearson
  In his statement to the NI Assembly on 1 July 2002, the then Minister of Finance and Personnel set out details of the underspend for 2001–02, and his plans to address the issue in future years. The spending plans for 2003–04 to 2005–06, announced on 11 December 2002, build on the approach established at that time—full details are set out in Section 2 of the Budget Document ("Building on Progress: Budget 2003–06").

  Information on the extent of any underspend for 2002–03 will be available in late June 2003.

  Donaghadee Harbour
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the ownership of Donaghadee Harbour. [90453]

  Angela Smith
  Under' the Donaghadee Harbour Act 1820, ownership of the Harbour is vested in the Donaghadee Harbour Commissioners. The Board of Commissioners currently consists of officials of the Department for Regional Development, together with a representative from the Department of Finance and Personnel. As the Department for Regional Development bears the cost of harbour maintenance and upkeep, consideration is currently being given to bringing forward legislation transferring ownership of the harbour to the Department.

  Drivers (Drugs)
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures are being taken to tackle the problem of drivers driving while under the influence of drugs. [88867]

  Angela Smith
  The Department for the Environment for Northern Ireland, consistent with its policy of pursuing research-based solutions to identified problems, is monitoring ongoing research into drugs and driving in GB, and based on the findings of that research will consider if and when action in Northern Ireland is appropriate.

  In the meantime, the DOE, to create a more effective regime to control drugs and driving, intends to seek NIO agreement to the introduction of legislative powers to enable the police to undertake tests of co-ordination and, when suitable equipment is available, to require suspected drivers to provide samples for screening.
  425W
  The PSNI view is that drugs and driving is an emerging threat to road safety. Work is ongoing by the police to identify an appropriate roadside screening device for drugs, similar to the roadside screening device for alcohol, and to procure and introduce the equipment at the earliest possible time.

  Employment
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many jobs were(a) created and (b) lost in Northern Ireland in 2002. [90163]

  Mr. Pearson
  An exact figure for the number of jobs created and lost in the period requested is not available. However, the most recent data from the Quarterly Employment Survey (QES) provides an estimate of the net change in employee jobs between September 2001 and September 2002. QES figures show that the net change in the employee job level in Northern Ireland during that period was + 6,850 (+ 1.1 per cent.).

  Over the year to 31 December 2002, there were 4,354 redundancies in Northern Ireland confirmed to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

  Government Expenditure Reports
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what comparable documents to Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland are published for Northern Ireland. [89434]

  I

  II

  III

  IIIM

  IV

  V

  Social class

  Professional

  Intermediate

  Skilled: non-manual

  Skilled: manual

  Partly skilled

  Unskilled

  Not known

  Total

  1993–94

  Number

  773

  3,005

  1,097

  1,497

  541

  231

  365

  7,509

  Percentage

  11

  42

  15

  21

  8

  3

  1994–95

  Number

  834

  3,181

  1,179

  1,622

  590

  210

  417

  8,033

  Percentage

  11

  42

  15

  21

  8

  3

  1995–96

  Number

  873

  3,262

  1,218

  1,712

  599

  251

  546

  8,461

  Percentage

  11

  41

  15

  22

  8

  3

  1996–97

  Number

  848

  3,322

  1,310

  1,742

  584

  200

  521

  8,527

  Percentage

  11

  41

  16

  22

  7

  2

  1997–98

  Number

  940

  3,751

  1,533

  1,844

  692

  241

  845

  9,846

  Percentage

  10

  42

  17

  20

  8

  3

  1998–99

  Number

  861

  3,798

  1,440

  1,871

  677

  217

  842

  9,706

  Percentage

  10

  43

  16

  21

  8

  2

  1999–2000

  Number

  926

  3,755

  1,480

  1,856

  722

  234

  903

  9,876

  Percentage

  10

  42

  16

  21

  8

  3

  426W
  Mr. Pearson
  There is no direct Northern Ireland equivalent to the Scottish publication "Government Expenditure and Revenue". However, historical financial information is available from a number of sources.

  At an aggregated level, the Public Income and Expenditure Account provides a breakdown of the main sources of income, details of borrowing from the National Loans Fund and issues made to finance supply services.

  More detailed information on Northern Ireland spending by programme is available in the HMT document "Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis", which provides details of identifiable and non-identifiable spending in each of the UK regions.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on participation in higher education by students with parental homes in Northern Ireland, broken down by socio-economic class in each year since 1990. [88329]

  Jane Kennedy
  The data, obtained from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS), do not include all institutions in Northern Ireland. As a consequence, approximately 20 per cent. of NI-domiciled students are not captured.

  The information for NI-domiciled accepted applicants to degree courses in the UK since 1993 is detailed in the table. Prior to the creation of UCAS in 1993, information on this basis was not available.
  427W

  I

  II

  III

  IIIM

  IV

  V

  Social class

  Professional

  Intermediate

  Skilled: non-manual

  Skilled: manual

  Partly skilled

  Unskilled

  Not known

  Total

  2000–01

  Number

  964

  3,871

  1,676

  1,939

  725

  242

  955

  10.372

  Percentage

  10.2

  41.1

  17.8

  20.6

  7.7

  2.6

  2001–02

  Number

  1,034

  4,108

  1,709

  2,099

  734

  253

  1,171

  11,108

  Percentage

  10.4

  41.3

  17.2

  21.1

  7.4

  2.5

  While the overall number of NI-domiciled students has increased, the percentage of students from each socio-economic group has remained relatively constant. Over 30 per cent. of NI-domiciled students come from social class groups III, IV and V.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he proposes to take to reduce hospital waiting lists in Northern Ireland. [88916]

  Mr. Browne
  A wide range of measures is being taken to tackle hospital waiting lists. These include the expansion of existing bed capacity, the development of protected elective facilities, the provision of additional in-patient procedures, the development of community provision as an alternative to hospital treatment and the validation and improved management of waiting lists. To support this action, £5.5 million has been allocated in the current year and the additional £17.4 million provided for acute services in next year's budget will also help to improve access to hospital services.

  Housing Maintenance
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he will take to ensure sustained investment in housing in Northern Ireland(a) to tackle disrepair and (b) to reduce unfitness in the residential sector. [89602]

  Mr. Browne
  I fully recognise the need for sustained investment in housing in Northern Ireland. I will continue to argue the strongest case possible for the resources necessary to tackle disrepair and reduce unfitness.

  Gross funding for housing has increased from £621 million in 2001–02 to £655 million in the current financial year, contributing to the maintenance and improvement of housing conditions, both in the public and private sectors. Included in the overall housing resources is some £43 million per annum allocated for grants to tackle unfitness in the private sector.

  Industrial Rates Relief
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy not to remove industrial rates relief before electricity prices in Northern Ireland are more in line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. [88920]

  Mr. Pearson
  Arising out of the current Review of Rating Policy and as outlined in the recently published consultation report I have made a decision in principle 428W
  to abolish industrial derating. What I am still considering is how best to achieve this without causing harm to business.

  There are two ways I intend to approach this. Firstly, by phasing out derating gradually and secondly by providing a hardship scheme to minimise adverse impacts on vulnerable firms or sectors.

  I do not think it would be right to use the tax base as a means of compensating for higher energy costs. Some sectors are affected much more than others and tariffs vary and are changing. We are looking at this whole area and it is my wish that the cost differential is brought down, well before the existing contracts expire.

  The intention is to publish a policy paper early in the new year on this issue which will set out clearly a limited number of options for implementing change.

  Maternity Hospital (Belfast)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when a decision will be made on the location of the new maternity hospital for Belfast. [82024]

  Mr. Browne
  I expect to be in a position to take a decision soon, after I have had an opportunity to consider the outcome of the current consultation process covering the trusts' proposals.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the purpose is of the planned visits by the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) to Scotland and Wales. [89441]

  Angela Smith
  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your question.

  On 4 December 2002, I announced the requirement for massive investment in Northern Ireland's water and sewerage services and the need to find a long-term and reliable funding source to meet this investment need. In December 2002, I undertook a study visit of the water industry in Scotland and in Wales, to learn more about how water and sewerage services are financed and delivered elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Water and sewerage services are delivered by a public corporation in Scotland, whereas these services are the responsibility of a not for profit trust in Wales. These services are funded by water charges in both regions.

  On 11 December 2002, my colleague Ian Pearson MP announced our intention to introduce self-financing arrangements for water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland. This will mean that in the future Northern Ireland households will have to make a direct

  429W
  contribution for the water and sewerage services they receive. I want to ensure that these services are delivered as effectively and efficiently as possible, so that the charges paid by Northern Ireland consumers offer value for money. Consequently, I wish to reflect on the best features of the financial and structural arrangements adopted by the water industry in Scotland and Wales when developing proposals for the introduction of self-financing arrangements for water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland.

  I am committed to full and inclusive consultation on all proposals for the reform of water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland.

  Navan Centre
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to assist with the re-opening of the Navan Centre in Armagh. [88804]

  Angela Smith
  My officials have been exploring a range of options that might lead to the re-opening of the Navan Centre. In particular, they remain in close contact with both the current trustees and the representatives of a consortium that is interested in taking over the Centre. A business plan has been tabled, and this is at the centre of discussion.

  A number of difficult issues remain to be resolved, but we remain committed to working with these interested parties to see if it is possible to have the Navan Centre reopened.

  New Schools (Funding)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria he takes into account when distributing capital funding for the development of new schools in Northern Ireland. [88917]

  Jane Kennedy
  The criteria for the allocation of capital funding for the development of new schools in Northern Ireland are based on educational need, prioritised as follows:the need to address substantial unmet demand for school places;
  replacement of sub-standard accommodation which is essential to effect rationalisation; and
  replacement of schools that suffer significantly from several serious accommodation inadequacies.

  An economic appraisal has to be completed for each school and an appropriate stage of planning needs to have been undertaken. Where relevant, a scheme must have an approved Development Proposal.

  Official Forms
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make the body of official forms issued by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development more comprehensible to farmers. [88870]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Officials from the Department will be meeting with farming union representatives this month to discuss documentation and procedures relating to cattle identification and subsidy claims. The Department is also working towards simplifying application forms used for the programme for building 430W
  sustainable prosperity and the PEACE II programme. In addition it is currently piloting on-line claims for sheep annual premium, with a view to making this facility more widely available and making subsidy applications more convenient and user-friendly

  Forms produced by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development are broadly consistent with those used in other agriculture departments throughout the UK. One of the Department's main aims is to ensure that farmers are only being asked to provide information which is essential to meet statutory or other obligations and to facilitate processing. Forms normally contain contact details for anyone requiring assistance and are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that they are as user friendly as possible.

  Post-primary Education
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place in the Library the data underlying the Review of Post Primary Education Household Survey. [88797]

  Jane Kennedy
  Data on the Review of Post-Primary Education Household Survey are set out in the Report on the Responses to Consultation. Additional analyses of responses by gender, age, type of school attended and level of social deprivation are available on the Department's website. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what reasons underlay the number of young people whose views were sought as part of the Review of Post Primary Education; and if he will make a statement. [88799]

  Jane Kennedy
  Young people constitute the current and future users of the education system and the multi-stranded consultation on the Burns Report provided an opportunity for them all to express their views. These were received through written submissions from young people, pupils at school, youth organisations, children's charities and representative bodies. The Department of Education also commissioned the Northern Ireland Youth Forum to undertake qualitative research into the views of 14–19 year olds through a series of focus groups broadly representative of the population. 200 young people were invited to 10 focus groups across Northern Ireland and 116 participated.

  In addition, Save the Children conducted independent research into the views of primary school children.

  PPPs
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many departmental minutes issued by his Department were outstanding on 30 November, that referred to public private partnerships as included in Table B14 of the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts; and what their value was. [89419]
  431W
  Mr. Pearson
  The coverage of Table B14, which contains details of departmental contingent liabilities, does not extend to the Northern Ireland Departments. In these cases the relevant information is produced as an appendix to the Public Income and Expenditure (PI&E) Account.

  The 2001–02 PI&E Account is due to be published in January 2003 and reflects the position at 31 March 2002. None of the contingent liabilities listed at that date are in relation to public private partnerships, nor have there been any contingent liabilities relating to public private partnerships declared since that date.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much public funding has been

  Payments made (£)

  Period covered (from)

  Period covered (to)

  Senior counsel representing the, families1

  Lord Gifford

  383,120

  Oct-98

  Jun-02

  Arthur Harvey

  550,377

  Jul-98

  Jun-02

  Michael Lavery

  278,754

  Nov-00

  Jun-02

  B.J. MacDonald2

  261,187

  Sept-98

  May-02

  P.T. MacDonald3

  65,800

  Apr-98

  Jun-99

  Michael Mansfield

  296,875

  Mar-99

  Oct-01

  Elish McDermott

  105,309

  Mar-00

  Jun-01

  Seamus Treacy4

  307,301

  Mar-98

  Jun-01

  Eoin McGonigal

  82,446

  Oct-00

  Jun-02

  Senior Counsel representing NICRA

  Sir Louis Blom-Cooper

  227,879

  Dec-00

  Jun-02

  Junior counsel representing the families

  John Coyle

  213,931

  Sept-99

  May-01

  Fiona Doherty

  142,763

  Oct-00

  Sept-01

  Ciaran Harvey

  222,904

  Dec-00

  June-02

  Richard Harvey

  216,172

  Oct-00

  Dec-01

  Brian Kennedy

  406,939

  Jul-99

  Jun-02

  Philip Magee5

  83,175

  June-98

  Sept-00

  Kieran Mallon BL

  408,606

  Mar-99

  May-02

  Brian McCartney

  423,749

  Oct-98

  Apr-02

  Karen Quinlivian BL

  135,150

  Mar-99

  May-02

  Patricia Smyth

  286,386

  Oct-98

  Feb-02

  Michael Topolski6

  139,940

  Nov-00

  Jun-01

  Mary McHugh

  32,803

  Feb-02

  Apr-02

  Junior counsel representing NICRA

  Paddy O'Hanlon

  101,106

  Nov-00

  Jan-01

  Solicitors representing the families7

  Barr & Co.

  264,405

  Feb-99

  Jun-02

  Brendan Kearney & Co.

  606,069

  Jul-99

  Jun-02

  Desmond Doherty & Co.8

  659,249

  Nov-98

  Sept-02

  MacDermott & McGurk

  648,351

  Nov-98

  Sept-02

  Madden & Finucane

  5,173,370

  Jan-98

  Jul-02

  McCann & McCann

  294,521

  Oct-98

  Sept-02

  McCartney & Casey

  652,499

  Nov-98

  Sept-02

  Solicitors representing NICRA

  Francis Keenan

  208,739

  May-00

  Jun-01

  1 In addition the following senior counsel have represented/are representing some of the families but have yet to submit fee claims: Kevin Finnegan, Declan Morgan and Reg Weir.

  2 Left the case (as a junior) in September 2000 and rejoined the case (as a senior) in July 2001.

  3 Left the case June 1999.

  4 Having started as a junior in March 1998, became a senior counsel in September 2000.

  5 Left the case in September 2000.

  6 Left the case in June 2001.

  7 Includes payments made in respect of witness statement-taking work.

  8 Figure does not include fees for June 2002.

  432W
  provided up to November to the legal representatives of the families appearing at the Saville Inquiry, broken down by each solicitor or barrister or firm of solicitors involved. [87299]

  Mr. Browne
  The payments made to the legal representatives appearing at the Bloody Sunday Inquiry on behalf of the families or the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) are set out in the following table. The figures include VAT, where that is paid, and in most cases, expenses as well as fees. The figures represent the position as at 30 November 2002. The Judicial Reviews on Barristers' and Solicitors' fees currently under consideration could affect the level of payments already made in respect of the period of work covered.
  433W 435W

  Saville Inquiry

    School Salaries
    Mr. Beggs
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the differential between the salaries of primary school principals and vice-principals. [88789]

    Jane Kennedy
    The Inquiry into teachers' pay and conditions of service completed its interim report on the salary differentials of principals and vice-principals at the end of November. Both sides of the Teachers' Salaries and Conditions of Service Negotiating Committee (Schools) accepted the report at their meeting on 17 December, and the employers and my Department will now put in place the arrangements necessary for its implementation.

    Social Housing
    Mr. McGrady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what additional financial resources will be allocated to the provision of sufficient social housing units to meet housing demand in Northern Ireland. [89600]

    Mr. Browne
    Funding of £66 million is being allocated in 2003–04 for the provision of social housing units in Northern Ireland. In addition to this some £24 million will be levered in by private finance through housing associations bringing the total budget to £90 million.

    The requirement for social housing units to meet housing demand is measured by an independently assessed Net Stock Model. This Net Stock Model is currently being reviewed as recommended in the recent Needs and Effectiveness Evaluation studies into housing in Northern Ireland.

    I will consider whatever additional financial resources may be necessary, when the results of the net stock model review have been received (early autumn 2003).

    Springvale Campus Project
    Mr. Beggs
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the composition is of the group conducting the review of the Springvale campus project; what its terms of reference are; and when the review is expected to be completed. [88787]

    Jane Kennedy
    The Springvale Board, comprising members from the Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education, the University of Ulster and the West Belfast, Greater Shankill and North Belfast Partnership Boards, has agreed to conduct the Springvale review. The review's remit is to identify that the necessary external funding for the project remains in place, to define with clarity the way forward and to appraise any proposed alternative model with clear targets for completion. The Board has also be and regenerative dimensions of the original concept. It is expected to report by Easter 2003.

    The supplementary data have been placed in the Library.

    Vocational Training
    Mr. Hunter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding the Department of Employment and Learning is making available to 434W
    vocational training for young adults with learning difficulties; which units are receiving this support; and how much they are receiving. [88922]

    Jane Kennedy
    Jobskills is the Department's primary vocational training programme, aimed mainly at 16 and 17 year old school leavers, but with provision for young people with a disability, including those with a learning difficulty, to enter the programme up to their 22nd birthday. The programme's Access strand offers bespoke training to entrants with learning difficulties, and provides enhanced duration and funding support and training periods of up to 156 weeks. Access trainees follow training toward approved qualifications up to and including National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) Level 1.

    The Department provides additional funding to further education colleges for students with learning difficulties through the Additional Support Fund and weightings in the FE Funding Formula. A breakdown of funding between those students on vocational or non-vocational courses is not available.

    The Department's Disablement Advisory Service provides funding to organisations to provide vocational and pre-vocational training, as well as other services for people with learning disabilities of all ages. It is not possible to provide an accurate breakdown of how much will be provided towards vocational training specifically for young adults with learning difficulties. The estimated amounts to be paid to organisations providing vocational training, among other services, in the 2002–03 year are:

    £

    Datalink

    13,000

    Triangle

    18,000

    Mencap

    76,000

    The Orchardville Society

    23,000

    Parkanaur College

    250,000

    Water Charges
    Mr. Beggs
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce direct water charges in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [89442]

    Angela Smith
    The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your question, as I have responsibility for water and sewerage services.

    In his budget announcement on 11 December 2002, my colleague Ian Pearson MP stated our intention that Water Service become a self-financing organisation. In principle, this will involve the introduction of domestic water and sewerage charges for Northern Ireland households. Water Service's non-domestic customers already pay water charges.

    I am committed to full and inclusive consultation on our proposals for the reform of water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland.

    Wet Weather Payments
    Mr. Hunter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with DEFRA regarding applications to the EU for wet weather payments; and if he will make a statement. [88912]

    Mr. Paul Murphy
    DEFRA has been made fully aware of the difficulties experienced by the Northern Ireland agricultural industry as a result of the unprecedented wet weather during a large part of the 2002 growing season. It has indicated that it will facilitate any approach to the EU Commission seeking state aid approval for a possible financial assistance package, assuming that there is sufficient evidence to support such a case and that the necessary resources can be identified from within the Northern Ireland Block.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Flexible Working Hours
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to introduce a right to flexible working hours for employees with families; and if she will make a statement. [89809]

    Alan Johnson
    From 6 April 2003, parents with children under six, or disabled children under 18, will have the right to ask their employers for flexible working arrangements. Employers will have a statutory duty to consider these requests according to a set procedure. This includes confirming their decision in writing to the employee, and where the request cannot be accommodated, explaining the business reason and why it applies in the circumstances.

    Guidance to assist employers and employees to use this right is available on the DTI website and will be expanded later this month: www.dti.gov.uk/er. Individual advice will be provided by the Acas Helpline 08457 47 47 47, and DTI will be running an awareness raising campaign in the national press in the run up to 6 April.

    The Government are committed to providing working parents with more choice and support to help them balance work and child care in a way that benefits employers, employees and their children. The new right is part of a package of measures, including improvements to maternity pay and leave, the introduction of two weeks' paid paternity leave, and the introduction of paid adoption leave roughly equivalent to maternity provisions. These are in addition to existing rights to parental leave and time off for dependents.

    Accreditation
    Mr. Mark Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department is doing to support the Government's policy on accreditation. [88087]

    Ms Hewitt
    Accreditation, as a means of providing assurance of the competence of certification, inspection, testing and calibration services, is a voluntary activity which none the less makes an important contribution to the competitiveness of UK businesses. In order to ensure that accreditation is authoritative and operates in the public interest, my Department, on behalf 436W
    of Government as a whole, has established a Memorandum of Understanding with the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) which places a number of duties and obligations on both parties and gives recognition to UKAS as the sole national body for the accreditation, against recognised standards, of certification and inspection bodies, testing and calibration laboratories. My Department is responsible for ensuring that the duties and obligations set down in the MoU are met by both parties. We are also supporting an accreditation awareness campaign, being run by UKAS, aimed at raising the awareness in business and Government of the benefits of using UKAS accredited services.

    Animal Welfare
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will make a statement on plans to establish a primate breeding facility at the military research centre at Porton Down, indicating(a) what the maximum number of monkeys held will be, (b) from where the original monkeys will be obtained, (c) what species of monkey will be bred there and (d) for what purposes these monkeys will be used; [89080]

    (2) if she will make a statement on the compatibility of the Government's policy of the Three Rs with the establishment of a primate breeding centre at Porton Down. [89081]

    Ms Hewitt
    [holding answer 8 January 2003]: The monkeys will be used to help scientists continue vital research into serious diseases and conditions including HIV, malaria, stroke, Parkinson's Disease and Alzheimer's Disease. They will not be used for chemical and biological defence testing.

    The facility under construction at Porton Down is part of a continuing effort to improve further the care and welfare of laboratory animals across the academic sector. The project, a partnership involving the MRC, The Wellcome Trust, the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge, has been in the planning for almost three years.

    The new facility will replace an existing UK academic breeding facility for Rhesus Macaque monkeys. The colony is being relocated because the new facility at Porton Down will offer state of the art accommodation, care, and welfare in a secure setting. The aims of the facility are broadly two-fold:
    (i) to establish a centre of excellence and to provide an example of best contemporary practice for the care and welfare of monkeys; and
    (ii) to provide a supply of monkeys for justified medical research purposes.

    The facility is designed to house about 250 macaques. It is expected that this will be sufficient to supply approximately 100 animals for use in academic medical research each year. This does not represent an increase in the use of such monkeys in the UK university sector.

    Primates from the new breeding centre will only be used in scientific procedures licensed by the Home Office under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. This means that the 3Rs (replacement, reduction, and refinement) will be fully applied. Under the 1986

    437W
    Act no animals can be used in scientific procedures if alternatives are available, and primates can only be used if no other species are suitable and readily obtainable. The number used and the suffering experienced must be minimised.

    The establishment of this new facility further promotes policy on the 3Rs in that:
    it will operate to the best contemporary practice for the care and welfare of monkeys and disseminate best practice accordingly. The facility will work closely with the MRC's Centre for Best Practice for Animals in Research to develop, promote and disseminate best practice in all aspects of primate care and welfare;
    careful planning to predict the numbers of animals required for academic medical research will ensure that potential for "over-breeding" is avoided;
    co-operative dialogue between the research funders and the facility will ensure that only scientific projects of the highest quality that can fully justify the use of monkeys will be supplied from the facility.

    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government is taking to encourage the World Trade Organisation to allow countries to impose restrictions on the import of products that compromise animal welfare. [89082]

    Ms Hewitt
    [holding answer 8 January 2003]: Because trade is a matter of Community competence, the UK has been working with other EU member states to progress this issue for a number of years. Animal welfare issues have been included in the EU's WTO negotiating priorities for some years. At Doha, the EU successfully negotiated the Doha mandate so that the issue of farm animal welfare would be taken into account as part of the current Agreement on Agriculture negotiations, which are due to be concluded by the end of 2004.

    It remains extremely difficult to reach agreement on changes to WTO rules to allow countries explicitly to limit imports of goods based only on the way in which a product was made (under which would fall consideration of whether a production method took account of animal welfare standards). Many WTO member states are highly suspicious of the EU's motives and fear that animal welfare production standards will be used as a disguised form of protectionism. This is a concern for developing country governments in particular. This issue is not on the agenda for the current Doha trade round, but the EU continues to discuss this issue in all relevant WTO fora and is working hard to try to build trust and understanding for the EU's position.

    The recent Commission Communication (COM(2002) 626 final) on Animal Welfare Legislation of 18 November offers a useful overview of the Commission's approach to improving animal welfare issues internationally, including through the WTO.

    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Government has to introduce a clearer labelling system to enable consumers to tell whether products have been tested on animals. [89083]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    [holding answer 8 January 2003]: I have no such plans. The Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations already contain provisions
    438W
    allowing manufacturers who wish to label their products "not tested on animals" to do so. The recently agreed 7th Amendment to the Cosmetics Directive requires the European Commission to bring forward new guidelines on animal testing labelling to make it easier for manufacturers to make honest claims about animal testing.

    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of cosmetics sold in the UK were tested on animals, in the last year for which figures are available. [89085]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    [holding answer 8 January 2003]: This information is not held centrally.

    British Energy
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment she has made of the solvency of(a) British Energy and (b) BNFL. [89089]

    Mr. Wilson
    [holding answer 8 January 2003]: British Energy has submitted a plan to Government for the solvent restructuring of the company. The Department and its financial advisers have assessed the implications and have decided to support it in allowing the company to attempt solvent restructuring.

    In respect of BNFL, it is for its Board to assess the Company's solvency. In doing so the company comply with relevant corporate governance and financial accounting requirements. This is independently reviewed by the company's auditors.

    BNFL reported a net asset deficit in 2002. However the company has significant cash resources which, coupled with the ongoing proposals relating to the management of the UK's civil nuclear liabilities, means that the company can continue to trade.

    BNFL's Directors confirmed that the company remains a going concern in their Corporate Governance Report included in the company's 2002 annual report and accounts.

    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to protect British energy markets from state-aided competition. [89568]

    Mr. Wilson
    Complaints about undertakings believed to be in receipt of unauthorised state aid should be directed to the European Commission for investigation.

    This Government's policy is to ensure rapid progress is made in developing a single EU energy market to the benefit of UK consumers and business. As is the case with other industries in this country, our policy is to ensure that all companies, regardless of ultimate ownership, are strictly regulated in the interests of the consumer and the environment. All utilities are subject to legal regulatory and environmental obligations and controls.

    Christmas Expenses
    Mr. Djanogly
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much will be spent on(a) entertaining, (b) Christmas decorations and (c) other festive activities this Christmas season by his Department and

    439W
    government agencies answerable to his Department; and of this sum how much will be spent in ministers' (i) private offices and (ii) official residences. [88122]

    Ms Hewitt
    [holding answer 19 December 2002]: It would not be possible to provide a detailed answer without incurring disproportionate cost, but any such expenditure would be for official purposes only, and would be in accordance with the Department's guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principals set out in Government Accounting.

    Convention on the Future of Europe
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her reply of 19 December 2002,Official Report, column 902W, which industry and user groups were consulted about the Convention on the Future of Europe; and in what terms. [89371]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    [holding answer 7 January 2003]: Officials have been in contact with a broad range of copyright and other intellectual property rights interests to draw their attention to the work of the convention, particularly in relation to EU competence for intellectual property rights.

    Departmental Running Costs
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) percentage and (b) amounts of savings on her Department's running costs have been achieved in each year since 1998; and if she will make a statement. [88814]

    Ms Hewitt
    [holding answer 7 January 2003]: Progress towards meeting with the Department's PSA target of annual savings of 2.5 per cent. of its administration costs has been published in its expenditure plans report since 2001.

    In 1999–2000 the Department achieved a saving of 2.6 per cent. (£10.6 million) on projected costs of £406.6 million including savings from the introduction of the ELGAR and MANDRIN IT systems, from case handling in ACAS and the ETS and from savings relating to staff costs, postage and stationery and the re-scheduling of international payments.

    In 2000–01 the Department achieved a saving of 4.6 per cent. of £19.3 million) on projected costs of £418.8 million including savings from better procurement procedures and from the development of IT systems.

    Data for 2001/2002 is currently being collated and the results will be set out in the 2003 expenditure plans report, due to be published in the spring of 2003

    Employment Tribunals
    Fiona Mactaggart
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, on how many occasions in each of the last three years an employment tribunal has used its powers under Rule 14 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure (SI 2001/1171) to make an order for costs against a respondent who has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in 440W
    conducting the proceedings; and how many of these orders have been for failure to disclose to an applicant documents as previously directed by the tribunal. [89810]

    Alan Johnson
    In the previous three financial years, the number of occasions where an employment tribunal has used its powers to make an order for costs against a respondent is recorded in the following table:

    Year

    Number of cost awards

    2001–02

    169

    2000–01

    80

    1999–2000

    61

    Source:

    Employment Tribunals Service

    The database of the Employment Tribunals Service does not distinguish between an award made against the respondent company/individual or their representative, nor does it record the reason for the award of costs being made

    Export Credits
    Mr. Simon Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what applications have been received by the Export Credit Guarantees Department relating to(a) mining projects and (b) logging operations in the last 12 months. [88074]

    Ms Hewitt
    During 2002 the Export Credits Guarantee Department has received two applications relating to mining projects and none for logging operations.

    One of the applications relates to the modernisation and improvement of existing underground coal mining operations in India and the second to a nickel refinery project in the Russian Federation.

    ECGD does not disclose more detailed information on applications prior to guarantee issue for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

    Mr. Simon Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which UK companies have received Export Credit Guarantees Department support for(a) the development of logging operations and (b) mining projects, since 1997; and what the locations of those operations were. [88075]

    Ms Hewitt
    The information is as follows:

    Main UK exporter

    Project type

    Location

    Cementation Skanska

    Coal mine

    Iran

    NSG Exports Ltd.

    Quarry

    Saint Kitts and Nevis

    Continental FSW Ltd.

    Coal mine

    Mexico

    ECGD also provided Overseas Investment Insurance in respect of three other projects—a copper/gold mine in Argentina, a coal mine in Kazakhstan and a limestone quarry in Jamaica. Details of Investment Insurance support are commercially confidential.

    GATS Agreement
    Mr. Blunt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the UK Government's position in the GATS negotiations and the final agreement will be subject to
    441W
    approval by Parliament; and if she will make a statement on the role of Parliament in the ratification process. [87709]

    Ms Hewitt
    The GATS negotiations are part of the Doha development agenda of the World Trade Organisation, in which the United Kingdom negotiates through the European Community. The Government will continue to keep Members informed of developments throughout the negotiations. In respect of the GATS, copies of a recent consultation document were deposited in the Libraries of both Houses last October, and we will also deposit there a summary of the responses received.

    The Government has and will continue to keep Parliament informed of developments in the negotiations on the Doha development agenda, including on GATS. After the Doha ministerial meeting in November 2001 I made a detailed statement of the results of the meeting and the United Kingdom's position. The Government will ensure that both Houses will have an opportunity to scrutinise the outcome of the Doha development agenda negotiations as they have the results of previous multilateral trade negotiations.

    Health and Safety
    Mrs. Helen Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether her Department and its agencies have met the commitment arising from action point 13 of the June 2000 strategy Statement on Revitalising Health and Safety to summarise health and safety performance and plans in Annual Reports from the year 2000–01 onwards. [89505]

    Ms Hewitt
    My Department has published its first annual report on health and safety, which includes information on its performance in 2000–01. Departmental agencies have for some time included health and safety in their annual reports. They are now reviewing those inclusions to ensure their reported performance and plans reflect the requirements of the Revitalising Health and Safety initiative.

    Mrs. Helen Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which senior officials within her Department and its agencies take responsibility for health and safety at board or equivalent level; and where their names are publicised. [89506]

    Ms Hewitt
    My Permanent Secretary has overall responsibility for health and safety for my Department and its Agencies. For my Department this responsibility has been delegated to the Director General Services. Both are members of my Department's Executive Board.

    Agency Chief Executives are responsible for health and safety matters in their Agency. In addition, in the Insolvency Service the Director of Finance and Corporate Resources, in the Patent Office the Director of Corporate Services, and in the Employment Tribunals Service the Estates Director are the Directors responsible for health and safety. All are members of Agency Steering Boards.

    All names are publicised in the Civil Service Year Book.
    442W
    Mrs. Helen Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information she has collated on the application to her Department and its agencies of the checklist, circulated by letter by Sir Richard Mottram, referred to under action point 12 of the revitalising health and safety strategy statement; and if he will make a statement. [89507]

    Ms Hewitt
    My Department has reviewed its governance arrangements for managing health and safety risks based on the checklist circulated by Sir Richard Mottram. This exercise has identified some actions, including revision of the Departmental Health and Safety Policy Statement to reflect the requirements of the Revitalising Health and Safety Strategy Statement.

    Departmental agencies have reviewed their arrangements against the ministerial checklist published in the Revitalising Health and Safety Strategy Statement. They will be looking to extend their reviews to take into account the checklist circulated by Sir Richard Mottram.

    Industrial Tribunals
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to make(a) judgments and (b) transcripts of cases being heard by industrial tribunals available through the internet. [88791]

    Alan Johnson
    [holding answer 7 January 2003]: There are no plans to put employment tribunal (formally industrial tribunal) decisions on the internet.

    Mineworkers
    John Mann
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many mineworkers(a) are employed in Bassetlaw, (b) were employed in Bassetlaw 10 years ago and (c) are estimated to be employed in 10 years time. [88966]

    Mr. Wilson
    [holding answer 7 January 2003]: Separate employment figures on a constituency basis are not available, but figures produced by the Coal Authority show that in September 2002, there were 1,785 miners employed in Nottinghamshire as a whole, all of whom worked in deep mines.

    In 1992, figures were compiled differently. Figures published by the British Coal Corporation show that in March 1992, there were a total of 11,200 miners employed in Nottinghamshire as a whole, with 9,600 employed in deep mines and 1,600 employed in opencast mines.

    DTI does not produce estimates of future employment figures in the coal industry.
    Sources:
    The Coal Authority
    British Coal Corporation Report and Accounts, 1991–92

    John Mann
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many mineworkers(a) are employed in England, (b) were employed 10 years ago and (c) there are estimated to be in 10 years time. [88967]
    443W
    Mr. Wilson
    In September 2002, there were 7,970 mineworkers, including contractors, employed in England, with 6,832 employed in deep mines and 1,138 employed in opencast mines.

    Employment figures in 1992 were compiled on a different basis and do not identify England separately. Figures published by the British Coal Corporation show that in March 1992, there were a total of 42,300 mineworkers employed in England and Wales, with 36,500 employed in deep mines and 5,800 employed in opencast mines. The corresponding figures for England and Wales in September 2002 show a total of 8,920 workers, with 7,420 employed in deep mines and 1,500 employed in opencast mines.

    DTI does not produce estimates of future employment figures in the coal industry.
    Sources:
    The Coal Authority
    British Coal Corporation Report and Accounts 1991–92
    (Figures for Wales in 1992 cannot be separately identified)

    Nuclear Energy
    Huw Irranca-Davies
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to reduce the United Kingdom's reliance upon nuclear energy. [89483]

    Mr. Wilson
    The Government are currently carrying out a review of future energy policy with a view to issuing a White Paper shortly. The review includes consideration of the future role of nuclear power.

    PACEC Consultancy
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the projects by PACEC Consultancy within her Department since 1998 and their costs; and if she will make a statement. [88810]

    Ms Hewitt
    [holding answer 7 January 2003]: From the centrally-held information available, thee have been two PACEC contract since 1998:
    Survey of the impact of a Trade Partners UK service, costing £74K
    Report on Business Links in London, costing £11.5K

    Policy Development
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the bodies outside her Department that have been involved in her Department's policy development in each year since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [88826]

    Ms Hewitt
    Central records are not kept but my Department consults very extensively on a wide range of issues affecting business, employees and consumers. In the course of recent reviews of the Department, for example, some 1,500 organisations and individuals provided their views.

    Renewable Energy
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the most recent measure is of the percentage of electricity used in the London Headquarters Estate generated by renewable sources; and if she will make a statement. [88821]
    444W
    Ms Hewitt
    [holding answer 9 January 2003]: Electricity generated from renewable sources currently constitutes 36 per cent of the total electricity used by the London Headquarters Estate.

    Rural Newsagents
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received from rural newsagents on the impact of changes in newspaper carriage costs. [88664]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    [holding answer 7 January 2003]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has received a number of recent representations about the concerns of rural newsagents over newspaper carriage charges.

    The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has recently carried out a review of the 1994 Code of Practice on newspaper distribution. This also addressed the issue of carriage and service charges. On 12 December 2002, the OFT published it provisional recommendations. The main provisional recommendation is that selling-on within exclusive territories should be fully liberalised. The provisional recommendations are now open for public consultation until 14 March 2003.

    Services (Electronic Access)
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of her Department and its associated agencies' services are accessible electronically; and if she will make a statement. [88812]

    Ms Hewitt
    [holding answer 7 January 2003]: Fifty five per cent. of the planned total of services within my Department and associated agencies were accessible electronically in mid November, when the most recent review was carried out.

    The Department remains committed to meeting the Government's target for making its services accessible electronically by 2005.

    Severn Estuary (Tidal Power)
    Huw Irranca-Davies
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent consideration has been given to harnessing tidal power in the Severn Estuary; and if she will make a statement. [89484]

    Mr. Wilson
    The Department commissioned a study by the Severn Tidal Power Group which considered the merits of a reappraisal of a Severn Estuary tidal barrage project. This report of that study was recently published and is available on the DTI website at: www.dti.gov.uk/energy/renewables/severn.shtml. The potential of renewable sources of energy, including tidal barrage schemes such as that proposed for the Severn Estuary, will be addressed in the Energy White Paper which will be published shortly.

    Small Business Service
    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the performance indicators that have been put in place to assess the success of the Small Business Service. [89827]
    445W
    Nigel Griffiths
    I refer the hon Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley on 22 October 2002,Official Report, column 248–49W.

    Solar Energy
    Huw Irranca-Davies
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Government have to increase the use of solar energy by domestic industry; and if she will make a statement. [89482]

    Mr. Wilson
    Private companies can apply for 40 per cent. grants (50 per cent. in the case of SMEs) to install solar photovoltaic systems under the £20 million first phase of the Major PV Demonstration Programme. With a medium or large scale system they may be able to claim the renewable obligation certificates for electricity they generate if they can reach agreement with their electricity supplier.

    VAT on solar water heating professionally installed systems has been reduced to 5 per cent. since April 2000, and private companies can apply for enhanced capital allowances (tax refunds) for installing this technology, among other energy efficiency and energy saving measures.

    Spending Review
    Mr. Frank Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list for her Department(a) those Comprehensive Spending Review 1998 targets that were outstanding at the time of the statement on the Comprehensive Spending Review 2002, (b) progress on such targets since then and (c) the expected date when targets not yet achieved will be met. [87701]

    Ms Hewitt
    [holding answer 17 December 2002]: The Department publishes progress against all its outstanding PSA targets in its Expenditure Plans Report and Autumn Performance Report. The Department's Autumn Performance Report will be published shortly and a copy will be placed in the Libraries of the House. The Expenditure Plans Report for 2002–03 to 2003–04 was published in June 2002; the Report for 2003–04 to 2004–05 is due to be published in Spring 2003.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Anti-social Behaviour Orders
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 11 December 2002,Official Report, column 307W, on anti-social behaviour orders, of the 18 persons fined how many fines have been collected; and at what rate. [89343]

    Mr. Denham
    The information requested is not collected centrally.

    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) ASBOs, (b) parenting orders and (c) curfew orders have been issued in the City of Newcastle upon Tyne. [89107]
    446W
    Mr. Denham
    [holding answer 9 January 2003]: (a) The table shows the number of notifications received by the Home Office of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) issued within the Northumbria Magistrates Courts Committee (MCCs) area (in which the City of Newcastle upon Tyne is situated) and by local government authority up to 30 June 2002 (latest available).

    We are aware that the numbers of ASBOs made nationally have been consistently under-reported in returns made by magistrates courts and are considering how reporting can be improved.

    (b) Youth Justice Board figures indicate that 2,712 Parenting Orders were imposed in England and Wales between April 2000 and September 2002. During this period the number imposed in Newcastle upon Tyne was eight.

    (c) Figures from the electronic monitoring contractors indicate that 3,037 Curfew Orders with electronic monitoring were imposed on young offenders aged 10 to 15 in the period from the start of the contracts on 28 January 1999 to the end of December 2002. During that period the number imposed in Newcastle upon Tyne was five.

    No applications have yet been received to establish a local child curfew scheme under section 14 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Some local authorities and police forces have considered the possibility but concluded that other measures should be taken to tackle relevant local problems.

    Number of ASBOs as notified to the Home Office by magistrates courts committee and local authority area within England and Wales, April 1999-June 2002

    MCC/local authority area

    Total issued

    Northumbria MCC

    25

    Of which

    From 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000 by pfa

    8

    From 1 June 2000 to 30 June 2002 by local authority area

    17

    Gateshead MBC

    3

    Newcastle upon Tyne, City of

    3

    North Tyneside Council

    8

    South Tyneside MBC

    2

    Sunderland CC

    1

    Note:

    Between 1 April 1999–31 May 2000 data available by police force area (pfa) only.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation was held with the towns and cities to which asylum seekers will be sent; how many agreed to accept them; and what responsibility(a) NASS and (b) the accommodation agency has for assessing health and social services provision. [88674]

    Beverley Hughes
    Prior to becoming operational the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) wrote to regional consortia for each potential cluster area early in 2000 to seek their views on issues such as integration, access to education and healthcare before finalising
    447W
    the initial cluster list. Any representations against designation were carefully considered by NASS before a final decision was made.

    Neither NASS nor our accommodation providers formally assess the impact of dispersal on healthcare and social services. These are matters for the Department of Health (DOH) but it is not intended that dispersal should place an overwhelming burden on provision of services and MASS does liaise with colleagues in the DOH about dispersal.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what review of the experience of(a) Clearsprings and (b) Landmark (Liverpool) in (i) housing and (ii) accommodation of asylum seekers was conducted before contracts were agreed; [88676]

    (2) how many of his contractors for making provision for asylum seekers are (a) run, (b), owned and (c) managed by former asylum seekers. [88675]

    Beverley Hughes
    The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) is part of the Home Office and all its procurement exercises are undertaken in accordance with standard Government procurement rules. As part of the procurement process checks were made on the capability and suitability of potential suppliers and these checks would have included a review of their experience of housing and accommodation but not necessarily limited to asylum seekers. Former asylum seekers who have been given refugee status or allowed to remain on another basis are able to work and engage in business. Their former status as an asylum seeker would not have been taken into account in deciding whether the company was reputable.

    Mr. Malins
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to allow new asylum seekers to be able to work and so enable them to pay for their own support. [89534]

    Beverley Hughes
    There are no plans to re-introduce an employment concession for asylum seekers. The concession was established when widespread delays were occurring in the asylum system. By the time the concession was abolished in July last year it had become largely irrelevant and only applicable to a minority of applicants. The vast majority—around 80 per cent.—of asylum seekers currently receive an initial decision within six months of their application being submitted and could not therefore benefit from the terms of the concession.

    We also believe that allowing new asylum applicants to work could act as a pull factor. We are determined to maintain a robust asylum process which helps those fleeing persecution and not those who wish to come to the UK to work. Those who wish to come here for the purpose of employment have a range of schemes open to them and we continue to open up more routes to allow people to come here and work legally in ways which boost our economy.

    Cambridgeshire Police Authority (Government Support)
    Mr. Paice
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his response to the request by Cambridgeshire Police Authority for central Government support for the cost of(a) policing animal rights demonstrations during 2001–02, and (b) Operation Fincham in Soham during the current year. [90047]

    Mr. Denham
    My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, approved two special grants on 7 January totalling £4.65 million for the Cambridgeshire constabulary. He has awarded them a grant of £1.1 million for the additional costs of policing demonstrations in connection with Huntingdon Life Sciences in 2001–02. This is in addition to the £1 million special grant the force received in 2000–01.

    The police authority has also been given a special grant of £3.55 million as a contribution to the additional costs of Operation Fincham in Soham.

    The additional assistance we have provided has been welcomed by the Chairman of the Police Authority (Councillor John Reynolds) and the Chief Constable (Tom Lloyd QPM).

    Charities
    Mr. Letwin
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if his Department will take lead responsibility for the Government response to the Strategy Unit Review of Charities and the wider Notfor-Profit sector; [89288]

    (2) what plans the Government have to propose legislation in response to the recommendations of the Strategy Unit Review of Charities and the wider Not-for-Profit sector. [89289]

    Beverley Hughes
    My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has responsibility for charities, charity law and the voluntary and community sector in England and Wales. The Active Community Unit of the Home Office has responsibility for managing the programme of implementation of the recommendations in the Strategy Unit report, working in conjunction with other Departments and agencies as appropriate.

    The consultation period for the report ran until the end of December 2002. Work has now started on analysing the responses that have been received. The Active Community Unit will later this year publish an implementation plan for the recommendations arising from the report. The Government are in principle committed to legislate and will be looking for an early opportunity to do so.

    Children in Prison
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children were in prison in each of the last 10 years. [88518]
    449W
    Hilary Benn
    [holding answer 7 January 2003]: The number of people under the age of 18 held in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales in the past 10 years is as follows. Information is shown as at 30 June each year.

    1992—1,328

    1993—1,304

    1994—1,526

    1995—1,675

    1996—2,093

    1997—2,479

    1998—2,466

    1999—2,422

    2000—2,434

    2001—2,448

    2002—2,609

    Correspondence
    Mr. Kaufman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 4 November 2002 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Jabar Abdullah Mawlood. [89234]

    Mr. Blunkett
    I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 17 December 2002.

    Crime Initiatives
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what Government initiatives have been put in place in the(a) Twickenham constituency, (b) London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and (c) London, designed to bring down crime; and if he will make a statement. [88823]

    Mr. Denham
    There has been much work on crime reduction during 2002–03 within the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames which has been funded through Government initiatives: Communities Against Drugs (£169,000), Safer Communities Initiative (£54,000), and the Partnership Development Fund (£20,000). This has helped Richmond Crime Reduction Partnership, which covers Twickenham, to implement local schemes such as the development of a youth project targeting those at risk of committing street crime, pro-active policing of suppliers of class 'A' drugs, and supporting a closed circuit television (CCTV) control room.

    Across London, Government funding has been provided for several crime reduction initiatives including over £16 million through Communities Against Drugs; £21 million for CCTV equipment since 1999; £1.5 million on Reducing Burglary Initiative; £7.3 million for the neighbourhood wardens and street wardens initiative; £7.2 million for Targeted Policing Initiative, and £9.1 million for the Robbery Reduction Initiative.

    Domestic Violence
    Sandra Gidley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued to 450W
    police forces on linking the investigation of child physical abuse and the potential for domestic violence against women in the same household. [89124]

    Mr. Denham
    The core inter-agency child protection guidance is "Working Together to Safeguard Children". It was published jointly by the Department of Health, the Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills in 1991, and revised and updated in 1999. The guidance is addressed to all those whose work brings them into contact with children and families, including the police. Chapter 6 of the document provides guidance on 'Child Protection in Specific Circumstances', and includes a section on domestic violence. It highlights the need for professionals to be alert to the frequent inter-relationship between domestic violence and the abuse and neglect of children. It specifically states that when there is evidence of domestic violence, the implication for any children in the household should be considered, including the possibility that the children themselves may be subject to violence or other harm. Conversely, where it is believed that a child is being abused, those involved with the child and family should be alert to the possibility of domestic violence within the family.

    In addition to this, 'Policing Domestic Violence—a Modular Training Programme', was developed by Centrex in 2002. It is a national training product, intended to provide a structured, but flexible approach to the delivery of domestic violence training within the Police Service. Module 4 is dedicated to 'Domestic Violence and Children', and aims to explain the relationship between domestic violence and child abuse and give detailed information to operational staff on this subject. The material has been developed with the assistance of the Women's Aid Federation of England and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), and has been widely circulated both within and outside the Police Service for comment and enhancement.

    Drugs (Coalfield Communities)
    John Mann
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional assistance does he plan to invest in(a) coalfield communities and (b) Bassetlaw following the re-launch of the Government's drugs strategy. [88963]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    Additional funding from the spending review 2002 for tackling drug misuse will mean that from April 2003 all drug action team areas will see an increase of at least 10 per cent. in pooled treatment budget allocations.

    Over the next three years, new money will be invested in the introduction or extension of a range of interventions within the criminal justice system and will initially be focussed on those areas with the very worst drug problems. However all areas will benefit from the major investment in improvements we are delivering across the country.

    Heroin Addicts
    John Mann
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the
    451W
    Department of Work and Pensions to ensure that ex-heroin misusers can re-enter employment following a criminal conviction. [88962]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    The Home Office and the Department of Work and Pensions are in regular contact to ensure that those with a history of illegal drug use—including heroin use—are able to secure and maintain employment.

    Illegal Immigrants
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if illegal immigrants who have spent a long period of time in the UK will be considered for deportation in the same way as those who have just arrived in the country. [88857]

    Beverley Hughes
    Length of residence in the United Kingdom is one of the factors taken into account when deciding whether or not to remove an illegal entrant. Other factors include: age; strength of connections with the United Kingdom; personal history; domestic circumstances; previous criminal record and the nature of any offence of which the person has been convicted (where applicable); any compassionate circumstances; and any representations received on the person's behalf.

    Under the Long Residence Concession, persons who have continuously been in the United Kingdom for 14 years unlawfully, or a mixture of lawfully and unlawfully, before the commencement of enforcement action are normally given indefinite leave to remain unless there are strong countervailing factors.

    In addition, it is our policy not to proceed with enforcement action against those families where there are children who have lived continuously in the United Kingdom for seven years or more. However, there may be cases where it is appropriate to depart from this policy, for example, if one of the parents has been convicted of a serious offence.

    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people he estimates are in the UK illegally but not in contact with authorities. [88858]

    Beverley Hughes
    There is currently no official estimate of the number of immigrants unlawfully present in the United Kingdom who are not in contact with the authorities. The Home Office has commissioned a review of methods of estimating the size of the illegally resident population used in other countries.

    Nursing Staff (Work Permits)
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much correspondence he has received from(a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public on the licensing checks made by Work Permits (UK) on nursing agencies who recruit overseas nurses. [89345]

    Beverley Hughes
    I am not aware that the Home Office has recently received any correspondence specifically concerned with this subject.

    Prison Health
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his Answer of 18 December, ref 87475, how much funding has been allocated and over what time period for the full time and part time suicide prevention co-ordinators; what definition he uses of the term prisoner listeners; what the purpose of the initiative is; and if he will list the establishments piloting the new health care screening procedures. [89346]

    Hilary Benn
    For the most high-risk prisons £780,000 a year has been allocated for 30 full-time suicide prevention co-ordinators (SPCs). This money is allocated directly from the central funds. The costs of the other 99 full and part-time SPCs are funded from local budgets, and not aggregated centrally. These SPCs combine suicide prevention duties with other prison work at the discretion of individual Governors.

    "Listeners" are prisoner volunteers who are selected, trained and supported by the Samaritans to offer confidential support to their fellow prisoners who may be at risk of suicide, otherwise in crisis, or simply in need of someone to talk to. The scheme's objectives are to assist in preventing suicide, reducing self-harm and to help alleviate the feelings of those in distress.

    Between August 2001 and June 2002 the new health care screening procedure was piloted in ten local prisons. Of the ten establishments, six were adult male remand prisons (Leeds, Wandsworth, Holme House, Liverpool, Manchester and Durham), two were for female remand prisoners (Eastwood Park and New Hall) and two were young offender institutions (Feltham and Glen Parva). The two female prisons include both adults and women aged 16–21 years. An evaluation of the pilot project supported implementation of the new reception screening arrangements across the estate, and a rolling programme is planned to start in April 2003.

    Private Action, Public Benefit
    Mr. Flook
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to bring in new legislation suggested in the publication, "Private Action, Public Benefit" of December 2002; and if he will make a statement. [88840]

    Beverley Hughes
    The report, "Private Action, Public Benefit", was published on 25 September 2002 and the consultation period ran until the end of December 2002. Work has started on analysing the responses which have been received. The Active Community Unit will later this year publish an implementation plan for the recommendations arising from the report. The Government are in principle committed to legislate and will be looking for an early opportunity to do so.

    Religious and Ethnic Groups
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been taken to prevent the separation and isolation of minority religious and ethnic groups from the rest of UK society. [88729]

    Beverley Hughes
    We are committed to ensuring the fair treatment and inclusion of all communities within our society. We are actively working to ensure that
    453W
    where there are divisions along lines of race, religion, class—or any other factor—barriers are broken down, discrimination is eradicated and positive relationships are encouraged.

    The Government are committed to social inclusion and equality of opportunity for all. Since 1997 we have done much to stamp out unlawful race discrimination in the United Kingdom. The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 is the most far-reaching reform of race law in Britain for 30 years. And we have some of the most comprehensive anti-discrimination laws in Europe.

    The law has also been strengthened on incitement to racial hatred and racially and religiously aggravated offences in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

    We have an on-going dialogue with the minority religious communities to ensure that Government policy is sensitive to their needs and to reassure them that the Government values the part that they have to play in building cohesive communities. We also encourage and support inter-faith dialogue and activity.

    Since the disturbances of summer 2001—which demonstrated the isolation of certain communities—we have taken forward a number of programmes specifically aimed at improving community cohesion in England and Wales.

    Among other things we have: funded a summer activities programme; set up a new programme of community facilitation; established a community cohesion panel and a number of practitioner groups to ensure that our policies and programmes help rather than hinder community cohesion; published—jointly with the Local Government Association, Commission for Racial Equality, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Inter Faith Network—guidance to local authorities on community cohesion; worked with local areas—including Bradford, Oldham and Burnley to enable them to produce action plans on community cohesion; launched a community cohesion pathfinder programme; and adopted a public service agreement target on community cohesion.

    Rohypnol
    Mr. Ben Chapman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he plans to reclassify rohypnol. [88696]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    Rohypnol, the proprietary name for the substance flunitrazepam, is one of the benzodiazepine family of drugs. It is controlled as a Class C drug—there are no plans to reclassify it.

    Suffolk Punch
    Mr. Sheerman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department has reached a decision concerning the future of the Suffolk Punch Stud at Hollesley Bay Prison and Young Offenders' Institution; if he will allow the care of the horses to continue to be carried out by the inmates, while transferring the financial responsibility of maintaining the Suffolk Punch Stud from the Prison Service to the Suffolk Punch Trust; and if he will meet the hon.
    454W
    Member for Huddersfield and members of the Suffolk Punch Trust to discuss the future maintenance of the Suffolk Punch Stud. [87757]

    Hilary Benn
    The Prison Service has been reviewing its farming operations, including the future of the Suffolk Punch Stud at Hollesley Bay. The Prison Service is in contact with the Suffolk Horse Trust and recently held a meeting with Mr. Marsh of the Trust. It is the Service's aim for the horses to remain within Suffolk and for opportunities to continue in training of prisoners in equine skills. I would be happy to meet the Suffolk Horse Trust when proposals for the way forward are further developed.

    Sussex Traffic Police
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police officers have been attached to Sussex traffic police in each of the last 10 years; [89349]

    (2) what (a) number and (b) percentage of Sussex Police are engaged in speed management. [89351]

    Mr. Denham
    Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) has provided the following information.

    Sussex Police (Traffic Officers)

    Year (as at 31 March)

    Number of Traffic Officers1

    Percentage of force strength2

    1997–98

    206

    6.9

    1998–99

    197

    6.9

    1999–2000

    191

    6.8

    2000–01

    190

    6.6

    2001–02

    174

    6.0

    1 Police officers who are predominately employed on motor cycles or in patrol vehicles for the policing of traffic and motorway related duties. Not including officers employed in accident investigation, vehicle examination and radar duties.

    2 Traffic officers as a percentage of force strength.

    The basis on which HMIC classify Police Service staff changed in the year 1999–2000, so the figures for 31 March 2000 and 31 March 2001 are not directly comparable with those for earlier years. Some officers counted as deployed to traffic duties in earlier years may, from 1999–2000 onward, have been recorded as deployed to duties relating to traffic wardens.

    Deployment of officers to traffic and speed management duties are matters for the Chief Constable. I understand from the Chief Constable that about 142 constables are currently deployed on traffic duties.

    I am told by the Chief Constable that speed management is designed to influence driver behaviour and is directed to those instances where there can be a link between collisions and speed. Speed enforcement tactics are targeted where there is likely to be the greatest chance of casualty reduction. I understand that all Sussex traffic officers can be directed to speed management activities and are trained for it. However, I am told that the equivalent of four full-time officers are regularly directed to this activity.

    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mobile camera speed checks have been carried out by Sussex traffic police in the last year. [89352]
    455W
    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    I understand from the Chief Constable of Sussex that over the last year members of the Sussex Police Safety Camera Team have undertaken 262 mobile speed camera checks in which speeding offences were detected. This figure does not take account of other checks where there was no such detection.

    Transnational Sex Trade
    Keith Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many victims of transnational sex trade have been reported to British authorities in each of the last five years. [89021]

    Beverley Hughes
    Information is not held on the number of victims of transnational sex trade that have been reported to British authorities in the last five years.

    Vehicle Clamping
    David Wright
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action the Government propose to take to regulate motor vehicle clamping by private organisations. [88570]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    Regulation of motor vehicle clamping by private security firms on private land will be introduced by the Security Industry Authority, a non-departmental public body (NDPB) being set up by the Home Office under the Private Security Industry Act 2001. The authority is currently preparing for regulation, which will take the form of licensing all individuals carrying out activities covered by the Act. The suitability of individuals applying for a licence will be assessed in accordance with published criteria relating to criminality and competency. The Security Industry Authority will be established as an NDPB on 1 April 2003 and it is expected that it will start licensing clamping operatives by the end of this year/early 2004. It will be a criminal offence to engage in licensable conduct without a licence.

    Visa Processing
    Mr. Paice
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines are given to case workers at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to assist them in determining what constitutes(a) a straightforward and (b) a non-straightforward further leave to remain visa application. [88699]

    Beverley Hughes
    There are no specific guidelines. A straightforward application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom is one where it is clear from the information and evidence submitted that the requirements of the immigration rules are satisfied. An application which is not straightforward may require further inquiries, additional checks or discretionary consideration before it can be decided. Whether individual applications are straightforward depends on the individual circumstances of the case.

    Mr. Paice
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long it is taking the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to process(a) a non-straightforward and (b) a straightforward further leave to remain visa application; and which month's post is being opened by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate with regard to visa applications. [88700]
    456W
    Beverley Hughes
    We aim normally to screen all postal applications within three weeks and decide those that are straightforward at that point. However, because of the high number of applications in the latter part of 2002, this is currently taking around 10 weeks on average. Some that are not straightforward because they need further inquiries or more detailed consideration can take around 12 months to decide, subject to how easy it is to obtain the information and how quickly applicants respond to such requests. We are taking measures to improve this situation and expect to make significant progress towards our three-week target for initial screening over the next two to three months, and to reduce the turnaround time for deciding more complex cases.

    Postal applications received at the very end of December 2002 are currently being opened and details entered on to the General Casework Information Database. Those received in early January 2003 will be opened and entered very shortly and it is anticipated that the time-lag will be reduced to a week or less by the end of January.

  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Zimbabwe
    Andrew Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the(a) extent and (b) degree of malnutrition in Zimbabwe and of the (i) distribution and (ii) availability of food supplies in Zimbabwe, broken down by region. [90046]

    Clare Short
    No credible nutritional assessment took place during 2002. Such data as was collected suggests that in August 2002, 24 per cent. of six month to five year olds were underweight. This compares to 13 per cent. in 1999. This indicates a significant level of chronic or 'background' malnutrition. Under current circumstances it is reasonable to predict that levels of severe malnutrition will be increasing. DFID is funding a rapid nutrition assessment, to include other health indicators, which will take place in the first two weeks of February.

    The following table gives the distribution of maize since April 2002 by Government (as at early November) and by the World Food Programme (as at end December). Other food flows from bilateral feeding programmes are not currently available by district and are lower in total than WFP flows. These statistics do not include wheat and other commodities.

    tonnes

    Area

    Government

    Worldfood programme

    Masvingo

    34,662

    36,174

    Matabeleland

    33,588

    26,972

    Mashonaland

    96,431

    21,040

    Midlands

    44,102

    15,234

    Manicaland

    49,259

    14,513

    Harare

    218,823

    —

    Bulawayo

    92,438

    —

    Total

    569,303

    113,933

    Bangladesh
    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial assistance has been given to Bangladesh by her Department in each of the last three years. [89770]

    Clare Short
    The financial assistance given to Bangladesh by my Department in each of the last three years is set out in the table:

    £ million

    Period

    Amount

    1999–2000

    71.8

    2000–01

    76.9

    2001–02

    65.8

    Cambodia
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her Department is giving to Cambodia in 2003–04; and if it is tied to sustainable forestry management. [90419]

    Clare Short
    No final decision on the 2003–04 allocation for Cambodia has yet been made. We are currently reviewing our funding promoting sustainable forestry but the bulk of our support will continue to be in the areas of health and sustainable rural livelihoods and will not be tied to forest management. Further information is set out in the Cambodia Country Strategy Paper of March 2000, a copy of which has been deposited in the Library of the House.

    Capita Group
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the contracts that have been awarded to the Capita Group by her Department. [89971]

    Clare Short
    I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave the hon. Member for Henley on 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 337W and 7 March 2002, Official Report, column 466W. Since then, we have issued a further contract to Capita RAS, Support to the Ethiopian Civil Service Reform Programme at a cost of £51,250. Information on low value contracts is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Christmas Expenses
    Mr. Djanogly
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many departmental Christmas cards she and her Ministers intend to send in 2002; how much these cards will cost(a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if she will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card she has sent this year. [88113]

    Clare Short
    [holding answer 19 December 2002]: I did not send any departmental Christmas cards.

    Sally Keeble sent 81 departmental Christmas cards which cost 95p each to purchase. They took approx one and a half hours of staff time to sign, address and envelope. They were posted as second class mail. All
    458W
    expenditure incurred in the purchase and despatch of official Christmas cards was made in accordance with the departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in Government Accounting.

    I have placed a copy of the Christmas card in the Library of the House.

    Mr. Djanogly
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much will be spent on(a) entertaining, (b) Christmas decorations and (c) other festive activities this Christmas season by her Department and Government agencies answerable to her Department; and of this sum how much will be spent in Ministers' (i) private offices and (ii) official residences. [88128]

    Clare Short:
    [holding answer 19 December 2002]: An official reception was held at a cost of £2,261.44. Otherwise nothing was spent on entertainment, decorations or other festive activities this Christmas season. We do not have official residences. DFID does not have any Government agencies answerable to it.

    Expenditure incurred for the reception was made in accordance with the departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in Government Accounting.

    North Korea
    Tony Baldry
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether her Department gives development aid to North Korea. [89551]

    Clare Short
    The United Kingdom is not providing development assistance, to North Korea.

    However, we continue to respond to humanitarian needs through the European Commission, the United Nations and International Red Cross Movement. In financial year 2001–02, my Department provided just over £2 million to the International Federation of the Red Cross and the United Nations Children's Fund, for support to flood victims and to emergency primary health care programmes. In 2002, ECHO provided 15 million euros in food emergency aid and will provide a further 9.5 million euros for food aid in 2003. The UK contribution is 19 per cent.

    Theft/Fraud
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her estimate is of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in 2002. [89866]

    Clare Short
    The estimated cost to DFID's budget of theft and fraud in the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 is £84,000. Details of suspected or proven fraud are provided to the Treasury on an annual basis. The annual report that the Treasury prepares is deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Boundary Committee
    Keith Vaz
    To ask the Prime Minister when he wrote to the Boundary Committee; and about which boundaries. [89755]

    The Prime Minister
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on Monday 16 December 2002,Official Report, column 522W.

    Delivery Unit
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Prime Minister to which Minister the Delivery Unit is accountable; and if he will make a statement. [89557]

    The Prime Minister
    The Delivery Unit reports to me. Lord Macdonald, Minister for the Cabinet Office, oversees its work on a day-to-day basis.

    Euro (Swedish Referendum)
    Keith Vaz
    To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of Sweden concerning the Swedish referendum on the Euro scheduled for 14th September. [90109]

    The Prime Minister
    I have discussed a range of EU issues with the Prime Minister of Sweden recently, on 15 November in Warsaw and at the Copenhagen European Council on 12–13 December.

    Farming and Food Commission
    Paddy Tipping
    To ask the Prime Minister how many written representations he has received in support of the recommendations of the Policy Commission on the future of farming and food. [88382]

    The Prime Minister
    I received over 300 letters last year about farming, including ones on the recommendations of the Policy Commission report on the Future of Farming and Food.

    Overall, there was widespread support for the broad thrust of the recommendations. The Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food for England, launched on 12 December 2002, incorporates the Government response to the recommendations and builds on the vision set out in the Policy Commission's report.

    Honours
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Prime Minister how many persons(a) knighted or equivalent and (b) admitted to each rank of the orders of chivalry in each honours list since January 2002 were honoured for their contribution as (i) employees of Her Majesty's Government or a Government-sponsored organisation, (ii) employees of local government or a local government-sponsored organisation, (iii) private sector employees, (iv) voluntary sector employees, (v) health service employees, (vi) school staff and (vii) volunteers. [89564]
    460W
    The Prime Minister
    I can give details of those honoured in the Birthday 2002 and New Year 2003 lists which I recommended to Her Majesty. The information available is as follows:(i) Four State Servants were honoured at Knight/Dame level in the Birthday Honours List and another four in the New Year Honours List—2003. 33 were honoured at CB, CMG or CBE, 33 at OBE and 61 at MBE in the Birthday Honours. 33 were honoured at CB, CMG or CBE, 31 at OBE and 57 at MBE in the New Year Honours List. It is not possible to readily identify employees of Government sponsored organisations.
    (ii) Among local government employees, including police officers and fire fighters, there were four honours at Knight/Dame level, eight CBEs, 10 OBEs and 34 MBEs in the Birthday List. At New Year, there were four honours at Knight/Dame level, nine CBEs, 12 OBEs and 46 MBEs. Figures for people employed by local government sponsored organisations cannot be readily identified.
    (iii) It is not possible to identify from the names on the Lists those people who are employed in the private sector, many of whom will have been honoured because of what they have done outside their place of employment.
    (iv) The list does not distinguish between paid and unpaid workers in the voluntary sector. Overall, people from the voluntary sector accounted for almost half of those on the List in the Birthday Honours and more than half of those in the New Year Honours.
    (v) The list does not distinguish between NHS employees and others working in the health sector. In the health sector overall, there were five awards at Knight/Dame level, 12 at CBE, 28 at OBE and 66 at MBE in the Birthday List. There were four awards at Knight level, 12 at CBE, 21 at OBE and 68 at MBE in the New Year List.
    (vi) In education, the list does not distinguish between those involved in primary and secondary education and those involved in tertiary and vocational education. In the education sector overall, five awards were made at Knight/Dame level in the Birthday List and again in the New Year List. 18 awards were made at CBE level, 35 at OBE and 60 at MBE in the Birthday List. In the New Year List, 16 awards were made at CBE level, 35 at OBE and 63 at MBE.

    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Prime Minister how many persons in each county were(a) knighted or equivalent and (b) admitted to each rank of the orders of chivalry in each honours list since January 2002. [89565]

    The Prime Minister
    The information available is outlined in tables showing the number of awards made on my recommendation in each county in each honours lists since January 2002. The tables will be placed in the Library.

    National Insurance
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell
    To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) of 19 September 2002, Official Report, column 919W, on national insurance, if he will require departments to reject any potential supplier who uses offshore arrangements intended to avoid employers' national insurance liabilities, or has done so in the last three years. [89811]

    The Prime Minister
    I have nothing further to add to the answer my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave the hon. Member on 19 December 2002,Official Report, column 919W.

    New Deal
    Mr. Heald
    To ask the Prime Minister how many New Deal participants have secured(a) subsidised and (b) unsubsidised employment in his Office; and if he will make a statement on his Office's policy with regard to the employment of New Deal participants. [89767]

    The Prime Minister
    My Office's policy is to take New Deal participants from Jobcentre Plus on secondment and provide them with up to six months work experience. During the secondment they continue to be paid by Jobcentre Plus. Since 1998, six New Deal participants have been on secondment to Number 10.

    No. 10 Downing Street (Receptions)
    Keith Vaz
    To ask the Prime Minister how many times in 2002 10 Downing Street was used by charities for receptions; what the cost of the receptions was; and which charities were involved. [90110]

    The Prime Minister
    During 2002, 27 charity receptions were held at 10 Downing Street, including events for Sane, Sight Savers International, Prisoners of Conscience, Saving Faces and Guide Dogs for the Blind. The cost of these receptions was funded by the Charities concerned.

    Nuclear Power
    Llew Smith
    To ask the Prime Minister what recent advice he has received from the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser in respect of the option to use nuclear power in the future. [89559]

    The Prime Minister
    The Chief Scientific Adviser has been advising me and other Ministers on nuclear power and other scientific aspects of energy policy. He is invited to attend the Cabinet committee, DA(N), overseeing the development of the Energy White Paper, which is due to be published shortly.

    Peerages
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Prime Minister how many persons elevated to the peerage since 20th July 2001 were resident at the time of their elevation in each region of(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland. [89563]

    The Prime Minister
    Since 20 July 2001, there have been seven people elevated to the peerage. The following table shows where they were resident at the time of their elevation. It is, of course, possible that some peers may have had more than one residence of which we would be unaware.

    Number

    London

    2

    South East England

    1

    South West England

    1

    Northern Ireland

    1

    Wales

    1

    Judicial

    1

    We do not keep records of the home addresses of judicial peers as all correspondence is addressed to their office.

    Single Currency
    Keith Vaz
    To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to put in place a timetable for a referendum should the five economic tests on entry into the single currency be met. [90108]

    The Prime Minister
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 11 December 2002,Official Report, columns 379–80W.

  SCOTLAND

    Government Expenditure and Revenue
    Mr. Salmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland 2000–01 will be published; and what input she has had into its preparation. [89425]

    Mrs. Liddell
    The planned publication date of Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland (GERS) 2000–01 by the Scottish Executive is 20 January. The Scottish Executive take the lead in compiling the report which draws on data from a variety of Government sources.

    Gross Domestic Product
    Mr. Salmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what Scotland's real GDP growth rate was from(a) 1972 to 1999 and (b) 1989 to 1999. [89392]

    Mrs. Liddell
    Data compiled by the Scottish Office up to 1999 and subsequently by the Scottish Executive indicates that Scotland's annual real GDP growth rate was 1.8 per cent. from 1972 to 1999 and 2.1 per cent. from 1989 to 1999.

    Population Statistics
    Mr. Salmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when revised population statistics will be released for Scotland. [89391]

    Mrs. Liddell
    This is a matter for the General Register Office for Scotland, an Associated Department of the Scottish Executive. I understand, however, that revised population statistics will be published by the end of February.

    Scottish University Graduates
    Mr. Salmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of Scottish university graduates left Scotland after graduation in the last three years. [89474]

    Mrs. Liddell
    Higher Education in Scotland is a devolved matter. The relevant statistics can be found in the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning section on the Scottish Executive's website.

  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    International Bribery and Corruption
    Hugh Bayley
    To ask the Solicitor-General what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of UK legislation against international bribery and corruption. [89228]

    Hilary Benn
    I have been asked to reply.

    The provisions on international bribery and corruption under Part 12 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 came into force on 14 February 2002. They are subject to review under section 122 of the 2001 Act by a committee of members of the Privy Council, which is due to report by 13 December this year. As announced in the Queen's Speech, a draft Bill to reform the law of corruption generally will be published this session.

  EDUCATION AND SKILLS

    Academies
    Mr. Brady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the academies which

    Open academies

    £000

    Recurrent

    Capital

    Development budget

    Development expenditure

    Operational budget 2002–03

    Operational expenditure 2002–03

    Capital budget

    Capital expenditure

    The Business Academy, Bexley

    989

    989

    4,245

    1,794

    25,750

    14,450

    Unity Academy

    604

    604

    4,769

    2,307

    18,590

    0

    Greig City Academy

    957

    957

    4,823

    2,046

    11,000

    2,892

    Academies in development

    £000

    Recurrent Development budget

    Capital Development expenditure

    Capital budget

    Capital expenditure

    Barnet

    900

    443

    120,300

    430

    Bradford

    250

    36

    119,500

    0

    Brent

    900

    596

    121,400

    3,836

    Bristol

    900

    250

    20.213

    390

    Ealing

    900

    257

    27,527

    418

    Hackney

    900

    118

    20,498

    961

    Hillingdon (i)

    900

    430

    19,000

    285

    Hillingdon (ii)

    250

    0

    119,500

    0

    Kent

    250

    0

    119,500

    0

    Lambeth

    900

    252

    22,281

    32

    Leeds

    250

    25

    119,500

    0

    Liverpool (i)

    250

    90

    123,000

    0

    Liverpool (ii)

    250

    0

    119,500

    0

    Manchester

    900

    99

    10,620

    4

    Northampton

    250

    35

    119,500

    0

    Nottingham

    900

    212

    14,600

    57

    Sandwell

    250

    0

    119,500

    0

    South Middlesbrough

    900

    491

    19,200

    5,253

    Southwark (i)

    900

    196

    127,125

    53

    Southwark (ii)

    900

    460

    19,970

    885

    Walsall

    900

    476

    15,500

    5,737

    1 Estimated figures, subject to change, and will be finalised only when the projects are in a position to sign a funding agreement with the Secretary of State.

    464W
    (a) have been established and (b) are proposed, giving the public expenditure which has been (i) incurred and (ii) budgeted in relation to start-up of each. [88893]

    Mr. Miliband
    Three academies have been established so far in Bexley, Haringey and Middlesbrough. A further 21 academies have been proposed and are in various stages of development. The tables show the budgets and expenditure incurred for the current projects across the whole cycle of their development. For the three academies already open, the first table also shows their operating budget and expenditure incurred to date.

    Academy projects receive modest funding to develop proposals to a point where the Secretary of State is satisfied that an academy is viable and a formal funding agreement can be signed. From this point, projects receive additional funding to implement their proposals and prepare for the opening of the academy. Once open, academies receive an annual operational budget to cover their day-to-day running costs, which is comparable to similar maintained schools within their local authority. Similarly, the level of capital funding is intended to ensure that academies are built and equipped to a standard comparable with the best in the maintained sector.

    Admissions Consultation Paper
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which organisations were consulted formally on the admissions consultation paper published on 16 September. [89591]

    Mr. Miliband
    The consultation was targeted towards admission authorities, as they would have the most direct interest in changes to the codes and regulations. Therefore, all local education authorities—as the admission authorities for community and voluntary controlled schools—were consulted, along with a representative sample of foundation and voluntary aided schools, who are their own admission authorities, and a smaller sample of other non-admission authority schools. Academies, representative bodies of all school types, as well as many national bodies, were also formally consulted. These were:

    Churches and other belief organisations

    All Church of England and Catholic Dioceses

    Church of England Board of Education

    Catholic Education Service

    The Board of Deputies of British Jews

    Greek Orthodox Church

    British Sikh Education Council

    Association of Muslim Schools (UK)

    465W

    Free Church Federal Council

    Methodist Church

    Seventh-Day Adventist Church

    Society of Friends/Quakers

    Council of African and Afro-Caribbean Churches

    British Humanist Association

    The Muslim Educational Trust

    United Synagogue Board of Education

    National Secular Society

    Key organisations

    Advisory Centre for Education (ACE) Ltd.

    The Association of Foundation and Voluntary Aided Schools

    Association of London Government

    Campaign for State Education (CASE)

    Centre for Academies Support Service

    Commission for Racial Equality

    Consortium for Selective Schools in Essex

    Council on Tribunals

    CTC Principals' Forum

    Equal Opportunities Commission

    Information for School and College Governors

    Local Government Association

    Local Government Ombudsman

    National Federation of Parent Teacher Associations

    National Governors Council

    Office of the Schools Adjudicator

    The Education Network

    Secondary Heads Association

    National Union of Teachers

    NASUWT

    Ministry of Defence Service Personnel (Policy Families)

    Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Personnel Services Education Unit)

    The Welsh Assembly

    Department of Health

    Home Office Immigration and Nationality Division

    Cabinet Office (Public Sector Team)

    Others with parental interest

    African Caribbean Evangelical Alliance

    Black Parents in Education

    National Family and Parenting Institute

    We supported the paper consultation by also holding four regional events which were attended by approximately 400 representatives of LEAs and schools.

    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions took place with(a) local education authorities and (b) schools and colleges on paragraph A.45 of the admissions consultation paper. [89592]

    Mr. Miliband
    We consulted all local education authorities, a representative sample of foundation and voluntary aided schools, who are their own admission authorities, and a smaller sample of other non-admission authority schools, as well as academies, on all aspects of changes to the code. We also held four regional events which were attended by approximately 400 representatives of LEAs and schools.
    466W
    However, Annex A of the Code explains the law. Schools have always been required to have an admission number for each relevant age group, including sixth form admissions if they recruit from outside the school. The wording of A.45 differs from the previous code only insofar as it takes account of the abolition of standard numbers. The Code of Practice does not apply to further education colleges.

    Child Support
    Caroline Flint
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if the rules that apply to CSA payments in relation to assessing household income will apply to maintenance payments paid via a court order when the scheme for educational maintenance allowances is introduced nationally. [89117]

    Margaret Hodge
    The rules in connection with child maintenance are applicable only to the pilot Education Maintenance Allowance scheme. When the national EMA scheme is introduced in September 2004 the income assessment will be revised. We will introduce a household income assessment, in line with that applied by the Inland Revenue for the new Tax Credits. This will not include any income earned by a natural parent who no longer resides with the student, but will count the income of any step-parent in the household.

    Caroline Flint
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much it would cost to award maintenance allowance to those students in the pilot areas who have been ruled ineligible because maintenance from the absent parent is paid via a court order rather than through the Child Support Agency and is added to the resident parent's household income. [89119]

    Margaret Hodge
    Evidence from the Local education authorities piloting the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMa) suggests that less than 1 per cent. of applications have been turned down on these grounds. The total cost of paying and administering EMA in all 56 pilot areas in the 2001–02 financial year was £97.25 million. Therefore, it is estimated that to pay EMA to families in these circumstances, where the joint parental income is over the maximum threshold applicable in the pilot area would incur an additional cost of approximately £1 million.

    Education Funding (Leicestershire)
    Mr. Reed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the level of education funding in Leicestershire; and if he will estimate the(a) percentage and (b) cost difference between Leicestershire and the top funded education authority outside London. [88632]

    Mr. Miliband
    The new system of funding for LEAs consists of a basic entitlement which is the same for all pupils, plus a top up for all deprived pupils, which is the same for all deprived pupils, and a further top up for those LEAs in areas with additional costs for recruitment and retention of staff. Where the average formula spending share per pupil is higher, that reflects a higher number of deprived pupils, and higher area costs. The average Education Formula Spending Share (EFSS) per three to 15 pupil for Leicestershire is £2,939
    467W
    and for Slough (the authority with the highest average EFSS per pupil outside London) it is £3,828. The difference is just over 30 per cent. or £890 per pupil. The estimated proportion of deprived pupils in Slough is: 36 per cent. in primary schools and 33 per cent. in secondary schools. The proportions for Leicestershire are: 13 per cent. in primary and secondary schools. In addition Slough attracts an Area Cost Adjustment of 13.5 per cent. whereas Leicestershire does not.

    FE Colleges (Special Measures)
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many further education colleges are subject to special measures by the Learning Skills Council as a result of unfavourable inspection reports; and in how many cases in the past 12 months they have intended to replace college management. [87264]

    Margaret Hodge
    The LSC published guidance in March 2002. This sets out the powers and arrangements for intervening where further education colleges have unfavourable inspection grades. Neither the Secretary of State nor the LSC has the power to replace the management team of a college. However, the Secretary of State can issue directions to a college corporation or replace members of the corporation, if he feels that a college is being mismanaged. In the past 12 months, 96 out of a total of 400 FE colleges were inspected. Of these, 17 colleges were judged to be inadequate and will require a full re-inspection. A further 35 colleges will require a partial re-inspection, where some areas were found to be less than satisfactory. In all of these cases, it was possible to agree an action plan for improvement without needing to use the statutory powers.

    Higher Education
    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to increase the attraction, reward and ease of access to higher and further education in areas where exceptionally low proportions of school leavers go into higher and further education. [88925]

    Margaret Hodge
    We are committed to extending opportunity in both further and higher education. As part of our Success for All reform strategy for further education and training—worth an extra £1.2 billion by 2005–06 or over this spending review period, a programme of Strategic Area Reviews led by local Learning and Skills Councils will help build a network of local providers working to increase choice and widen access to further education for young people. The Excellence Challenge—worth £190 million over three years—is already encouraging wider participation in higher education, and is focused on areas of deprivation, many of which have particularly low participation rates in further and higher education. The joint initiative by the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Learning and Skills Council, which will be launched in April 2003, also aims to encourage progression in each region.

    We will be publishing our review of higher education shortly, which will reflect our commitment to widening participation.
    468W
    John McDonnell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will commission an assessment of the likely impact of the General Agreement in Trade and Services on higher education. [88943]

    Margaret Hodge
    Work is already taking place to consider the impact should we decide to make any offers of further commitments in education services under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). No such decisions have been taken. The Department for Trade and Industry (DTI), which has the UK lead on the GATS, has recently concluded a public consultation on all aspects of the current round of negotiations. The consultation document was produced with input from the Department for Education and Skills and the Devolved Administrations. Close liaison over the education services sector within the GATS will continue throughout the negotiations. The consultation document noted that many of the principal suppliers of publicly funded higher education in the UK also engage in some commercial activity, and that the Government are reflecting carefully on any GATS implications that the current structure may give rise to.

    Officials in my Department have also consulted directly with Universities UK, the Association of University Teachers and the National Union of Students to take their views and encourage them, and other higher education sector organisations across the UK, to respond to the public consultation.

    Language Assistants
    Mr. Brady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many language assistants are currently employed in maintained private schools. [89329]

    Mr. Miliband
    [holding answer 7 January 2003]: Information on non-teaching staff in independent schools is not collected centrally.

    Language Teaching
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what choices first to third year pupils at secondary school and those at GCSE level have as to the languages they wish to learn; which languages are compulsory; and how long these are taught for. [87368]

    Mr. Miliband
    The National Curriculum currently states that secondary schools must offer, in key stages 3 and 4, one or more of the official working languages of the European Union. Only when they have met this condition may they offer non-EU languages. Within this requirement, it is for schools to decide which and how many languages they choose to offer.

    However, as we announced in our Languages Strategy, published on 18 December 2002, we intend to amend the statutory requirement at key stage 4 so that schools will no longer be required to teach modern foreign languages to all pupils. All schools will be required to ensure that they are available to any pupil wishing to study them.

    National Director for Languages
    Mr. Brady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the job description for the National Director for Languages will be.; when the appointment will be made; and what resources will be allocated to the National Director. [89327]

    Margaret Hodge
    The National Director for Languages post has yet to be advertised but we expect the successful candidate to take up post by September 2003. The National Director will, by 2005–06, have financial resources of £10 million per annum to deliver the numerous initiatives detailed in our strategy document.

    Public Education
    Mr. Challen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what areas of public education are supplied in competition with the private sector. [88592]

    Mr. Miliband
    There are many areas of public education that are supplied by both the public and private sectors. They range from basic schooling, where there are 2,190 independent schools in England, to the provision of education services such as curriculum services, IT support, school transport and support for failing schools.

    School Funding (Kent)
    Jonathan Shaw
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pre-school places the Government funded in Medway in(a) 1996 and (b) 2002; and what the change in cost is. [87729]

    Mr. Miliband
    The available information relates to early years places for three and four-year-olds and is shown in the table.

    Nursery Education Grant (NEG) funding for early years places for four-year-olds was introduced in 1996–97; the NEG rate was £1,100 per place. Places in the private, voluntary and independent sectors were eligible for NEG funding. Standard Spending Assessment (SSa) funding for early years places for four-year-olds was introduced and replaced NEG funding in 2001–02; the SSA rate was £2,341 per place in maintained nursery and primary schools and £1,188 per place in the private, voluntary and independent sectors.

    (Percentages)

    1997–19981

    1998–19991

    1999–20002

    Full-time

    Part-time3

    Full-time

    Part-time3

    Full-time

    Part-time3

    North East

    15.0

    36.0

    11.4

    31.4

    11.6

    31.4

    North West

    15.4

    33.6

    11.4

    29.0

    13.2

    30.3

    Yorkshire and The Humber

    16.1

    31.8

    11.4

    26.2

    13.0

    27.7

    East Midlands

    14.9

    33.6

    13.5

    30.1

    14.6

    31.3

    West Midlands

    15.2

    32.2

    13.8

    32.3

    14.1

    32.9

    East of England

    16.3

    32.8

    15.8

    32.7

    16.7

    33.7

    London

    20.1

    31.0

    18.4

    27.2

    19.7

    28.8

    of which:

    inner London

    22.3

    34.1

    19.3

    28.8

    21.3

    30.3

    outer London

    18.9

    29.6

    18.1

    26.4

    18.8

    28.1

    470W
    NEG funding of free early years places for three-year-olds was introduced in 1999–2000; for 2001–02, the NEG rate was £1,188 per place. Places in the private, voluntary and independent sectors were eligible for NEG funding.

    In 1996–97, Medway received £3.3 million to fund early years places for four-year-olds. In 2001–02, Medway received £6.6 million to fund early years places for four-year-olds and £2.6 million to fund early years places for three-year-olds. Total funding of early years places increased by £5.9 million, from £3.3 million in 1996–97 to £9.2 million in 2001–02.

    Number of three and four-year-olds taking up free early education places, January 1997 and 2002

    Medway2

    1997

    3-year-olds

    Maintained nursery and primary schools1

    310

    Other maintained and private, voluntary and independent providers

    n/a

    4-year-olds

    3,000

    Total 3 and 4-year olds4

    3,300

    2002

    3-year-olds

    Maintained nursery and primary schools1

    390

    Other maintained and private, voluntary and independent providers3

    2,200

    4-year-olds

    Maintained nursery and primary schools1

    2,400

    Other maintained and private, voluntary and independent providers3

    860

    Total 4-year-olds

    3,300

    Total 3 and 4-year-olds

    5,900

    1 Headcount of children at 31 December in the previous calendar year, from the Annual Schools' Census.

    2 Local Government re-organisation established Medway as a local authority in 1998; figures for 1997 were obtained by apportionment.

    3 Part-time equivalent number of children at 31 December in the previous calendar year, from the Nursery Education Grant data collection exercise.

    4 Summer term 1997.

    School Staff (Turnover Rates)
    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the staff turnover rates were in schools in England in each year since 1997, broken down by(a) local education authority and (b) Government Office region. [89296]

    Mr. Miliband
    Staff turnover rates are not available at Local Education Authority level.

    The staff turnover rates for schools in England by Government Office region are shown in the table.
    471W

    (Percentages)

    1997–19981

    1998–19991

    1999–20002

    Full-time

    Part-time3

    Full-time

    Part-time3

    Full-time

    Part-time3

    South East

    17.4

    32.7

    16.3

    31.7

    17.2

    32.1

    South West

    16.1

    32.5

    14.7

    30.2

    14.9

    32.0

    England

    16.5

    32.6

    14.3

    30.1

    15.3

    31.3

    1 Revised data.

    2 Provisional data.

    3 The figure excludes 10 per cent to 20 per cent. of part-time teachers not included on the teacher pension scheme records.

    Full-time turnover is defined as all teachers in full-time service in the English maintained schools sector on 31 March who were not in full-time service in the same establishment on 31 march the following year. Turnover therefore includes wastage, transfers to other establishments within the maintained schools sector and teachers leaving to part-time service. Not all employers record all movements between schools within their employ so rates are underestimated.

    Part-time turnover is defined as all teachers in part-time service in the English maintained schools sector on 31 March who were not in part-time service in the same establishment on 31 March the following year. Turnover therefore includes wastage, transfers to other establishments within the maintained schools sector and teachers leaving to full-time service. Not all employers record all movements between schools within their employ so rates are underestimated.

    School Standards
    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to run pilot schemes for plans contained in his Department's report "Time for Standards", to remove administrative and clerical tasks from teachers; and if he will publish the results of those pilots. [89305]

    Mr. Miliband
    On 4 January 2002 my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills announced the Transforming the School Workforce Pathfinder Project—which is working with 32 schools to explore new ways of working to tackle workload, including the use of support staff and ICT to relieve teachers of non-teaching tasks so that they can concentrate on their core teaching responsibilities. Lessons learnt from these projects will be shared with all schools. The project is being evaluated and a report will be published towards the end of 2003.

    As set out in "Time for Standards", we are seeking agreement with national partners on a range of contractual and other changes, including relieving teachers of administrative and clerical tasks.

    Schools (Earned Autonomy)
    Mr. Brady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he has taken towards awarding earned autonomy to schools; and which schools he proposes to be in the first tranche. [88882]

    Mr. Miliband
    We shortly expect to publish a consultation paper on the proposed criteria which schools should meet to qualify for earned autonomy. Until the outcome of consultation is known it is not possible to say which schools will be eligible.

    Schools (Specialist Status)
    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what changes have been made to the selection criteria for schools applying for specialist status since 1997. [89300]
    472W
    Mr. Miliband
    Apart from minor amendments, including those designed to clarify existing criteria, the changes made have been:

    a) schools are required to show how links with other schools and the wider community will be extended by achieving specialist status, through the production of a community plan.

    b) the sponsorship requirement has been reduced to 50,000; with a further reduction in the sponsorship requirement for mainstream schools with under 500 pupils.

    c) schools are asked to submit four year development plans (instead of three year plans).

    d) an introduction—and subsequent removal—of a limit on the proportion of specialist schools in an area.

    e) removal of the criterion relating to the proximity of other schools with the same specialism.

    f) priority for applicant schools in Excellence in Cities areas- which was rendered unnecessary by the 28 November 2002 announcement on the expansion of the programme. This announcement also made redundant other criteria relating to location.

    g) the exclusion of schools in Special Measures or with Serious Weaknesses from being able to attain specialist status.

    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the schools that have had their applications for specialist status turned down and the reasons their applications were turned down, in each year since 1997, broken down by(a) local education authority and (b)) category of specialism. [89301]

    Mr. Miliband
    Applicant schools seeking designation as a specialist school are assessed against published criteria. In the past, applicants were unsuccessful if they did not meet the meet the criteria or if their development plans were not as strong as other applicants in the same competition round. For the future, applicants will not be in competition for places, provided they meet the criteria.

    Copies of the full list of schools, broken down as requested, has been placed in the Libraries.

    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what criteria a secondary school has to fulfil to achieve specialist status. [89303]

    Mr. Miliband
    Any such school has to:(a) produce a four-year development plan demonstrating effectively how the school will raise standards in the relevant specialist subjects and across the whole school; (b) demonstrate effectively in the plan that links with

    473W
    other schools and the wider community will be extended through attaining the status; and (c) secure the required sponsorship.

    Standards Funds
    Dr. Pugh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total cash value in 2002–03 was of the standards funds programmes and specific grants which are to be abolished, as announced in the ministerial statement on 9 December. [88968]

    Mr. Miliband
    The total cash values, in 2002–03, being provided by DfES in respect of programmes that will cease to attract grant funding over the next three years is:

    £ million

    Programmes that will cease to attract grant funding in:

    Cash value provided in 2002–03

    2003–04

    736

    2004–05

    343

    2005–06

    696

    These sums are accumulative. They represent both programmes where the activities previously supported are scheduled to cease; and programmes where it will be for schools and LEAs to use part of the increases in Education Formula Spending for the next three years announced in the 2002 Spending Review, if they wish to continue all of the activities for which grant funding was provided in 2002–03.

    Alongside this, DfES will be transferring £500 million in 2003–04, £500 million in 2004–05 and £1,340 million in 2005–06 from its grant provision to Education Formula Spending. This transfer of resources to Education Formula Spending, and the associated cessation of ring-fenced grant support, demonstrate DfES' commitment to reduce the proportion of local authority funding provided as ring-fenced grant.

    Student Loans
    Mr. Pike
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to change the method of funding student loans and administration of student loans; and if he will make a statement. [88271]

    Margaret Hodge
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce the outcome of the review of student finance later this month. In addition, we are working with local education authorities and the Student Loans Company to modernise the administration of student support so that studentscan obtain financial help more easily and quickly.

    Terrorism
    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions his Department has had with each local education authority in England with regard to the provision of guidance for a possible terrorist attack. [89366]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    My Department continues to work closely with the Cabinet Office and Home Office on what additional advice local authorities and schools need in order to safeguard pupils, staff and property. Local 474W
    authorities, which have direct responsibility for contingency and emergency planning, will be able to use such advice to determine policy in their locality, including what should be said specifically to schools. To date, no local education authority has asked the Department about this. We have previously provided advice and guidance for authorities and schools collectively on school security generally (www.dfes.gov.uk/schoolsecurity), and specific guidance following the events of September 11 (www.dfes.gov.uk/septll guidance).

    Trainee Teachers
    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of teacher trainees left the profession permanently after(a) one year, (b) two years, (c) three years, (d) four years and (e) five years, in each of the last five years for which information is available. [89313]

    Mr. Miliband
    The information is not available in the form requested. The table shows the proportion of newly-qualified teachers who gained their teaching qualifications in England in the period 1996–2000 who were not in full- or part-time regular service in any sector1 in England on 31 March 2001:
    1 Teachers for which we have a record of being in service in the FE, HE or the independent schools sector are counted as being in service. However, some teachers who work in the FE, HE or independent sector are not included on the Teacher Pension Scheme records and so will be counted as not being in service in the table.

    Year qualified

    Percentage not in service on 31 March 2001

    1996

    29

    1997

    27

    1998

    25

    1999

    20

    20001

    23

    1 Numbers of completers in 2000 are provisional and may be revised upwards.

    The figures exclude 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. of part-time teachers not included on the Teacher Pension Scheme records.

    Some teachers who are recorded as not being in service may be teaching in Wales or in other countries. Others that are not currently in service may return after a career break.

    University Admission Standards
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer from the Prime Minister of 18 December 2002,Official Report, column 844, what the requisite standard for admission to university is. [89318]

    Margaret Hodge
    [holding answer 9 January 2003]: Admission to university is the responsibility of individual institutions, and each institution determines the requisite standards of entry to the courses it offers. Decisions taken by institutions should be made on the basis of merit, by judging the potential of the applicant to succeed on the course.

    University Degrees
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much Government money has been allocated towards funding university degrees in(a) fashion knitwear, (b) surf science, (c) football studies, (d) golf course studies and (e) jazz studies in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [87943]

    Margaret Hodge
    The Government allocates funding for higher education to the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Institutions receive funding from the Council as a block grant, calculated on the basis of the number of students who attended in previous years plus any extra student places awarded through the Additional Student Numbers exercise. It is for each institution to determine which courses it offers. They will clearly have regard to the demand as they will only receive funding for students they teach, not courses they run.

  PRIVY COUNCIL

    Members' Expenses
    David Winnick
    To ask the President of the Council above what amount claimed by an hon. Member for expenses, receipts and documentation is required; and if it is the policy to adopt best practice in this matter. [90421]

    Mr. Robin Cook
    The threshold at which documentation is required for Members' claims varies according to the allowance concerned. I am told that requirements for the main allowances are as follows:Incidental expenses provision: receipts or invoices required for each it em costing £250 or more;
    Additional costs allowance: documentation required for large items of expenditure;
    Members' travel: the Department of Finance and Administration generally pays the costs of rail and air tickets direct to the supplier, and Members who use their cars receive a mileage allowance. Members normally have to supply documentation if they buy a travel ticket from their own resources and then seek reimbursement, and must provide a detailed account if they claim for constituency mileage in excess of 350 miles per month.

    In addition, the Department of Finance and Administration may ask for additional information in individual cases if it is needed.

    State Opening
    David Winnick
    To ask the President of the Council what plans he has to modernise the Commons procedure relating to the state opening of Parliament. [89760]

    Mir. Robin Cook
    I have no such plans at present.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Children and Family Court (Support Service)
    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans the Lord Chancellor has to allow staff working for the children 476W
    and family court advisory and support service to be paid to work at weekends and to be given travel allowance. [89685]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    None. The chief executive of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) is responsible for the day to day operation of the service.

    Under their contractual terms, CAFCASS staff are expected to tailor their work to the needs of each individual case. This may involve working some unsocial hours including weekends, for which staff are able to claim appropriate expenses, including travel allowances; and are either paid for planned overtime agreed with their manager, or are granted time off in lieu to cover working additional hours.

    Legal Services Commission
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the regional offices of the Legal Services Commission, stating for each(a) the complement of staff and (b) the number of vacancies at the most recent date for which information is available. [89561]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The regional offices of the Legal Services Commission are located as follows, covering the regions denoted in brackets: London (London), Brighton and Reading (south-east), Bristol (south western), Cardiff (Wales), Birmingham (west midlands), Manchester (north western), Newcastle (north-east), Leeds (Yorkshire and Humberside), Nottingham (east midlands), Cambridge (eastern) and Liverpool (Merseyside).

    The complement of permanent staff for each regional office, as of November 2002 and number of vacancies as of 12 December 2002 were as follows:

    Office

    Staff

    Vacancies

    London

    201

    6

    Brighton and Reading

    115

    13

    Bristol

    76

    5

    Cardiff

    68

    6

    Birmingham

    87

    0

    Manchester

    98

    0

    Newcastle

    85

    7

    Leeds

    83

    0

    Nottingham

    115

    0

    Cambridge

    75

    1

    Liverpool

    68

    0

    The commission also has a processing centre in Chester, which employed 47 permanent staff as of November 2002.

    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on what basis decisions were made on the location of Legal Services Commission offices; and what population number is served by each office. [89562]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The locations of the individual offices of the Legal Services Commission are for the commission to determine. Offices are, in general, located in either the major town or city in each region as
    477W
    detailed in the table. The number, location and size of the regional offices have been reviewed on several occasions, most recently in August 1998.

    With the exception of the head office buildings in London, each of the commission's offices is sited within a region (locations denoted in brackets next to the regions in the table). In England, the commission's regional boundaries match those of the Government Offices for the English Regions, with the exception of Merseyside for which there is no separate Government Office. The commission also has an office covering Wales.

    Based on figures from the 2001 census, the population numbers served by each region and Wales, are as follows:

    Number

    East Midlands (Nottingham)

    4,172,179

    Eastern (Cambridge)

    5,388,154

    London (London)

    7,172,036

    Merseyside (Liverpool)

    1,362,034

    North East (Newcastle)

    2,515,479

    North Western (Manchester)

    5,367,766

    South East (Brighton and Reading)

    8,000,550

    South Western (Bristol)

    4,928,458

    West Midlands (Birmingham)

    5,267,337

    Yorkshire and Humberside (Leeds)

    4,964,838

    Wales (Cardiff)

    2,903,085

  HEALTH

    Waiting Times
    Dr. Evan Harris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients waited(a) over four hours, (b) between two and four hours and (c) under two hours in accident and emergency departments in (i) England and (ii) each NHS region in each quarter since the first quarter of 1996–97. [84970]

    Mr. Lammy
    The Department collects data on total time in accident and emergency from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge. This information has been collected since August 2001 and the first full set of data was published in Quarter 2,2002–03. It is available on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity.

    NHS funded abortions by health authority 1997 of residence, England and 1998 Wales 1997–2001

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    Avon

    2,110

    2,231

    2,198

    2,083

    1,957

    Barking and Havering

    871

    1,115

    1,068

    1,101

    1,428

    Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

    2,736

    3,369

    3,329

    3,303

    3,185

    Barnsley

    334

    455

    421

    426

    364

    Bedfordshire

    1,476

    1,467

    1,538

    1,481

    1,538

    Berkshire

    1,440

    1,429

    1,548

    1,641

    1,885

    Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

    1,979

    2,078

    2,093

    2,123

    2,465

    Birmingham

    2,811

    2,824

    2,903

    3,348

    3,426

    Bradford

    1,035

    1,046

    1,016

    1,013

    1,054

    Brent and Harrow

    2,723

    2,781

    2,734

    2,804

    2,859

    Buckinghamshire

    1,378

    1,486

    1,482

    1,538

    1,644

    Bury and Rochdale

    718

    694

    621

    784

    761

    Calderdale and Kirklees

    1,272

    1,295

    1,260

    1,288

    1,180

    Cambridge and Huntingdon1

    1,008

    988

    —

    —

    —

    Cambridgeshire1

    —

    —

    1,509

    1,495

    1,514

    Camden and Islington

    2,189

    2,343

    2,151

    2,162

    2,129

    478W
    In Quarter 2,2002–03,23 per cent. of patients waited over four hours in accident and emergency departments in England.

    The Department does not collect information on between two and four hour and under two hour waits for total time in accident and emergency.

    Response Times
    Dr. Evan Harris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the response times against target for category A, B, and C calls in each ambulance trust in the last reporting period. [86025]

    Mr. Lammy
    The latest information available about the proportion of Category A, B and C emergency calls resulting in an ambulance arriving at the scene of the reported incident within the Government's target response times for all ambulance trusts is contained in the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin, Ambulance Services, England 2001–02. A copy of the bulletin is available in the Library and also at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0213.htm.

    A and E Transport
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hours of accident and emergency transport were provided by each NHS ambulance trust in each(a) region and (b) health authority in each year since 1997. [89787]

    Mr. Lammy
    This information is not collected centrally.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hours of accident and emergency transport were provided by S. John Ambulance in each(a) region and (b) NHS ambulance trust in each year since 1997. [89788]

    Mr. Lammy
    This information is not collected centrally.

    Abortions
    Sandra Gidley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS funded abortions there were in each health authority in England and Wales in each of the last five years. [89121]

    Ms Blears
    The information requested is shown in the table by health authority.
    479W

    NHSfunded abortions by health authority of residence, England and Wales 1997–2001

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

    924

    946

    998

    938

    962

    County Durham

    1,322

    1,310

    1,151

    1,163

    1,127

    Coventry

    1,308

    1,294

    1,202

    1,439

    1,458

    Croydon

    1,388

    1,609

    1,329

    1,430

    1,587

    Doncaster

    696

    746

    810

    757

    768

    Dorset

    1,074

    1,113

    1,043

    960

    1,006

    Dudley

    582

    649

    565

    622

    681

    Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

    2,827

    2,793

    2,674

    2,786

    2,737

    East Kent

    843

    873

    941

    1,226

    1,399

    East Lancashire

    1,173

    1,225

    1,257

    1,304

    1,197

    East London and The City

    3,402

    3,667

    3,728

    3,995

    3,979

    East Norfolk1

    1,278

    1,349

    —

    —

    —

    East Riding

    1,368

    1,424

    1,364

    1,348

    1,303

    East Surrey

    765

    722

    753

    786

    866

    East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

    1,242

    1,280

    1,599

    1,450

    1,537

    Gateshead and South Tyneside

    799

    761

    111

    747

    706

    Gloucestershire

    1,221

    1,260

    1,214

    1,162

    1,274

    Herefordshire

    310

    357

    341

    345

    339

    Hertfordshire

    1,882

    2,210

    2,086

    2,180

    2,190

    Hillingdon

    737

    792

    803

    842

    894

    Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and south east

    1,584

    1,620

    1,532

    1,5826

    1,566

    Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

    2,103

    2,054

    1,816

    1,780

    1,753

    Kingston and Richmond

    665

    712

    624

    639

    621

    Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

    4,744

    5,716

    5,443

    5,689

    5,766

    Leeds

    1,918

    1,835

    1,720

    1,849

    1,718

    Leicestershire

    2,080

    2,390

    2,321

    2,275

    2,237

    Lincolnshire

    1,149

    1,267

    271

    1,209

    1,196

    Liverpool

    1,597

    1,639

    1,562

    1,414

    1,376

    Manchester

    1,247

    1,282

    1,406

    1,877

    1,851

    Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

    2,312

    2,373

    2,235

    2,219

    2.150

    Morecambe Bay

    621

    636

    595

    572

    586

    Newcastle and North Tyneside

    1,397

    1,415

    1,443

    1,408

    1,357

    Norfolk1

    —

    —

    1,567

    1,572

    1,650

    North and East Devon

    1,021

    972

    937

    869

    929

    North and Mid Hampshire

    611

    659

    661

    763

    945

    North Cheshire

    855

    810

    806

    798

    825

    North Cumbria

    715

    753

    712

    710

    720

    North Derbyshire

    717

    793

    713

    708

    711

    North Essex

    1,430

    1,837

    1,650

    1,619

    1,595

    North Nottinghamshire

    747

    809

    726

    760

    734

    North Staffordshire

    775

    854

    776

    759

    785

    North West Anglia1

    684

    827

    —

    —

    —

    North West Lancashire

    584

    722

    632

    817

    929

    North Yorkshire

    1,405

    1,386

    1,266

    1,292

    1,263

    Northamptonshire

    1,170

    1,269

    1,267

    1,250

    1,341

    Northumberland

    673

    652

    635

    670

    642

    Nottingham

    1,413

    1,591

    1,600

    1,536

    1,608

    Oxfordshire

    1,622

    1,709

    1,543

    1,505

    1,516

    Redbridge and Waltham Forest

    1,110

    1,686

    1,292

    1,340

    1,696

    Rotherham

    529

    556

    590

    574

    569

    Salford and Trafford

    762

    735

    958

    1,069

    1,134

    Sandwell

    866

    888

    800

    883

    942

    Sefton

    593

    576

    567

    545

    591

    Sheffield

    1,416

    1,416

    1,354

    1,346

    1,416

    Shropshire

    712

    836

    823

    908

    857

    Solihull

    268

    249

    226

    325

    320

    Somerset

    906

    1,031

    983

    886

    928

    South and West Devon

    1,326

    1,254

    1,398

    1,403

    1,355

    South Cheshire

    1,404

    1,486

    1,356

    1,291

    1,316

    South Essex

    1,555

    1,741

    1,644

    1,676

    1,691

    South Humber

    772

    817

    875

    871

    792

    South Lancashire

    453

    444

    504

    488

    515

    South Staffordshire

    1,022

    1,095

    1,194

    1,267

    1,254

    Southampton and South West Hamps

    1,212

    1,201

    1,144

    1,123

    1,230

    Southern Derbyshire

    1,118

    1,188

    1,174

    1,141

    1,127

    St. Helens and Knowsley

    755

    804

    802

    756

    782

    Stockport

    596

    622

    612

    560

    659

    Suffolk

    1,245

    1,171

    1,277

    1,234

    1,272

    Sunderland

    771

    818

    787

    790

    772

    Tees

    1,226

    1,431

    1,444

    1,365

    1,331

    Wakefield

    567

    493

    430

    471

    564

    Walsall

    552

    555

    546

    545

    545

    Warwickshire

    1,443

    1,415

    1,284

    1,389

    1,417

    480W 481W

    NHS funded abortions by health authority of residence, England and Wales 1997–2001

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    West Kent

    1,922

    2,295

    2,261

    2,281

    2,448

    West Pennine

    879

    872

    809

    1,069

    1,211

    West Surrey

    1,321

    1,377

    1,374

    1,418

    1,435

    West Sussex

    1,053

    1,119

    1,100

    1,194

    1,280

    Wigan and Bolton

    1,062

    1,130

    1,119

    1,182

    1,160

    Wiltshire

    787

    891

    886

    982

    1,117

    Wirral

    765

    858

    803

    845

    815

    Wolverhampton

    478

    510

    455

    578

    757

    Worcestershire

    946

    1,051

    900

    1,067

    1,044

    Bro Taf

    1,507

    1,602

    1,573

    1,620

    1,660

    Dyfed Powys

    876

    954

    949

    915

    973

    Gwent

    1,228

    1,372

    1,310

    1,271

    1,285

    Morgannwg

    1,225

    1,200

    1,183

    1,210

    1,110

    North Wales

    1,598

    1,598

    1,512

    1,441

    1,472

    Total

    123,886

    131,900

    128,258

    131,474

    134,611

    1 A time series is not possible for these health authorities as there were boundary changes between 1997 and 2001.

    Note:

    Prepared by Statistics Division 3G, Department of Health.

    Accreditation
    Mr. Mark Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department is doing to support the Government's policy on accreditation.[88089]

    Mr. Lammy
    The United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) is recognised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry as the sole national body for the accreditation, against international standards, of certification and inspection bodies, testing and calibration laboratories. The Department uses UKAS accreditation services whenever it is appropriate to do so.

    Clinical Pathology Accreditation (UK) Ltd. (CPA) accredits the majority of national health service pathology laboratories, and has a Council partnership and a Memorandum of Understanding with UKAS.

    Active Care
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints the NHS has receivedin the past 12 months about lack of active care for people suffering from delayed discharges from acute hospitals.[88760]

    Mr. Lammy
    Data on the number of national health service complaints made each year are set out in the Department of Health publication "Handling complaints: monitoring the NHS complaints procedures". Due to the diverse range of issues for which complaints may be made under the NHS complaints procedures it is not possible to provide the information requested.

    Alcohol and Drug Rehabilitation
    Mr. Battle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many alcohol and drug rehabilitation places are available on the NHS in the Leeds Strategic Area Health Authority; and if he will make a statement.[83474]

    Jacqui Smith
    I refer my hon. Friend to the response I gave to him on Thursday 12 December 2002, Official Report, vol. 396, col. 492W.
    482W

    Alcohol Strategy
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the consultation document on the Government's alcohol strategy.[88767]

    Ms Blears
    The Department of Health and the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit published the national alcohol harm reduction strategy consultation document on 15 October 2002. Copies of the document can be obtained from the following web addresses: www. strateqv.gov.uk/2002/alcohol/consultationdoc.shtml, or www.doh.qov.uk/alcohol/alcoholstrategv.htm.

    The consultation period runs until 15 January 2003.

    Automated Defibrillators
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new automated defibrillators have been sited in public places since April 2000.[88748]

    Ms Blears
    680 automated external defibrillators have been installed at a total of 110 sites across England.

    Breast Cancer
    Mrs. Calton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research projects focusing on(a) the link between physical activity and the development of breast cancer,(b) diet and the development of breast cancer and (c) breast cancer prevention his Department is funding;and if he will make a statement. [88716]

    Ms Blears
    The Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its funding from the Department of Trade and Industry via the Office of Science and Technology, is the main agency through which the Government supports research on the causes and treatments of disease, including all types of cancer. The Department of Health contributes to the strategies and priorities of the MRC by meeting the national health service costs of the MRC's research (and of charity funded research). The Department also directly funds research to support policy development in health and social care, and to support effective practice in the NHS.
    483W
    In terms of directly funded research, the Department's main focus is on interventions to promote healthy living, including diet and physical exercise, and on research on breast cancer screening. For example, the Department is funding research projects with the following titles:
    A health impact assessment of agricultural policy, using the impact on fruit and vegetable consumption as a case study;
    Reducing inequalities in health and diet: the impact of a food retail development—a pilot study;
    Field co-ordination in health promotion linked to the Cochrane Collaboration.

    The Department also funds a programme of work at the cancer screening evaluation unit, which evaluates the effectiveness of screening. Part of this programme includes work on breast cancer screening. There are plans for an observational individual-based study of the efficacy of the breast screening programme. The Department provides joint funding for the age trial, on the effect on breast cancer mortality of annual screening from age 40.

    Over 75 per cent, of the Department's total expenditure on all health research, including on cancer, is devolved to NHS organisations and details are not routinely collected centrally. Summary information about this research is available on the national research register, which is on the web at www.doh.gov.uk/ research.

    The Department is a member of the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI). The recent NCRI report "Strategic Analysis 2002" analysed most of the directly funded research of Government and charity funders. The analyses revealed relatively low sums spent on cancer prevention, which has prompted the NCRI to set up a strategic planning group to look at this area to see what further research may be possible and what extra resources might be needed to bring this about. The Department will be working in partnership with its Government and charity cancer research funding partners to take this work forward.

    Building Capacity Grants
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library his Department's evaluation of the uses to which the(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03 building capacity grants have been put.[88563]

    Jacqui Smith
    How councils spent the grant in 2001–02 is shown in the table. Councils have not yet reported for 2002–03. The funding allocated to councils will provide for a continued reduction in the number of delayed discharges from hospitals, so that 20 per cent, fewer beds are blocked in March 2003 compared to March 2002.

    Percentage of building care capacity grant 2001–02 spent

    Area of spend

    Councils targeted for extra help

    Other Councils

    Residential/nursing care placements

    32

    52

    Intensive home care packages

    16

    18

    Increased fees

    20

    16

    Improved assessment/capacity processes

    14

    2

    484W

    Percentage of building care capacity grant 2001–02 spent

    Area of spend

    Councils targeted for extra help

    Other Councils

    Preventative services1

    10

    —

    Community equipment1

    —

    5

    Other (including community equipment1

    8

    —

    Other (including preventative services)1

    —

    7

    1 Information was collected on a differential basisin two separate exercises

    Chest Pain Clinic
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many primary care trust areas have a rapid access chest pain clinic within their areas.[88751]

    Ms Blears
    Rapid access chest pain clinics are a service provided by acute hospital trusts. Information on numbers of clinics by primary care trust areas is not collected centrally, but every general practitioner in England should be able to refer their patients to a rapid access chest pain clinic.

    Children's Nurses
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children's nurses there were in the(a)Adur, Arun and Worthing Primary Care Trust and(b) Worthing and Southlands Hosptial Trust in eachyear since 1997.[89356]

    Ms Blears
    The information requested for Worthing and Southlands Hospitals National Health Service Trust is shown in the table.

    NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS):

    Qualified nursing staff within the Paediatric nursing area of workin Worthing and Southlands Hospitals NHS Trust as at30 September each year

    Whole-time

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    Total qualified staff

    27

    32

    42

    43

    38

    Headcount

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    Total qualified staff

    36

    46

    53

    60

    50

    Notes

    1.Figures are rounded to the nearest whole number.

    2.Figures exclude learners and agency staff.

    Source

    Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

    Information is not available centrally on the number of children's nurses employed by Adur, Arun and Worthing Primary Care Trust.

    Children's Vision
    Mr. Amess
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what programmes have been initiated by his Department to(a) promote early detection of specific ophthalmic conditions in children and (b) monitor their visual development; and what evaluation has been carriedout as to the benefits of such programmes; [88894]

    (2) what estimate he has made of the percentage of children between infancy and primary school age who have undetected vision problems; [88895]
    485W
    (3) whether it is his Department's policy that identification of visual defects between infancy and primary school age should rely on (a) parental concern and (b) professional awareness; [88897]

    (4) what recent representations he has received on the issue of children's vision screening; [88898]

    (5) if he will make a statement on how and when he plans to implement universal vision screening for children aged between four and five in England; [88899]

    (6) what assessment he has made of the likely impact of ceasing screening for vision problems in children between infancy and primary school age. [88896]

    Jacqui Smith
    Many cases of visual defect are detected by parents or family members, others by health professionals in the course of a physical examination. We value and support both approaches. The personal child health record and the "Birth to Five" manual of child health, given to parents around the time of birth, promote the former approach. Programmes of health and development screening checks undertaken by local primary health care teams promote the latter. The purpose of the screening programme is to maximise every child's opportunity to realise their full potential for health, well being and development, and to ensure that remediable disorders are identified and acted upon as early as possible. Local programmes are a matter for primary care trusts to determine and monitor, in accordance with professional advice. This will include the content of and optimal timing for vision screening checks undertaken in childhood and the relative benefits of eye checks between infancy and primary school. I have not received recent representations on this subject but expect there to be active debate during preparation of the national service framework for children, which will set standards aimed at raising the quality of the health and social care services that children receive.

    Coronary Care
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been waiting more than 12 months for(a) revascularisation and (b) heart surgery. [88755]

    Ms Blears
    At the end of September 2002, two patients had waited more than 12 months for revascularisation. Both patients have now been treated. Equivalent figures for heart surgery are not collected in this way but 2001–02 Hospital Episode Statistics suggest a mean waiting time of 124 days for all cardiothoracic surgery.

    Drug Treatment
    John Mann
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce compulsory(a) methadone and (b) diamorphine prescription training for general practitioners. [88964]

    Ms Blears
    The Clinical Guidelines, Drug Misuse and Dependence— Guidelines on Clinical Management (1999) clearly outline the role of general practitioners (GPs) in prescribing to drug users. These guidelines are supported by training for GPs. The Royal College of 486W
    General Practitioners has, with Department funding, developed a certificate in drug misuse for primary care practitioners, aimed at accrediting GPs.

    E Coli
    John McDonnell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the labelling and cooking instructions for products which may be susceptible to infection by E coli-0157. [88989]

    Ms Blears
    The Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food has advised on the provision of appropriate instructions for products like raw minced beef, raw minced beef products, and beefburgers. This advice is already incorporated in guidance notes to the Food LabellingRegulations and makes clear that such products should be cooked right through so the juices run clear and are not pink inside.

    Electronic Patient Records
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS trusts in the south east have introduced electronic patient records. [88517]

    Mr. Lammy
    [holding answer 7 January 2003]: All national health service trusts in the south east are in the process of introducing electronic patient records.

    Farmed Salmon
    Mr. Greg Knight
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health[pursuant to the Answer of 9 December 2002, Official Report, column 23W], if he will publish the advice from independent experts when it is received. [88667]

    Ms Blears
    The Food Standards Agency will publish the advice when received from independent experts on the paper it is preparing on the consumption of fish.

    Food Hygiene
    Mrs. Calton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been spent on the Food Standards Agency's food hygiene campaign; and how much money has been allocated for the campaign over the next five years. [88720]

    Ms Blears
    As part of the Food Standards Agency's remit to cut food borne disease by 20 per cent. by 2006, £4.1 million was spent in 2001–02 and £4.9 million in 2002–03. There is currently an allocation of £4 million per year for the next three years.

    Foundation Hospitals
    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the independent regulator for NHS foundation hospitals will be appointed. [87893]

    Mr. Hutton
    The position is explained in paragraph 3.28 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts". Details will be included in forthcoming legislation.

    Mr. Kevin Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he estimates foundation hospital status will improve acute services for NHS patients. [88288]
    487W
    Mr. Hutton
    National health service foundation trusts will have the freedom to develop new ways of working that reflect local needs and priorities, within a framework of NHS standards and inspection to guard against two tier health care and protect NHS patients. This new localism is the key to improving the responsiveness of services to local NHS patients.

    Mr. Kevin Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it will be possible for foundation hospitals to withdraw from provision of health services that they deem not to be profitable. [88289]

    Mr. Hutton
    The position is set out in paragraphs 3.10–3.12 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts". Details will be set out in forthcoming legislation.

    Mr. Kevin Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there will be restrictions on foundation hospitals providing services other than health-related ones. [88290]

    Mr. Hutton
    National health service foundation trusts will be bound by legislation to have a primary purpose of providing health related services for the benefit of NHS patients and the community (paragraph 1.20 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts"). Activities undertaken by a NHS foundation trust will be limited to those that are conducive to and not detrimental to achievement of the primary purpose (paragraph 3.5 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts").

    Mr. Kevin Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the potential change in transaction and legal costs resulting from the legally binding contracts proposed for foundation hospitals. [88291]

    Mr. Hutton
    The introduction of legally binding agreements for National Health Service foundation trusts takes place alongside a move to payment by results based on a national tariff across the NHS, which is designed to reduce transaction costs. The number of NHS foundation trusts will also affect the costs.

    Mr. Kevin Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what protection he will put in place to ensure that legal and professional fees to support the new legal framework for foundation hospitals do not affect the provision of frontline health care. [88292]

    Mr. Hutton
    The Department of Health will provide support for primary care trusts and other commissioners and national health service foundation trust applicants to develop competency in negotiating and framing legally binding contracts. This will include the production of a template legally binding agreement (paragraph 4.12 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts").

    Mr. Kevin Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether foundation hospitals will be permitted to dispose of assets. [88293]

    Mr. Hutton
    The position is set out in paragraphs 3.18–3.19 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts".

    Mr. Kevin Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that primary care trusts are involved in negotiations when foundation hospitals are 488W
    seeking to raise capital independent of the NHS so that PCTs can be aware of the potential revenue implications. [88294]

    Mr. Hutton
    National Health Service foundation trusts will have freedom to borrow from the public or private sectors primarily on the strength of their cash flows. These will depend on the levels of activity that they agree to provide under longer term binding agreements with primary care trusts. The cost of NHS services provided in facilities funded by private borrowing will be governed by the national tariff for NHS services, not by the cost of associated debt.

    Mr. Kevin Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of how foundation hospital trust status will affect the way that primary care trusts deliver the modernisation programme within the NHS. [88295]

    Mr. Hutton
    National health service foundation trusts will be at the cutting edge of the programme of reform that supports modernisation of the NHS. Freed from detailed performance management and with the opportunity to concentrate on results that matter for local people, NHS foundation trusts will contribute to the delivery of primary care trust modernisation programmes.

    Mr. Kevin Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he will take if foundation hospitals fail to work in partnership with primary care trusts and social services to deliver improvements in health and social well-being. [88296]

    Mr. Hutton
    It will be for the independent regulator to decide whether and how to intervene, using a range of powers to be set out in forthcoming legislation (see paragraphs 3.34–3.38 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts").

    Mr. Kevin Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he will take if a foundation hospital fails(a) financially and (b) to meet targets for service provision. [88297]

    Mr. Hutton
    It will be for the independent regulator to decide whether and how to intervene, using a range of powers to be set out in forthcoming legislation (paragraphs 3.34–3.38 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts").

    Foundation Trusts
    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence will be required to demonstrate that local people support an application for foundation status. [87747]

    Mr. Hutton
    The position is set out in paragraph 7.11 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts".

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what requirements there will be for governors of NHS foundation trusts publicly to state their political allegiances. [87748]

    Mr. Hutton
    This will be a matter for national health service foundation trusts to decide.
    489W
    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what control NHS foundation trusts will have over changes in the level of accident and emergency facilities. [87749]

    Mr. Hutton
    The position is set out in paragraphs 3.10–3.12 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts". Details will be included in forthcoming legislation.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to paragraph 1.41 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts", what sorts of organisations could become NHS foundation trusts. [87751]

    Mr. Hutton
    The position is set out in paragraph 7.3 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts".

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what freedom there will be for NHS foundation trusts to vary pay and conditions for clinical staff outside the Agenda for Change Agreement. [87752]

    Mr. Hutton
    The position is set out in paragraphs 6.1–6.7 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts". Details will be set out in forthcoming legislation.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if boards of governors of a NHS foundation trust will be able to remove members of a management board. [87774]

    Mr. Hutton
    New legislation will set out the provisions for both appointment and dismissal of members of the management board.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will determine whether(a) a chair and (b) a non-executive director of a management board of a NHS foundation trust meets criteria laid down by the independent regulator; and what will happen if a person is elected as (i) a chair and (ii) a non-executive director but does not meet those criteria. [87777]

    Mr. Hutton
    A national health service foundation trust will set its own criteria for elections of these individuals taking into account guidance from the independent regulator and statutory requirements. A person who does not meet the NHS foundation trust's criteria would not be eligible for election.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there will be a mechanism for appeal against a decision of the independent regulator on matters relating to NHS foundation trusts. [87780]

    Mr. Hutton
    Arrangements will be set out in forthcoming legislation.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will have a power of direction over the independent regulator for NHS foundation trusts. [87781]

    Mr. Hutton
    No.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his statement of 11 December 2002,Official Report column, 272, if he will make a statement on the meaning of creation of a legal lock on the assets of NHS foundation trusts. [87782]
    490W
    Mr. Hutton
    National health service foundation trusts will be prevented from selling and distributing assets necessary for the continued provision of essential services.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has made of the costs to a NHS foundation trust of(a) setting up and (b) administering a membership register. [87783]

    Mr. Hutton
    The Department of Health will work with second stage applicants to prepare for formal establishment, including practical support to develop the new governance arrangements.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether local authorities will be able to appoint members to the board of governors of an NHS foundation trust. [87787]

    Mr. Hutton
    The constitution of a national health service foundation trust will set out the arrangements for appointing representatives of partner organisations to the board of governors. The minimum requirements are set out in paragraph 2.17 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts". As explained in paragraphs 2.17–2.23 there will be flexibility for each NHS foundation trust to decide whether to include other partner organisations, including local authority social service departments.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the costs of setting up an Independent Regulator for NHS foundation trusts. [87788]

    Mr. Hutton
    Costs will depend on the roles and responsibilities of the Independent Regulator, which will be set out in forthcoming legislation and on the number of national health service foundation trusts.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether it is his policy that borrowing by an NHS foundation trust from the private sector may be guaranteed by(a) the Secretary of State for Health, (b) strategic health authorities, (c) primary care trusts and (d) other bodies within the NHS. [87789]

    Mr. Hutton
    The regime for managing financial failure in national health service foundation trusts will safeguard the Secretary of State's overriding priority—that NHS patients continue to have access to the health care they need, free at the point of delivery. The regime will not underwrite institutions that have failed to deliver under the terms of their service agreements and/or licence.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether an NHS foundation trust will be able to carry out work for NHS patients without charge. [87790]

    Mr. Hutton
    National health service foundation trusts will provide services that are free at the point of use according to clinical need, not the ability to pay.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if boards of governors of NHS foundation trusts will be able to take independent advice on matters, with particular reference to the requirement to advise the management board on the trust's forward plans. [87810]
    491W
    Mr. Hutton
    It is for the board of governors of each national health service foundation trust to determine what advice it requires in order to carry out its responsibilities. Any provision for allocation of resources to the board of governors will be determined by the NHS foundation trust's constitution.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the policy of primary care trusts will need to be towards a foundation trust application to allow such an application to go forward; and which PCTs will be entitled to have their view considered. [87811]

    Mr. Hutton
    The position is set out in paragraph 7.11 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts". We will work with short-listed applicants to identify the relevant primary care trusts.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultation he has had with the Office for National Statistics about the classification of NHS foundation trusts in the national accounts; and what advice he received. [87812]

    Mr. Hutton
    None.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he defines suitable comfort in relation to private finance initiative schemes for NHS foundation trusts, as mentioned in paragraph 5.22 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts". [87813]

    Mr. Hutton
    For national health service trusts with existing private finance initiative (PFI) projects, suitable comfort means that legislation introducing NHS foundation trusts must not affect any new NHS foundation trust's ability to meet its obligations under its PFI contract. Legislation will also ensure that NHS foundation trusts, once created, will be able to sponsor their own PFI projects using the same legislative framework as NHS trusts.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether an NHS foundation trust may appear within the private sector in the national accounts. [87814]

    Mr. Hutton
    This is a matter for the Office for National Statistics.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Government will act as the lender of last resort for NHS foundation trusts if they are unable to borrow from private sector sources. [87815]

    Mr. Hutton
    The arrangements for borrowing by national health service foundation trusts are set out in paragraph 5.13–5.16 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts".

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there will be age criteria for membership of an NHS foundation trust. [87816]

    Mr. Hutton
    The criteria for membership are set out in paragraph 2.6 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts".

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the amounts due under private finance initiative contracts will be treated as borrowing for the purpose of the borrowing limits to be set for NHS foundation trusts. [87818]
    492W
    Mr. Hutton
    No. The contract with a private finance initiative project company is for a service, and as such, does not constitute borrowing.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether NHS foundation trusts will be able to transfer their existing assets as part of a private finance initiative transaction. [87819]

    Mr. Hutton
    National health service foundation trusts will continue to be able to procure capital schemes using the private finance initiative process, subject to the same degree of oversight as applies under current arrangements.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether NHS foundation trusts will be able to carry out work for private patients through the medium of(a) subsidiary companies and (b) public private partnership arrangements. [87820]

    Mr. Hutton
    Subject to compliance with licence conditions explained in paragraph 3.14–3.15 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts", national health service foundation trusts will be able to carry out work for private patients through a range of corporate arrangements.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether membership of an NHS foundation trust will be available to persons who live in(a) Scotland and (b) Wales. [87821]

    Mr. Hutton
    Subject to legislation, membership will be open to residents in Scotland and Wales if they meet the eligibility criteria set by a national health service foundation trust.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what freedom the Independent Regulator will have to interpret the terms(a) 'NHS standards' and (b) 'NHS values' when deciding to (i) issue and (ii) monitor NHS foundation trust licences. [87822]

    Mr. Hutton
    The role and responsibilities of the Independent Regulator will be set out in forthcoming legislation.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision there will be for the elections to boards of governors of NHS foundation trusts. [87823]

    Mr. Hutton
    The position is set out in paragraphs 2.25–2.28 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts". Details will be included in forthcoming legislation.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will assume control of a foundation trust which is dissolved; and how services will continue to be provided in that case. [87824]

    Mr. Hutton
    The position is set out in paragraph 3.38 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts". Details will be included in forthcoming legislation.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health from when care trusts will be eligible for establishment as NHS foundation trusts. [87825]

    Mr. Hutton
    The position is set out in paragraph 7.3 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts".
    493W
    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if a person will need to be on the electoral register in order to register as a member of an NHS foundation trust. [87826]

    Mr. Hutton
    The criteria for membership are set out in paragraph 2.6 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts".

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will draw up each foundation trust's statement of purpose; what legal status a statement will have; and what powers the Secretary of State will have to alter such statements. [87827]

    Mr. Hutton
    Details will be set out in each national health service foundation trust's constitution subject to requirements in forthcoming legislation (see paragraph 3.5 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts"). The Secretary of State will have no power to alter a NHS foundation trust's statement of purpose.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what definition he uses of the term protection of the public interest in paragraph 1.16 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts". [87828]

    Mr. Hutton
    Protecting the public interest in this context refers to safeguards that will ensure the continued provision of essential public services and prevent distribution of the assets necessary for the continued provision of those services.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether an NHS foundation trust will be able to invest surplus financial assets as it wishes. [87877]

    Mr. Hutton
    The position is explained in paragraph 3.5 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts". Details will be set out in forthcoming legislation.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the prudential code referred to in paragraph 5.17 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts". [87878]

    Mr. Hutton
    The position is set out in paragraph 3.17 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts".

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the willingness of the private sector to lend money for capital projects to NHS foundation trusts in the absence of security on the related assets. [87879]

    Mr. Hutton
    There has been widespread consultation with the financial community throughout the development of the national health service foundation trust policy. Lenders are not looking to take security over assets crucial to the provision of essential public services. NHS foundation trusts will borrow primarily on the strength of their projected cash flows.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the strict limits on the provision by NHS foundation hospitals of services to private patients referred to in paragraph 3.4 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts" will be defined; and whether it will be possible for an NHS foundation hospital to apply for a revision to the limits. [87889]
    494W
    Mr. Hutton
    The position is set out in paragraph 3.15 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts". The limit will not be subject to revision. Details will be included in forthcoming legislation.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what calculations he has made of the potential membership communities for NHS foundation hospitals situated in(a) London and (b) other large urban areas. [87890]

    Mr. Hutton
    The membership community will vary across national health service foundation trusts and it will be up to each applicant to set out boundaries on the basis of minimum criteria to be set out in forthcoming legislation.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if an NHS foundation trust will be required to charge standard tariffs for each area of its activity. [87894]

    Mr. Hutton
    The position is set out in paragraphs 5.6–5.12 and 5.25–5.29 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts".

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how it will be determined what portion of debt of an NHS trust is associated with particular assets that are transferred. [87895]

    Mr. Hutton
    The intention is that on establishment a national health service foundation trust will inherit the balance sheet of its predecessor NHS trust. Assets will be transferred at the value shown in the accounts of NHS trust.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health which council is referred to in paragraph 2.22 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts". [87896]

    Mr. Hutton
    The term "council" should read "board of governors".

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the statutory responsibilities of(a) member of a board of governors, (b) chair of a board of governors, (c) chair of a management board, (d) non-executive director of a management board and (e) executive member of a management board of an NHS foundation trust will be. [87897]

    Mr. Hutton
    The statutory responsibilities of these individuals will be set out in forthcoming legislation.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources will be available to boards of governors of NHS foundation hospitals to enable them to carry out their functions. [87898]

    Mr. Hutton
    Subject to legislation, this will be a matter for the national health service foundation trust to determine.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the level of(a) financial and (b) other resources available to the independent regulator for NHS foundation hospitals will be determined. [87899]

    Mr. Hutton
    Provision for the establishment of the independent regulator, including funding, will be set out in forthcoming legislation.
    495W
    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons NHS foundation trusts will not be able to use their regulated assets as security for borrowing. [87900]

    Mr. Hutton
    National health service foundation trusts will not be allowed to use their regulated assets as security against borrowing to ensure the continuity of essential services in the event of financial failure.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is meant by public interest mandate in paragraph 5.24 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts". [87901]

    Mr. Hutton
    Public interest mandate in this context refers to the public interest duties that will be enshrined in the licence of each national health service foundation trust that are described in paragraph 3.5 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts".

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what ways the independent regulator for NHS foundation trusts will he independent of the Secretary of State for Health. [87903]

    Mr. Hutton
    The independent regulator will not be subject to direction by the Secretary of State for Health.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his policy to ensure that the board of governors of a NHS foundation trust is not dominated by(a) a particular group of members and (b) a sectional interest. [87904]

    Mr. Hutton
    Yes, paragraphs 2.17–2.28 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts" set out clearly that national health service foundation trusts will need to establish a properly representative public and patient membership base and set up a board of governors that is balanced and representative of the whole membership community.

    Halal Foods
    Mr. Dhanda
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce legislation to regulate the sale of halal foods. [89027]

    Ms Blears
    There are no plans. However, the Food Standards Agency is about to issue advice to food law enforcement officers on halal food issues, and they will be asked to have regard to this advice and consider action under appropriate legislation where this is necessary.

    Health Provision
    Mr. Challen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what areas of public health provision are supplied in competition with the private sector. [88591]

    Ms Blears
    In general there is no competition between the private and public sector in the provision of public health. An occasional exception is the complementary provision of microbiological pathology laboratory services by the Public Health Laboratory Service and the National Health Service, where some private laboratories also provide analysis of food environmental and water samples. At local level it is for primary care groups to determine the mix of public/496W
    private provision and public sector providers may tender for contracts, for example, those advertised in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

    Hospices
    Mr. Reed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to end the differences in funding for children's hospices and adult hospices in Leicestershire; [88629]

    (2) what guidance he has issued to PCTs in their purchase of palliative care in children's hospices; [88630]

    (3) if he will make available some of the additional funding he has allocated for palliative care to children's hospices. [886271

    Ms Blears
    Guidance was issued in 1998 entitled "Evaluation of the Pilot Project Programme for Children with Life Threatening Illnesses". This evaluation included the role of children's hospices. Further consideration will be given to this role during the preparation of the national service framework for children. It will also be highlighted through the New Opportunities Funding for children's palliative care projects— and I understand this funding will be available shortly. Purchasing decisions for health care services, including palliative care services, will however remain a matter for local primary care trusts. Hospices serving the needs of either children or adults need to engage with PCTs and negotiate funding for services provided, from that which has been made available.

    Hospital Beds
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the definition is of a hospital bed for statistical purposes. [85773]

    Mr. Lammy
    The full definition of what is counted as a hospital bed for statistical purposes is included in the National Health Service information authority's data dictionary, available through their website at http://www.nhsia.nhs.uk/datastandards/pages/version2.asp

    In summary, a bed includes a device that may be used to permit a patient to lie down when the need to do so is as a consequence of the patient's condition rather than the need for active intervention such as examination. diagnostic investigation, manipulation/treatment, or transport.

    Labelling
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards a clearer labelling system on animal meat products to ensure that the consumer can tell where the animal(a) originated and (b) was slaughtered. [89084]

    Ms Blears
    [holding answer 8 January 2003]: Compulsory labelling rules already apply to all fresh, chilled and frozen beef and veal, including mince. These rules require information about the country or countries of birth, rearing, slaughter and cutting to be given on the label. The European Commission is expected to submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council

    497W
    later this year on extending the scope of these rules to cover processed products containing beef, and beef based products.

    The Government wants to see compulsory origin labelling on a wider range of foods, particularly other meats and meat ingredients in meat products, and statutory controls on the use of terms like "produce of". The European Commission has identified rules on origin labelling as one of the key issues to be taken forward in a comprehensive review of food labelling legislation, which is due to be initiated shortly.

    Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust decision on the use of NHS professionals. [84599]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The Leeds Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust has decided not to renew their two-year contract with their current provider of NHS Professionals when it expires in June 2003.

    However the trust remains completely committed to the principles of NHS Professionals. They are keen to see improvements in the management of temporary staffing and achieving the NHS Professionals standards. The trust is working with the local work force development and NHS Professionals to ensure the timescales and standards set by the Department of Health on temporary staffing are met before their current contract expires.

    Looked After Children
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health which 10 authorities have the(a) highest and (b) lowest numbers of looked-after children listed as missing. [88516]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 7 January 2003]: The total number of looked-after children who went missing from their usual place of residence at any time during the year ending 31 March 2001 was 920. There are currently no statistics available to distinguish the 10 local authorities with the highest and lowest numbers of looked-after children listed as missing.

    Data on children who have gone missing from care is obtained from the Department of Health form SSDA903, a statistical return completed by local authorities for one third of all looked-after children. As these data are based on a one-third sample and the figures reported by authorities on children missing from care are small, it is not possible to produce a reliable comparison across authorities. In addition, analysis on the sample numbers has shown that there is a wide variation in the figures between local authorities-suggesting inconsistency in recording practices which may in turn suggest under-reporting. The figures may therefore be under-stating the actual numbers of children who go missing from care during the year.

    The SSDA903 data collection will start recording information for 100 per cent. of looked-after children for the year ending 31 March 2004. A robust analysis of
    498W
    children missing from care by local authority will be possible when those results are analysed in the autumn of 2004.

    Mental Health
    Mr. Paul Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on how his Department ensures that every mental health patient has access to a general practitioner [86160]

    Jacqui Smith
    Improving the quality of and access to care is a strategic priority for the National Health Service. Anyone, including those with mental health problems, ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom is eligible for free treatment by a general practitioner.

    In addition, NHS Direct (0845 4647), the nurse-led telephone helpline, now provides a country-wide confidential, consistent source of advice on health care, including mental health care, round the clock so people can manage their problems at home or be re-directed to the appropriate place.

    We have also taken action to strengthen the mental health support that GPs provide. For example, 1,000 new primary care mental health workers and 500 more community mental health staff (`Gateway' workers) will be appointed by 2004 to help GPs manage care for people with mental health problems of all ages, including those in a crisis.

    Further information about these initiatives can be found on the mental health website at www.doh.qov.uk/mentalhealth.

    Mid-Essex Hospital Trust (Waiting Times)
    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the mid-Essex hospital trust area were waiting for in-patient treatment on the latest date for which figures are available. [88347]

    Mr. Lammy
    There were 9,675 patients waiting for in-patient treatment at mid-Essex Hospital Services national health service trust at the end of October 2002.

    Source:

    KHO7 return

    National Insurance
    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the extra cost will be in a full year to (a) the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust; and(b) employees of the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust of the increase in national insurance contributions from April 2003. [88575]

    Mr. Lammy
    [holding answer 7 January 2003]: It is not possible to estimate the exact cost to Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service trust and its employees of the increase in national insurance (NI) contributions from April 2003. It is estimated that the changes to employees' NI contributions will increase pay costs by an average of 0.7 per cent. next year.

    NHS Dentistry
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what criteria were used to allocate the
    499W
    funds which were announced in "Modernising NHS Dentistry: Implementing the NHS Plan" to improve access to NHS dentistry; [88365]

    (2) if he will list the name of each dental practice and dental access centre that has received money from the funds that were made available to NHS dentistry which were announced in the Government's dental strategy, "Modernising NHS Dentistry: Implementing the NHS Plan", broken down by primary care trust. [88366]

    Mr. Lammy
    Some of the funding announced in "Modernising NHS Dentistry: Implementing the NHS Plan- was paid to the then health authorities to pass on to individual dental practices in accordance with local needs. Information is not held centrally on which individual practices received the money.

    The funds of £25 million revenue and £7 million capital announced in "Modernising NHS Dentistry: Implementing the NHS Plan" were made available to the following 27 dental access centres:

    Avon

    Bury and Rochdale

    East Kent

    Gloucestershire

    Hereford

    Hull and East Riding

    Kings Lynn and Wisbech

    Lincolnshire

    Milton Keynes

    Morecambe Bay

    North Cumbria

    North and East Devon

    North Mersey

    North Staffordshire

    Oxfordshire

    Peterborough

    Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

    Plymouth

    Shropshire

    Somerset

    South Cheshire

    South Staffordshire

    Surrey (East and West)

    Victoria Mill

    Warrington

    Warwickshire

    Worcestershire

    While individual primary care trusts (PCTs) have been identified to take lead responsibility for each dental access centre, the service is available to patients regardless of where they live. A single dental access centre may be providing services from a number of different sites located within more than one PCT.

    The criteria used to allocate the Modernisation Fund of £35 million have been placed in the Library.

    Allocations of the £4 million Dental Care Development Fund and the subsequent £6 million Dentistry Action Plan monies were based on (in order of importance):
    a) health authorities' reports to the Department on the situation in their areas;
    500W
    (b) estimates of the percentage of national health service dental surgeries taking on new patients, based on new registrations reported to the dental practice board;
    (c) the change in NHS adult registrations between June 1999 and June 2000;
    (d) the area not covered by NHS surgeries taking on new patients; and
    (e) existing and prospective schemes to improve NHS dental availability—i.e. dental access centres, personal dental service projects and investing in dentistry schemes.

    Dental practices were able to use the dental care development fund money to expand their surgeries or buy extra equipment, for example, and were expected to treat an agreed number of additional NHS patients in return.

    Mr. Stephen O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds have been made available to dentists for(a) the establishment of new NHS practices and (b) the refurbishment and extension of existing NHS dental practices in the last 12 months. [88364]

    Mr. Lammy
    The modernisation fund, the dental care development fund and the dentistry action plan fund were made available in 2001–02 to health authorities (HAs) and primary care trusts (PCTs) to improve local access to national health service dentistry. These monies could be used towards the establishment of new NHS dental practices or refurbishment and extension of existing ones. Information about funding allocated, including any financial contributions from the NHS locally to individual practices by HAs or PCTs, is not held centrally.

    NHS Organisations
    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria are used to determine whether an organisation is a part of the NHS. [87902]

    Mr. Hutton
    National health service services are provided by a mix of public and private sector organisations. The service provided for NHS patients must be free at the point of use and provided according to clinical need not ability to pay.

    Official Travel
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the total budget of(a) his Department and (b) its agencies is for official travel in 2002–03; [84934]

    (2) what the total expenditure of (a) his Department and (b) its agencies was on official travel in 2001–02. [84797]

    Mr. Lammy
    [holding answers 3 December 2002]: The total expenditure for travel and subsistence by officials of the Department and its Agencies for 2001–02 was £14.3 million. Travel and subsistence costs are one element in the overall budget for administrative costs and there is no separate budget figure for official travel costs in 2002–03.

    Orthopaedic Surgery
    Alistair Burt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the length of the waiting list for orthopaedic surgery
    501W
    in the (a) Luton and Dunstable Hospital NHS Trust area, (b) the Bedfordshire Hospital NHS Trust area, (c) the East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust area and (d) the Addenbrookes NHS Trust area (i) is now and (ii) was in each of the preceding five years. [89338]

    Mr. Hutton
    The table shows the requested national health service trusts in-patient waiting list size for specialty Trauma and Orthopaedics from the end of June (Q1) 2002 to the end of September (Q2) 2002.

    Total number of patients waiting for an in-patient admission in specialty Trauma and Orthopaedics

    End of June (Q1)

    End of September

    Name of Trust

    2002

    (Q2) 2002

    Luton and Dunstable Hospital NHS Trust

    1.305

    1,345

    Bedford Hospital NHS Trust

    1,107

    1,141

    The East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust

    2,413

    2,403

    Addenbrooke's NHS Trust

    1,645

    1,476

    Source:

    Department of Health form KHO7

    (See also: www.doh.qov.ukiwaitinqtimes)

    Postcodes
    Mr. Truswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what use his Department and its agencies make of postcode areas for(a) the collection and publication of data, (b) devising formulae for the distribution of grants and awards and (c) the delivery of services; and when such usages were last reviewed. [87745]

    Mr. Lammy
    The Department, including its Agencies, uses postcodes or postcode-related information as follows:

    (a) In collection of a variety of information by geographical area, including use as a sampling frame on which to base sample surveys. Postcode information is used both to identify locations and as a basis to derive data about larger geographic areas, including for fixed geographic areas over time. Where published, including through maps, data are usually presented in terms of defined administrative areas derived from postcode information, not in terms of postcode areas. All departmental data collection is reviewed periodically and the use of postcodes and postcode-related information is included in such review.

    (b) Postcode information is used as part of the process of determining eligibility for additional payments to dentists relating to children aged under six years in deprived areas. This arrangement was made in 1998 and was amended from being based on the postcode of the dentist's surgery to the postcode of residence of the patient in April 2002.

    (c) The Department does not use postcodes in its own delivery of services other than for addressing and indexing correspondence, or for referring enquirers to local services.

    The Department is also involved in projects under the neighbourhood statistics initiative to improve the geographic referencing of its statistics, and this will include reviews of current collection and use of postcode information.
    502W

    Prostate Cancer
    Bob Spink
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the statistical incidence of prostate cancer in each of the last 10 years for which records exist. [89679]

    Ruth Kelly
    I have been asked to reply.

    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Robert Spink, dated 13 January 2003:
    The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the statistical incidence of prostate cancer in each of the last ten years for which records exist. I am replying in his absence. (89679)
    The latest available cancer incidence rates are for newly diagnosed cases of cancer in 1999. The directly age standardised registration rates for prostate cancer in England for the ten year period 1990–99 are given in the table below.

    Directly age standardised' registration rates per 100,000 males for prostate2 cancer in England, 1990–99

    Malignant neoplasm of prostate2

    1990

    47.2

    1991

    49.6

    1992

    54.4

    1993

    58.5

    1994

    66.1

    1995

    69.0

    1996

    72.3

    1997

    71.2

    1998

    68.5

    1999

    72.6

    1Using the European Standard Population

    2For the year 1991 to 1994, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision Code (ICD-9), code 185. For the years 1995 to 1999, International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10), code C61.

    Source:

    Office for National Statistics. "Cancer statistics—registrations, England 1999". Series MB1 no. 30. London: The Stationary Office, 2002. Available on the National Statistics website at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/Mb130/MB1_30.pdf

    Rainbows Children's Hospice
    Mr. Reed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much statutory funding has been paid to Rainbows Children's Hospice in 2001–02. [88628]

    Mr. Lammy
    For the year 2001–02 Leicestershire Health Authority allocated £26,000 to the Rainbows Children's Hospice. This funding was provided under Section 64, of Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, providing a grant to a voluntary group for respite, palliative and terminal care for children.

    The Department's view on funding in support of children's hospices is that this should be through negotiation between the hospices, primary care trusts and social services departments, which are responsible for delivering services locally and are best placed to work in partnership with organisations like hospices and to agree an appropriate level of funding.

    There is, however, a case for pump priming these negotiations. We expect this to be facilitated through the New Opportunities Fund, which has a budget of

    503W
    £48 million to support projects for children with life threatening illness, including children's hospice respite services. £15.3 million has been earmarked specifically for hospice care. Awards will be available next year.

    Secure Psychiatric Accommodation
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many places are available for secure psychiatric accommodation for women; how many such places were available five years ago; and if he will make a statement on the adequacy of such provision with special reference to changes in the prison population. [88241]]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 7 January 2003]: Currently, beds in secure psychiatric accommodation are not always designated by gender so it is not possible to be specific about the number of places that are available for women. Returns indicate that at the end of March 2001, the latest date for which information is currently available, there were 4,847 secure beds, compared to 3,845 secure beds at the end of March 1998. These figures include high, medium and other secure bed numbers and cover all genders.

    The consultation document "Women's Mental Health: Into the Mainstream", published in September last year, envisages the development of dedicated, integrated, secure services for women. The needs of women requiring transfer from prison to hospital will be taken into account as part of the process of planning these proposed new services.

    Sex Selection
    Bob Spink
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether in reaching his decision to ask the HFEA to consult the public on sex selection, he considered the results of the previous (1993) HFEA public consultation on this; and if he will make a statement; [89034]

    (2) if he will publish the results of the HFEA 1993 public consultation on sex selection; [89039]

    (3) what conclusions were drawn from the HFEA 1993 public consultation on sex selection; and what assessment he has made of public perception of the issue. [89040]

    Ms Blears
    The results of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's 1993 public consultation on sex selection were published in an HFEA press release on 20 July 1993 and were summarised in the HFEA's third annual report, published in July 1994. The HFEA concluded that sex selection should only be permitted for medical reasons where there is a risk of a child of a particular sex inheriting a serious life-threatening disorder. A copy of the annual report is available in the Library and a copy of the press release is available from the HFEA.

    Bob Spink
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis the HFEA in their current consultation on sex selection stated that India does not prohibit social sex selection. [89041]

    Ms Blears
    The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority advises that regrettably this was an error in the consultation document. The law in India prohibits 504W
    the use of pre-natal diagnostic techniques to determine the sex of an embryo for social reasons but variations in practice have been reported.

    Thrombolysis
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of NHS ambulance trusts publish data on their thrombolysis protocols and procedures; [88754]

    (2) what steps he is taking to improve the ability of ambulance paramedics to provide thrombolysis for appropriate patients. [88753]

    Mr. Lammy
    Currently eight of the 31 ambulance services are providing paramedic thrombolysis according to protocols agreed by local health economies. These protocols are based on a clear guideline from the Joint Royal Colleges Ambulance Liaison Committee (JRCALC) published on the Royal College of Physicians' and Ambulance Services Association websites. They are available from the individual ambulance services on request. Paramedic training is essential for safe and effective thrombolysis. Central funding of £14 million from 2002 to 2004 is being invested in ambulance trusts to support paramedic training and provide 12 lead ECG monitors/defibrillators and linked to accident and emergency departments. All front-line 999 ambulances will be equipped by December 2003.

    Visually Impaired Children
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what treatment is available on the NHS to visually impaired children; and what services are available to visually impaired children living in disadvantaged areas to assist them in managing in their neighbourhood environment. [87361]

    Mr. Lammy
    The national health service provides ophthalmic services to visually impaired children, making use of a multi-disciplinary approach to meet their needs. The hospital eye service (HES) works closely with each child's general practitioner, education, social and rehabilitation services, exchanging reports and information.

    Ophthalmologists aim to identify the underlying cause of the problem and offer treatment if indicated. They also co-ordinate the response from the HES.

    Orthoptists work closely with ophthalmologists and assess visual function, visual acuity and binocular vision; under the direction of an ophthalmologist, they provide treatment aimed at improving visual acuity and oculo-motor control.

    Optometrists test the sight of visually impaired children and prescribe glasses and/or low vision aids. Children under the age of 16, and under the age of 19 in full-time education, are entitled to help with the cost of their glasses through the NHS voucher scheme. Optical low vision aids are supplied on loan through the HES.

    The Government's cross government programmes for children give priority to children in disadvantaged areas and to disabled children. Sure start partnerships aim to work with parents and children up to four years old to provide appropriate early intervention and support. The £450 million children's fund is being targeted on

    505W
    preventive work with children, primarily in the five to 13 age group and their families, helping them before they hit crisis.

    Under the Children Act 1989, local authority social services departments in England, working with other local authority departments and health authorities, have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children
    506W
    in their area who are in need and to promote the upbringing of such children, wherever possible by their families, through providing an appropriate range of services. Under the definitions in the Children Act, all disabled children are included as children in need. A wide range of family support services is provided by the public and voluntary sectors. Services can include short-term breaks, guidance and counselling, day care, family centres and home help.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH

  Export Licences (Iran)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien)
  The Government have recently issued a licence for the export of goods to be used as part of the process of drilling oil and gas wells. These goods include HMX pellets which could be suitable for use in anti-personnel landmines. However, the Government are satisfied that these HMX pellets, specifically designed for cutting collars and perforating tubes, are intended only for the legitimate end-use stated. The risk of these goods being diverted for use by the Iranian military is minimal.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

Neighbourhood Renewal Unit
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the purpose and annual cost of the neighbourhood renewal unit, and how many committees have been generated by it.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the purpose of the neighbourhood renewal unit is to drive forward delivery of the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal, which is designed to tackle deprivation in England's poorest communities. This financial year the costs of the central unit are expected to be nearly £7 million. The unit's work is overseen by a Cabinet sub-committee and a steering group of Permanent Secretaries from the principal government departments involved.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will take the matter seriously. I am glad that it is he who is answering the Question, because he has an enviable reputation in your Lordships' House for doing his best to look into problems. Perhaps he will look into the unit and bear in mind that complexity of organisation tends to exacerbate problems, not to solve them. The organisation has no fewer than seven divisions and 14 sub-divisions—sub-units, or whatever they are called.
Its habit of breeding, which is endemic in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, has spread to boroughs. It may be news to the Minister that in the borough of
2
Tower Hamlets alone there are at present 28 committees, which so far, as far as residents of the borough are aware, have achieved no concrete results. All that is being done in the name of "joined-upness". At the end of the day, the Government will be able to congratulate themselves on producing an indissoluble union between gobbledy and gook.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am more than happy to answer the noble Lord's questions. The central unit has approximately 157 staff. It is co-ordinating expenditure of hundreds of billions of pounds of central government money in the 88 most deprived areas of England. I am not saying that everything has been a success, because the unit has been going for only a couple of years, but I could read out a success list of its achievements.
The private sector is involved—the chambers of commerce are involved in the business broker scheme—because we cannot renew the community unless we ensure that business is up and running. Crime has been reduced. Rubbish has been removed from estates. In one area, 620 tonnes of rubbish were removed from an estate, which helped to cut the dumping of cars by 80 per cent. If people know that an area is being looked after, they are more likely to look after it themselves. That is why the effort is targeted on those 88 most deprived areas of the country. There is a big success list, and those achievements are, by definition, in the 88 most deprived areas of the country.
The unit is designed to provide safer communities and higher quality schools. I appreciate that that is not how things were done in the past, but because of past neglect—that is not an issue between us in this House—the nature of the problems is different and they require a different solution.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, how are the various projects under neighbourhood renewal initiated? Is the initiation local? Do proposals then have to be put forward to the central office and await its comment, or can they be proceeded with?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is essentially local. Local strategic partnerships are being set up, which are sometimes led by the voluntary or private sector, not necessarily by local authorities, to get decisions made at the neighbourhood level. The 88 specified areas are set out in the public prints, based on census information and indices of deprivation. We want the strategy to proceed from the bottom up. Obviously, we must be careful with the massive public expenditure involved. We are considering the grand total of government expenditure, but the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund and the New Deal for Communities alone total more than £700 million this year, and will rise to £900 million by 2005–06.
It is essential that initiatives start locally. It requires co-ordination across various government departments to obtain value for money and ensure that what occurs is sustainable, but the scheme is not imposed from the centre—it is not a top-down exercise.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the co-ordinating role of the neighbourhood renewal unit is vital, especially to places such as Burnley, as is shown by the experience last year when an examination was conducted into the troubles of 2001? The unit played a vital role in bringing together the local authority and a local strategic partnership, which was invaluable to those people in the deprived areas of Burnley. Does he further agree that the unit should be encouraged to do as much as it can in such areas?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, my noble friend is perfectly right. I do not want to oversell the unit. It is less than two years old; it was established in April 2001. Various initiatives have resulted, such as the street wardens programme. The business brokers pilot, to which I referred, was launched only last February. The fund for post offices in deprived areas was launched only last December. It is vital to maintain infrastructure, rebuild communities and give everyone involved in them, including business, confidence to invest for the future.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, will the Minister confirm what I think I heard him say: that hundreds of billions of pounds are involved in neighbourhood renewal and regeneration? Is it hundreds of billions of pounds or rather less? If hundreds of billions of pounds are involved, is he concerned that the bureaucracy involved in neighbourhood renewal and other regeneration programmes is becoming top-heavy and that the organisation so colourfully described by my noble friend Lord Peyton is becoming a little overladen?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it may have sounded like a slip of the tongue; but it was not. I have double checked that because I was looking at the figures anyway. The Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, the New Deal for Communities and the New Venture Fund are the unit programmes. I mentioned that the budget this year is £727 million, rising to £917 million. But the
4
purpose of the central unit is to harness the hundreds of billions of pounds of central government expenditure right across the piece; to ensure that in the 88 areas identified, we receive good value for money across the piece, rather than having time-limited funds.
There is work to be done here. There is the £700 million for the unit, but it is also responsible for ensuring that we receive value for money for the totality of government expenditure in those areas.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am not denying the existence of a very serious problem? Will he take a serious look at the existing organisation, which might possibly be rather too complicated?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I freely admit and accept that the access to various streams of funding to localities is complicated for people to understand. It can appear like a bowl of spaghetti. We are doing our best to sort that out.
I am happy to take on board the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. However, one of the targets for the whole exercise is that within 10 years or so no one in this country should be seriously disadvantaged by where they live, which is what happens at present. That is a target and we must do something about it. It is part of the whole exercise. However, I shall be happy to look at the extra bureaucracy to which the noble Lord has drawn attention.

Tax Self-Assessment
2.44 p.m.
Lord Russell-Johnston Lord Russell-Johnston asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the operation of the self-assessment tax system is satisfactory.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, self-assessment is operating successfully. The National Audit Office, in its most recent report on income tax self-assessment in July 2001, said:
"Our overall conclusion is that self assessment has improved the administration of income and capital gains tax. It has made assessments more straightforward and allowed a more focused approach to compliance work".
In July 2002, the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee reported the findings of its review of self-assessment. It made a number of criticisms and recommendations and we have accepted all but one of those recommendations.
Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, the Minister has given a somewhat un-self-critical answer. Perhaps he would agree that, whatever else, the new system has been an absolute bonanza to accountants, rather less so for those who cannot afford accountants and who are intimidated by complex income tax forms. Will the

5
Minister give some idea of how many people have been paying fines for late presentation? Will he confirm that, generally speaking, those are the people who are less able to pay? Surely it is an endemic weakness in the new system that incompetence is treated as cupidity? Is there any proposal to change the system? How many people nave been paying fines and, in particular, have there been any custodial sentences?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a large number of questions. Yes, of course the Inland Revenue keeps these matters under review. I am not especially aware that this is a bonanza for accountants. Certainly I, who used to employ an accountant, can now successfully complete the form on my own and submit it before 30th September. I am therefore saving money, for a start. If that is self-interest, then so be it.
As to the issue of whether the people who can least afford it are being penalised, yes, of course there are fines for late submission. But those fines are capped. If anyone owes less than the amount of the fine, the fine is reduced. The criteria for inclusion in self-assessment is whether the correct amount can be deducted at source; it is not based on total income. However, we are making continued efforts to eliminate from the scheme people on lower incomes who make straightforward returns. We have developed a short return form to achieve that. I am sure that there have been no custodial sentences.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that although I am fairly stupid I am not entirely stupid and I am quite incapable of filling in the form myself? Therefore, I have to employ accountants. Is he further aware that this year I have had to take out insurance in case they also make a mistake? The accountants must have some brains.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am always willing to come up to Scotland to help the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, fill in her forms. In a debate on this issue about two years ago, people asked for "idiot's guides". There are no idiots in your Lordships' House.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that it has been reported that this year a number of self-assessment forms have been lost in the post or elsewhere and taxpayers have been asked to resubmit. Will the Minister give some idea of the extent of the problem?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is difficult Clearly, there is the possibility of forms being lost in the post, and the possibility that forms may simply be lost. After all, there are millions of forms at tax offices. We do not know the figure for the number of returns at 31st January this year because we have not yet reached that date. However, if I were challenged as to the numbers, there is no reason to suppose that it is different from previous years. In that case, the number is in hundreds rather than thousands.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend know how many people do not manage to submit their returns by the end of January? Perhaps I may add, as someone who does not use an accountant, that I have always found Inland Revenue staff incredibly helpful.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. We do not yet have this year's figure. In previous years, the number of people submitting forms on time—by the end of January—has been approximately 90 per cent.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, speaking of those who can least afford it being penalised, will the Minister confirm that the self-assessment system is enabling the Government to extract £3 billion a year in income tax from people living below the Government's official poverty line?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the self-assessment system does not change the rate or incidence of taxation; it simply affects the way in which it is collected.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I declare an interest, given the remark by the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston. The senior tax partner of my old firm does submit my tax return—on time, I am happy to say. This is not a party political issue. Surely, it should be a matter of the most efficient method in line with the public interest. In those circumstances—I have not read the latest National Audit Office report—what percentage of returns submitted are found to be in error? My noble friend says that some 90 per cent are submitted—although although I am not sure how he can know that, given the tax evasion which, unfortunately, occurs.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord means tax avoidance, not tax evasion—or perhaps he means both. No, I do not know off-hand the number of forms that have to be sent back. I shall have to write to him. The evidence from the National Audit Office and that submitted to the Treasury committee last year by the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales are very supportive of the tax assessment system.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, if it is proved that tax offices have lost the forms, will late payers still be fined?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, certainly not. If it can be found that it is the responsibility of the Inland Revenue, there will be no fine. But, as we know from wider experience, it is very difficult to determine whether a communication has been lost in the post, or whether that is an excuse. "The cheque is in the post" is one of the most famous excuses in the world.

Hepatitis C
2.52 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest—not a financial one—as president of the Haemophilia Society.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what new help they are considering for people infected with hepatitis C by contaminated National Health Service blood products, and for the dependants of those who have since died as a result of their infection.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, we have enormous sympathy with those affected by this tragedy. Sadly, it was not possible at the time to make blood products free from hepatitis C. We do, however, recognise the public health importance of hepatitis C and have published a strategy to improve the effectiveness of prevention, testing and treating services for people with this virus. An action plan to implement the strategy will be produced in the next few months.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. Is he aware that last month, for the third time, haemophilia patients were notified that NHS blood products they were prescribed trace back to a donor with variant CJD; and that the Department of Health, with no tests for the disease, cannot say whether they have contracted it?
Over 1,000 haemophilia patients have now died from the HIV and hepatitis C viruses transmitted by contaminated NHS blood products—a huge toll for a small and already stricken patient community of only 5,000. Is it not then cruelly unjust to deny those who survive the safer recombinant treatment that would remove their fear of further infection?
Again, is my noble friend aware of the Market Research Bureau's finding that the UK now has the lowest availability of recombinant for haemophilia patients in the developed world?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for his presidency of the society. This has been a tragic event that has occurred in this country. The previous government decided that the general rule should apply in those cases: that there could not be an exception to the rule that compensation or financial help is given only when the NHS or individuals working in it are at fault. The current Government reviewed this decision by the previous government some years ago and decided that they could not move from that position.
8
So far as concerns recombinant synthetic factors 8 and 9, Ministers are currently considering the case for the provision of recombinant clotting factors and hope to be able to make a decision shortly.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, what approximately is the number of people now infected in this way, and the number of their dependants as at present?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the figures that I have indicate that about 8,000 people are still living who are infected with hepatitis C through blood products and blood transfusion.
Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Government please explain to the House the difference in the circumstances of the relatives of people who have died as a result of contracting HIV through no cause of their own, and those of someone who has died of cancer of the liver caused by hepatitis C?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, these are very difficult judgments. I do not think that anyone who has gone into this matter—in the previous government or the current Government—has found making a decision in this area at all easy. At the end of the day, after careful review, we came to the conclusion that we could not make an exception to the compensation rule.
Lord Rix: My Lords, does that mean that there is a lack of conviction about the cost or about the treatment?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not believe that those are the issues that are paramount in considering this matter. There has long been a general rule that compensation is given by the National Health Service only when the service itself or individuals working in it are at fault. In this case, there has been no fault.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, what number of patients in general are suffering from hepatitis C; and is adequate treatment being offered to them, whether or not they are haemophiliacs?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the current information I have is that the prevalence of chronic hepatitis C infection may be around 0.4 per cent of the general population: that is about 200,000 people in England. Therapies are available for treatment, most notably the combination therapy interferon alpha with Ribavirin. There is also a combination treatment which includes pegolated interferon, which is currently being reviewed by NICE. There is also currently a clinical trial assessing treatment for mild disease. That is due to report later in the year.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am sorry to take up the time of the House, but I do not follow why the National Health Service has the principle of no compensation unless there is fault; whereas, every

9
year, millions of pounds are handed out to victims of criminal activity—to those who are injured by criminals. In that situation, there is no fault on the part of the Government; in fact, many would say that there is no moral obligation. In this case, there is a strong moral obligation because the NHS has caused the trouble. Will the Minister please explain whether there is some special rule for the NHS; and, if so, what is its justification?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has raised this matter on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House. I believe that the cases are very different and they have been recognised as such both by this Government and by the previous government. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme makes payments to victims of violent crime. The scheme recognises society's sympathy with the victims of such deliberate and malicious acts of violence. I believe that those circumstances are very different from the circumstances in which the NHS provides treatment to patients.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, following on from the previous question, I understood my noble friend to refer to the issue of "fault". Given that, as the Question says, people have been infected,
"by contaminated National Health Service blood products",
will the Minister express more clearly how the National Health Service can say that there is no fault when its product has caused the complaint?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it was possible to eliminate hepatitis C from blood products only in 1985, when heat treatment was introduced. The cases that we are discussing, in which people were infected through blood products, relate to people who were infected before that date.

NHS: Mixed-Sex Wards
3 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether mixed-sex wards have now been phased out in all National Health Service hospitals.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, 98 per cent of NHS trusts provide single-sex sleeping accommodation for planned admissions; 95 per cent of NHS trusts meet the additional criteria set for mental health facilities; and 93 per cent of NHS trusts provide properly segregated bathroom and toilet facilities for men and women. A further 2 per cent of NHS trusts have works under way to deliver the required standard, affecting 32 wards, which will be completed by the end of the financial year. Overall, 98 per cent of NHS wards meet our guidelines. The remainder will comply once current PFI and other building projects are completed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I believe that the Government
10
have done their level best to meet their manifesto commitments and, indeed, commitments to this House and another place to eradicate mixed-sex wards from the National Health Service. Is the Minister aware, however, that some cases of which I have heard suggest that some National Health Service hospitals do not share his, and the Government's, enthusiasm? That was illustrated by the case of our late colleague, Lady Young, who was treated in a mixed-sex ward and found it a very traumatic experience indeed.
I ask the Minister to keep on with this matter and ensure that progress is maintained and there is no slippage in what the Government obviously intend should be the policy.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords. I well understand the concern that members of the public have had, as patients, about having to be treated in mixed-sex accommodation. That is why the Government embarked on the strategy to remove mixed-sex accommodation from the NHS as much as possible. We have made considerable progress. There are a limited number of accommodation areas on which further progress still needs to be made, and we shall redouble our efforts to ensure that that happens.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister consider wards that consist of a number of small bedrooms with a few beds in them, some of which contain women and some of which contain men—in other words, a room full of women and a room full of men—to be mixed-sex wards? Is he referring only to Nightingale wards? Does he share the concern of many about the safety of women in mixed-sex wards, even when they are of the first type that I described—namely, a ward subdivided into smaller rooms?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand that there are sometimes safety concerns within NHS institutions and hospitals. We encourage the NHS to have a clear concern about ensuring that we have the right measures to secure safe provision for patients. As for definitions, it is acceptable for segregation to be achieved in wards that accommodate both men and women through the use of single-sex bays and individual rooms.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, the Minister talks about percentages. Will he tell us what that means in terms of numbers of patients?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Baroness what it means in terms of numbers of patients. In terms of ward numbers, however, there are an estimated 10,000 general wards in use across the NHS of which more than 98 per cent comply with single-sex accommodation guidelines. I doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, would wish us to inquire, through no doubt very bureaucratic processes, for the figures that the noble Baroness wishes to see.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I cannot rise to that challenge. I only wish that I could shower the Minister's department with compliments. I am very disappointed that I cannot.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am ever mindful of the strictures of the noble Lord. He will be pleased to know that I now head a task force in the Department of Health to reduce bureaucracy in the NHS.

Public Services (Disruption) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 7 [Exercise and delegation of functions]:
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 5, line 5, at end insert—
"( ) Where a licensing committee receives licensing applications which involve its own local authority, it shall refer such cases to a magistrates' court for determination."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 121 relates to Clause 7, which in turn relates to the exercise and delegation of functions of the licensing authority. Members of the Committee will recall that central to the Bill is the transfer of alcohol licensing from the magistrates to the local authority. Therefore, the Bill currently gives rise to a potential conflict of interest.
Many, most or, perhaps, all local authorities will need to have some form of licensing, because they will run sports clubs with bars, theatres, amusement arcades or social clubs. They will have a range of activities that fall within the range of the Bill. Under the current provisions of the Bill, they will be judge and jury of their own affairs, through their licensing authority. The judgment on whether it is proper for a local authority's sports club to have a liquor licence will be made by that local authority. Currently, that is not a problem because the licensing magistrates, who
12
are separate from the local authority, make the decision, but that separation will no longer take place when the Bill is enacted.
The conflict of interest is surely not fair and is certainly not transparent. There is a perfectly easy way out of the situation, however. We could make a special case for those applications that concern the local authority by requiring the licensing justices and the magistrates court to determine those licences alone. In those circumstances, the local authority's case could be heard by someone who was not connected to, or part of, that authority. In that way, fairness and transparency could be maintained. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I, for one, believe that my noble friend deserves some support on his amendment. One aspect of the Bill that I do not like at all is moving responsibility for oversight of the licensing law from magistrates to the local authority. That is a backward step. I hope that we shall make much more of that point on Report.
A brief look at the Explanatory Notes shows the relationship between the licensing authority and its committee. I was going to say that the committee would be its child or its servant, but it seems that the licensing committee will be the master of the situation with very little to stem its bureaucratic habits.
I warmly support my noble friend. I hope that the noble Baroness will not draw wrong conclusions from the fact that not everyone on this side of the Committee has been on their feet to say that the amendment deserves very careful attention. It deals with the complex and difficult relationship that will exist between the licensing committee and its parent.
Lord Davies of Oldham: There is no doubt that the Committee will have given the amendment careful consideration. As the Committee will appreciate, the straightforward fact is that there is nothing new in the proposals in the Bill. The Bill does not introduce self-licensing and self-regulation for local authorities for the first time. It is already well established in law. The Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1963 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 have given rise to no problems relating to the self-licensing of local authorities. They are well practised in this area. The Bill extends the areas in which local authorities will be asked to exercise a licensing function.
Local government performs a multitude of functions. It is not uncommon under the current regime for one part of the licensing authority to apply to another part about a particular matter. I do not believe that there is a conflict of interest in the proposed system or that the existing legislation governing local authorities gives rise to real concerns in this area.
The amendment would create an unnecessary complication to the licensing system, inevitably introducing additional costs. The licensing committee is required to act objectively under the measures

13
provided by the Bill. That is safeguarded in the Bill. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I promise to read carefully what the noble Lord has said. Perhaps he will correct me if I have got it wrong. I understood him to say that a local authority can presently give itself a licence. That is ill right, but he then suggested that giving the local authority the total power over licences was a comparatively minor step. On this side of the House, we do not regard it as such. I think it a major and regrettable step. I hope the noble Lord is clear about that.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I appreciate what the noble Lord says and I understand his anxieties. Local authorities are licensing authorities under existing legislation. That has given no cause for concern, as identified in the amendment, that they are obliged to be objective when exercising this authority and that from time to time other parts of the authority may bring the issue to the fore. Local authorities are used to that activity in their present licensing role. The Bill makes no change in the principle; it simply extends the areas over which local authorities will exercise a licensing function. It does not change the nature of the role they are asked to perform. That role has been performed adequately and effectively under legislation some of which has existed for 40 years. I am merely contending that the anxieties expressed have no substance.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: We are all conscious that in judicial issues the law and the courts have become ever more careful to ensure that there is not only no actual conflict of interest, but no perceived conflict of interest. As I understand what the Minister said, undoubtedly the powers of local authorities to grant licences to themselves will be extended under the Bill. Has the Minister considered situations in which that might be controversial with some members of the public who may oppose the grant of a licence by the local authority to itself? Does the Minister feel comfortable that such members of the public will consider they are adequately protected by having one half of the authority consider another halls application? Does he not think that they may perceive they are engaging in a tough labour and that there is a conflict of interest? This is a serious topic that warrants further consideration.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment. I referred to transparency in my opening remarks. Transparency is being lost here because of the way the thing is being structured. As the Minister said, this is an extension. It is an extension into a highly commercial and competitive area. We heard in earlier debates about the social consequences of the sale of liquor and extended opening hours for pubs and social clubs. There are great risks of a perceived conflict of
14
interest if the local authority gets involved in such a highly competitive commercial situation. I do not wish to divide the Committee, but I do not find the Minister's response entirely satisfactory. I shall read it carefully and I may wish to come back to the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 5, line 5, at end insert
"(8A) Nothing in this Act shall detract from the right of an elected member of a council that is a licensing authority under this Act to address or write to the licensing committee or licensing authority in order to make representations to them on behalf of the residents of the ward, or other electoral Rib-division, or the authority which he represents.
(8B) No elected member making representations on behalf of local residents under subsection (8A) may participate in any decision made by the licensing committee or licensing authority concerning a matter about which he has made representations to them, either in public or in private."
The noble Baroness said: This touches on a similar subject to the previous amendment. We are concerned to confront the situation in which local councillors may feel inhibited from actively assisting residents in making representations on the grant of licences in their ward or electoral district. A local councillor might be constrained from assisting local residents because he or she was a member of the licensing authority that was to grant or refuse the licence. Any councillor worth his or her salt inevitably knows that when discharging a quasi-judicial function one must be seen to be impartial. If one supports one side or another, it will be impossible to appear to be impartial when making a decision to grant or refuse a licence which will have serious financial consequences one way or another for the applicant.
The Bill should make it clear that a local councillor can represent residents. That is what he or she is expected to do. Local residents will naturally look to the local councillor to assist them in all matters concerning them and the local authority. Licensing matters should not be an exception. They must be able to talk freely with the local councillor at his or her surgery and that councillor must then be free to make representations to the licensing authority or committee.
However, if the local councillor makes such representations, we feel it is important that that councillor takes no further part in the decision-making process by the licensing committee or authority. The licensing committee or authority must be impartial and must be seen to be impartial. That will not be the case if one of its members has been making representations on behalf of residents. That should disqualify the local councillor from participating in the decision-making process. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: We support these amendments and have added our names to them. The problems of conflict of interest need to be looked at. I hope the Minister will give a satisfactory response.

15
I have a question that goes back to a previous amendment about the licensing committee being quorate. If a pub in the ward of a member of the licensing committee came under discussion, would it be possible for the committee to be quorate if that member had to stand down at that point, as would happen under the amendment? The Minister laughs, but I find that slightly worrying. If a board representative could face a direct conflict of interest, they might not be allowed to stand down because the committee might not be quorate. In that case, how would the conflict of interest be dealt with?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I want briefly to add to the comments already made, and to support them. One of the important aspects of the Bill that has not been widely or fully understood is the difficulty that it places in the way of objections and objectors. It is drafted in such a way that there are extremely limited grounds for objection. For that reason the need of the local councillor, almost above everyone else, to be able to represent the objections of their constituents is paramount.
Lord Davies of Oldham: Let me clear up my indication of amusement at what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, was saying. I did not want to be discourteous; I was merely reflecting on the fact that it is his amendment that creates the problem with regard to the quorum. He is asking me whether I feel that there would be difficulties over the quorum, but I will seek to resist the amendment, thereby solving all such problems so far as concerns a particular councillor making representations. I do not have a direct answer to the point that he raises, but that indicates that the nature of the amendment creates difficulties for the legislation. That is why I will resist it.
I share with all Members of the Committee the concern graphically expressed in this short debate on the role of local authorities and councillors. It is entirely reasonable that elected members should be able to write to the licensing authority or raise matters on behalf of the people whom they represent. I merely wish to assure the Committee that nothing in the Bill prevents that. In fact, the Bill defines interested parties in several places, including as local residents and their representatives. That would clearly cover local councillors.
I do not believe, therefore, that there is any need for the first part of the amendment. I seek to give the assurance that we recognise that a proper role is to be played by the elected councillor for a ward in which the issue crops up and for which representations need to be made.
The second proposed subsection, which raises the issue of conflict of interest and would prevent councillors taking part in a decision that they had made representations about to the licensing committee, is also entirely unnecessary. As we have already discussed, elected members are already under certain duties related to conflict of interest.
16
The Bill does not raise issues of conflict of interest anew. Local authorities have many powers that relate to the proper action of the councillor when there might be a conflict of interest, which is either declaring it or, in certain circumstances, not participating because he identifies it as of such significance and magnitude that he or she ought to be inhibited from participating. We already have that in legislation. The Bill merely seeks to extend an area of responsibility for local authorities, but does not change in any way, shape or form the role of local councillors or their obligations in such circumstances.
It is not that I do not share the anxieties raised about the proper conduct of local councillors; I merely say that they are dealt with in legislation and in the nature of the roles that councillors play across their activities as local authority representatives. The Bill raises nothing specific on the matter. That is why, although we respect the arguments made, we do not think it necessary to put the obligations in the Bill. That is why I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Redesdale: Perhaps the issue that I was trying to enlighten myself about was that of conflict of interest. I am particularly concerned about small authorities with small quorate memberships. The Minister said that he would not address that question, but that is our particular question. If there is a conflict of interest and the licensing authority is small, does that mean that that member cannot stand down? Would they then just say, "I have a conflict of interest on this issue"?
Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord comes back to the point, so I shall address it a little further. Clause 9 clearly identifies a role for the licensing committee and enables it to regulate its own proceedings, and provides for regulations to prescribe proceedings including the quorum of the meeting. In an earlier debate, we identified particular issues where the authority might be so small that the whole authority was the licensing committee. Such a local authority could not conceivably act in circumstances where everyone had to be present and correct in order to form a quorum if it also had a rule that indicated that someone could not be there to count as far as a quorum was concerned because there were proceedings and requirements for a councillor to withdraw and not be present.
The majority of councils will not be in a situation in which the whole authority is the licensing committee, so the issue will not arise for the majority of them in quite that form. It will be necessary for those councils involved to act in such a way to be able to protect their proceedings, to ensure that they can make progress.
Such councils need to do that on a range of other activities. Local authorities are planning authorities, and the issues of conflict of interest can come up in those and a whole range of activities in which local authorities get involved. Where those issues crop up, they have conducted themselves sensibly, intelligently and to the satisfaction of the nation. We pride ourselves that, on the whole, most local authorities are

17
above reproach as regards such issues. By heavens, we rely on our ever-vigilant press, not to say our elected representatives, to bring to the attention of their locality and the nation any infringement with regard to conflict of interest. That has gone on for all the years in which local authorities have been governed by the legislation that I quoted on an earlier amendment. All that I am saying is that the measure does not need such provision in the Bill.
Baroness Buscombe: I am somewhat disappointed by the Minister's response. As I made clear, we are talking about a quasi-judicial function. I hear what he says in relation to the role of local councillors, and the responsibilities to be impartial that they take on when they become local councillors. However, we are talking about issues that often involve huge financial implications either way. We feel that the amendment would be a helpful compromise, if I may put it that way, with regard to the need to win the hearts and minds of those who feel passionately that we should not move from a licensing system that is dealt with largely by magistrates to one involving local authorities because, as I mentioned at Second Reading, of the need for that "not in my backyard" approach.
From experience some years ago as a district councillor, I know that there were occasions in relation to planning matters where it was perfectly in order and normal for ward members to have not only to declare an interest, but remove themselves from the decision-making process. That is a quite common situation across the country on different councils that choose to take that sensible approach, whereby proper representations can be made.
I am glad that the Minister made it clear that there was no need for our concerns in relation to the amendment, and that those representations could be made by individuals to their local authorities and councillors without fear of any partiality within their own wards. However, we feel that this is a good opportunity for the Government to encourage councillors to consider removing individuals on a committee if the decision in relation to a particular application impinges on an application in their ward. I heard what the Minister said and we shall consider his comments with care.
We feel that the problem is made worse by the Government's refusal to reconsider the need to have all members of a licensing committee present. The Government should consider being more flexible in that regard. As we have already indicated, we will probably return to that on Report. If there was more flexibility in terms of the numbers sitting on a licensing committee from council to council, this sensible compromise could be practically applied. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
3.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I understand that my noble friend Lord Brooke has been restrained by his modesty from repeating his arguments, valid as they were, because he spoke to the point earlier. I should not like the Minister and her advisers to think that objections to the clause have been entirely dealt with in view of my noble friend's shyness.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Requirement to keep a register]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 5, line 10, after "certificate" insert "and all relevant contact details that the Secretary of State may by regulation require"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 125 to 128.
Amendments Nos. 124 and 125 deal with the register that the licensing authority is required to keep containing all relevant licensing details. My first thought is that the clause is over-regulatory and prescriptive in the extreme. It is obviously important and in the interests of clarity, efficiency and consistency for each licensing authority to have a comprehensive register base that contains certain details by default. Yet we need to strike a balance between imposing an administrative burden on local authorities and making the system run smoothly and effectively.
Amendment No. 124 reflects the principle behind the first group of amendments to which I spoke this afternoon. I believe that personal licences should be held within a central register administered by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. That will reduce costs to the local authority by absolving it of the need to track personal licence holders. With these amendments, we are not trying to take away the authority to run the licensing system which has now rightly been given to local councils. If there is a central authority administering personal licences, it will also ensure that individuals cannot reapply for a new licence when they have suffered sanction or endorsement of their existing licence. The police will have easy access to a nationwide record of licencees.
Amendment No. 125 is also an attempt to limit the administrative burden and paperwork for local authorities. We will later argue that the requirement to display a designated premises supervisor on the face of the premises licence is unnecessary. In mitigation of that, we accept that it is important that all appropriate contact details are available to the licensing authority and police service. Those details should be attached to the local authority register and changed through simple notifications as and when circumstances alter.
I turn to Amendment No. 126. Clause 8 imposes a requirement on licensing authorities to keep a register containing a record of all licences granted and many other matters, including those mentioned in Schedule 3 and such further information as may be prescribed.

19
That will be a fairly onerous task. However, subsection (2) will give the Secretary of State power to make regulations as to the form of the register and how it is to be kept. That seems to us to be an unwarranted interference by central government in local government. It is all very well to impose an obligation on a local authority to keep a register. We go along with that. However, to tell it how to keep that register is going too far. I hesitate to criticise the Government for being control freaks but there comes a point when central government must trust elected local representatives. Telling them how to keep the register is going too far.
On Amendment No. 127, we are concerned about the cost to licensing authorities of the Bill. The expense of carrying out licensing functions is going to be significant. It is very important that carrying out those functions is as cost neutral as possible and, as and when an expense is identified, it is important to give the licensing authority power to recoup that expense in some way or another.
Under subsection (3) of this clause the local authority is under an obligation to provide facilities for inspection of the register by any person during office hours. That will inevitably have a cost because a room must be made available and there must be some person to supervise inspection. That must be paid for and we believe that a local authority should have the power to insist on such payment as is necessary to cover the expense of allowing anyone to inspect the register. We wonder whether the Government have considered that aspect and would be interested in their response to it.
Turning to Amendment No. 128, anyone wanting to know the details of a premises licence must first ascertain the address of the premises, then try to ascertain the relevant licensing authority—the boundaries of which may be unknown to this person—and must then try to find out where the register is. That could take hours of otherwise productive time.
The position is much more difficult in the case of a personal licence because anyone wanting to know the details of a personal licence must find out where the holder of the licence lived when he first applied for such a licence. He will have to search every register. We therefore feel that it is appropriate that the Secretary of State should make the appropriate arrangements for there to be a separate register but trust to her good sense as to the way in which the information in the register will be available on, for example, the Net. If, however, there was a central register accessible online, that information would be available with a few clicks of a mouse. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I rise to support these eminently sensible amendments, which have severe implications in terms of the costs to local authorities of implementing the Bill. We support the amendments in particular because—this was raised earlier—the licence will be financed by a cost-recovery system. As I understand it, if the system for imposing the licence is extremely expensive, that will make personal licences
20
extremely expensive. I seek some guidance from the Minister on that issue because it would have severe implications for the proposed costs set out in the White Paper for personal licences. These sensible amendments go to the heart of the Bill, which involves deregulation. We believe that they address one of the problems that has cropped up in the Bill; that is, that it has become more complicated between the publication of the White Paper and the drafting of the Bill. It need not be so complicated. If the Minister does not consider this issue closely, I hope that the noble Baroness will return to it at the next stage.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am glad that my noble friend drew attention in Amendment No. 126 to Clause 8(2). We have over many years got used to central governments treating local authorities with increasing contempt. Is it really necessary for Ministers or Secretaries of State to spend their time directing local authorities not merely to keep a register but how and where to do so? It really does seem absurd. Not all local authorities are as moronic as central government seem to believe. One of the reasons why people get fed up with and withdraw from local government is because they are not given any responsibility.
I am not making a party point; there was a time when I complained about the way in which some of my noble friends made a habit of filleting local government. Here is another Government telling local authorities how to blow their noses or, if they are to have a dog, to keep it in a kennel. It should not be necessary to give such minute directions as are apparently contemplated to sensible and capable authorities. If I have missed an explanation for this subsection I would be interested to hear it.
Lord Avebury: I hesitate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, because he knows so much about these matters. However, there is an argument for proposing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has in one of her amendments, that if the registers were kept in a form accessible via the Internet it would be much easier for people to find them. If people have to go to the local authority offices where the register is held, they will have to find out first which office it is and who they will have to ask to obtain the information. If the registers are in a prescribed form on the Internet, everyone will know how to access them and it will not make any difference whether they live in Durham or Bodmin; the way of obtaining information via the Internet will be identical.
So there is something to be said for the noble Baroness's suggestion in Amendment No. 128 that the Secretary of State should, under subsection (6), arrange for the duties to be discharged by having one or more central registers common to all local authorities in terms of method of access even though the information may be collected by individual local authorities in whatever way they choose. The information must be the same so that it can be fitted into the software to enable anyone to have access to it.

21
That is paramount, because it is essential that members of the public who need this information are not put to great trouble in obtaining it.
Amendment No. 128 is inconsistent with Amendment No. 126 seeking to leave out subsection (2), because prescription will be required if the Secretary of State is to ensure that the data are harmonised and presented in a single medium on the web.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for presenting an argument that substantially accords with that I intended to propose on how prescriptive one needs to be to local authorities. We share the view that a national register would be desirable. It would provide ready access to the information, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, indicated. It would assist in ensuring conformity across the country and it has many obvious advantages.
Our problem is how to get from here to there. We are rightly wary of suggesting that we should prescribe that the Secretary of State creates a national register before the legislation can be implemented, given the difficulties that we know exist with regard to compiling an extensive database of such complexity across the country. We propose working towards the national register by building it up over a period of time. That is why it is right that local authorities should have the primary obligation as the licensing authority to collect the data. However, a minimum of prescription is needed, not to tell local authorities how to blow their noses, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said, but to ensure that they record the information in such a way that we can build up the national register from local achievements.
The prescription is merely to seek a standardisation in the Form. Our local authority colleagues share that aspiration. There are trials taking place among a group of local authorities of licensing online, a prototype integrated licensing system under the aegis of the Local Government Association, using funds from the Invest to Salve budget. We hope that this work will be a pointer to obtaining the information in a manageable—and, crucially—publicly accessible form so that the register can fulfil the role defined for it.
That is the basis on which we say that to demand a central register at the moment the legislation receives Royal Assent and is implemented is asking too much, but we will work towards that objective against a background where the local authorities will enjoy, as the licensing authority, the responsibility for developing the information in such a form that would guarantee that it can be included in the national register in due course. Therefore I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: Before the Minister sits down, two issues spring to mind: first, the development costs of
22
such a register will be substantial. Will it be a self-recovery system so that the development costs for setting up the register on a local basis will be met by the local licence holders? That will lead to a variation in the costs if it costs more to set up a local register in one area than in another. Secondly, we support the Minister's argument about premises licences, but I hope he will address the fact that the same argument cannot apply to personal licences, which are not fixed in one locality.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before the Minister replies, the contiguous point is that since magistrates' courts are already the licensing authority, I presume that they have registers which they could pass across to local authorities, which would speed the process up no end.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful for that helpful suggestion. We are clearly not starting from the year dot with the legislation, but are seeking to develop a new licensing system on the basis of the information already obtained. We have much further to go under the Bill's provisions for more extensive information. I return to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about access to such information; that is why we are seeking for it to develop in such a form.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about costs. We are seeking to ensure that there are not additional costs to local authorities. We have said that the costs involved in operating the licensing system will be met by the fees levied. That will take into account the development of the register. There is no intrinsic reason why a sophisticated system of intelligence gathering properly applied should be more costly than a rudimentary system, which can be costly for local administration because it does not use the information technology available. The point of the central position is to seek to give guidance on how local authorities can most economically and effectively be involved in the development of the information. The issue of costs ought not to be irksome to the local authorities.
We are seeking to avoid a situation where the local authority has to work out almost from first principles every detail of the information that they need to garner. We are seeking to give them clear guidance from the centre on that which is required, consistent with the requirement of the legislation, in order to ease the burden on local authorities so that each one of them is not involved in a fresh exercise. That is why I made reference in my earlier remarks to the fact that activities are taking place already among a group of local authorities to see how the information can be garnered and integrated in order to keep costs to the absolute minimum.
Lord Avebury: There is a point which needs to be clarified. Will the Secretary of State be responsible for the development of the software, the database and the access software, or will there be a consortium of local authorities? If that is so, how is that consortium to come together? For example, it is not a matter which the LGA would normally have undertaken. However,

23
if it is to be undertaken by the Secretary of State, would there not have to be some power in the Bill to precept the capital costs involved?
Lord Davies of Oldham: No. I can respond to the noble Lord by now giving some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that we are not expecting that the Secretary of State will set out a series of stipulations, particularly as regards the most cost-effective measures, and impose that on local authorities, assuming that the Secretary of State was so all-knowing as to be able to carry out that activity. Here is an issue on which it is quite clear that in the first instance local authorities will take responsibility as the licensing authorities. Very intelligently, they are already setting up processes. A group of local authorities is coming together for a pilot study on the way in which they could most effectively develop a system for the collation of this information.
The Secretary of State will inevitably act benignly in support of systems which prove to be effective. The local authorities will take responsibility for this. It will not be the first time that local authorities have taken responsibility for developing systems which are common to a number of them, or even all of them, rather than being dictated to by Whitehall.
I have tried to reassure the noble Lord that the Secretary of State will have a very clear interest in seeking to reassure himself that the information, and the way in which it is garnered, does not create such terrible inconsistencies between local authority approaches to this matter as to completely inhibit the eventual development of the national register to whose value he has already attested.
Amendment No. 124 would require the licensing register to record personal contact details as may be required by the Secretary of State. The Bill, as drafted, contains the power for the Secretary of State to prescribe matters other than those on the face of the Bill, which must be kept on the licensing register. These matters may well include the kind of information suggested by the amendment. I am not hostile to the intent of the amendment, but merely indicate that Amendment No. 124 may not be necessary. I do not believe that there has been a clash of significant principle in the Committee on the register. I hope that I have given assurances that enable noble Lords to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: This has been a worthwhile debate because clearly we need to understand a little better the Government's thinking behind the requirement to keep a register. There is definitely considerable agreement in terms of the principle of keeping a register which can be applied as uniformly as possible across the country. That makes sense. In that case, if the Government are clear that we want to avoid inconsistency, I question why the Bill is not a little more straightforward. Under Clause 8(2) why should not the Bill say,
"Regulations shall require a register kept under this section to be in a prescribed form and kept in a prescribed manner"?
24
Under Clause 8(6) we have suggested an amendment that,
"The Secretary of State shall arrange for the duties conferred on licensing authorities".
The Government are clearly not keen to be seen to be too forceful on the face of the Bill as regards how the register should be kept. I wonder whether that is because they want to avoid the question of costs. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for pointing out the question of costs because it is clearly something that is terrifying the industry. The Government have said that the local authorities will not incur additional costs. The industry itself is very much concerned about the costs that will fall on it in setting up these systems and administering them.
I read the Government's response as being, "We are not quite sure that we want a national system up front because we would have to pay for it. If we start with a system from the local authorities and build upwards, that way we avoid the cost of setting it up, but we can, if we feel like it, and when we like, prescribe how it should be administered and what form it should take". If the Minister is clear as to how this matter should be developed, the Government should be a little more up front, a little clearer in the Bill, as to what is expected. I believe that we are going to have some pretty robust debates in relation to the fees before the Committee stage is complete because it is very hard to believe that it will not add enormous cost for whoever has to pick up the tab. At the moment it appears that it will be the industry. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 125 to 128 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Proceedings of licensing committee]:
[Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Sub-delegation of functions by licensing committee etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [The relevant licensing authority]:
[Amendment No. 133 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Authorised persons, interested parties and responsible authorities]:
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 8, line 3, at the end insert—
"( ) any other person who, in pursuance of arrangements made with the licensing authority, is so authorised, and any employee of such person,"
The noble Lord said: In this instance, Amendments Nos. 134, 137, 281 and 284 pick up the same subject, but in relation to clubs as against licences for premises. The amendment is designed to enable the employees of

25
contractors., or other third parties, to exercise the functions of an authorised person, for instance, rights of entry. In the absence of such an amendment it would not be lawful for a local authority to delegate such functions to a third party.
This part of the Bill is unnecessarily restrictive at present because it prevents local authorities from contracting out functions, which many seek to do. I believe that it is a commonplace throughout this House that increasingly over the past 25 years local authorities have contracted out functions. I adverted on a previous occasion to the fact that the department sponsoring the Bill did not seem wholly familiar with some of the changes that have occurred in local government in the course of the past 10 years. The Bill as drafted would prevent any such contracting out and the amendments are intended to address that issue.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: Clause 13 sets out those who are authorised persons, interested parties and responsible authorities in relation to premises licences for the purpose of the Bill. Clause 68 makes similar provision in respect of club premises certificates. The categories of authorised persons are identical. Authorised persons are given certain powers under the Bill for inspection purposes. For instance, Clauses 58 and 94 provide that authorised persons may enter a premises to inspect it when an application for a premises licence has been received in respect of those premises. Clause 174 provides authorised persons with the authority to enter a premises with a view to seeing whether a licensable activity is being carried on and in accordance with an authorisation.
Authorised persons do not, however, have exactly the same powers in respect of licensed premises operating under club premises certificates as those operating under premises licences. The power that I have just described, for instance, does not apply when a premises is used under the authority of a club premises certificate only.
The amendment would extend the persons defined as authorised persons to include any other person authorised by the licensing authority and their employees. The powers of inspection and entry in the Bill, which are necessary to support and monitor compliance with its provisions to ensure that we have a fully effective and efficient licensing system, are by their very nature intrusive. Those powers are essential, though, for the success of the system but we must make sure that only those who are needed to supervise and inspect the system—that is, professional experts—have those important powers along with the police.
The right of entry provided by Clause 174, for instance, should only properly be exercised by local authority officers who have been authorised or by the police. It would not be appropriate to allow licensing authorities to subcontract third parties to exercise powers of that nature. Although I accept the noble Lord's remarks about the development of subcontracting in many other areas, I am advised that local authorities do not wish to subcontract in this area.
26
A licensee whose premises might also be his home would be reasonably comfortable about letting a local authority officer who had a recognised role inspect the premises but the licensee might not feel the same about someone working for a private company operating under contract. Similarly, I would not want to see a licensing authority engaging a private company and providing it with the power to enter premises to see whether the appropriate safeguards were in place for the activities being carried out there.
I do not believe that the amendments are appropriate and I hope very much that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw them.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am grateful to the Minister for the spirit of her reply and the fullness of the detail she set out. I shall read her remarks carefully before we return to these matters on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Falkland Viscount Falkland moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 8, line 10, leave out "statutory functions" and insert "legal powers"
The noble Viscount said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 153. Clause 13 refers to the statutory functions or duties of local authorities but clearly they have many other duties and functions that arise under common law or the European Convention on Human Rights—such as control of nuisance. Local authorities also have powers that become duties where it falls upon them to take action in respect of licensed activities—using powers conferred on them from whatever source.
The amendment seeks to increase the accuracy of the reality of the situation by using the words "legal powers", which include all those duties, rather than "statutory functions". Amendment No. 153 follows on. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: The noble Viscount may be reading more into Clause 13(2)(d) than is there. That subsection simply describes an environmental health officer—nothing more. By including that officer in the definition, such officers are conferred with the powers of an authorised person for the purposes of the Bill.
Substituting "legal powers" for "statutory functions" would not alter that and might be confusing by departing from an accepted definition of that official. The same point applies in respect of Clause 68. Local authorities and their officers may only exercise the functions that have been conferred upon them. Against that background, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Falkland: I thank the noble Baroness for addressing the points that I raised. I understood exactly her remarks but I am not sure that I understand many of the implications. I shall not go further today but I wish to consider the Minister's reply against the

27
advice that I have received and perhaps return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Falkland Viscount Falkland moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 8, line 12, at end insert ", the prevention of crime and disorder, ensuring the safety of the public and protecting children from harm"
The noble Viscount said: The clause refers only to the statutory function to control the risk of pollution. I referred in my previous amendment to the prevention of nuisance as being one of the licensing objectives. Local authorities have both statutory and non-statutory duties with respect to the other licensing objectives. It is important that they are able to perform those functions with respect to their licensing duties. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I support Amendment No. 136. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 150 and 151 and the consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 297 and 298.
As to Amendments Nos. 150 and 297, at present when a local authority considers an application for a new public entertainment licence or a variation to a licence, it will have before it a report in which local authority officers will set out any grounds for objection or representations. These may come from the district surveyor, environmental health, or from the licensing officers themselves. As the Bill is drafted, relevant representations, which we have already mentioned, would be able to be made only by interested parties and responsible authorities.
Clause 13(4)(d) provides that a local authority can be a responsible authority, but only in respect of certain narrowly defined functions, including environmental health. What is not included are the important functions which the local authorities now carry out under the Crime and Disorder Act in combination with the police. It is only right that given the links between alcohol and crime, the local authority should be able to make relevant representations in respect of its duties under the Crime and Disorder Act.
I turn to Amendment No. 151 and its consequential Amendment No. 298. The local weights and measures authority carries out important consumer related functions in relation to licensed premises and as such it should not be precluded from being able to make relevant representations in respect of licensing applications. If, for example, it has been found that an unscrupulous owner of licensed premises has been selling short measures, it is surely only right that the local weights and measures authority should be able to make representations if that person applies for a new licence elsewhere, and, more importantly, it should be able to apply for a review of an existing licence under Clause 50.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I support the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and my noble friend
28
Lady Buscombe. The common cause between the two sets of amendments is the prevention of crime and disorder. The concepts that lay behind the Crime and Disorder Act had been contemplated by the previous government before 1997. However, I am the first to say, certainly on the basis of local experience in inner London, that we have been considerable beneficiaries of the Crime and Disorder Act. The degree of collaboration and co-operation between local police and local authorities in central London in dealing with a whole series of problems, and the fact that this power would be extended by the amendments powerfully recommend them.
4.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope to persuade the Committee that all of the objectives of these amendments are already covered by the Bill, but in order to do so I shall refer briefly to the definitions mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, when speaking to a previous group of amendments.
An authorised person is a person who is given powers of entry, inspection and, in the case of an officer of a licensing authority, enforcement. An authorised person is also charged with monitoring compliance with any conditions or restrictions attached to licences or certificates. An interested party is a local resident or residents' association or local business or trade group that wants to make representations about applications or apply for a review. Responsible authorities are expert bodies which will be able to make representations often amounting to a recommendation or objection to applications or to seek a review. The complaints or objections of the interested parties and responsible authorities must be relevant to the licensing objective.
When we add to the list of authorised persons, as some of these amendments seek to do, we must remember that we are adding to the people who have access to premises for inspection and to investigate breaches. We suggest that we ought to be cautious about doing that. Licence holders and qualifying clubs are engaged in legitimate business. We should not lightly add to their burdens by letting any group have this kind of access. When we add to the interested parties and responsible authorities, we add to the bureaucracy of the system. I know that the Committee is anxious to avoid that. The more responsible authorities that become engaged, the more paperwork there is. The burden falls on industry and on any authority that we involve. The costs have to be recovered through licence fees. We must be absolutely certain that involvement is absolutely necessary.
Among authorised persons we do not include the police because they already have the many necessary powers of entry. Where there is any doubt the Bill refers to them by using the term "constable" rather than "authorised person". We include any local authority or officer authorised by the licensing authority for the purposes of the Act. We include the fire authority and those entitled to inspect on issues

29
related to health and safety. We include environmental health officers and those responsible for the safety of passengers on boats and ships. We can prescribe others if we want to.
Among responsible authorities we include the police, the fire authority, those responsible for health and safety, environmental health officers, licensing authorities in whose area the premises also lie if they are in more than one area, navigation authorities in the case of boats and other more specialist authorities. This is a comprehensive list. We do not include the licensing authorities themselves as they will receive the objections and decide on their merits. We would not wish them to be judge and jury. Therefore, the responsible authorities are intended to include technical and professional experts. That includes the local authority acting as the environmental health authority. The Secretary of State can add to the list by regulation.
Amendments Nos. 151 and 298 in Clauses 13 and 68 seek to add trading standards officers to the list of responsible authorities. When considering the licensing objectives in connection with an application to grant or vary a licence, the issues of crime and disorder are primarily for the police. Those concerning health and safety are for local authorities and, in special circumstances, for maritime agencies and the Health and Safety Executive. Those concerning nuisance are for the police, the local authorities and local people. Those concerning children would engage them all.
So there really is comprehensive coverage of those whom it is necessary to include in the definitions of "authorised person", "responsible authorities" and "interested parties". Trading standards officers are mentioned in the Bill in connection with test purchasing, for example, when they send minors into licensed premises with the intent to purchase alcohol. Then they can pursue prosecutions. That is done in collaboration with the police. If trading standards officers want to initiate a review they have only to pick up the phone and speak to their colleagues in the police. On the issue of crime, it is sensible that they should speak with one voice. Therefore, we do not need to include trading standards officers.
Amendments to the definition of "authorised person", local authority officers responsible for statutory functions relating to crime and disorder, public safety and protecting children from harm are covered in Amendments Nos. 136 and 283. Amendments Nos. 150 and 197 add those with statutory functions relating to crime and disorder. We are now talking about the officials who along with the police will be given powers of entry, inspection and enforcement for licensing purposes. We are not talking about statutory consultation. "Authorised person" includes an officer of a licensing authority, which means the local authority that is authorised by the authority for the purposes of the Bill. In terms of entry, inspection and enforcement, the licensing authority can authorise any local authority officer to act for it for the put poses of the Bill. These amendments are therefore unnecessary.
30
I hope that I have covered all the ground in this set of amendments. I hope that I have given adequate assurance that we have the powers that are necessary to cover all of the legitimate points raised by the amendments, but no more.
Viscount Falkland: I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. I believe that there are hidden complexities that we need to examine further. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 137 not moved.]
Viscount Falkland Viscount Falkland moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 8, line 17, leave out "vicinity of the premises" and insert "locality"
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 138, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 139, 142, 144, 145, 146, 148, 285, 286, 289, 291, 292, 293, 294, 140, 143, 287 and 290. That large group of amendments are all related.
I shall speak to Amendment No. 139 first. Clause 13(3) introduces unnecessary restrictions on which members of the public can object to the grant of a premises licence. At present it is not necessary for a person to live
"in the vicinity of the premises"
in order to object. However, the words
"in the vicinity of the premises"
give rise to some difficulty. They are legal definitions and it is difficult for that person's objection to be considered by a local authority or by the licensing justices.
Any person who may be affected by the use of the premises for licensable activities should obviously have the right to be heard. That is an elementary requirement of natural justice as well as being an entitlement under Article 6 of the Convention on Human Rights. The amendment is designed to remove that restriction.
The removal of the restriction is particularly important when considering the requirement that the Bill imposes on licensing authorities to grant applications in the absence of "relevant representations"—whether or not the grant of the application would promote the licensing objectives, or be in accordance with the authority's licensing policy or be consistent with the Secretary of State's guidance, which is the definition of "relevant representations" in the Bill. The right of an "ordinary person" to object to the grant of a premises licence will be particularly important, given that he or she has no such right to object to the grant of personal licences or to the holding of temporary events.
The Committee stage of the Bill is taking some time and is generating some interest among the public at large. The lack of ordinary persons' rights as we perceive them in the Bill is getting a lot of attention and is creating a great deal of concern. So I shall be particularly interested in the Minister's answer to that point.
Amendment No. 140 is intended to remove a further unnecessary restriction. There is no provision for an objector to be represented by another individual. The individuals of course could be local councillors or a Member of Parliament. The use of the phrase "a body representing" persons who live in the vicinity may exclude, for example, amenity societies, hospitals and all kinds of fairly obvious bodies and societies constituted as charities and which do not therefore represent particular residents.
Amendment No. 143 is designed to ensure, for the avoidance of doubt, that amenity societies and similar organisations will retain the right, which is not clear in the Bill, to object to licences which they possess at present.
I turn to Amendments No. 144 and 146. The drafting of the provision seems designed to prevent organisations which are not businesses, which may be affected by the grant of a premises licence, from being heard. Those could be schools, hospitals or indeed any other non-profit making activity.
I think that I have covered the contents of that string of amendments with those remarks. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 139, 144 to 146, 148, 286, 291 and 293. I shall not follow the noble Lord on Amendments Nos. 140, 143, 287 and 290, partly because of the topography of the groupings page and also the fact that Amendment No. 140 is unlikely to come after Amendment No. 293 in the same group. However, I respond very warmly to the spirit with which he spoke to the earlier amendments.
I wish to add two random examples. As to Amendment No. 139, those living locally seem to me to have every right to take an interest in the fact that there is a bus stop close to the licensed premises as there is likely to be noise going on into the night as a result of its location.
As to Amendment No. 145—I declare an interest as the recently appointed Pro-Chancellor of the University of London—other bodies such as universities or, indeed looking across the Chamber, trades unions, equally have a right to express an interest in these matters. They are as likely to be affected as are residents in the areas concerned.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I briefly add to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Falkland. What the Committee hopes to hear from the Minister with regard to the word "representing" is that it means representing not in a formal legal sense, but in a broader sense.
Secondly, how representative? Does the body concerned have to purport to represent all local people or, as I would hope, will it be sufficient for the body, for example, to represent informally a group of local people who have come to a public meeting which has been advertised specifically to mount objection to a particular licensing application? That is quite
32
common. A village notice board may ask all those concerned about the proposed 24-hour opening of the White Hart to come to the village hall on Tuesday night.
I hope that the Minister can assure the Committee that such a meeting, which would be made up of course of one party—those opposed—would nonetheless be a body, and that the person or persons who at the end of that meeting were so charged would be a body representing persons who live in that vicinity within the meaning of this subsection.
Baroness Buscombe: I follow on in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has just asked the Minister in relation to Clause 13(3)(b). A great deal turns on the meaning of the word "representing". As a past chairman of the Goring and Streatley Amenity Association, I know that if we had not carried out our function, albeit in a very informal way, of representing that body in relation to some applications within the local area, our lives would not have been worth living. That is why such groups exist, to be the eyes and ears—the bush telegraph or village pump—of local areas. Therefore it is tremendously important that bodies such as amenity associations and local pressure groups should be allowed to represent people within their local area.
Baroness Blackstone: An interested party is a local resident or residents' association, local business or trade group. These may want to make representations on applications for premises, licences or club premises' certificates or to apply for a review of the licence or certificate after it has been granted. I can give the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, the reassurance that they seek. They do not have to represent everyone in the area, but only those who have requested them to act on their behalf in objecting to a particular licence. However, if we expand these groups too far, we add to the bureaucracy of the system. That places a burden not only on industry but also on the licensing authorities. Simplicity is something we should value.
One of the aims of the Government in bringing forward this legislation is to give a real voice and influence to local people who will be affected by the decisions taken. The industry understands that but has some anxiety about it. Local economies need the investment and employment that the hospitality and retail businesses bring. But these businesses also need some certainties if they are to make the necessary investment. Therefore a balance has to be struck.
Amendments Nos. 138, 142, 145, 285, 289 and 292 focus on the definition of a local resident. The Bill describes such a person as living in the vicinity of the premises but it does not define vicinity. That is a matter for the licensing authority to judge when receiving a representation or an application for a review. This is a matter on which the courts may have to rule if a challenge is mounted against the decision of the licensing authority.

33
The amendments substitute the broader term "locality" and in doing that, sever the direct link made to premises by the Bill. Their intention is to extend the range of people who might object to those living further away. This again raises the issue of nuisance caused by some customers of licensed premises when they may be hundreds of yards away. Once customers are beyond the vicinity of the premises concerned, it will be enormously difficult to say which venue they were at They may have come out of a private house drunk and disorderly.
The purpose of the Bill is to give a voice to those living near to the premises who will be more directly affected by what happens on those premises and would be able to demonstrate that concern at a hearing. The use of the term "locality" would muddy the waters and make it more difficult for licensing authorities to decide if a representation was in the frame. Severing the direct link to premises makes much more difficult, if not impossible, the proper consideration of any application on its merits. The focus of a premises' licence is the activities to be permitted on those premises, not the behaviour of individuals half a mile away and beyond the control of any licensee. If people do engage in anti-social behaviour, they have to be dealt with under the law as individuals. There is no sensible substitute for personal responsibility before the law. The Bill sets out the proper duties and obligations to be placed on licensees. If we go beyond that, we reduce the credibility of the licensing system. Other crime and disorder prevention strategies deal with those broader anxieties.
Our amendments in this group—Amendments Nos. 139, 148, 294 and 286—take a slightly different tack by referring to persons legitimately or simply affected by the use of the club or licensed premises. As we are dealing with primary legislation, the use of the word "legitimately" must be largely redundant. The arguments are essentially the same. I appreciate that some noble Lords believe that the impact of licensed premise; may fall as hard on those living near to taxi ranks, fist-food outlets or, indeed, a bus stop where customers may go after visiting licensed premises. How far away from the premises are we talking about and which premises? If we are talking about cumulative effects of many licensed premises, that is a matter to be addressed more broadly. We have already debated that.
Licensing can be only one strand of a much more complex approach. It is certainly not a panacea. I would be the first to accept that. The right approach is for the licensing authority to judge when an individual lives in the vicinity of the premises and if an objection through representation or a complaint through an application for a review is legitimate under the terms of the Bill.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 144, 146, 291 and 293 seek to expand the term "business in the vicinity'' to include any organisation. There are many possibilities; schools, churches, hospitals, perhaps a prison or a trade union, as has already been suggested. Businesses are listed because livelihoods may be at stake. If disorder, disturbance or nuisance drives customers away from another business, jobs may be lost and the business may fail.
34
I made the point earlier that the more we extend the number of people that may make representations, the more we increase the number of potential hearings. That would make the system more bureaucratic and more expensive and would add to the burdens of both industry and licensing authorities. We must approach with caution any expansion of these definitions. I have great sympathy with the idea that schools should be able to make representations about an application and if that were denied by the Bill, I should certainly agree to consider the proposed amendments. However, in the case of a school, it would not be difficult for the school to encourage a parent, a pupil, a governor or a teacher living in the vicinity or indeed the local residents' association to make the necessary representations. In practical terms, I do not believe any of these organisations or bodies will be inhibited from objecting where necessary.
Lord Avebury: If the governors of the school represent a group of people who are drawn from the vicinity, then they must be allowed to make representations.
Baroness Blackstone: That is exactly what I said. The Bill would indeed allow that.
Lord Avebury: I said as governors, not as individuals. It is clear that they are representing the school and not individual parents.
Baroness Blackstone: They can make representations as governors as long as someone associated with the school, living in the vicinity—normally governors do live in the vicinity— requests them to make such a complaint.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 140, 143, 287 and 290. Those amendments had been grouped separately but because they put forward the same argument, rightly, the noble Viscount included them in this group. The amendments provide that the Bill would explicitly state that a local residents' body would be one the licensing authority considered was representative. We have made it clear that it is for the licensing authority to decide in the first instance whether a body is representative of local residents. I do not believe that the wording of these amendments adds anything to that. It would be down to the judgment of the licensing authority, and, if necessary, the courts. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Before the noble Viscount withdraws the amendment—I had misunderstood and thought he was not moving Amendment No. 140 and its associated amendments—perhaps I may ask the Minister whether a Member of Parliament or a councillor is in her view entitled to act as a representative on behalf of those who want to make complaints. Frankly, there has hitherto been some doubt whether that opportunity will continue to be available to Members of Parliament and councillors, or whether the Bill is intended to take them out of the chain.
Baroness Blackstone: The answer is yes: a Member of Parliament could act as a representative.
Viscount Falkland: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for responding to this great raft of amendments in such a helpful and detailed way. I apologise to the Committee for running on in my enthusiasm to a later grouping—the fault of my highlighting pencil—but the Minister was kind enough to say that the amendments were related and to respond to them.
This has been an interesting debate. Those outside the House who take a close interest in the Bill will find the Minister's remarks and the contributions of other noble Lords extremely useful. This is one area of the Bill where we do not know what will happen when it is enacted. The Government take a slightly more optimistic view than do some Members on this side of the Committee, although it is actually not a party political matter. Some government Members may take a not very sanguine view of the ability under the Bill to obtain alcohol at all hours of the day and night. There will undoubtedly be difficulties.
If I interpret the Minister's remarks correctly, she is not prepared to acknowledge that we live in a highly mobile society. The whole business of "vicinity" and "locality" is the subject of much concern. After all, people may come out of a club that does not properly control the amount of alcohol sold to people who are clearly unable to hold it. One hopes that those people will return home by public transport, not in their cars. Happily, that is one area of our culture that has changed. Such people now know that it is illegal and improper to drive their cars. But people will move about in areas well removed from the source of the problem.
We shall carefully study the Minister's remarks, as I suspect will those outside the House. The cause of much concern is whether sufficient protection is in place under the liberalisation—with which we agree in theory—that the Government are introducing. That is what the amendments were intended to winkle out—to use that unparliamentary expression—from the Government. I thank the Minister for her complete answer. I shall carefully consider it and return to the matter later.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, to assist the House, will the noble Baroness, after the debate, consider her reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville? I think there may be a misunderstanding. I understood the Minister to say that an MP could under the subsection be representative of people living in the vicinity of a pub. That may not be right, in that the "interested party" definition is either of persons living in the vicinity or having a business in the vicinity or a body representing such persons. I do not understand how an MP could fall within the definition of a body representing persons.
Viscount Falkland: Or a councillor.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Or a councillor, as my noble friend says.
36
Finally, there may have been a misunderstanding about what was said vis-a-vis school governors. I think that the Minister said words to the effect that a board of governors could, if one of them lived in the vicinity of a pub, thereby become an interested party. That is undoubtedly true, but what was being suggested was that if, let us say, a primary school in a village had threequarters of its pupils coming from the village, the primary school committee could be a body representing those of the children who came from the village. I do not want the Minister to be drawn into those refinements now—this is hard for everyone—but it may be appropriate for her to consider the matter and communicate further.
Viscount Falkland: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 139 to 146 not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 8, line 20, at end insert—
"( ) the Member of the European Parliament, the Member of Parliament and the local ward councillors for the constituency or ward in which the premises are situated"
The noble Baroness said: Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, said, we ask in the amendment whether,

"the Member of the European Parliament, the Member of Parliament and the local ward councillors for the constituency or ward in which the premises are situated",
would fall within the definition of "interested party". As I understood it, the Minister said that a Member of Parliament would. However, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that on reading the wording of the Bill, it is hard to see how that is the case.
Clause 13(3)(a) states:
"a person living in the vicinity of the premises".
It is not unknown for Members of Parliament, of the European Parliament, and so on, to live outside the area they represent—which is the vicinity of the premises. As for,
"a body representing persons",
an individual Member of Parliament or of the European Parliament is not a body. A Member of Parliament or of the European Parliament is not necessarily,
"a person involved in a business in that vicinity".
Clause 13(3)(d) states:
"a body representing persons involved in such businesses".
Again, that does not allow for the inclusion of a Member of Parliament or of the European Parliament.
I therefore ask the Minister to support Amendment No. 147 and consequential Amendment No. 295—especially if she supports the notion that a Member of Parliament, national or European, or councillor should be an interested party in his or her constituency or ward, as I think and hope she does. I have not chosen to move the previous amendment concerning

37
the word "representation", because I listened to what the Minister said about the principle behind the clause. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: Perhaps I may rejoin the debate, having missed a little of it. I declare my interest as a member of a local authority.
I support my noble friend's amendment, especially as it concerns ward councillors. It is strange that there is nothing in subsection (3)(a), (b), (c) or (d) by which a ward councillor could be identified. In my experience of licensing panels, ward councillors tend to become involved not only in their own interest but in the interest of those whom they represent.
My noble friend is correct. Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) contain nothing that could be translated into the terms of her amendment. If, in due course, we are left with the list of interested parties in the Bill, there will be continued debate about whether a ward councillor can attend—unless someone has a copy of Hansard to hand to look up the reference. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us again on that point. I believe that she has done so previously.
Baroness Blackstone: The amendments would make Members of the European Parliament and Members of Parliament "interested parties" for premises within their constituencies. Councillors would be interested parties for premises within their wards. Under the Bill, interested parties may make representations about applications for licences or certificates. They may also apply to the relevant licensing authority for reviews of licences or certificates. Therefore, the amendments would allow MEPs, MPs and councillors to make representations about applications for licences and to apply for reviews of licences and certificates for any premises within their constituency or ward.
The Government believe that the licensing system should be managed by democratically accountable bodies. That is why we are transferring responsibility for alcohol licensing from the licensing justices. We also believe that local residents and businesses should be given the opportunity to have their say about licensed premises in their vicinity. That is why those groups are included in the list of interested parties.
It is the case that any resident living in the vicinity may use any representative to put his or her case. I hope that that answers the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. The representative could be a solicitor, a friend, a relative, a Member of Parliament, a ward councillor, an MEP, a Member of the National Assembly for Wales or of a body representing the amenity interests in the vicinity. Therefore, a person can nominate any individual to act on his or her behalf. But why should any of those individuals have a say "in their own right"? In every case that I have cited, "representative" is the appropriate word. If no local resident in the vicinity wants to exercise his or her right to make representation or to apply for a review, whom would those representatives be representing?
The representatives are available if a local resident wants to use their services. However, views should not be expressed on a resident's behalf when he or she has
38
not been consulted and has not made a request. The rights given are to protect those directly affected by activities to be carried on at the premises concerned. It is not a matter for others to tell residents that they know better.
In the light of what I have said I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Borrie: Before my noble friend sits down, I listened to the earlier points made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I found the Minister's response to the amendment rather difficult. If anyone can represent a person living in the vicinity of the premises, what is the point of the special mention in subsection (3)(b) of,
"a body representing persons who live in that vicinity"?
If it is either a person or a body, the subsection should say so. Alternatively, there is no need for paragraph (b). I find it rather difficult to understand. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain whether I have misunderstood the provision.
Baroness Blackstone: I am not sure why the subsection uses the term "a body" rather than "a body or a person". I suspect that the lawyers will tell us that when drafting legislation of this sort "a body" includes a person as well as some form of organisation. That person might be an MEP or an MP. However, the point is that we cannot concede that any of these bodies or persons should complain in their own right without a request from people or businesses who live in the vicinity. I believe that that is clear.
Lord Avebury: The ward councillor or MP might happen to live in the vicinity of the establishment. In that scenario, he would not be representing only himself; he might also be representing his constituents.
Baroness Blackstone: Of course.
Baroness Buscombe: I fear that I am not happy with the Minister's reply. From it, I understand that a body such as a local ginger group or an amenity association can come under the terms of Clause 13(3)(b) but not a Member of Parliament or a Member of the European Parliament. There is confusion here. I am not happy with the Minister's reply. It is important that Members of Parliament—be they Members of the European Parliament, Members of the national Parliament or local ward councillors—should be able to represent persons living in the vicinity, whether in terms of what might be classed a public right or in their own right.
I am not happy with the Minister's reply, which conflicts with an earlier response. On that basis I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
4.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 147) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 112; Not-Contents, 111.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Jopling, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Kimball, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Attlee, E.

Luke, L.

Avebury, L.

Lyell, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Bledisloe, V.

L.

Bowness, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Bridgeman, V.

McNally, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Maddock, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Burnham, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Buscombe, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Moynihan, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mutton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Naseby, L.

Chadlington, L.

Newby, L.

Chalfont, L.

Noakes, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Northover, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dholakia, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Eames, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Elles, B.

Rawlings, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Rennard, L.

Fearn, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Feldman, L.

Roper, L.

Fookes, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Fowler, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Freeman, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sharples, B.

Geddes, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Geraint, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glentoran, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Goodhart, L.

Stewartby, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hanham, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Henley, L.

Tordoff, L.

Higgins, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Waddington, L.

Howe, E.

Walmsley, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Weatherill, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Wilcox, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jellicoe, E.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ahmed, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Amos, B.

Brett, L.

Andrews, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Brookman, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Burlison, L.

Berkeley, L.

Carter, L.

Billingham, B.

Christopher, L.

40

Clark of Windermere, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lipsey, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Craig of Radky, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Crawley, B.

[Teller]

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

David, B.

Mar, C.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Desai, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dixon, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morgan, L.

Dubs, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Eatwell, L

Nicol, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Orme, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Paul, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Pendry, L.

Filkin, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Fitt, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gale, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gavron, L.

Richard, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Golding, B.

Sheldon, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Simon, V.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Slim, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Stallard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Greenway, L.

Strange, B.

Gregson, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Tenby, V.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Thornton, B.

Harrison, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Hayman, B.

Uddin, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Varley, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whitaker, B.

Hoyle, L.

Whitty, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Wilkins, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.(Lord

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Privy Seal)

Chancellor)

Williamson of Horton, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Winston, L.

Jeger, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.6 p.m.
[Amendment No. 148 not moved.]
Viscount Falkland Viscount Falkland moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 8, line 28, leave out from "authority" to end of line 31 and insert "for the area in which the premises are situated"
The noble Viscount said: It is our contention that this is a further important amendment if local democratic accountability is to be preserved. Clause 18 provides that applications are to be granted in the absence of "relevant representations" made by,
"an interested party or responsible authority".
The Bill requires a licensing authority to promote the licensing objectives set out in Clause 4 and to have regard to its licensing statement and, as the Bill stands, to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. It

41
ought to be the case that a licensing authority should have the power to refuse an application for a premises licence where the licensing objectives would not be promoted by granting the licence and/or where the grant of a licence would be contrary to the licensing statement or the guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The licensing authority must, therefore, be entitled to take into account the licensing objectives, its policy and the guidance, even where there are no relevant representations from interested parties.
Under Clause 13(4)(d) the licensing authority may make relevant representations only in its capacity as an environmental health authority. The amendment is designed to enable the licensing authority to draw to its own mention by means of making relevant representations the impact of the grant of a licence on the licensing objectives, its policy and central government guidance.
The clause as drafted narrowly limits the grounds on which a local authority can make relevant representations to its statutory functions in relation to environmental health. But local authorities have much wider responsibilities for crime and disorder under the Crime and Disorder Act, and for the environmental and social well-being of their areas under the Local Government Act 2000.
In addition, local authorities have obligations under statute, in common law and under the European Convention on Human Rights. It would be wrong, therefore, to prevent them from making relevant representations to the extent that these responsibilities required them to do so, given that to do so would promote the licensing objectives. I beg to move.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville:Anything that I might say on Amendments Nos. 186 and 189 would simply go back to the amendment that the noble Viscount so ably moved. I am delighted to support him.
Lord Davies of Oldham:We have a difference of approach, as is reflected in the amendment. I will seek to defend the position represented in the legislation, and I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, will accept that the amendment is undesirable.
The principle on which we are working is straightforward. The licensing authority's discretion is engaged only when relevant representation has emerged. In seeking that objective, we are seeking to support the concept behind the Bill as a deregulation measure, keeping bureaucracy to the absolute minimum. Under normal circumstances, when no one has objected to the position, the licensing authority is carrying out a straightforward exercise of accepting a licence application to which no one has raised any objection. That will reduce bureaucracy, when no one outside the authority has shown any cause for doubt and the licensing authority—which is the local authority—is able judiciously to use its judgment on the licence, to which no one has objected. The problem with the noble Viscount's amendment is that it brings the licensing authority into conflict with itself, having raised objections that were raised by no one else.
42
The amendment would make a straightforward exercise into a fundamental issue. The local authority on which the premises or club is situated would be able to object to an application for the grant or variation of a licence or certificate, or to complain about certain premises, and give rise to a review of a licence when no one else had done so. That would run counter to the philosophy behind the Bill, which is to keep the system as clear, straightforward and unbureaucratic as possible, and would bring the local authority into a particular relationship when it is itself the licensing authority.
That is the argument and concept behind the clause, and why the amendment should not be accepted. We should consider who has not objected to the application. The police, the fire authority and the local residents have not objected—no one who has a direct interest in the issue has objected. The local councillors have not been active on behalf of anyone else, because no one else has raised an issue with regard to the application. Suddenly, the whole local authority, which is the licensing authority, is part and parcel to an objection. That clearly does not fit with a measure in which there is ample provision for those who object to be able to do so, and there are proper procedures for them to do so. The amendment would introduce a massive complication for the authority in its licensing role. On that basis I hope that the noble Viscount will reconsider the amendment.
We shall discuss aspects of the other amendments, to which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, referred, on Clause 18. They would broaden the issues to much more general points than the technical grounds on which professional local officers such as environmental health officers can make representations and object. If the amendments were accepted, absolutely any area would be open to objection, with the local authority making representations accordingly.
We are seeking to keep a balanced, proper and correct procedure, which certainly gives the opportunity for those who wish to object and feel the obligation to do so. When no one in the community has objected and no professional body has done so, it must be right to regard the local authority as able to act in its straightforward licensing role and not get involved in the process that the amendment would impose.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville:The Minister made reference to Amendments Nos. 186 and 189, which I simply prayed in aid of the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. One purpose of Amendment No. 186 was to allow police officers and the local authority to make representations in relation to premises supervisors in any circumstances required to promote the licensing objectives. Of course, it is likely that the police will have views on a particular individual as regards licensing. Those who have been inspecting on behalf of the local authority also have

43
detailed knowledge, however, and it seems a pity that that knowledge should not be available when the decision comes to be made.
Lord Davies of Oldham:Perhaps I was not entirely fair to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and I apologise if that was so. We shall have a major debate on the issue when we discuss other amendments.
As the noble Lord rightly said, the relevant issues for individuals specified in a premises licence will concern the police. I emphasise that we are seeking to develop a system in which managers can move from premises to premises with the minimum of hindrance. Any objection that was laid against such a manager would inevitably be a police matter, because it would relate to criminal law and to a lack of fitness of the individual to continue in that capacity. We shall have a debate on that subject later, but I emphasise that the issue is one not for the licensing authority but for the police.
Viscount Falkland:I was about to speak before, but the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, put the matter much better than I could have done, as one would expect.
The Minister made an interesting and clever speech, knocking down my Aunt Sally. I confess that my amendment is a difficult concept, but he cleverly kept off the licensing objectives, which are at the core of the question. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, there is no reason why the local authorities should not have the right to feel that there was a reason that the licensing objectives were not met.
I take all the points that the Minister made about added bureaucracy, but many of us feel that the Bill will create more bureaucracy anyway, rather than reduce it. On the face of it, the project of removing the licensing of alcohol and entertainment from magistrates to local authorities is a simple one. However, as we are finding out, it is a complex issue, and we would not be debating the matter in Committee for five days if it were not. We do not yet have the guidelines.
We shall deal with the licensing objectives later. However, I take what the Minister says, and compliment him on the clever way in which he made my amendment look irrelevant and obscure. However, I hope that he understands me when I say that we would like to reconsider the points that were raised. We have been advised that the issue is important, and we shall, if necessary, return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 150 and 151 not moved.]
Redesdale Redesdale moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 8, line 43, leave out paragraph (g).
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. The amendments so far have been aimed at widening the number of people who could object. This one goes in the opposite direction, as the Minister will no doubt point out. He has strenuously rejected any attempt to
44
widen the number of groups who can oppose, saying that the list is authoritative. The purpose of the amendment is to ask the Minister who would be prescribed by the Secretary of State under this paragraph. Obviously there is a balance to be struck between allowing eligible groups to oppose and allowing the industry to ensure that the list does not become too wide. It would be helpful if the Minister could outline those groups, bodies or individuals who are envisaged under paragraph (g). I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I support the amendment, to which my name and that of my noble friend Lord Luke have been added. It would be otiose to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said. I apologise to the Committee for being so dilatory in not thanking the Minister at the beginning of our debates today for her letter dated today. I am reminded of it by the reference of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, to the lack of draft guidance. I am pleased that the Minister's letter has confirmed that draft guidance will be available in time for Report.
We are all extremely grateful that the Minister has seen fit to strengthen her team to ensure that sufficient resources are concentrated on the production of the guidance. We are grateful that she has listened to our earnest pleas for sight of the guidance before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House. Many of the practical implications of the Bill will be dealt with in the guidance. I am grateful to the Minister for making strenuous efforts to ensure that we shall be able to have the guidance at our side when we debate the Bill on Report.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I support the amendment. I listened to the Minister say how precise and clear the list is and how we do not need to extend it. However, he then shoots himself in the foot under paragraph (g) by saying that the Government will have anybody else that they like at the time prescribed. There is no logic in that. The Minister has talked eloquently and persuasively, while I have been sitting here quietly, about how all the earlier categories under subsection (4) are exhaustive, exhausting and explicit. Then, lo and behold, he goes and does this. I cannot see how he can logically defend it.
Lord Davies of Oldham: This is a case of girding one's loins. I shall clearly do my best to keep the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in what he indicates has been a benign frame of mind for the past half hour or so as we have debated these issues. I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, moved his amendment and to the noble Baroness Lady Buscombe, who, for the first time, mentioned her colleague the noble Lord, Lord Luke, who I understand is enjoying his 70th birthday today. That gives me the chance to congratulate him. I am sure that we all wish him well on such an auspicious day. He is fortunate not to be in my position on these challenging amendments.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, we regard our list as exhaustive. It is meant to be exhaustive and comprehensive, so I am open to chiding from the noble

45
Lord, Lord Redesdale, on why on earth we should have an open-ended dimension for the Secretary of State to add to a list that is meant to be exhaustive, as I sought to say earlier.
The answer is straightforward. There is nothing sinister in the proposals. We simply seek to make provision for the possible development of public authorities that we know not of at the moment. In due course Parliament and the executive may, in their wisdom, seek to develop fresh authorities, public bodies and—dare I say—even quangos, which may have an interest in this area. We cannot define them at this stage because they do not exist. However, it would not be right to have to go back to primary legislation to include the interests of any such body if it were widely recognised to have a proper interest and role to play. For example, the list contains the Maritime and Coastguard Agency as agents of the Secretary of State. We do not know whether it or any other body may have its name or role changed. Change occurs with such bodies. We are merely seeking to avoid the need to use primary legislation to bring them within the framework. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, Committee saw no reason to object to the provision. I am taking the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, at his word. This is a probing amendment and it F as certainly probed me quite deeply. I hope I have given a satisfactory response.
Lord Redesdale: With that answer and the understanding that the Minister does not have any particular bodies in mind at the moment, I shall not press the amendment. It is unsettling that there is quite such a blank cheque. I am sure the industry will find that slightly unnerving, but I take the Minister at his word that the provision will not be used as an opening to include large numbers of other groups, or, especially, other quangos. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Meaning of "designated premises supervisor"]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 9, line 5, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Baroness said: This clause introduces the issue of the designated premises supervisor, who looms large in the Bill and has been a topic of much discussion and consternation for all those involved. The clause defines the designated premises supervisor as the individual named on the premises licence as the premise; supervisor. The requirement that the designated personal licence holders be formally linked to the premises licence threatens to increase significantly the bureaucracy faced by premises licence holders and the costs incurred by local authorities. It will lead to numerous applications to vary the licence as personnel move around. The requirement also runs counter to the flexibility of a split licensing system, set out in the White Paper.
In the event of an extraordinary incident, such as the designated supervisor leaving employment without providing prior notification to their employer, or the immediate curtailment of employment of the designated personal licence holder, the licensed premises will cease to be able to trade. The White Paper sought to move away from the system whereby a premises licence holder would be penalised for the actions of a personal licence holder without even the application of the due diligence defence. The clause will impose just that system.
Why have the proposals for a new system outlined in the White Paper been replaced by a system that involves more red tape? Local authorities and the industry were hoping for flexibility in the new licensing system. This issue of the designated premises supervisor is just one example of how those who drafted the Bill have failed in their promise to liberalise the licensing process.
I want to make an additional point that I believe is relevant. We are puzzled as to why provisions in the Bill deal with the designated premises supervisor, as he or she appears to have no function at all. However, a number of provisions in the Bill appear to give the designated premises supervisor some function. For example, Clause 19 provides that a designated premises supervisor is required where the premises licence authorises the supply of alcohol, and that no supply of alcohol may be made on any premises unless there is a designated premises supervisor in possession of a personal licence.
If a designated premises supervisor is identified in the premises licence and has a personal licence, those requirements are satisfied. There is surely no need for the designated premises supervisor identified in the premises licence to be on the premises, or even to supervise the supply of alcohol. That is made clear by subsection (3) of the same clause, which provides that,
"every supply of alcohol under the premises licence must be made or authorised by a person who holds a personal licence".
That subsection does not refer to a designated premises supervisor. Such authority can be given by someone else who holds a personal licence.
We appreciate that a designated premises supervisor can be guilty of a number of offences in Part 7. However, the designated premises supervisor is just one of a group of people who can be prosecuted, including the holder of the premises licence or any person who works at the relevant premises. In any event, all the offences require knowledge of some activity being carried on. If the designated premises supervisor is not on the premises, he or she would not have sufficient knowledge for the purposes of the prosecution.
The functions of the designated premises supervisor in the Bill are illusory. Provided that a designated premises supervisor is identified in the premises licence and that he holds a personal licence, the requirements of the Bill are satisfied. That being so, we must ask ourselves whether there is some hidden agenda. Is it intended that the designated premises supervisor must be on the premises when alcohol is served? If that were the case, that

47
requirement could be unacceptable to many commercial organisations, and would undoubtedly be unacceptable to most voluntary organisations such as village hall committees up and down the country.
Voluntary organisations are in many instances, as the description suggests, run by volunteers. It surely would be unacceptable if a volunteer helping out in village life, and who was identified as the designated premises supervisor of a village hall, had to attend and supervise every function there. That would put intolerable pressure on a mere volunteer who gives up his or her time for free.
We therefore urge the Government to confirm that the provision is not intended to impose any obligations or functions on the designated premises supervisor. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gould of Potternewton): I must inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 154 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 155 to 157 for reasons of preemption.
Lord Williamson of Horton: I make my customary declaration of interest as a non-executive director of Whitbread plc. I broadly support the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, As every vote counts. I am sure that she will be very happy to know that that is so.
We cannot look ahead too far to future amendments, but it is none the less true that Amendment No. 155 would alter the reference to the designated premises supervisor. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, will come on to that relevant point. Later, the jumbo group in which the lead amendment is Amendment No. 160 will suggest changes in how the information about the premises supervisor would be handled. That relates to Clause 36 in particular, under which we might have an application to vary the licence to specify an individual as a premises supervisor.
I enter the discussion at this point because I think it important that we should not get into a mindset that perhaps relates a little to the past. I also want to indicate, certainly in relation to a good number of companies that operate in the sector—for example, pub-restaurants—that we would not normally expect to start with a blank cheque if there were to be a change. That will not actually happen. What will happen is that the personnel who will deal in such premises, whether as designated premises supervisors or premises supervisors, are likely in many cases simply to be transferred from another establishment. That is good management, and is the way things will operate. The people who are arriving are likely to have already been accepted as designated premises supervisors, if the term remains in the Bill, or as premises supervisors.
The principle on which we ought to work is that we absolutely minimise the need to question again the position of someone who has already been accepted
48
elsewhere as a premises supervisor. That is true throughout this part of the Bill. The Government have done quite a good job on Clause 36, but it is very important that any changes made do not result in a situation in which we significantly reopen the issue when someone has already been accepted as capable and qualified to be a designated premises supervisor, if that remains in the Bill, or at least a premises supervisor. If we do that, we will not be matching the way in which the industry is developing. For example, substantial groups own a good number of pub-restaurants or pubs and move people around in the interests of good management.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I have tabled some amendments—Amendments Nos. 155 and 157—that come within this area. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we addressed those now, because my noble friend has eloquently spoken on the whole topic. She has been a good deal more radical than I had envisaged being in my amendments. I have been using a scalpel, and she has been using a cleaver. The cleaver is probably to be preferred in the end.
I do not want to repeat the points made by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, except to say that the Bill is deregulatory. Ministers keep telling us that, but this part of it adds another layer of licensable persons. It really adds nothing to premises and personal licences, the concept of which we have broadly accepted.
As my noble friend said, the provisions have an illusory role. Perhaps I might give a practical example. There are about 70,000 public houses in this country, of which about half are owner-managed. In those cases, presumably the personal licence holder and the premises supervisor will be the same. There is only one person, because he is an owner-manager. Nothing will really be achieved. All the Bill would do is require more forms to be filled in and more people to be registered.
As for those who are in the managed sector, that is another 35,000 people to be enrolled, registered and tracked. Every change would be re-registered. It is not clear to me from the Bill exactly whether it is envisaged that one could have a premises supervisor for more than one premises, or whether there is a maximum number of premises to which a person may be a supervisor.
There would be another layer of bureaucracy as a result of a deregulatory Bill. It adds nothing that is not there already, with the twin approach debated during the Committee's earlier sittings. There must be a strong argument for taking a much more radical approach and using, as my noble friend did, the cleaver to reduce the burden on the industry.
Lord Redesdale: I do not believe that the metaphor of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, of a cleaver is fair. Basically, the amendment, which we support, brings the Bill back into line with the White Paper, which was debated by the industry and was the subject of much discussion for many years. The problem with subsection (1) is that it introduces designated premises supervisors, which muddies the waters between a

49
premises licence and a personal licence. The strength of the amendment is that we would move away from that added form of bureaucracy and back to something that was envisaged in the White Paper. It has now somehow been changed for the worse through the translation of the White Paper into the Bill. I hope that the Minister considers the issue carefully. Although many amendments follow on from this amendment, the issue will be of central importance to the next stage of the Bill
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I was intending to speak to later amendments but the general issue is raised in this regard. It may be helpful to the Minister and the Committee if one gets off one's chest what one wants to say. I begin by declaring an interest as a consultant to the Co-operative group and as the vice-chairman of the all-party retail group, which has a general interest in this sphere.
From what I have read I am, frankly, puzzled. I have had good information from a body called the British Beer and Pub Association, which also represents other bodies. I want to use the word "puzzlement". I am sure that the Minister will be able to help us. Reference has already been made to the position in the White Paper. The amendments seek to secure the understanding in the While Paper.
The BBPA. States:
"The White Paper stated that on taking up responsibility for a business the licensee should 'normally do no more than simply register his or her arrival with his local police and the licensing authority by a letter covering a copy of the personal licence"'.
That is simple, unbureaucratic and practical. However, the situation has now changed; I am sure that the Minister will tell us why. The industry proposed the original concept in a submission in 1999. That was taken up in the White Paper in 2000. I am told that none of the parties in the working groups that were consulted by the DCMS appears to want or believe it to be necessary to evolve such an unnecessary complex system. All that is required is that the police and licensing authority know who is responsible for any particular premises.
The Minister knows that the Bill has had a general welcome in the industry and among many other bodies and the general public. We do not argue against the Bill or even its principle; we argue against the manner in which the Minister and his colleagues consider it appropriate to take it forward. I should be grateful if he dealt with that point.
The principle of splitting the licence into a personal and premises licence is severely undermined through the requirement to name the personal licensee on the premises licence and treating a change of licensee as a variation of the premises licence. Frankly, I am puzzled about the reasons why. That leads to a great paper-chase every time there is a change of manager or tenant. We do not want that unless it is absolutely necessary. The Minister will doubtless tell us why it is absolutely necessary and we will have to cogitate on his case. This does not involve confusion; it is difficult to understand why that which was previously part and
50
parcel of the rapport between the industry and the Minister had to involve the change that we are discussing.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In order to save time, I am going to make a long speech. As has been recognised in our debate, the amendment, which is the first in a series of amendments about the designated premises supervisor can cover the whole range of issues raised in subsequent amendments. By setting out where we stand on designated premises supervisors, I hope that I will be able to make shorter speeches when we consider Amendment No. 155, the group of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 156, the group of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 157, the group of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 160, Amendment No. 161, the group of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 187, the group of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 214 and the group of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 273. I hope that I will be spared the necessity of making this general speech all over again.
As has been recognised, this is an absolutely fundamental concept in relation to the way in which the Bill has been drafted. We start straightaway with the central concept of the designated premises supervisor. Amendment No. 154 would efface effectively from the Bill the whole principle of the designated premises supervisor. I venture to suggest that if the amendment were agreed to, all of the groups of amendments to which I have referred would no longer be necessary.
As we made clear on Second Reading and beyond, the Bill is a balanced package—the balance is between reducing bureaucracy for the industry and maintaining safeguards to protect the public. The designated premises supervisor is the essential key to that balanced package. The Bill requires that every premises licence that authorises the supply of alcohol must specify a designated premises supervisor. That includes premises such as a pub, nightclub or supermarket. The designated premises supervisor must be the holder of a personal licence. I shall say in a moment what that involves. In practice, that individual will be responsible for the day-to-day running of the premises and will shoulder much of the burden on behalf of the premises licence holder.
I of course agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that with village pubs there will be no separation: the premises licence holder will be the designated premises supervisor and that role will no longer be significant. However, it must be recognised that in any larger organisation, which could be a business as opposed to an individual, there must be someone who is capable of ensuring that the conditions of the premises licence are adhered to. There could be a number of personal licence holders working in larger premises and junior and assistant managers could all hold those licences. There is no requirement in the Bill that they should be listed or that their names should be made available. There is no bureaucracy of that sort. All of those people would

51
have satisfied the conditions for holding a personal licence to supply alcohol. They must be over the age of 18, have no unspent convictions for relevant offences and possess an accredited licensing qualification so that they will have at least some understanding of the social issues and potential problems associated with the sale of alcohol. The reason for having a designated premises supervisor is to ensure that there is always one specified individual among those personal licence holders who is identified and identifiable for the premises. One hopes that they will have experience relating to the supply of alcohol and alcohol-related matters.
We anticipate that the designated premises supervisor will be given day-to-day responsibility for running the premises by the premises licence holder. That is not to say that he must be present on the premises all the time. Restrictions on the hours of work would make that totally impracticable. But he occupies a pivotal position. In public houses we are increasingly seeing managed houses where a large pub-operating company would hold the premises licence and a manager would be installed to look after the pub. The business could be in London, the pub in Newcastle. Management supervision would be provided usually by the designated premises supervisor. By designating the premises supervisor in the premises licence—the amendments beginning with Amendment No. 181, described by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, as the "scalpel", would leave the premises supervisor but take him off the licence—it is clear to all who is in day-to-day charge of the premises.
The industry does not like these provisions. I know that. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, made that abundantly clear. We discussed these matters with the industry at great length.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. This is an important point. In my excitement to get to my feet earlier I forgot and probably should declare my interest for the purposes of today's debate. I am a non-executive director of a brewery and a pub operator.
Can a designated premises supervisor be for more than one premises or only one? If it is only one, that presumably means a pub-operating chain will have to have a personal licence holder and another layer of management in the shape of a designated premises supervisor. That does not apply to single operators. So the Government are imposing a layer of management on the bigger chains that is not being imposed on single operators.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is wrong in two ways. First, a designated premises supervisor can be for more than one premises. Secondly, a personal licence holder is needed in order to operate the premises anyway. If that personal licence holder is the only personal licence holder, then he will be the designated premises supervisor. There is no additional layer. There is no separate person from the
52
personal licence holder in the form of the designated premises supervisor. Those are absolutely minimum requirements to ensure accountability.
Lord Redesdale: This issue is causing a degree of concern. Is the Minister saying, as I believe he is, that the designated supervisor does not have to be on the premises all the time? If so, then a pub can be run for large periods of time by just a manager with the requisite personal licence.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is what I am saying.
Baroness Buscombe: Without wishing to take up too much of the Committee's time, surely that means that a large organisation is worse off than an individually-run village pub where the premises licence holder is also the designated premises supervisor. He is on site, managing and controlling the situation on a day-to-day basis. But in the case of a large organisation there has to be someone who is effectively floating from one premises to another, in which case there is not the same hands-on management. There is effectively a separate layer in this designated supervisor overseeing a number of establishments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is possible. The Bill does not rule it out. It is not what we would expect to be the normal situation. We would normally expect there to be a designated premises supervisor who looks after one premises. There is no additional layer of bureaucracy in that. But businesses can organise themselves as they think fit. For example, if there is a more senior manager, that senior manager may be given responsibility for more than one shop or more than one pub.
Lord Redesdale: I know one publican who has four pubs. But it may be a pub chain with 30 pubs. If the designated supervisor can oversee more than one pub, does it mean that that person's name will be above the door of all four pubs in just a small chain, or all 30 pubs in a larger chain?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Much to my regret there is no provision which says that the name should be above the door. I believe it to be a good thing that it should say "Andrew Robert McIntosh" or "Rupert Mitford licensed to sell beer, wine and spirits for consumption on or off the premises". But that is not what the Bill says. It is sad but we have to put up with that.
The principle is that the designated premises supervisor is normally the person responsible for day-to-day management of the premises. If the industry can persuade us that a single person can be responsible for the day-to-day management of more than one premises, then that person will be registered as the designated premises supervisor. There is no mystery. We are trying to be as flexible as possible to the industry.

53
Although the industry does not like these provisions, the police and local authorities take a quite different view. The police and the licensing authorities who are responsible for enforcing the Bill consider these provisions essential for making enforcement effective. First, it is essential that the police or officers of the licensing authority can identify immediately the person at any premises selling alcohol in a position of authority. They can do so at the premises because a copy of the licence must be held there and a summary displayed. 'The Bill requires that the designated premises supervisor shall be named in the licence. That will ensure that problems are dealt with swiftly by engaging with that key individual. If the person was not named on the licence itself, as later amendments provide. passing officers or officials might have to check headquarters records. That would be neither helpful, nor practical nor efficient.
Secondly, it is essential that the police are able to object to the designation of a new premises supervisor where in exceptional circumstances they believe the appointment would undermine the crime prevention objective in the Bill. I shall come to the circumstances of objection in a moment. For very good reasons, therefore, we have given undertakings to the police that these arrangements should prevail. The provisions establish clear lines of responsibility. Where trouble flares up the police will be better able to take the necessary action quickly, with a minimum of confusion.
But we have not forgotten the desirability of light touch bureaucracy. We want business to thrive for the sake of investment, employment and local and national economies. But that has to be balanced against the need for effective enforcement in the interests of the wider community. All that we are asking business to do is to indicate the name of the premises supervisor on the premises licence while he or she is in post. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents an immediate change of that person if a business wants to do that.
Where a change of premises supervisor is to take place, the premises licence-holder—perhaps a supermarket chain or a pub-operating company—notifies the police and the licensing authority and shows that the individual concerned consents to taking on the role. That is a simple notification. It is far from being what my noble friend Lord Graham called a "paper chase". The whole licence does not have to be sent in for amendment. That would place a burden on the licensing authority itself. The Bill provides that a part of the licence may be submitted, ideally a schedule to the main licence, giving personal details of key individuals. That would be dispatched, amended and returned.
Fears have been expressed that the arrangements could hinder or slow down the movement of managers between premises. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that that is what happens in large groups. But nothing could be further from the truth. I refer to Clause 37. The premises licence holder can give notice that the appointment is being given immediate effect so that nothing hinders the change of premises
54
supervisor. If the police intervene and object and the licensing authority upholds the police objection, the individual would have to be removed straightaway. But the premises licence holder would be able to give notice of a different individual to be given immediate effect, pending notification to the police.
I can assure Members of the Committee that I understand the concerns about some parts of industry. But as a result of the efforts we have made to accommodate the industry, those concerns—I know they have been expressed in representations to Members of the Committee—are unfounded
Lord Redesdale: I realise that the Minister is trying to give a comprehensive reply, but he said that the take-over could take place with immediate effect pending notification of the police. As I understand it—he may correct me—the Bill later states that the police may take up to 48 hours to make checks. Is the Minister saying that the person could take over pending the police checking up and reporting, or does he have to wait for the go-ahead from the police, which could take some time?
6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, he could be in post. But designated premises supervisors have to hold personal licences, which the police can check quickly.
I saw a degree of bemusement on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, when I talked about premises supervisors having responsibility for more than one premises. That is the case because the Bill does not forbid it. However, if one looks at the practicalities, if there were a chain of 30 pubs and the premises licence holder wanted to nominate the same person for all of them, the police would say, "No, that won't work, that would undermine the objective", and they would object accordingly.
I do not believe that that will happen. The Bill provides for one, two or three premises at most to be under the responsibility of a supervisor. We are trying to keep the provision simple and not to make it unnecessarily complicated.
The complexity of the existing alcohol licensing regime is not fully recognised. On every occasion where a new manager of a pub or supermarket takes over control of the premises there has to be a full application for the transfer of the licence, involving a full hearing before the licensing justices and court appearances by the police, whether or not they have any objections. We expect the majority of applications to be dealt with administratively with virtually no costly court hearings, which are a common part of the existing regime.
That is why I am justified in saying that this is a deregulatory Bill. We envisage a light touch bureaucracy but we have to balance it by giving the police a right to object and intervene, but only in exceptional circumstances. For example—this is relevant to what the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, was saying—a personal licence holder might have been allowed to retain his licence by the courts despite

55
convictions for selling alcohol to minors, or he might have acquired convictions for the possession rather than the supply of controlled drugs. What if such an individual fetches up at a pub with a history of being used by under-age drinkers or an association with drug abuse? The police would surely intervene when such a personal licence holder and such a pub came together. That is why the provision is necessary.
Lord Williamson of Horton: Perhaps I may clarify my point. If the Minister reads Hansard he will find that I said that Clause 36 was a good clause. That is the clause about the application to vary a licence. I want to make sure that with the passage of the Bill we do not arrive at more difficult circumstances in relation to Clauses 36 and 38.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am glad to hear that and I take it as support for the Bill's provisions.
We want a provision that allows for the industry's aims that the new regime should be simple and the regulatory burden should be as light as possible. The Bill replaces elements of more than 50 statutes currently impacting on licensing. Our estimate is that it will save the retail, hospitality and leisure industries almost £2 billion over 10 years. But there must be safeguards in place. I have set out the minimum safeguards involving the police. To remove designated premises supervisors would wreck the balance we have achieved between deregulation and protection.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his full response. He will not be surprised to hear that I am not entirely satisfied. Members on all sides of the Committee have good reason to believe that the function of the designated premises supervisor is unclear. I urge the Minister and his officials to consider between now and Report stage my points about the functions of the designated premises supervisor. We understand what he says about policing and the need to ensure proper management of all licensed premises, but if for smaller owner-run pubs it is all right for the personal licence holder to be the designated premises supervisor, why is it not all right for larger organisations?
We do not understand the need for the additional layer, not least for the reason I suggested, that there appears to be no particular function that such a supervisor could or should carry out over and above that—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: A designated premises supervisor is a personal licence holder. There may be a number of personal licence holders working at the premises. The designation tells the police who is in charge; that is all. There is no additional layer of bureaucracy.
Baroness Buscombe: I am not satisfied that it is necessary to have a specific separate person as a designated premises supervisor. Will the Minister and his officials consider what Members of the Committee
56
have said? The debate on this subject will continue on the forthcoming amendments. We recognise the complexity of the existing regime, but the Government would be well advised to return to the proposals set out in the White Paper—to which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, referred earlier—and to reconsider whether it is necessary to have an extra layer which does not add to policing or the proper management of the premises. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 9, line 5, leave out ", in relation to a premises licence,"
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may briefly finger my scalpel on this issue. Having heard the Minister I went through a variety of emotions. He began by describing the role as if it were an area manager covering a number of pubs. It became clear as he was questioned that the police will ensure that there is one person who is a designated premises supervisor and they will not permit him to be designated for more than one premises. It will be permissible for him to have more than one premises but it will not be practical because the police will object.
The Minister had the attractive idea of having the name above the pub door, for which I have a great deal of sympathy. But we have in essence two boxes; the premises licence and the personal licence. The Minister is putting an arch between the two, which is the present licensing system; namely, having above the door of the pub the name of the designated premises supervisor, as we do at present. We have taken the present licensing system and added two more boxes to it. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The scalpel kills as surely as the cleaver if it is wielded inexpertly. I am not saying for a moment that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is inexpert; he is clearly extremely expert. If the designated premises supervisor is not identified in the original premises licence or any premises licence as subsequently amended at the time when the application is made, which is when full consideration is given to the circumstances of the licence, there is no opportunity to include what is entirely relevant to local people, the police, the licensing authority—everyone concerned with the licensing objectives of public protection, health and safety, public nuisance and so on: who is going to be in charge. Surely this is precisely the time at which we should name the person who is going to be in charge.
Lord Redesdale: We shall return to this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 156, I must inform the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 157 because of pre-emption.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 9, line 6, leave out from "individual" to end of line 7 and insert "personal licence holder who has obtained the signed consent of the premises licence holder to such designation and served the prescribed form upon the chief officer of police and the relevant licensing authority"
The noble Lord said: I give an undertaking that I shall not mention scalpels or any form of cutlery or silverware. This amendment does not remove the designated supervisor, but really deals with some of the arguments associated with the clause.
There are two independent arguments here. One is concerned with the system built up around the designated premises supervisor and the other with the powers of the police to object to the individual named as the designated premises supervisor. They are not dependent on each other, but are separate aspects of the Bill.
The amendments as proposed by the industry to the procedures and obligations surrounding the designated premises supervisors are supported by the British Beer & Pubs Association, the British Hospitality Association, the Restaurant Association, the Association of Multiple Retailers, Business in Sport and Leisure and the British Retail Consortium. Members of the Committee will be aware that this represents a very large and diverse part of the leisure and hospitality market. Those organisations have discussed the issues with the Local Government Association which agrees that the procedures are unnecessary. The police have expressed their concern that the personal licence holder is known to the premises licence holder. This is covered by the requirement to obtain the consent of the premises licence holder.
The industry has discussed the issues at length with the Government and is very disappointed that the arguments they have made have not received any robust response from them. The industry itself proposed the concept of split licensing and, in its original proposals long before the White Paper, recognised that the personal licence holder would need to be known to the authorities and that this information would need to be registered. It therefore has no quarrel with the need to identify and register the premises supervisor.
However, it does not support the linkage to the premises licence holder through the requirement to regard the change of licensee as a variation of the premises licence and the requirement to write the name of the designated premises supervisor in the premises licence.
The premises licence should stand alone as it is concerned with the suitability of any particular premises to provide alcohol and/or public entertainment at the time and under the conditions granted for it. This must stand irrespective of the personal licensee who has the duty and the responsibility to uphold the terms of the licence and the law in general.
The consequence of this linkage is seen in the series of obligations that arise from that linkage. The name of the designated premises supervisor must be given at
58
the time of application for a new licence. This person will not always be identified at the time of application. For example, a supermarket chain obtaining a licence may not even appoint the relevant manager until very near the first opening day. It should make no difference to the application for a premises licence as to who will be responsible for the licence, as long as he or she is properly qualified under the Act.
The premises licence must be altered every time there is a change of manager. That can happen very frequently in the larger businesses where managers are constantly moving for career development or other reasons.
The White Paper expressly stated that on taking up responsibility for a business the licensee should,
"normally do no more than simply register his or her arrival with his local police and the licensing authority by a letter covering a copy of the personal licence".
The process described in the Bill is anything but simple. At this point I say that I believe that the light touch to which the noble Lord alluded perhaps slightly understates the complexity of the situation. In discussions with the DCMS the industry has suggested that the name of the licensee be displayed at the premises. That obviates the need for the name to be included on the premises licence and can be very easily changed on the arrival of a new designated premises supervisor. In his earlier and very detailed response, I believe that the Minister said that he personally thought that that is an excellent idea. I very much hope that he will be taking it up with the officials at DCMS.
The Bill also requires the name of the designated premises supervisor to appear on the operating schedule. That is completely unnecessary as the operating schedule is concerned exclusively with the premises. That would have to be changed and resubmitted every time a manager changed.
The requirement also to name the premises supervisor in applying for a new licence under the transitional arrangements poses problems as it will be around six months before the licence is confirmed. The designated premises supervisor might well have moved on by then. What purpose does it serve to have this name? Surely, the premises licence is about the premises, not about who happens to be running them at the time.
The industry merely wishes to keep the process simple. It recognises the burden that would fall on local government through the paper chase that would result from the attachment of the individual name to the premises licence. Simple notification, a duty laid strictly on the business, is the simple and effective way to achieve everyone's goal.
I turn to the police powers to object to the transfer of a personal licence holder. Nothing in the arguments about the simplification of the system of notification of the designated premises supervisor precludes the police objecting on receiving such notification. But should the police have these powers? Do they need them? Do they really provide any safeguard? Are these powers proportionate to the harm envisaged? It is a question of whether the uncertainty introduced by

59
these powers is truly justified. The police argue—the Government support them—that it is necessary. The argument runs that where a personal licence holder may have an infringement recorded against his licence, but that it is minor and no proceeding to revoke the licence has been taken and he wants to take over premises with a history of infringement such as drug dealing, the police should be able to object to that licensee.
Do minor traffic offences result in a motorist being prevented from driving on certain roads? Surely, a minor infringement is just that. If the courts have decided a suitable punishment, should the licensee be in double jeopardy in that he is prevented from pursuing his or her chosen career? Is it not arguable that such a licensee, having had such a warning, might even be a more diligent licensee as a result?
Surely, premises with a history should be dealt with. One of the weaknesses of the current system is that such premises are not dealt with. The problem of the particular business should be dealt with and closed if necessary. The police are being given the power to decide who runs a "dodgy business".
These provisions re-introduce the "fit and proper" test by the back door, which is something which the White Paper set out manifestly not to do. The police also seem to want to vet potential licensees on the basis that they might have criminal connections. If the licensee is a criminal then he or she must be brought to trial for such crimes. To seek to prevent them running a pub or a supermarket does not really make sense. We want the police to concentrate on criminality.
How indeed would the licensing authority, whether or not such a person is identified by the police, be prevented from operating or managing a particular pub, club or supermarket since by definition there is no hard evidence on what basis such a decision could be made?
I apologise for the length of the explanation of these amendments, but this is a complicated area. I hope that the Government can give some indication of why they find the amendment unacceptable. We are not trying to remove the designated premises supervisor. I look forward to the Government's reply. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: In an earlier amendment the noble Lord said that powers were necessary because a designated premises licence holder in one place might not be suitable for another. He quoted as an instance the fact that a person had a conviction for selling alcohol to under-aged minors or that he had a conviction relating to drugs; and that the premises to which he was being assigned, presumably by the employer, had a history of one or other of such activities taking place.
It seems that there would be two classes of designated premises licence holders—those who did not have any conviction, so there could be no conceivable objection by the police to employers
60
moving them from one place to another throughout the country; and those with some convictions recorded against them. They would not be sufficient for the individuals to be struck off the register but there would be limits on the nature of the premises to which they could be assigned.
If the only reason for the system is to allow the police to confirm the transfer of a person from one licensed premises to another, why not say so on the face of the Bill? Cannot employers be given total discretion to move personnel from one supermarket or pub to another as they see fit in exercising their management powers—so long as the employee does not have any criminal convictions? If the only reason for placing restrictions on the appointment of a person to a particular premises is that a conviction awarded by a court bears some relationship to the previous history of the premises concerned, that should be dealt with as a special case.
Baroness Buscombe: I support Amendments Nos. 156, 238 and 242 to which my name and that of my noble friend Lord Luke have been added.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was asked for a robust response. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, can have a robust response. Frankly, these amendments are nonsense. Amendment No. 156 says that a designated premises supervisor would actively have to obtain the signed consent of the premises licence holder to fill that role and to notify the police that he had taken up the position. The designated premises supervisor is the person employed to manage the premises—or he is the person managing the premises who also holds the premises licence. I assume that Amendment No. 156 does not apply to those circumstances.
In what circumstances does an employer actively have to seek the signed consent of his employer to do his or her job? In real life, the contract of employment represents an explicit permission on the part of an employer for an individual to work at a particular premises. Imagine the situation where one applied for a position, got the job, then had to ask the boss for permission to turn up. That is what the amendment would require. The premises supervisor would be required to notify the police that he had taken up the job. That is the job of the premises licence holder; it is not to be shirked by putting the duty on the designated premises supervisor.
The Bill makes the premises licence holder responsible for variation of the licence, including the premises supervisor, for good reason—where one has corporate ownership. If a business wants to change its premises supervisor, that is the responsibility of the business, not of the premises supervisor, as Amendment No. 156 suggests. One would not employ a premises supervisor, then say, "Good luck. Welcome to the job. Now make sure you tell the police you have arrived." That is the responsibility of the business.
Amendments Nos. 238 and 242 would remove the bulk of Clause 40, which covers the procedures to be followed when an individual wishes to cease to be the designated supervisor for a particular premises. In

61
recognition of the particular circumstances of some part of the industry, the clause contains safeguards for the industry. It requires the premises supervisor to notify the holder of the premises licence once he has made the final decision and notified the licensing authority of his or her intention—not just tell the licensing authority or the police, or both, but tell his employer. It is only right that the employer should be notified. The amendments would remove that requirement.
There is nothing burdensome about the provisions and I have set out the reasons for them. These amendments are particularly bizarre.
Lord Redesdale: I asked for a robust response and I got one I admit that the purpose of the amendments is to make sense of the designated premises supervisor. The Minister's response clearly shows that I should move back to the position of earlier amendments and object altogether to the inclusion of the clause. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 157 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Application for premises licence]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 10, line 26, at beginning insert "where the premises are of a prescribed description,"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is designed to probe only. Clause 17 sets out the application process for a premises licence. An application must be accompanied by an operating schedule and a plan of the premises—both in the format to be prescribed. That may seem a reasonable obligation for any premises licence holder to undertake to procure a licence. However, some premises that are used to paying £30 per annum—as at present—to operate the village pub may feel burdened by what appears to them to be added administration, greater bureaucracy and more red tape.
The amendment proposes that operating schedules need only be produced for certain types of premises. It is deliberately broad and does not focus on physical size or capacity. However, several forthcoming amendments deal with capacity. If a mandatory capacity were imposed, to be set out in the operating schedule, our amendment might go some way to exempting small village pubs from having to specify numbers.
The principle behind the amendment is simple. Premises range from a local pub in a rural area that serves a handful of regulars each day to a busy nightclub open until 3 a.m. and holding many hundreds of people. While it is admirable to try to impose one-size-fits-all legislation on a system, perhaps it is unrealistic. The small country pub might have problems trying to outline the steps it proposed taking to promote licensing objectives as detailed by subjection (4)(b).
Perhaps a balance can be reached between consistency and uniformity on the one hand and flexibility to suit certain circumstances on the other. It is clear that the Government realise the need for such a balance. Paragraph 38 of the guidance framework states:
"This section would underline the principle of proportionality. It would recommend that conditions are tailored to the particular circumstances, style and characteristics of the individual premises concerned. Standardised conditions often result in burdensome, unnecessary and costly conditions being attached to small venues that are not causing any problems in a community".
I hope that as we discuss the details of premises licences in Part 3, the Government will continue to have regard to the need for such proportionality as opposed to standardised conditions. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I fear that the phrase "operating schedule" fills some people with dread. It has a bureaucratic ring to it. We might have alighted upon a happier phrase but it is the one we are using. I reassure the noble Baroness and people who are anxious about the issue that there is no cause for anxiety.
The average size pub will be able to list its operating schedule by filling one sheet of A4—perhaps two at the absolute outside. It is meant to be a non-bureaucratic exercise. It is clearly needed for all licensed premises. Therefore, we are ensuring that it covers every conceivable licensed circumstance.
We recognise the strength of the noble Baroness's point that for the small village pub the schedule should not be a draconian document requiring endless hours of burning the midnight oil for the pub to meet its obligations. Far from it. It seeks to specify the basis on which it operates as succinctly as possible. For some larger premises or events the document is bound to be a little more involved. However, I believe that the main burden of the noble Baroness's argument concerned small premises. I give way to the noble Lord.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Will the regulations make a distinction between the two types of premises so that the country pub will not be caught up in the bureaucracy that is envisaged for much larger premises? What will be the position as regards the regulations?
Lord Davies of Oldham: The licensing authority will be aware of the aspects on which it needs reassurance before granting licences in respect of premises with differing roles in the community. The licensing authority will be familiar with those roles. A licensing authority will be able to determine the significant difference between a small village pub and large urban premises that may carry on a whole range of functions which require a clear specification of the basis of the business and how it is to be carried out.
I do not seek to decry the significance of the operating schedule. It is a crucial part of the basis on which the licence is issued. It is also the crucial document that identifies for authorities seeking to

63
enforce the law—primarily the police—what the nature of the licence is and what functions the relevant premises are entitled to carry out. We shall seek to ensure that local authorities discriminate between large and small businesses. Regulations will stipulate that businesses of a certain size carrying out a certain range of functions are to be defined differently to the small village pub to which reference has been made.
The strength of the legislation lies in its power to bring a wide range of premises within one framework for licensing. As regards the concern that the operating schedule may cause anxiety to a potential licensee, I point out that it will deliver benefits to the licensing authority, responsible authorities, interested parties and potential licensees. Licensing authorities will consider the operating schedule with any other accompanying material and must grant the licence as applied for unless representations have been made that are critical of it. We envisage that in the majority of cases the granting of an application will constitute an administrative process. But without the requirement to submit such a document, licensing authorities would not have the basic information they require to process applications without holding costly hearings. We should not forget that all applications and renewals and almost all changes to a justice's licence to sell alcohol require a full hearing before the magistrates' court which represents a significant investment of time and money. The operating schedule will do away with that and replace it with a much less onerous system.
The operating schedule may become the focus of a process of genuine partnership between the licensing authority and licensees. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment. Anxieties have been properly expressed but clearly the measure will not constitute a great bureaucratic demand but one that differentiates between the small pub and the big enterprise with a whole range of obligations necessarily imposed upon it. It will give a clearer specification to the community and to the enforcement authorities of what is required. For the vast majority of small operations and small pubs the measure should constitute an enormous advantage rather than a disadvantage.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord said that the operating schedule would not impose great bureaucratic burdens on the small village pub and that for the average size pub the schedule would comprise one or two sides of A4. However, he did not say what would be included in the operating schedule for larger establishments such as big clubs which might hold as many as 1,500 people. Obviously, as he said, there would be more stringent requirements for those establishments. We should like to know what they are. Will the operating schedule for large establishments extend to matters that go beyond what happens within the establishment itself but which are relevant to a local authority's consideration of an application? One obviously assumes that the operating schedule will
64
detail the number of hours and the times at which the establishment would be open, but will it also refer to such matters as the management of traffic within the periphery of the establishment itself?
Will the operating schedule detail the measures that the relevant enterprise should take to prevent nuisance such as the scattering of litter in its neighbourhood and any other matters connected with the objectives of the Bill, including the reduction of crime and disorder?
Lord Davies of Oldham: The operating schedule relates primarily to what takes place within the premises, the car park attached to the premises and the immediate environment. The noble Lord rightly identifies that for a large business the schedule will be extensive. It will certainly specify hours of opening, areas in which children may be present and areas in which certain kinds of entertainment may take place and so on. Therefore, the schedule will quite rightly be extensive where a wide range of entertainment and activities take place.
However, the schedule will not refer to traffic regulation in the vicinity of the enterprise. The capacity of the car park for those who wish to attend the premises is an important consideration. That goes without saying. However, we cannot go too far in that direction. We cannot investigate circumstances where it is alleged that litter has been dropped by a patron of the relevant premises. It would be impossible to prove that. The operating schedule operates within a framework that is concerned primarily with what takes place within the premises concerned.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the noble Lord for his response. This debate has been worthwhile given that we are discussing a broad range of premises that are to be considered in relation to the operating schedule. As I said, this is a probing amendment. I shall revert to representatives of the industry to ensure that they are happy with the assurances that the noble Lord has given today. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 159 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 160 for reasons of pre-emption.
[Amendment No. 159 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 10, line 30, leave out from "a" to end of line 33 and insert "notice in the prescribed form and including a statement of the prescribed information in respect of the individual whom the holder wishes to nominate as the premises supervisor, and a form of consent in the prescribed form given by that individual."
The noble Baroness said: I was in two minds as to whether to move this large group of amendments given the debate that has already taken place in relation to designated premises and licence holders. On balance I have decided to make a brief plea to the Government.

65
Therefore, I shall refer to the following amendments as they involve a slightly separate point to those already covered.
In moving Amendment No. 160, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 163, 181, 183, 203, 219, 229 to 231, the Question that Clauses 37 to 40 stand part, and to Amendments Nos. 239, 240, 241, 250, 258, 441, 442, 450, 452, 455, 456, 457, 458, 460 and 462.
One of the purposes of the new Bill is to streamline the licensing regime in England and Wales. It achieves that in a number of ways, but in particular by having separate premises and personal licences. That matter has already been debated. The two are connected in that no supply of alcohol may be made from any premises unless there is a premises supervisor who holds a personal licence which has not been suspended. In addition, every supply of alcohol must be made or authorised by a person holding a personal licence. In many respects the position is analogous to vehicle and driving licences. A vehicle must be licensed and can be driven only by someone with a driving licence.
However, unlike the position with a vehicle, a premises licence must specify the designated premises supervisor. If there is a change in the identity of the premises supervisor, an application must be made to the licensing authority for a variation of the premises licence in order to specify another individual. Such an application involves a degree of formality and expense and gives the chief officer of police for the relevant area an opportunity to object to the variation of the premises licence, thereby preventing the appointment of a new premises supervisor.
We believe that that procedure is unnecessarily bureaucratic, given that there is need only for a notice to be given to the licensing authority. Furthermore—and this is the important point—it is unnecessary because the individual concerned would have been vetted and found to be suitable if he has been granted a personal licence. We cannot see any need whatever, therefore, for this further vetting by the chief officer of police. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have looked at paragraph after paragraph of my speaking notes and I realise that I have said it all already. I hope that the Committee wishes to be spared that repetition. As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has not dealt with all the amendments in the group in detail, I hope she will forgive me if I also do not.
However, I want to repeat the simple phrase with which I virtually finished my long speech on Amendment No. 154. Of course it is true that the qualification for holding a personal licence is the fundamental one of being able to serve alcohol. It is also true that the designated premises supervisor declaration does not add much. But, the designation of a premises supervisor tells the police and those who need to know who is in charge. That is why we have it here.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I hear what he has said. As I said in relation
66
to previous amendments, we are not satisfied of the need for a designated premises supervisor in the sense that, for example, one could have a manager of any business in charge. We are not clear why there should be a separation in this way. But we shall think about the matter very carefully. We hope that the Minister will read what we have said in Hansard. These concerns have been echoed throughout industry and among Members of the Committee today. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 10, line 34, leave out "the prescribed form" and insert "such form as may be required by the licensing authority"
The noble Baroness said: I move Amendment No. 161 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, who is not able to be here. The requirement in Clause 17(4) is that an operating schedule be submitted with each application for a licence. That matter was discussed in relation to Amendment No. 158. It is intended that the operating schedule will set out such detail about how the premises will be operated, including times of opening and closing. I shall not go into that issue because it was covered in Amendment No. 158.
The purpose of Amendment No. 161 is to change the position. Instead of a centrally prescribed form, local authorities would have the right to decide. In response to Amendment No. 158, the noble Lord said:
"The local authority will know",
when referring to the information that they would need. That is exactly the point I make in the amendment: the local authority will know what is required. That requirement might be very different between local authorities. There is nothing to say that each area will conform with another. We have covered the difference between the large and the small, but even then there is a difference between—for example—central and outer London.
The schedule will be an important document for both the licensing authority determining the application and for those who will have to consider whether they will be affected by the operation and may wish to object. There will be no other information available on which to understand when and how the licence will be operated.
Again, in reply to Amendment No. 158, the Minister said exactly that; that without the schedule the local authority would not have the necessary information. He also said that the Bill was intended to create a less onerous system. I do not think that is correct. Less onerous for whom? Certainly, at the moment it is not less onerous for the local authority because the burden is on the licensing court. All that will be transferred to the local authority.
I consider that the Government's proposal in this clause—that this document and the information required on it will be prescribed centrally by their officials and that no other form will be acceptable, whether the application is to operate in Eastbourne,

67
Blackpool or London—is not good enough. It is very important that licensing authorities should be free to require different information according to the needs of their local areas.
If applicants believe that a request for information of a certain nature is unreasonable or unlawful, they can say so. If necessary, they can challenge the matter in the courts. I think that local authorities should be able to set out their own requirements for information they require. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I hope my noble friend will forgive me, but I have some difficulty with what is proposed. Having very different forms in different parts of the country, perhaps in adjacent local authorities, and the possibility that local authorities might change the nature of the form from time to time, would make it enormously burdensome for companies that operate a range of public houses or licensed premises. Some standard format is essential if there is not to be an unreasonable burden on multiple licensed premises' operators.
Within Clause 17, in particular in subsections (3) and (4), there is more than enough latitude for a local authority to obtain whatever it wishes. I am sorry, but I think that it would be potentially incredibly burdensome and bureaucratic for local authorities to be able to sail away pursuing their own particular requirements for information in respect of premises licences.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for making the points that I was going to make. The differences referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, are not those between areas but those between different premises. The conditions applied to a licence will reflect the various needs of different premises. They will include, of course, some reflection of the area, but they will not be applicable necessarily to all the licences in a particular premises. There are parts of Westminster and of Soho where very different circumstances arise, but there are areas around here in Westminster where one has quiet little pubs which are no different from country pubs. I think that most of us know which they are.
It would be quite inappropriate for the City of Westminster to have different requirements for operating schedules from other licensing authorities. There is indeed a transfer of a burden from licensing magistrates to local authorities. It is not an increase; it is a transfer of a burden to bodies generally agreed by all those who responded to consultation on this Bill to be more democratically accountable and more appropriate to be the licensing authorities. To give licensing authorities the possibility of huge differences in the way in which applicants have to apply to such an authority for permission would be a huge burden on business and would give no perceptible advantage to
68
those who have to live in the area or to those who would otherwise be involved in representations on a particular application.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for those comments. I am interested in his point about areas within areas. I wonder whether the Government would consider something like the system that operates in countries like Australia, where different rules apply to what might be called tourist hot- spots. Such areas could be in any major city in the country. There may be an area equivalent to Soho in Leeds. The requirements in such areas are different.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I know the road that leads from Manley Ferry to the beach, too.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I cannot claim to know Leeds. I was throwing that out as a possible example, but it could apply to any city. I wonder whether the Government might give some thought to this matter when they draft the forms. I appreciate that there are areas in Westminster—and in all parts of London—which are extremely quiet, but there are other areas that are under different pressures which are a cause of concern. Perhaps he could think about that before the next stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 162:
Page 10, line 36, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
"( ) a description of the proposed relevant licensable activities, including such details as may be required by the authority in its statement of licensing policy,"
The noble Baroness said: In rising to speak to Amendment No. 162, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 301. These amendments are not dissimilar to the previous amendment. The difference in terms of wording is that our amendment makes specific reference to the statement of licensing policy. I shall be brief. I listened to what the Minister said on the previous amendment, but I should like to ask for his view on certain activities that might take place in a particular area and whether the Government believe that this is something they should bear in mind in relation to the operating schedule. As it stands the definition of the operating schedule under Clause 17(4) leaves much to the regulations but also, regarding activities likely to take place at the premises, provides only that there shall be a statement of the relevant licensable activities. One particular area in which such a description would be totally inadequate—certainly in the view of some local authorities—is where striptease and similar forms of entertainment are to be provided in the licensed premises. The Minister must forgive me. I have not yet visited Australia so that may be the sort of area he was referring to.
At present, local authorities as public entertainment licensing authorities have the ability to place conditions on the provision of such entertainment and can ensure that it does not take place in certain premises where it would be inappropriate, due to the

69
locality. For example, it is common for authorities to have policies which ensure that no such activities take place in premises near places of worship or schools. It is important that licensing authorities should be provided with this type of detail so that they can continue to take well informed decisions. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots: In this group of amendments we have Amendment No. 170 which is concerned with the operating schedule. This will give my noble friend Lady Gardner a chance to come at me from the other direction. Amendment No. 170 removes paragraph (h) which states:
"such other matters as may be prescribed."
As presently drafted, this surely meets the requirement of my noble friend. This is a parallel issue to what we discussed before when the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, was somewhat concerned at having to defend a difficult position on another matter. The operating schedule is already very extensive in covering the relevant licensable activities, the basic times of opening, any other times of proposed opening, the length of the licence and whether the consumption of alcohol is to be on or off the premises. It also contains steps to promote the licensing objective which in itself could be lengthy, with four sub-sets. Then at the end to have,
"such other matters as may be prescribed",
seems to leave an open-ended opportunity to have not one or two sides of A4 paper but many sides, as over time it is considered desirable to prescribe more and more.
Our debates on earlier amendments left me concerned that there was going to be considerable discrimination between large and small premises, that matters might become complicated and that, over time, the smaller licensed premises might be asked to do more and more, depending on the local authority licensing committee, which would inevitably be risk averse. There are no "brownie points"—there is no mileage—for such a committee in not gathering as much information as it can. Therefore, while one might be able to live with the provisions of Clause 17(4)(a) to (g), paragraph (h) was a bridge too far. We do not need an open-ended possibility for pressure to be applied for regulations to become broader, wider and more extensive over time.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I rise as my Amendment No. 171 is in this group, and I am in favour of the idea of having more control over what is prescribed.
However, I really rose to say that I do not claim to know anything about the seedy side of Australian life. I realised as the debate went on that your Lordships thought I referred to night-clubs. However, I was referring to tourist zoning, such as where there are different hours and days of shop opening. Singapore is the same: if an area is considered to have many tourists, it is treated differently from other parts.
Lord Davies of Oldham: Let me begin by defending my noble friend. The part of Australia to which he
70
referred was not the seedy side but a road with substantial hostelries at which one could get a drink in large company. So I can reassure the noble Baroness that my noble friend is no more acquainted with the seedy side of Australia than she or I.
On the general issues, it is quite clear from the representations made on these amendments that there are divided counsels on the Opposition Benches. The reason why counsels are divided is because the Front Bench is operating at one extreme with regard to their amendment, while the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is operating at the other extreme. The Government are, rightly, balanced and are in the middle, between those two extremes. This is the beauty of the measure. We seek to strike a balance between the need—
Baroness Buscombe: I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me, I feel the need to intervene. As I have said, I listened to the Minister in relation to previous amendments, and this was certainly not something that I was pushing. To that extent, I am certainly not at the opposite end of the spectrum to my noble friend Lord Hodgson. However, this is a question I believe should be aired because it is of concern to local authorities. As we are discussing this general area, I think that it merits a response from the Government.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I understand what the noble Baroness says. I did not seek to make too big a point of this, but the arguments about the amendments come from different perspectives. That suggests that the Government have got it all just about right: we have a balance between the need to prevent crime, disorder and public nuisance, to ensure public safety and to protect children from harm and to reduce the regulatory burden on industry—an express objective of the Bill.
Irrespective of the force with which noble Lords have presented their amendments, I am pointing out the obvious fact that, were they to be carried, the balance in the Bill would be severely upset. After all, we want a thriving hospitality and leisure industry. We all know how important that is to the country because of the money involved. It is right that we create a level playing field. The operating schedule is a key tool for achieving that balance.
Wherever they are based, businesses need to know what information they must provide on their schedules. That will allow swift, proportionate decisions to be taken to enable them to operate in a professional and responsible way. To allow licensing authorities in effect to specify their own form of operating schedules would undermine that objective of uniformity. It would also run counter to the Bill's central deregulatory approach, which relies to a large extent on the applicant describing how he or she intends to carry on licensable activities on the premises.
Problems have arisen in the past where licensing authorities have imposed a raft of standard conditions irrespective of whether they were necessary. The Bill sets out a simple system based on the four clear objectives which, while providing for flexibility,

71
provide the foundation for the new system and should eliminate some of the inconsistencies of the current system without adding to—in fact, reducing—the amount of bureaucracy involved.
Although the aim is to minimise the administrative burden on applicants, the Secretary of State's power to add further matters to the list of those that must be included in the operating schedule is necessary to ensure that if, in the light of experience, it proves desirable for the operating schedule to contain additional information—for example, whether meals will be served or the hours for which children will be admitted—that may be provided for quickly and flexibly. Its use would be subject to the negative resolution of Parliament. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, which reported favourably on the Bill, was content with that power and did not regard it as excessive.
One problem with the current system is that the detailed technical and administrative processes are set out in primary legislation, and we have had to wait for almost 40 years for parliamentary time to change them. By allowing the Secretary of State that power, changes can be made quickly, efficiently and across the board—again, supporting the level playing field. So that is the basis for that power of the Secretary of State, which I defend against the amendments.
I recognise that the amendments are probing amendments. We have now had substantial debate about how the operating schedule will operate. I hope that it will be recognised that the Government have the balance of the Bill about right, and that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
7 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: I want briefly to refer to paragraph (g), as have other Members of the Committee, which is dealt with in a later amendment that I shall not now move. I hope that it will become clear to all prospective premises licence holders what,
"the steps it proposes to take to promote the licensing objectives",
means. I can imagine most individuals trying to fill out an application form and schedule scratching their heads and asking themselves, "What does that mean?", when all they want to do is open a business and get on with it. We hope for clarity.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I share that objective with the noble Baroness: there should be clarity. That is part of the reason that we have sought to safeguard the Secretary of State's role in issuing guidance.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Does the Minister realistically think that any licensed premises could meet the provisions of Clause 17(4)(a) to (h) on one side or, at most, two sides of A4 paper?
Lord Davies of Oldham: In our earlier debate, I said that the small village or urban pub of discreet pretensions will be able to meet its obligations in less space than a sheet of A4. Of course, where there are
72
other considerations—as I said earlier, those overwhelmingly relate to those establishments that have much more multifarious roles than that of the ordinary village pub—the schedule will be a little longer. The noble Lord will recall that an earlier amendment concerned how onerous the provision will be for the average small hostelry. I sought to give reassurance about that, and I reiterate that assurance.
Baroness Buscombe: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 163 to 164 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): Before I call Amendment No. 165, I advise the Committee that if it is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 166 due to pre-emption.
Viscount Falkland Viscount Falkland moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 11, line 5, at end insert "having regard to the licensing statement of the local authority,
( ) a short description of the application which may be included in any notice advertising the application, and"
The noble Viscount said: As drafted, there is no obligation under the Bill on the licensee to have regard to the licensing authority's licensing statement. That may create unnecessary complication when applications must be decided. It is surely better for applicants to prepare their operating schedules in the light of the licensing objectives and the licensing statement. One problem with the existing system of notification is that it is not clear from the notice received from the magistrates or posted on windows exactly what an application is for, unless a local resident goes to the magistrates' court to consult the papers.
Where there are many applications in an area, as can happen, it will be a considerable burden on local residents to try to find out what each application is all about, and on the licensing authority to explain it. The amendment would ease that burden considerably and ensure that residents did not have to object to everything simply to create time for them to consult the papers and understand what the application was for.
Within that subject, I speak also to Amendment No. 303, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. It would insert the words:
"having regard to the licensing statement of the licensing authority … a short description of the application which may be included in any notice advertising the application".
The two amendments are closely related. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Amendment No. 172 concerns regulations regarding the advertising and promotion of an application under Clause 17(5). It is a probing amendment, but I should be grateful for an assurance from the Minister about the degree to which this is expected to be extensive and costly. As I said earlier, 35,000 public houses are

73
owner-managed. They are not necessarily enormously profitable; they are small businesses of a classic kind. The regulations required under subsection (5) could be perfectly reasonable. However, they could be very extensive and expensive. The requirement to give notice to each responsible authority and such other persons as may be prescribed could also be a burdensome activity.
It would be helpful if the Minister could explain the thinking behind this provision and give reassurance that this will not be an unnecessary and undue burden for people seeking to run sensible licensed premises.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful for the manner in which the noble Lords have moved their amendments. In the Bill, we are seeking to ensure that there is a balance between the removal of red tape for the industry and proper and sensible safeguards for the public. That is why some of these amendments are rather more dramatic in their effect than others.
Amendment No. 172 would have one very unfair effect and one very dangerous effect. It would remove the requirement for an applicant for a premises licence to advertise their application to interested parties; namely, local residents, businesses and their representatives. This would deny those parties the opportunity to make representations about developments in their locality that might affect their lives and businesses directly. I do not accept that the majority of the public would consider this omission as being acceptable.
Furthermore, it would even remove the requirement to notify those bodies which are expert when it comes to judging the merits of applications against the promotion of the declared licensing objectives. I am referring here to the police, the fire authority, the environmental health authority and others. The Government consider it quite unacceptable to place obstacles in the way of an appropriate assessment of the likely impact of an application on the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. The amendment is unacceptable.
Amendment No. 209 seeks to remove the obligation on the part of the applicant for a provisional statement to similarly advertise and notify his application through which local residents and businesses are kept fully informed about planned developments in their neighbourhood and can, along with the responsible authorities, make representations about what is being planned at an early stage. Provisional statements are designed to give developers of all shapes and sizes a degree of confidence but no guarantee that premises which they are developing, building or extending will be able to be used in the way that they expect in respect of the carrying on of licensable activities when the work is finally completed.
Applications for provisional statements will be advertised in the same way as applications for full licences. Interested parties and responsible authorities will be able to make their representations in the usual way.
74
I want to reassure the noble Lord that the right s of residents are at the cornerstone of the Bill from the earliest stages. Anything that seeks to remove their rights to be informed of new developments in their areas is not acceptable. That cannot be right. If local residents cannot engage with the issue at an early stage, developers could have no confidence, if they continue with their planned development, that a premises licence is likely to be forthcoming when applied for at a later stage. In those circumstances, the investment will possibly not be made. It serves no one's interest to make this change which increases uncertainty in an area in which one would be seeking to provide assurance.
The amendments in this group seek to ensure that the applicant submits a short description of their application or variation of a club's premises certificate or their variation of a premises licence, along with other relevant paperwork. The description would then be used by the licensing authority to advertise the application or variation.
However, even if the licensing authority is required to advertise the application—which it is not—the amendments are unnecessary and would result in nothing more than an increase of paperwork and red tape for the applicant. The fact of the matter is that the Bill makes it crystal clear that it is the responsibility of the applicant—not the licensing authority—to advertise his or her application in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State and to notify the responsible authorities. These regulations are likely to specify what information is required in the advertisement and how widely it should be published. It will be a relatively straightforward matter for the licensing authority to determine whether an applicant has complied with the necessary advertising requirements.
The Bill is designed to rid the licensing system of a great deal of the current bureaucracy, not to increase it. I hope that I have established that in resisting these amendments I am seeking to protect a system which is clear, which lays obligations where they should be laid, but clear and appropriate obligations. On that basis, perhaps noble Lords will feel reassured about the amendments that they have proposed and be prepared not to press them.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: I accept what the noble Lord has said. My amendments are concerned with residents and with absolutely clarity when applications are made. I am not convinced that more clarity is proposed than currently exists in the Bill. My amendment seeks to make matters even clearer, so that people know exactly what is proposed in relation to the licensing objectives. This is a probing amendment. This is a complicated area—much more complicated than it appears on the surface. I make no secret of the fact that many on these Benches are concerned with the position of residents in relation to the legislation Residents should be in a position to understand the provisions fully and to be able to act when necessary.

75
I shall read the noble Lord's remarks in Hansard. If necessary, I should like to speak to him before the next stage of the Bill; otherwise, I shall wait and see what happens. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 166 not moved.]
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 11, line 5, at end insert—
"( ) the maximum capacity of the premises, and"
The noble Lord said: I speak to Amendments Nos. 167 and 304. This is a brief probing amendment to establish the Government's position on maximum capacity for premises. We do not intend to press the amendment, but to obtain an indication of government thinking at this stage on maximum capacity in premises. I beg to move.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: We have been debating these matters for four hours and I am beginning to lose my train of thought. I would not say that my Amendments Nos. 193, 304 and 310 are probing because I believe that they are of immense importance for public safety. The proposed new clause will attach a condition to the granting of a licence that specifies clearly the maximum permitted occupancy figure when the premises are being used for a licensable activity. In addition, it states that the figure must be specified on the licence itself.
The amendment also proposes that the maximum permitted occupancy figure must be determined by the licensing authority in consultation with the police, the tire authority and the responsible authority as defined in Clause 13(4)(d).
Concern has been expressed by the Local Government Association that a maximum permitted occupancy requirement is not part of the Bill at present. That concern is shared by the Association of Chief Police Officers and a number of members of the public. A common concern relates to the safety of members of the public who will attend licensed premises. It was agreed in relation to Clause 4 that public safety is one of the objectives. I believe that the new clause would allow the proper examination of premises. I do not suggest that that would not take place; but if a licence included a reference to numbers, proper provision could be made to ensure, for example, that the toilet facilities were adequate and that the requisite number of exits were available.
History shows that panic can ensue in premises where fire breaks out or where other difficulties emerge. There have been recent examples. There is a clear case for a mandatory capacity being part of the licence. I understand that it is already a requirement for clubs to adhere to a mandatory capacity limit. It must surely follow that a similar provision should form part of this Bill.
76
It is a question of common sense that in considering the granting of a licence the licensing authority should be able to satisfy itself that public nuisance, crime and disorder are not exacerbated by the kind of behaviour that may result from overcrowding of the premises.
The only people who will worry about the need for a maximum occupancy figure are the minority of operators who routinely overcrowd their premises to dangerous levels. Anyone walking along streets in London, or in university towns, where crowds of people attempt to get into and out of premises will see that such a provision is necessary. The people who would worry would be those seeking to make the maximum profit from the sale of alcohol. I make no excuse for saying that.
Furthermore, I remind the Committee that, in the past, when pubs on one side of the Edgware Road closed at half-past ten, people moved across to the Paddington area, where they stayed open until 11 o'clock. I can envisage that, when other operators are shutting at a reasonable time—reasonable in modern-day terms: midnight or one o'clock in the morning—and others stay open, there will be a move towards the places that are open. They may not have been the first choice of clients at the start of the evening, but when they have had sufficient alcohol they may feel that they want to continue drinking and will go to a place that is already overcrowded.
Public safety should not be put at risk for the sake of profit by those who want to abuse the absence of permitted occupancy figures. These amendments would strengthen the Bill and would provide protection for the public—both those who will use the licensed premises and passers-by. This place should provide the licensing authorities with the legislative tools that they will need when deciding on the numbers of people who can enjoy the benefits of a licensed premises.
Lord Avebury: I have a great deal of sympathy with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, but having a maximum permitted occupancy figure in a single establishment may not satisfy the requirement that he has advanced of the licensing policy, through the awarding of licences, meeting the objectives set out in the Bill.
If an establishment had the necessary number of technical facilities—the noble Lord mentioned two: fire escapes and toilets—in proportion to the number of people who will fit into the premises, the local authority would have no other reason for declining to grant the licence. What I thought the noble Lord was getting at was the possibility of an overall limit being put on the number of people who would be present in all the establishments within a given area. That is where problems will arise in relation to the licensing objectives of the Bill. It may not be a matter of one single establishment—although some are very large; some premises take 1,500 people and that in itself is a substantial cause of crime and disorder in an area. But when an area has several establishments of that size, it

77
is an almost certain recipe for problems in the neighbourhood. Yet there is nothing in the awarding of licences that takes that into consideration.
The noble Lord has put his finger on the lack of powers in the Bill to deal with the overall figure of attendance at all the establishments in a given locality; and even if one one specific licence could be subject to a limit c f this kind, it would not solve the problem.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support the view that there should be a clear definition in safety terms of the permitted number of people per establishment. There is a precedent in the Greater London Authority's late-night music and dancing licences. The authority was always careful to ensure a limit on the number of people entering a premises. The most difficult aspect is the enforcement of such a limit. It is extremely difficult to enforce restrictions on numbers.
Barowss Buscombe: I have put my name to Amendment No. 167, and I also support Amendment No. 30lio which my name and that of my noble friend Lord Luke have been added. This is a very difficult area. I agree with the tone of noble Lord, Lord Redesdale: we look to the Government to say what their feelings are in relation to this difficult issue—difficult because it is hard to consider a "one size fits all" provision. What might be sensible in relation to a large establishment would not necessarily be so in relation to a small country pub.
As my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has suggested, the real problem is in terms of how such a provision would be policed, particularly in relation to small country pubs. Is it reasonable to require expenditure on a doorman in order to police the capacity of such premises when they merely have a few regulars in on a Friday night?
I have sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead. This is an important safety issue. Safety is the key. We remember all too clearly the dreadful events at Hillsborough. I do not mean to sound over-dramatic. It is important to realise that we are talking about enormously large establishments. There is no comparison between the country pub and some of the large establishments to which young people throng—perhaps that makes me sound as though I am getting old. I understand that there is something rather "cool" about being in an over-crowded, "hip" establishment, which obviously gives rise to safety concerns.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I recognise that these are probing amendments and that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is asking me to set out how we see the issue of capacity operating in licensed premises. Of course, one of the key concerns of the Bill is public safety. It is so important that we have enshrined it in the licensing objectives, at the very core of the legislation. Licensing authorities must carry out their functions with a view to promoting the objectives. Furthermore, in his operating schedule the applicant for a licence must
78
describe the steps that he proposes to take to promote those objectives. A club must do the same when applying for a premises certificate.
As my noble friend Lord Clarke says, it is essential that public safety is assured. That was the essence of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. The Bill gives expert bodies—responsible authorities, such as fire authorities, the police, health and safety authorities and environmental health authorities—a statutory role of making representations on applications for new licences and certificates and the opportunity to call for existing licences to be reviewed on any ground relating to the licensing objectives. These experts may advise the imposition of a maximum capacity to be attached as a condition to premises licences or club premises certificates to the licensing authority if they believe that it is necessary for public safety. We would expect them not to hesitate to do so wherever it is appropriate.
This closely mirrors what happens in the existing licensing system, where these expert bodies make recommendations to the local authorities and the licensing justices. However, what the amendments would do—I recognise that they are for the most part probing—would be to make a capacity limit compulsory in every case through its specification in the operating schedule or following the receipt by the licensing authority of relevant representations by the licensing authority deciding to impose a maximum occupancy for the premises. That would make the system unnecessarily arbitrary and burdensome.
We recognise that capacity limits are necessary for some premises. The present licensing justices and local authorities can attach capacity limits at their discretion. The system works, and the only complaints that we have received have come from nightclubs, which regard mandatory capacity limits as a way of defending the virtual monopoly on late night drinking that they currently enjoy. We are keen for there to be greater flexibility for licensed premises and for capacity limits to be imposed when they are necessary, but not otherwise. That is why the Bill will reproduce the system currently in place.
We should also be clear that, in most cases, the places will already have capacity limits in force under existing fire certificates. If a fire certificate includes certain conditions, it would be unnecessary to reproduce them in a premises licence. If a fire certificate were granted for premises when their future use for licensable activity was not known, the licensing authority and fire authority may wish to impose a new capacity limit that would apply at any time when the licensable activity is taking place. That is why we are allowing licensing authorities to impose capacity limits when they are necessary.
I should tell my noble friend Lord Clarke that no mandatory capacity figure is imposed on nightclubs under current licensing law. Such conditions are imposed under the discretion of the licensing authority, so nothing will change, but the licensing authority will seek the advice of health and safety experts and the fire authority when necessary. We

79
should not lose sight of the fact that health and safety at work regulations require employers to assess the risk for their workers and others, including customers, who may be affected by their business, and identify what measures are needed to reduce or control the risks. That assessment might well include some consideration of the risk of overcrowding in premises, and ways in which that risk can be controlled.
The Bill is intended to be flexible. Licensing authorities will be able to attach capacity limits as conditions of licences when it is thought that expert opinion believes that it is necessary and given the other controls in place. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the Minister for that reply. I was particularly concerned about nightclubs that might press the issue as a means of preserving their trade in late night drinking. Also, if maximum capacities were introduced in a mandatory way, it would imply the need for bouncers and doormen on every door, which would change the whole nature of many establishments. That would obviously not be welcome in terms of changing the mentality of drinkers in late night establishments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.34 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Sudan
7.34 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what help they are giving to secure peace and good governance in Sudan.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we debated Sudan three months ago on a Question by the intrepid and tireless noble Baroness, Lady Cox. Your Lordships may think that there are other great problems that demand our attention, rather than returning to the subject so soon. However, since that debate, the Sudanese government and the SPLA have signed a memorandum of understanding on the cessation of hostilities, which is now to be further developed into a comprehensive peace agreement. I sought a debate to review the progress made and consider what contribution the UK can make to reinforce a peaceful settlement of the war, described by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, as Africa's longest-running conflict.
There have been allegations of breaches of the ceasefire on both sides, with clashes occurring mainly in oil-producing areas. Provision was made for
80
complaints about violation to be made through a committee set up for the purpose in Machakos. Will the Minister say how the international community might help to reinforce that part of the deal? There was also to be an international team on the ground investigating alleged attacks on civilians. It would be useful to know whether the UK, with our considerable experience of peacekeeping, might offer to provide some of the observers.
As 15th January approached, there were problems with the agenda. Khartoum said that the constitutional position of the Blue Nile, Nuba mountains and Abyei could not be discussed until further progress had been made on the main question of the position of the south. However, the SPLA claimed a mandate from the people concerned to negotiate on their behalf. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the meeting is on schedule and that the question of the agenda can be solved to the mutual satisfaction of the parties.
The parties have decided on the allocation of most functional areas of competence to different levels of government, but some key areas are still not covered. Colonel Garang has demanded, for instance, that the south should have the right to issue its own currency, although it is not clear whether he meant that it should be able to do that through a central bank or merely to print notes, as the Scottish banks do in the UK. In either case, a substantial level of banking expertise beyond the present capacity of the new southern entity would be required, and official observers, including Britain, might help to spell that out to the SPLM. They might also help to bridge the gap between parties on oil revenues. The SPLA is demanding 60 per cent, whereas the government have offered 10 per cent. Given that all the discoveries so far have been made in the south, Khartoum needs to be generous if it is to avoid handing an argument to secessionists.
The SPLA has gone a long way to meet the government by giving up demands for independence, while the government have made important concessions in offering autonomy to the south, and a referendum down the line. For both sides, however, the devil is in the detail. The observers could help to promote compromise on all the issues still outstanding.
Under the Machakos protocol, the parties are committed to the principle that the unity of Sudan is their priority and that the people of the south can meet their aspirations within that framework. They are also committed to making the unity of the state attractive to the people of the south. The government, or some of them, may believe like Mr Balfour that they can kill home rule by kindness. The SPLA will have control of the south, however, and may be even more dedicated to separation as their lot improves, as the Irish were 100 years ago. The contradiction can be resolved only by the people, with good governance allowing them freedom to debate the matter thoroughly and reach their own conclusions.
That is going to require greater input from the international community. At some point during the next six years there are to be democratic elections.
That is a formidable operation in a country that is over one quarter of the size of the US, but with 4 million people internally displaced out of a population of 30 million. A UN interagency mission considered the additional demands that would arise from resettling those people, as well as returning combatants and the 430,000 refugees from abroad. They made recommendations that will themselves require substantial new resources.
So far, there seem to be no agreed timetables. One scenario under discussion is that the agreement will be initialled by the end of March and the government of national unity will be formed with the NDA and the SPLM on board by the end of May. In the same period, an equivalent broadly based administration would be set up in the south and there would be a full signature by all those players at the end of June. There would then be a "pre-interim period" of six months for the return of the refugees and the establishment of government structures in Khartoum and Juba, and the interim period itself would begin on 1st January 2004. I do not know that is a realistic time scale, but perhaps the Minister could say whether it is approved by the observers.
Will the Minister also say something about the role of the IIVIF and the World Bank in the transition? In November, the IMF reported on the progress made towards resolving Sudan's debt problem. Presumably, if the arrears are dealt with, Sudan will be eligible for new loans. A stable peace would release funds that are currently devoted to military purposes. The draft budget of 2003, which was notified to the IMF, provides for a 13.5 per cent reduction on military spending on last year. Oil revenues must also have increased, with crude now at 30 dollars a barrel, but in all these matters transparency would be an essential element of the agreement to share revenue and natural resources. It would be helpful to know whether the observer; can inject that principle into the resumed discussions.
The parties have agreed that human rights are to be covered in the final peace agreement. It would be a sign of good faith if they invited the UN Special Rapporteur, Gerhart Baum, to help them with the drafting. Sudanese institutions are needed that have the independence, capacity and resources to make a real impact on human rights violations. So far these do not exist For instance, the body that deals with the abduction of women and children now has a full-time chair and some resources, partly as a result of persuasion by the European Union, which has had a beneficial role, but it still operates as an organisation responsible to the government.
Khartoum promised to ratify the convention against torture and the convention on elimination of discrimination against women. I hope those commitments will be reiterated in the final peace agreement. Sudan is already a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its report to the human rights committee, which had to be submitted by 7th November last, is now overdue. There are violations of the ICCPR by the special courts in Darfur, which have inflicted lashings
82
on women convicted of adultery after summary trials at which the defendants were not legally represented. That is undoubtedly a breach of Article 14, which provides for fair trials. The harassment and intimidation of journalists continues and newspapers have been arbitrarily closed with no legal process, contrary to Article 19. I hope that we can project into the discussions the need for an authoritative, permanent Sudanese court to which citizens can appeal against violations of human rights treaty obligations that affect them.
As the international crisis group has said, this is a time for historic decisions, compromises and political courage. It is also a time when the observer circle, IGAD, the AU and all other friends of peace, such as the EU, must use their maximum influence to bring the process to a successful conclusion. As we have heard before, the war has cost 2 million lives over the past three decades and has caused misery to many millions more of Sudan's population. An honourable peace, giving the people of Sudan the hope of democracy and human rights and giving the south the right to self-determination, is within their grasp. We should do our utmost to help them attain it.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to discuss events in Sudan since your Lordships' House last had the opportunity to do so in October. I warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on securing the debate. Once again, the situation in Sudan is critically poised between the dream of real peace and the nightmare of continued war. Talks between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Army stand at a crossroads, but there is increased hope that the signpost points more firmly in the direction of peace than that of war.
The Machakos protocol was a major breakthrough, which, once implemented, will allow southern Sudan to hold an independence referendum after a six-year power-sharing transition period. It exempts the mainly Christian south from Sharia law. The fragile peace process has since gathered strength, despite some serious setbacks, which included major military offensives launched by both sides around the town of Torit and the suspension of the talks last September. The second session of talks resumed in October and the successful outcome when they closed on 18th November meant that hope was not extinguished.
In October a ceasefire was agreed that covered the whole country. This first truce was a landmark and another forward step on the road to lasting peace. The subsequent extension of the ceasefire to 31st March this year was a remarkable achievement. Congratulations are due to Kenya's special envoy, Lieutenant General Sumbeiywo, the other envoys and all parties involved in this success. They have shown strong and courageous skills of mediation and diplomacy and deserve our support.
I understand that the third session of the latest round of talks is due to begin this week, possibly on 15th January. I hope that the Minister will take the

83
opportunity of this timely debate to confirm when the talks will resume. However, there is still a long way to go. The final protocol on power and wealth sharing that the mediators sought was not signed and difficult issues such as the sharing of oil wealth and the distribution of jobs in the federal civil service have yet to be resolved.
British Government support is critical to those in the Sudanese Government committed to a peaceful end to the conflict through the continued application of pressure on Khartoum until an agreement is reached. Those threatened by the process need to be reassured about their post-conflict status. Equally important is maintaining pressure on the SPLA to negotiate in good faith and publicly acknowledging the progress and compromises made by either side. The SPLA will also need support and advice. What action are the Government taking to help bring about the transformation of the SPLA into a political party and to promote good governance and economic development in the south?
In the few minutes I have available, I shall concentrate on human rights, as did the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The Minister said on 7th October last year that the promotion of human rights in Sudan is one of the Government's priorities. I am sure she agrees that slavery is one of the gravest human rights problems facing the people of Sudan. I hope she is as disappointed as I am that the UN resolution on the human rights situation in Sudan, passed at the most recent session of the UN General Assembly, omitted stronger references to slavery and religious persecution. I am pleased that the resolution highlighted the Government of Sudan's continued abrogation of religious freedom, their deliberate attacks against civilians, their support for civilian-abducting militias and repeated denials of humanitarian access to their citizens in need. But a valuable opportunity to bring the despicable practice of slavery to international attention was missed. What is being done to ensure that the issue is addressed in future negotiations? What action is being taken to ensure that the disturbing prospect of a market is not created by the payment for the return of abductees? What progress is being made to ensure that a final peace agreement includes provisions to protect fundamental freedoms and human rights, particularly since the government have extended Sudan's state of emergency for another year.
With its major oil reserves, Sudan has the opportunity to be one of Africa's great success stories and an economic driver for the region. It is one of the paradoxes of that troubled country that its oil wealth is at present being used to impoverish Sudan's people when it could be enriching them.
In conclusion, humanitarian relief, human rights and peace are the three critical keys to our Sudan policy. I hope the Minister agrees. We must work on all three simultaneously. Together with the United States and other allies, we must be prepared to ensure that progress is made on the many crucial questions that remain unresolved. The Sudanese conflict has
84
gone on too long. It is time for both sides to resolve their differences within a serious, comprehensive and lasting peace process.
7.48 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for securing this debate. It may be only a few months since we last debated Sudan, but matters are always shifting there and, with our gaze constantly diverted to other parts of the world, it is all too easy to forget the intractable problems and the constant realignments that take place in Sudan. Her Majesty's Government are to be congratulated on the commitment they have shown to the pursuit of peace with justice for all the peoples of Sudan.
The Secretary of State for International Development has maintained her department's keen interest. The Government of Sudan's Speaker of Parliament has recently publicly criticised our special representative, Alan Goulty, for allegedly travelling around Sudan without permission. That criticism is likely to mean that he is attending effectively to the areas of the negotiations that the parties fear most. I want to encourage as strongly as possible our continuing commitment to standing alongside all the peoples of Sudan in their search for peace, justice and freedom from tyranny or exploitation.
Withdrawal from engagement with Sudan could cost its people heavily. Isolated, with little concern from outside its borders and without the checks and balances that such interest brings, the forces that threaten Sudan's prospects for peace and good governance could reign supreme and add unimaginably to the death toll that already stands at 2 million.
One threat to those processes is the activity of militia forces in the region. A recent instance has been an attack on Tam, disclaimed by the Government of Sudan and characterised by them as a "militia raid". That is not so. The commander who led the attack told a press conference that it was his intention to fight the SPLA and defend the oil fields. Such actions amount to a serious breach of the memorandum of understanding, and leave in their wake bloodshed and chaos and the further fragmentation of the civil society. Can the Minister say how Her Majesty's Government are responding to the use of such misinformation?
Addressing the question of militias is plainly a priority and was treated as such by the Entebbe conference convened by the New Sudan Council of Churches last October. That conference succeeded in bringing together both SPLA field commanders and militia leaders aligned with the Government of Sudan. Its discussions emphasised the need for peace and good governance, for human rights and democratic freedoms, for wealth sharing, restitution and reconstruction. It insisted on the creation of three constitutions for the country during the interim period, one for the central government and one each for the northern and the southern entities. It explicitly

85
ruled out the integration of armies, recognising that a strong and independent army in the south will be a sure guarantee of the peace process. It resolved that there should be a southern leadership consultation to resolve issues such as those. Archbishop Paulino Lokudu, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Juba, and Mulana Abel Alier are to convene that.
Nurturing a vibrant civil society will be a great challenge and yet a great safeguard for peace. So much will depend on the support we can offer in the formation and training of those engaged in the administration of justice and in teaching and training at college level. I know that that is a challenge with which my colleagues in the Episcopal Church of Sudan and her sister Churches are already engaged. In a small way, the kind of partnership developing between the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches at episcopal level—they now have an annual conference and a period of renewal and study together—provides one small vignette of how trust can be built up between those from the north and the south, and between those of different tribal and racial origins.
The conference in Entebbe exemplifies the need for partners to guide and direct all the parties in this conflict. In this case it was the Churches who fulfilled that role, as they quite frequently have. And should all our hopes be realised and lasting peace be achieved, the need will continue, and it will grow. The havoc wreaked by deserters after the fall of Torit last autumn is a stark warning of the threat to stability posed by fighters after demobilisation. A whole generation of young Sudanese will have been traumatised by war and will have known nothing else. Recent suicides testify to the deep scars that conflict is leaving. Internally displaced people will have to grapple with the need to reclaim language, culture and identity.
Speaking in the House on 7th October last year, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, said this:
"A just peace agreement in Sudan is long overdue. Once a peace agreement has been reached, the international community will be able to contribute as never before to the rehabilitation of Sudan—a goal that we all share."—[Official Report, 7/10/02; col. 106.]
Yes, we all share that goal, and it will be good to be able to reaffirm that expression of concern directly when I make my next visit to the Sudan in just a few weeks time. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to affirm that resoundingly and tell us some of the ways in which our Government's commitment to the international community's seeking of peace will contribute to the rehabilitation of the Sudan in the future. Those might be very small, but enormously welcome. I hope we shall hear some of that tonight.
7.54 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for this opportunity. We seem to be closer to peace, and we must all hope that the new memorandum will lead to a genuine settlement. Until recently, few of us believed that that would be possible under the IGAD process. A month ago, I was discussing multi-party democracy in a workshop in the Mozambique parliament, so I am
86
aware of the concerted effort by western donors and some host governments in Africa to link post-conflict aid with good governance and human rights.
The situation is very different in Sudan, because the political parties have very little power. The Umma and the NDA are not even participants in the peace negotiations. The country is under emergency rule. The government remain unelected in any recognised democratic sense and, although there has been talk of multi-party elections, there is no urgency about that in Khartoum. With larger issues such as control of the oil fields, I wonder whether democracy in the north or south is not simply another current fashion to please the international community.
The Government of Sudan need a lot more encouragement. They are at least showing flexibility and are apparently open to change on important issues such as the Sharia. But until real political changes come in, there can be no undergirding of human rights law as we understand it in Europe. Gerhart Baum's report, mentioned by the noble Lord, to the General Assembly last October shows how much remains to be done. He believes that national reconciliation can succeed only if human rights become part of the peace process itself. He said:
"There is no alternative to rule by civil society … founded on respect for minorities … strengthening tolerance, which is able to build up trust and confidence and a process of reconciliation.
That is a strong statement in favour of civil society, even by a UN official.
I declare an interest as a board member of Christian Aid. NGOs—non-governmental organisations—have been fundamental in establishing innovative programmes throughout the period when Sudan was diplomatically isolated, laying foundations in peace-building and human rights that have only recently been taken up by governments. I will not now go into the peace process in the south mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, but the New Sudan Council of Churches has been one of the most persistent players there, and Christian Aid is involved in rebuilding civil society and the judiciary.
Save the Children has an equally long record in education and child protection. In Khartoum, it belongs to the rather feeble committee set up to eradicate abduction that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. The committee is a key test of the government's commitment to human rights, and it is a good example of the gap between diplomacy and actual achievement.
I was in Khartoum at the time when women's organisations received an unexpected boost from the decree by the Wali of Khartoum forbidding women to work in cafes, garages and other public places. The decree was soon reversed, and the Wali later replaced, but the issue of human rights had been usefully highlighted. Another order at that time forbade southern women from brewing and selling tradition al liquor, for which they were regularly flung into Omdurman jail until the NGOs could campaign for their release.

87
Many effective human rights initiatives operate on a very small scale or are highly localised. Contrary to belief, they often emphasise education and training in the existing law rather than activism or campaigning to change it. I will give just one example of a women's programme that has had a lot of impact, supported by Christian Aid and now our own Foreign Office through its human rights fund. It is a legal awareness programme run by a group known as Mutawinat, which means "women co-operating".
Mutawinat is well known in Khartoum, but it now plans to reach more isolated groups through workshops in regional centres such as Kassala, Kosti and El Obeid. Its objective is to empower women to use the law. The workshops are a means of passing on basic legal information to communities that have lacked such information in the past. The focus is on vulnerable groups such as women and children in conflict situations, prisoners, the displaced, refugees and women in low-paid casual work. The target groups include trade unionists, community leaders, NGOs and community organisations. That is exactly the kind programme that Sudan needs and to which Gerhart Baum referred.
With the new peace agreement—assuming that it brings with it a stronger legal framework and the possibility of democratic rule—will come a new atmosphere of openness and a greater involvement of civil society in national and local government. That may be a lot to hope for, but Sudan needs justice more than it needs aid. Large numbers of Sudanese, especially women who have lost family members during the war, have had enough of fighting.
According to one report, some women in the Upper Nile feel so strongly about peace that they are even prepared to withdraw favours from their husbands, like the heroines of the Lysistrata. Whether under Islam or Christianity, that may be a daring form of liberation, but those women must not be underestimated. There is a strong tradition in today's world—it is growing—of the effectiveness of women's movements. It is quite likely that the women in Sudan, as elsewhere, will have a decisive influence in their own future.
8 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on enabling us to discuss this very important subject and giving such a comprehensive overview. However, I regret that my concerns are legion. The first is the NIF's continuing violation of the Machakos protocol. On 9th January, Professor Eric Reeves reported numerous violations of the memorandum of understanding concerning the cessation of offensive military actions. I draw extensively from his assessment.
A flow of barges down the White Nile has brought a huge augmentation of military equipment and manpower to Juba, clearly threatening Kapoeta in Eastern Equatoria, and Yei in Western Equatoria. Very large offensive deployments have moved to Wau
88
in Bahr-El-Ghazal and to Kassala in the east. In recent days, fighting has broken out in the oil regions of Western Upper Nile, along the oil road south of Bentiu and the new oil development in Concession Block 4. Estimates suggest thousands of people newly displaced by this fighting.
Some have held that "engagement" at Machakos was always seen as an expedient measure by Khartoum, and that self-determination would later be abandoned; others, however, have believed that though painful compromises on both sides would be needed, the singular nature of the opportunity at Machakos would allow a just peace to emerge.
However, the build-up near Juba clearly has offensive military implications, requiring a reassessment. The open violation of the agreement, which has elicited no significant international response, must influence Khartoum's assessment of what Machakos represents. Every day without a forceful response to its egregious violations signals to Khartoum that this agreement, like countless others, can be violated with impunity. No more dangerous signal could be sent. Despite the abundance of optimism in the international community and in your Lordships' House, the mood in the south is grim. There is a deep and passionate hope for peace, but grave and increasingly justified scepticism.
Secondly, the NIF has become increasingly repressive to the people in northern Sudan, with continuing reports of violations of human rights in the north. Machakos has yet to make any guarantee of human rights.
My third concern relates to the international dimension of the NIF's commitment to extend its policy of Islamisation beyond Sudan. In Nigeria last week, I visited areas afflicted by violent conflicts associated with the implementation of Sharia law, including Kano, Kaduna, Bauchi and Jos. Sudan's involvement from the start is indicated by its participation in the ceremony to celebrate the introduction of Sharia in Samfara State—the first to be affected. Subsequently, 11 states have accepted Sharia and there have been widespread killings, destruction of property and the destabilisation of communities. Diverse sources informed us that these developments are part of a policy to achieve the Islamisation of the whole of Nigeria, with far-reaching implications for West Africa.
Many leaders of Nigeria's militant Islamist groups were, and still are, being trained in Sudan; and many Nigerians are reportedly receiving training in Abusa, near Khartoum and in a military training camp in Darfur. These developments follow from the Sudanese Islamist leader El-Turabi's "comprehensive negotiations" in early 1992 with leaders of Nigeria's Islamic movement—which is committed to transforming Nigeria into an Islamic nation, either through peaceful means or by an Islamic revolution. Moreover, I understand that Mohammed Ali Al-Haj is:
"The Chairman of the Bureau of Federal Rule",
and that it is he who is in charge of the peace process in southern Sudan; he is also in charge of supporting the furthering of the Islamic revolution in Africa, with

89
Nigeria as a priority target. As of 3rd January, he is still ranked number four in the official hierarchy of the NIF regime.
I therefore ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the agendas of the kinds of people with whom they are having "peace talks" and whether they are taking into account the far-reaching implications of Sudan's policies beyond Sudan for other parts of Africa. Certainly the majority of Nigerians do not want Nigeria to become an Islamic state, but Sudan's involvement currently is helping to destabilise the nation dangerously.
Moreover, the NIF continues to be involved with international terrorism. Some prominent NIF leaders are known Al'Qaeda supporters; and those involved with the terrorist attacks in Mombasa may have been allowed to take refuge in Somalia and Sudan. If the NIF is so closely involved with spreading militant Islam in West Africa and with terrorist atrocities in East Africa and if some of its most prominent leaders are closely linked with Al'Qaeda, is it really in the interests of the people of Sudan for the British Government to be supporting a peace that appears to be peace at any price, including widespread and continuing violations of human rights—especially in the north—and the continuing bloodshed of its people in many parts of Sudan?
I therefore ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government will: put pressure on the NIF to desist from its build-up of military offensives; indicate what measures they propose to take if the regime continues to violate the Machakos protocol; and urge all concerned to ensure that human rights are included in Machakos discussions as a matter of urgency. I also ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware of the NIF's involvement with the implementation of Sharia law in Nigeria, with resulting conflicts responsible for widespread death and destruction in Kano, Kaduna, Bauchi aid Plateau states. Are investigations under way into the association of Somalia and Sudan with the perpetrators of the recent terrorist atrocities in Mombasa? If so, what do Her Majesty's Government see as the implications for trusting the NIF regime's sincerity of commitment to a genuine peace?
8.6 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, the speeches already made vindicate the decision of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to return us to this subject of the Sudan.
When the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to the recapture of Torit by the forces of the Government of Sudan, it reminded me of my experience there, to which I referred in our previous debate on this subject in October. I had been in the diocese of Torit in September and I saw at first hand some of the depredations that had occurred in the course of this terrible conflict.
90
As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, some 2 million people have lost their lives in the past 19 years, and between 4 million and 5 million people have been displaced. I saw in the diocese of Torit churches that had been desecrated, forced Islamicisation, the bombing of schools and clinics, and children who, whenever they heard a plane approaching overhead, would dive for the foxholes that had been provided by British aid agencies in fear that there would be another bombing raid. They have even learnt to recognise the difference between the Russian-made bombers used by the Sudanese Government and the aid planes used by the United Nations.
The hatreds clearly run deep and bringing about any kind of reconciliation and dialogue will be an enormously difficult and painstaking task. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and my noble friend Lord Sandwich were right to remind us, as did the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, of the importance of building a civil society, though it will be a painstaking approach, and the importance of helping organisations like the SPLA and using the voluntary organisations, the women's movements and others to help create the kind of civil society which will give Sudan the chance of a lasting peace.
I travelled to Sudan with the Jubilee campaign, which I helped to found in Parliament 15 years ago. Jubilee is one of the human rights groups that believes that genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes have been committed by the Government of Sudan over those years. In our last debate I remarked on the widespread suffering caused by horrific aerial bombardment and the extraordinary courage and fortitude of the people I met there.
In October there was just a flicker of hope that the Machakos talks, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred, might at last lead to a ceasefire without which no political progress can be made. Of course I am glad, as is everyone else in your Lordships' House, that that tentative progress has been made. Movements like the SPLA, which, in the course of 19 years has seen the dispossession of so many of its people, will not be hounded into submission. Nor will they find it easy to reach agreement with the Government of Sudan if the violence continues while they sit at the conference table. As we are well aware from our experience in Northern Ireland, little progress is possible while bombing and killing persists on a systematic and daily basis.
Nor should we make the mistake of believing that a ceasefire is itself the final objective. A ceasefire is not a substitute for either democracy or justice; and we should also be aware that a ceasefire may be used as a smokescreen. Since September some progress has been made at a political level, but that has been impeded by the continuing violence. The breach of the ceasefire by the Government of Sudan by its attack on Tam in Western Upper Nile is but one example. The Government of Sudan should not be allowed to get away by claiming that it was independent militia who were responsible. That attack also raises questions about the need for more effective monitoring.

91
Generally I have been admiring of the role played by the United States Administration in Sudan. However, the US-led monitoring team's report on the September 2002 bombing was disappointing in its lateness as well as in its content.
It also needs to be understood that the ceasefire benefits the Government of Sudan militarily and that they have been using the ceasefire to make military preparations to resume war if the peace process does not go as they wish. I am sorry that Her Majesty's Government, in reply to parliamentary Questions that I tabled last year, were unable to counter the many fears in southern Sudan that the sale of the Alenia Marconi radar systems to the Government of Sudan will contribute to the accretion of great military strength. That may be an issue to which the Minister could respond in her reply.
Our failure to turn off the tap of western oil receipts means that we are directly contributing to that process. As the Reverend Akio Johnson, Bishop of Torit with whom I travelled when I went into that part of southern Sudan, put it to me, "Every barrel of oil bought by the west is half full of oil and half full of the blood of our people. You should remember that when you pull your car into garage forecourts".
Sudan's modern history is littered with temporary peace agreements which were eventually broken. To ensure a permanent peace within Sudan it is essential that the gross human rights violations and blatant injustices such as the slavery referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and others, the forced conversion to Islam referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the slaughter of civilians be stopped once and for all. It is also absolutely crucial for the Government of Sudan to practise religious moderation and tolerance since a sizeable proportion of its population—around 35 per cent—are not Muslims. Religion is a major fault line in Sudan.
In conclusion, if the parties to the conflict fail to reach a peace agreement and the Machakos talks fail, the British Government should then use their permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council to lobby for a universal embargo on arms and investment to be imposed on Sudan. Investment in Sudan's oil fields and the Government of Sudan's oil revenues are fuelling the conflict. Those investments enable the Sudanese Government's military to purchase ever more lethal weapons of destruction such as helicopter gunships. The UN embargo on arms and investment would therefore go a long way toward de-escalating the civil war described by some as the "deadliest phase" in the history of this conflict in Sudan.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for this opportunity to speak on the Sudan peace talks. All noble Lords who have spoken are tireless observers of events in that country. That ensures that Sudan, so often overlooked in the headlines, is never forgotten in this House.
92
I am sorry that the noble Lord has received no support from his own Benches. We on these Benches take the problems of Sudan seriously. Indeed, my right honourable friend Michael Ancram and my honourable friend Caroline Spelman will be visiting Sudan in early March.
Peace talks are due to resume in Kenya in two days' time. I agree with my noble friend Lord Moynihan that those in Kenya who have worked so hard to broker the talks deserve great credit. The participants will be confronted with serious political decisions. However, the Sudanese Government have cast doubt on whether they will appear. At first, they said that they had not received their invitation; then they objected to the fact that the future of Abyei, Nuba and Blue Nile, in central Sudan, was to be given prominence during this round of talks.
The Sudanese Government have a history of going from one peace negotiation to another, jumping ship whenever a real peace agreement is imminent. Today they appear to be reactivating the Nigerian peace initiative, just as the Machakos protocol is reaching the point of significant breakthrough. That must not be allowed to happen. International pressure, which drove that government to the negotiating table, should be maintained to ensure a true breakthrough in negotiations.
The fact that the talks are resuming at all is a relief, although in the past such resumption has not led to the cessation of military operations. Last September the Sudanese Government walked out of the negotiations after the SPLA recaptured Torit. Humanitarian aid flights to the south of the country were cancelled at the same time. As my noble friend Lady Cox pointed out, there are reports of an ongoing military campaign in the oilfields and a military build-up in Juba, in defiance of the Machakos cease-fire agreements. That is unacceptable; it is important that Her Majesty's Government condemn such actions in the strongest terms.
A genuine cease-fire must be established before the mechanics of secession can be worked out fully. The war in Sudan is highly complex and a good deal of the fighting is factional. Technical military advice will need to be employed to ensure that a cease-fire is workable on the ground as well as in the political arena. This must be addressed as a matter of urgency before the south can even consider setting up autonomous institutions of its own.
The peace plan, which we hope will form the basis of good governance in Sudan, is vital. Restructuring will be a great task. I ask the Minister how far preparations have come and what assistance Her Majesty's Government have offered to make the talks successful.
Many of the issues to be discussed over the coming months concern power-sharing and wealth-sharing. An internationally monitored mechanism for wealth-sharing will need to be implemented to ensure that all relevant stakeholders benefit from the peace agreement. A technical committee will be required, for example, on the issue of a census for southern Sudan. If the south is one day to become independent of the

93
north, at some point government forces will be required to withdraw. I am interested to know whether IGAD has made arrangements for disarmament. If, as we hope, talks progress satisfactorily over the coming months, the long haul to reconstruct the country must get under way as quickly as possible.
Finally, I ask the Minister whether the Government have received any reports on the continuation of the slave trade, and particularly, of any follow-up of the recommendations of the Eminent Persons Group that investigated the issue of slavery in Sudan, and whether the international community is any nearer to establishing a permanent mechanism to monitor the Sudanese warring parties as they attempt to address slavery, abduction and forced servitude.
8.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for initiating this timely debate, which demonstrates the continued interest in Sudan in this House.
Last year saw a new opportunity for peace in Sudan. War-weariness and international pressure finally brought the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement back to the negotiating table in June 2002. The peace talks held under the auspices of the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development—IGAD—at Machakos in Kenya have been revitalised under the leadership of Kenya's Special Envoy, Lt-General Sumbeiywo. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, rightly paid tribute to his work and to Kenya's role.
The Machakos protocol, signed at the end of the first session on 20th July, represented a significant breakthrough on key issues—state and religion, and self-determination for southern Sudan—within a framework of national unity.
A second session of talks, ending on 18th November last year, produced a Memorandum of Understanding on a cessation of hostilities until the end of March 2003, and agreement on aspects of power and wealth-sharing, as well as human rights.
The talks are due to resume later this week to discuss the marginalised areas of Southern Blue Nile, the Nuba Mountains and Abyei. These discussions will take place outside the auspices of IGAD although they will involve many of the same participants. We expect the IGAD talks to resume in the near future. These will consider outstanding aspects of power and wealth-sharing, cease-fire and security issues and guarantees of an agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, asked about the United Kingdom Government's contribution to the talks. To maintain the impetus for peace in the adjournment period, we organised successful workshops on cease-fire and security issues with the US and Norway in both north and south Sudan in December. The US Government hosted workshops on aspects of power and wealth-sharing in Washington which we also attended. This will of course impact on
94
militias, a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury and by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. There may be a requirement to strengthen policing after peace has been agreed.
So we are playing a full part in the peace efforts and we will continue to offer the parties and mediators our full support and advice and remain actively involved in helping them reach a comprehensive peace agreement.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of human rights, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. We continue to be concerned about tie human rights of all in Sudan regardless of their ethnic or religious background. The promotion of human rights remains one of our priorities. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, raised specifically the issue of slavery and abduction. The abduction of women and children is a serious and distressing issue to which we pay particular attention. We continue to work closely with the Committee for the Eradication of Abduction of Women and Children, which is working with UNICEF and Save the Children UK.
The Government of Sudan have made clear publicly that they are committed to the success of the committee and have said that they see abduction as totally unacceptable and contrary to both Islam and Christianity. We share the concerns of many working on this issue about the paying for the return of abductees in that it could actually encourage abduction by developing a market. It rewards the abductors financially. The civilian protection team will investigate reports of abduction.
We regularly lobby the Government of Sudan, for example to ratify the convention—
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. From her experience, is she satisfied with the progress of the committee to which she has referred?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are concerned that sometimes movement on the committee appears to be slow. But we feel that its work is very important indeed and that there is a commitment by the committee to take forward these issues. That is why we continue to work with it very closely. But I can understand that behind the noble Earl's question lies a degree of frustration about the length of time it sometimes takes to get these issues considered and taken through quickly.
To continue with human rights. We continue to lobby the Government of Sudan, for example, to ratify the convention against torture. We actively criticise the government on human rights issues bilaterally and through the EU/Sudan dialogue. The dialogue assesses progress against benchmarks on democracy, the rule of law, freedom of religion, human rights and the peace process. The dialogue is reviewed on an annual basis—most recently, by an EU troika mission to Khartoum on 9th and 10 December last year.

95
The EU also sponsored a resolution at this year's UN Commission on Human Rights, and at the UN General Assembly we set out our concerns and criticised both the Government of Sudan and the SPLM/A.
The long-term answer to improving the human rights situation in Sudan is an IGAD peace settlement. The noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Astor, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked about the attack that happened during the interim period. It is a great encouragement that by and large the cessation of hostilities is being respected. Recently, we received unconfirmed reports of tribal conflict in Darfur and fighting in the western Upper Nile. We will shortly be sending representatives to investigate the situation in Darfur.
The US had approached Lt-General Sumbeiywo to activate the investigations committee. The civilian protection monitoring team's aircraft could be made available to the Government of Sudan and the SPLM if needed. In any case, the civilian protection monitoring team is investigating allegations of attacks against civilians during the recent fighting in western Upper Nile.
The peace process offers the best chance of bringing an end to the civil war through a negotiated settlement between the Government of Sudan and the SPLM/A. But, as was said by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, there is an important role for civil society and it is desirable that other voices are heard. The noble Earl spoke particularly about the importance of women in the process. They have an important role to plax in Sudan's future and attend the peace negotiations.
The right reverend Prelate focused on the important role of the Churches. They too have a key role to play. We funded a civil society conference on the Nuba mountains and southern Blue Nile in Kampala in November through Justice Africa. We will continue to support peace activities through civil society groups—an important part of the wider peace process—through our embassy peacebuilding fund.
Questions were raised about international community support for Sudan—particularly by the right reverend Prelate. The war in Sudan has prevented many donors, including the UK, from carrying out a development programme over the past decade. More than 500 million dollars of development funding will become available from the international community when there is peace. That is a huge incentive for the warring parties to reach a comprehensive agreement. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that we are working to engage the IFIs—which share our desire to see peace in Sudan.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked particularly about the UK contribution. If there is a peace, UK funding for Sudan in 2003–04 is likely to be around £20 million—double our programme this financial year. We are planning an immediate peace dividend in the education sector when there is comprehensive agreement. We will also consider how we can best
96
support transitional needs—such as the return of internally displaced persons and refugees, demobilisation of the armed forces and landmine clearance.
Until there is a peace agreement, we will continue to support life-saving humanitarian work and peacebuilding activities—such as personnel to monitor the ceasefire in the Nuba mountains and support for anti-slavery work and the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development secretariat.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about timing. We are aiming at a comprehensive agreement in the first half of this year. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, specifically asked about Alenia Marconi. Sudan has a requirement for a modern air traffic control system, not least because the vast majority of humanitarian assistance is transported by air. All export licence applications are considered against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. The United Kingdom continues to observe these criteria as well as implement vigorously the EU arms embargo against Sudan.
The noble Lord also asked about oil revenues. We have pressed for revenues to be used for development projects and for transparency in the oil account. The Government of Sudan have made public assurances to that effect. We shall look to them to honour those assurances and shall remain focused on this issue as evidence becomes available.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked whether we are looking at the situation in Sudan in the context of our wider policy in Africa. The short answer is yes. We cannot look at development policy through the Department for International Development or, indeed, our diplomacy through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, without taking an integrated and comprehensive approach. We have an overall strategy and we are well aware of the need to look at all countries in Africa in their global context which includes the issue of failed and failing states and the war against terrorism.
There is still much to be done but the prospects for peace which will bring an end to the suffering of the people of Sudan are good.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.34 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.32 to 8.34 p.m.]

Licensing Bill RIM
House again in Committee on Clause 17.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 11, line 5, at end insert—
"( ) what provision the applicant proposes to take with regard to children on the premises, and"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 168 returns to the question of the access of children to licensed premises. We debated this issue in our last

97
outing in Committee. I stressed then and I stress again that we feel there are many potential problems regarding the unrestricted access of children to licensed premises as outlined in the Bill. I was not entirely satisfied with the assurances I received that the Bill would adequately protect children from harm.
Amendment No. 168 proposes that the operating schedule, which is to accompany every application, must outline what proposals the applicant intends to make with regard to children on its premises. While that may be covered by subsection (4)(g), which refers to,
"the steps which it is proposed to take to promote the licensing objectives",
I do not believe that that is explicit enough. It is important that licensed premises make clear their attitude regarding the access of children. Such clarification will reassure parents, local authorities and the publicans themselves.
I acid that I conducted a straw poll during the Christmas Recess. I understand that as the law currently applies there are situations whereby children have access to premises. I found that the opinion of most people I spoke to from all walks of life and all ages is that unrestricted access of unaccompanied children is extraordinary and surprising and is a matter which should be addressed expressly in the operating schedule. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I believe that this is a worthwhile amendment, although possibly not for the same reasons advanced by the noble Baroness. Most pubs nowadays are family friendly. That is a good thing and as it should be. But a significant minority of pubs are very much for adults only. There is surely room for both types.
About eight months ago my wife and I visited Chester for the first time. We walked along the length of the famous city walls on two or three occasions and were amused to see a pub with an enormous bold-type sign stating, "Children not welcome". There was an additional adjacent sign stating something like, "No fancy foreign food here. British bangers only". That suggested it was not precisely my cup of tea or my pint of real ale, one might say, but there was definitely a fairly boisterous clientele in the city that weekend for whom it was ideally suited. I think there should be room for both types of pub. I hope that it is not the Government's intention to force all pubs to cater for children because I think that that would not be good for children or for the general community.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I recognise that this amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is driven by the best of intentions. I also appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, about the necessity of our recognising that hostelries need to cater for those who are not so fond of children when drinking at the bar. It is quite clear that we need a range of pubs.
It will be for licensees to apply for whichever licence guarantees that they follow one of those objectives. There will be a number of pubs, despite the greatly
98
welcomed move referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, of the growing family friendliness of pubs, which will take pride in the fact that they restrict themselves to adults, because that is how they cater best for the people who patronise them.
This is an important amendment. The Committee will want to be satisfied that arrangements for children on licensed premises are appropriate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, indicated, we have already debated this issue at some length.
Members of the Committee will know that the licensing objectives include the protection of children from harm. The applicant is therefore required to set out what steps he proposes to take in order to fulfil this objective when carrying on licensable activities on the premises. This might, of course, involve exclusion from certain areas. There could be concerns about physical safety or risk of moral or psychological harm. In some places, the issue of anxiety about children may not obtain at all. A small, quiet restaurant may say nothing in its submission for a licence, because it would be entirely appropriate for children and would not give rise to any anxieties. The proposal will be scrutinised by the police, other responsible authorities and interested parties, including local residents, to guarantee that objectives are met.
The problem with this amendment is that it indicates the possibility of a quite broad provision for children. There was some suggestion there might be a play area or a creche or other facilities. We know that one of the reasons why so few licensed premises applied for child and family-friendly certificates after the 1994 Act was because of the substantial costs involved. Now we have the opportunity to put that right—not by obliging the industry to engage in additional costs, but by guaranteeing the protection from harm of our children, which is why the clause is phrased as it is. I hope that noble Lords will recognise the deep commitment on all sides of the Committee, and an obligation on the Government, to ensure that children are protected from harm in any licensed premises. However, we do not wish to put artificial harriers in the way of the development of family-friendly institutions.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his reply. The last thing I intended was to put artificial barriers in the way of a family-friendly policy. I am all for family-friendly premises where accompanied children are welcome. I asked someone what happens in Eire and was told that it is perfectly normal to walk into a pub at 10 o'clock at night and see people strumming guitars, with children, dogs, and adults, all together. That is precisely what we would love to see in bars and pubs in this country.
On a personal level, I, and many people to whom I have spoken, have a problem with unaccompanied children. I cannot think how that promotes a family-friendly pub culture. I am sorry that the Minister is disinclined to respond to our proposal. I will read his comments in Hansard because I feel passionately that there is a need to protect children.

99
I remember a police officer saying at a meeting before Second Reading that alcohol equals crime and disorder. We all care about future generations. I am not convinced that this radical approach to children in licensed premises is a good idea. Publicans should be able to specify what their intentions are in relation to children. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 169 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 170 to 172 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Determination of application for premises licence]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 11, line 25, at end insert—
"( ) The licensing authority is under a duty to act promptly in the determination of applications under this section."
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 202 and 245. Amendment No. 173 would lay down in the Bill the obligation on the licensing authority to act promptly in determining applications for premises licences. Amendments Nos. 202 and 245 are more stringent. They would impose a maximum time limit within which the licensing authorities must respond to applications for premises licences or variations of premises licences.
I tabled the amendments to probe an issue. Nowhere in the Bill is there mention of a time limit on processing of applications. I suggest 30 days as a time limit merely to provoke debate, but there is a real need to set a limit. Many in the industry have experienced severe delays in processing of public entertainment licences by local authorities. Delays cost money. A small business may be seriously affected by a wait of, say, six months, before its application is determined—especially if it is ultimately rejected.
Some may think that the provision of Amendment No. 173, which imposes,
"a duty to act promptly",
goes without saying. In an ideal world, it would be unnecessary to table the amendments, but we are not in ideal world and the industry needs some reassurance that its applications will be processed within a fixed period. As I said, I do not want to put licensing authorities under undue pressure. Other Members of the Committee may have a clearer sense of what is a realistic maximum time limit to impose, but, in principle, some limit should he imposed.
The Government have frequently assured us all that local authorities will be able to cope with the burden of taking on the role of licensing authority, and that resources and costs will be adequately met by the licensing fees. If so—do not imagine for one moment that I doubt the capability of local authorities to fulfil their role—the imposition of a sensible time limit will not be too much of a hardship. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I have tabled an amendment in this group. I entirely support what my noble friend said about the need to act promptly. There is concern in the industry that local authorities have not always covered themselves with glory in the past in their promptness of response to applications for public entertainment licences. There is concern that as the burden of work rises—as will inevitably be the case with the transfer of responsibilities—that situation will worsen rather than improve.
I entirely support my noble friend's amendment. My amendment, Amendment No. 178, is designed to ensure that authorities get a move on with hearings about representations. I understand that representations can and should be made and must be listened to, but applicants for a premises licence are entitled to a prompt hearing to consider those representations. My amendment would require the local authority or licensing authority to hold a hearing within 14 days after the conclusion of the time for representations to be made.
I do not suggest that 14 days is necessarily the right length of time, but, like my noble friend, I believe that there should be some fixed period; it is a matter for debate what is the right one.
Lord Redesdale: I support the amendments. One of the issues that has caused most concern among publicans to whom I have spoken about the move from magistrates to local authorities is their previous experience of local authorities taking a great deal longer to come to a decision about outstanding grievances than is good for business. Although difficult in some respects, a set period within which hearings should be held would give a degree of financial security to the institution. I therefore hope that the Minister can tell us why a time limit has not been set in the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is absolutely nothing between us on this, except the issue of whether the provision should be in primary or secondary legislation. We agree that there should be appropriate and fair time limits, although whether they should be of 30 days, 14 days or whatever the proposers say is a matter for further consultation with interested parties. It is accepted that there should be time limits. I give an undertaking that appropriate and fair time limits will be included in secondary legislation. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has agreed implicitly that it is right for those details to be in secondary legislation.
There has been huge difficulty during the past 40 years in obtaining changes to licensing regulation because it was in primary legislation and it was difficult to find parliamentary time to change it. We wholeheartedly support the principle behind the amendments.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I am delighted by his assurances and his agreement that this is an important issue. We accept

101
and are reassured by his undertaking that this matter will be dealt with by regulation. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 11, line 25, at end insert—
"( ) Where an application for a premises licence is received by a licensing authority but—

(a) it is not made in accordance with section 17, or

(b) the authority is not satisfied under subsection (1)(b),

the authority shall return the application to the applicant indicating its reasons for doing so."
The noble Baroness said: As it stands, Clause 18 provides for what the council has to do if an application is made which complies with all the rules and regulations about the form of the application. It makes no provision for what the licensing authority should do if there is a failure to comply. Clause 18 provides that in such cases the licensing authority must return the application to the applicant. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I agree entirely with the provision of Amendment No. 174. Clauses 17 and 18 set out the basis on which licensing authorities determine any application. Local authorities must conduct themselves in accordance with their own governing rules. It is implicit that in the type of circumstances that this amendment seeks to address, licensing authorities would have returned their applications, giving their reasons for doing so. It is an area that will be covered in the guidance to be issued with the Bill which we shall have an opportunity to debate on Report.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his full response and his reassurance that this matter will be covered in the guidance. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Falkland Viscount Falkland moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 11, leave out lines 26 and 27 and insert—
"( ) In determining any such application the authority shall have regard to its licensing statement and to any other material considerations, and in granting a licence may impose—"
The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 176, 177, 180 and 307. As presently drafted, Clause 18(2) would require the licensing authority to grant licences in accordance with the operating plan of the applicant in the absence of "relevant representations" from an interested party or a responsible person irrespective of whether it believed that granting the licence would promote the licensing objectives or whether it would interfere with the rights of individuals in its area. That is unreasonable.
The licensing authority has duties, first, to promote the licensing objectives and, secondly, to refrain from taking decisions that contravene the European Convention on Human Rights under Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 to have regard to its own
102
licensing statement, prepared after consultation, and to do everything in its powers to reduce crime and disorder in its area in accordance with Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act. It cannot possibly discharge those duties without the powers to do so. This amendment ensures that it has the powers to discharge those duties.
The fact that no relevant representations have been made is surely not always a decisive indicator of the absence of any problems. The licensing authority may know of reasons why relevant representations have not been made—for example, harassment, sheer volume of applications with which the police and the interested parties have to deal.
In the normal course of their business, licensing authorities gain knowledge of all these issues from a much wider range of sources than relevant representations. Councillors receive letters—sometimes signed, sometimes not—and the council receives complaints. There are site visits, newspaper articles, research publications and reports, petitions and telephone calls, all of which can put the council on notice that a problem may exist.
In such circumstances, surely it would be entirely inappropriate for the council simply to grant the application. Doing so may require the licensing authority to act in violation of its obligations of the Human Rights Act 1998. It would be far better to recognise that licensing authorities should be given powers to promote the licensing objectives at all times and to act in accordance with their obligations under the Human Rights Act.
The effect of all these amendments would be to confer on licensing authorities slightly wider powers than those set out in the Bill. In particular, they would allow them to take whatever action they deemed fit to promote the licensing objectives which are at the core of the legislation, and to ensure compliance with their obligations under the convention. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I support my noble friend's remarks in relation to this group of amendments. Like him, I believe that this is a core provision. Without these or similar changes, the Bill will be wholly inadequate.
It is no exaggeration to say that unless we have such amendments, which entitle the licensing authorities to form their own views as to the merit or otherwise of licensing applications—in effect to give them discretion—there will be an automatic procedure, as provided for by Clause 18, in which the local authorities are in effect ciphers of central government. One needs to remind the Government that under Clause 4 licensing authorities must have regard to the guidance issued from Whitehall. The framework for guidance already makes it perfectly clear that it will encourage longer drinking hours and encourage a semi-automatic approach to dealing with applications for licences.
Clause 18 as drafted is one of the most complicated provisions to find one's way around that I have encountered in the five years that I have been in this House. That is regrettable. I am not casting aspersions

103
on the draftsman or draftswoman. No doubt, complying with their instructions as they were given them led to this particular combination of subsections. But frankly, for the police, magistrates, local authorities, brewers and publicans to find their way around Clause 18 and the provisions that spin off it will be a daunting task.
Anyone reading Clause 18(1) might think that all is okay. It says:
"This section applies where the relevant licensing authority … receives an application for a premises licence".
Then come the comforting words:
"made in accordance with section 17".
People may think, "That's good. It has to be in accordance with Section 17". But when you look at Clause 17, you see that it is not a qualitative clause at all; it contains a whole series of formal requirements—time limits and what has to be included in the operating schedule. One might turn to Clause 18(1)(b), which says that the licensing authority must be,
"satisfied that the applicant has complied with any requirement imposed on him under subsection (5) of,"
Clause 17. Anyone inclined to take solace from that would be severely misled, because subsection (5) deals with regulations as to timing advertisements and the like.
Clause 18(2) tells us that the licensing authority,
"must grant the licence in accordance with the application"—
those are very pregnant words—
"subject only to … such conditions as are consistent with the operating schedule".
Again, the uninitiated might think that this was a solace. They might think, "Oh, well that's all right, it has to be in accordance with the schedule." Then they discover that the operating schedule is the schedule drawn up by the person seeking the licence—so that is no good.
Clause 17(4)(g) looks as if it might give some support for what might be called the wider public interest, such as the interest of residents. It says that the operating schedule must deal with,
"the steps which it is proposed to take to promote the licensing objectives".
But there is nothing there about whether the steps proposed by the applicant are adequate steps or will deal satisfactorily with the licensing objectives—nothing of the sort. Even if that part of the operating schedule was woefully inadequate and provided steps towards the four licensing objectives that were on any reasonable assessment hopelessly inadequate, the licensing authority has no discretion to do anything about it. That will be the case however worried, concerned or distressed the local councillors are and however much they know that it will cause mayhem in their district. They can do nothing.
As my noble friend Lord Falkland said, only a relevant representative can make an objection of a qualitative nature to which the licensing authority must have regard. There again, however, one is trapped in the extreme complexity of the language of
104
the clause. "Relevant representations", as defined by Clause 18(6), are extremely narrowly drafted. If local citizens banded together, they would be interested parties under the Bill. They might say that having the local pub open between midnight and five in the morning would have a severely disruptive effect on the amenity of the village. They might not be referring to people being drunk and disorderly or violent, but simply to the constant to-ing and fro-ing to a pub at all hours throughout the morning. That would not qualify as a relevant representation, however, which is surely utterly bizarre. Subsection (6) defines a relevant representation as one confined to,
"the likely effect of the grant of the premises licence on the promotion of the licensing objectives".
We all know, because we debated it earlier, that Clause 4 defines the licensing objectives in a wholly inadequate way. The only one that comes anywhere near amenity of local residents is the public nuisance test. I shall not repeat the arguments, which were made on all sides of the Committee, that to have public nuisance as the only amenity test gets nowhere near the issues that will concern decent, ordinary folk. It is not even dealing with private nuisance. We are concerned about severe breach of amenity without any nuisance at all.
It is an Alice in Wonderland set of provisions. First, they deprive the licensing authority of any qualitative judgment or discretion as to the satisfactory nature or otherwise of the operating schedule put forward by the applicant for a licence. The proposals deprive the authority of the ability to do the very thing that the Government have led us to believe they are there to do. We have had a lot of talk about how much more democratic and improving it will be to have local councillors rather than magistrates as the licensing authority, because they are nearer to mother Earth and much more answerable and accountable to local citizens, who are their electors. However, they have no discretion or judgments that they can make and, what is more, local residents have no powers even to make a representation that is not confined to "licensing objectives".
As if that is not enough, Clause 18 goes on to rub the point in. The authority cannot have regard to any other matters unless they are,
"necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives".
That phrase is used twice.
Unless Clauses 4 and 18 are fundamentally amended, the Bill will prove seriously inadequate. It will not give the public the protection that they deserve and it will not strike the balance that the Government repeatedly say is their dearest wish.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My amendments later on deal with Clause 18 to a certain extent. Several of the points have been raised already, and I shall deal with them on this amendment. In particular, subsection (2) says specifically that the licence must be granted and the reasons for not doing so are few and far between. As with planning applications, the weight is in favour of the applicant. It is not evenly balanced.

105
There is a strict time limit on when representations may be made. There are all sorts of reasons. People might be in hospital or abroad and not know about things. I compare the situation to an employment tribunal, for which there is a strict time limit. Applications must be in by a certain date. However, it is possible to apply for an out of date hearing or consideration of your point of view, as it would be in this case, if you can prove that there is a good reason why you did not bring in your reason earlier. Perhaps you never received the letter. I do not know by what means notification will be given to applicants. It has always been necessary to prove that clearly. If items are sent by recorded delivery, the Post Office receipt can be produced as proof of whether they were received. It is not possible just to say, "I did not get it. I live in a building with other people and someone else might have picked it up". That is not good enough. However, if someone is in hospital—this applies in many cases—it would be very unfair if their representations could not be heard simply because they were outside the strict time limit. I support the amendments.
Lord Borrie: I find it difficult to understand how, under Clause 18(2), any licensing authority worthy of its name can be expected to have to grant a licence except when there are representations. The whole thing is dependent on representations. I do not need to elaborate on the narrow way in which those representations must be made, because the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has made those points.
Because the turning down of an application is so utterly dependent on representations and for the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and other reasons, it seems a most extreme form of unsatisfactory licensing policy if licences must be granted whenever there are no representations.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall respond to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, separately from others. The noble Lord hates Clause 4. Nothing we can do will convince him that Clause 4 is right. Any changes that are made to Clause 18 are never going to satisfy him unless we go back and change Clause 4.
So far as other people are concerned, it is true that the Bill provides that if no representations are received the licensing authority is required to grant the licence with conditions attached that are consistent with the operating schedule. However, the whole process is designed to do two things. The first is to allow simple and uncontroversial applications through without a hearing. I hope that those who seek to represent applicants will support that, as it is a major deregulatory provision and a major move away from the unnecessary democracy—whoops! I mean that it is a major move away from the unnecessary bureaucracy and the 50 statutes that govern the hearing of applications.
The system, which relies on relevant representations, is fair, open and transparent. It ensures that there is thorough and focused scrutiny of
106
applications. The police, fire authority, health and safety and environment bodies and others will be statutory consultees on every application for a new licence or certificate, or variations on existing ones. Nothing is going through without consultation. Local residents and businesses will also have the right to a say in all new applications, and to call for the review of existing licences. Under those circumstances, who is being frozen out of the process? Certainly not the statutory consultees, and I suggest not the residents and businesses.
To ensure a balance between the interests of the public and those of the industry, any conditions attached to the licence or certificate must be necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives. With the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, we have on the whole had agreement about the licensing objectives.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The Minister provokes me by his second attempt to isolate me from my colleagues. When it comes to the next stage of the Bill, he will find that there is widespread if not comprehensive dissatisfaction with Clause 4 and the public nuisance tests.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Let us wait and see. The objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm follow from much of what was said to us as a result of the consultation on the White Paper. They seem to achieve widespread support, perhaps not among the Opposition but among other people. We have to maintain a balance between the interests of the public and those of the industry. We have to ensure that the conditions are necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives. If there are objections to that, okay.
The effect of the Bill will be to remove considerable red tape. Licensing authorities have strong powers to take firm action where necessary. They can add to or amend the conditions set out by the applicant in the operating schedule where it is necessary to ensure consistency with the licensing objectives, and attach different conditions to different parts of premises. In the past, licensing authorities have in some cases simply imposed a raft of standard conditions irrespective of whether they were necessary for particular premises. They have been aspirational and, to some extent, arbitrary. Our system is different. It is flexible, and allows conditions to be tailored to individual premises, but the conditions have to be necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives.
I listened very carefully to the arguments put forward. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, talked about harassment or intimidation in order to prevent representations. That is a matter for the police. If there is any suggestion of harassment, the police must be expected to provide protection.
I was surprised at what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said about Whitehall. These are not Whitehall directions. It is local police who make representations,

107
local residents who may object and local authority officers who may intervene. This is a local system which involves local people and local professionals. If the local community is content, despite the notification procedures, who are we to intervene and say that we should be involved in limiting local authority discretion?
9.15 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The Minister really cannot get away with saying, as he just did, that we must not interfere with local authority discretion; those were his words. The point about the clause is that there is no local authority discretion.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My point was that we must not intervene with the views of local people and residents, local professionals and the local police. These are local matters and it is not true to say that Whitehall is dominating. It is for the responsible authorities—the experts—to make representations about the effect on the licensing objectives of the application. For example, with the crime prevention objective, the police will have a say and the environmental health authority will have a say in the case of public nuisance.
I appreciate some of the motivation behind the amendments and that it is desired to bring back the regime to some extent so that it is comparable with the current regime. I urge the Committee to consider what would happen if the regime went back so that hearings were a norm and the presence of the police at hearings was a norm; we should also consider the complications of the current system. The system that we propose allows for uncontroversial applications to go through, provided that they have been checked to be in accordance with the licensing objectives. It gives full opportunity for those outside who may have concerns to make representations and for those representations to be heard. We do not want to go back to the existing complex regime.
Viscount Falkland: I do not believe that it is simply us on these Benches or those on the Conservative Benches—this is not a party matter—who support many of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Phillips. We share his concern about Clause 4 and the public nuisance test. We share it with people outside and with Members of the Committee on all sides. It sounds very good when the noble Lord says, as he did on several occasions, that we are making it easier to deal with simple and uncontroversial applications. I am not sure what a simple and uncontroversial application is and I should like to know what a complex and controversial one is in order to get a clearer idea. Perhaps we shall achieve that later.
What the Bill may entail is surprising to Members of the Committee and to those outside—that is shown by our postbags and by reading the letters pages of various newspapers. We should not forget that all of this change is taking place—although we do not oppose the basic proposal—in a context in which
108
13,000 violent incidents take place in and around licensed premises every week. That is at the worst end. As my noble friend said, other matters do not constitute a nuisance in the understood way, as the term is used in the Bill. He used the expression, "to-ing and fro-ing". I turn to nuisance during the night; there I go again using the word in a wider sense than I should. Perhaps I should refer to inconvenience and disturbance to local residents.
We come back to local residents. We must do everything in our power to protect the interests and right of local residents to lead peaceful and normal lives without a great explosion of activity because the new regime has not taken into account the serious consequences that may arise if licences are not examined and discussed and put to the test in the most severe way. That may sound as though we are going away from deregulation. But the whole Bill creates bureaucracy. The Minister says that it does not; but I believe that it does.
Whether or not that is so, we shall return to this point. It is at the core of the Bill in terms of the probable effect on local residents when we have what is effectively becoming a 24-hour drinking economy. I have no intention of pursuing the amendment at this late hour; it is meant to be probing. It is a complex point. I know exactly where the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is coming from. I understand what he is saying and the clever way in which he attempted to put to us a simple profile of what will happen. But it will not be simple. It will be extremely worrying for many people. We must ensure that those worries are examined and, where possible, mitigated. I therefore reserve the right to come back to this point at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 176 to 181 not moved.]
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 12, line 10, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Baroness said: This group of amendments is so closely related to the previous discussion that I shall not need to go into great detail. It can be seen that the group consists of a large number of amendments. I shall say a few words but this is a matter to which we shall have to return on Report.
There are other provisions in Clause 18 to which we object, particularly subsection (6)(c). That involves the right to object to a person who has been nominated as a supervisor of the licensed premises. According to the Bill, only the police will have the knowledge upon which such an objection can be based. That must be wrong.
A licensing authority may already have relevant information about the nominated person. he or she may, for example, previously have been a licensee or a nominated supervisor in other licensed premises or may have committed misdemeanours in regard to public safety which did not come to the notice of the

109
police because the offence was not prosecuted or was not one that is notifiable to the Home Office as a criminal offence.
It should not be solely the police who have the right to say whether or not a premises supervisor is suitable. It should be possible for a local authority, where appropriate, to use its knowledge. Also, in circumstances where a premises licence is granted, it is granted virtually in perpetuity and therefore it is important that the original granting should be correct. But Clause 18(9) stipulates that only the police will have their evidence taken into account. The same argument applies that it should be wider than the police; that other people should also have the right to make representations.
I have many pieces of paper about this matter, but they are so complicated and the amendments are so massed together that it is impossible to put them all together. Some are consequential to others. The amendment seeks to ensure that an officer of the licensing authority is able to make representations about an applicant for a premises licence in addition to the chief officer of police where the premises are situated.
The licensing officers of the council will be regularly inspecting the premises in the area. They are likely to have knowledge of any persons operating existing premises licences. We must take into consideration that the licences are not coming out of the blue to a completely new group of people who have never been in the trade or involved in any way before. Many of the people applying for licences will be known and will have a definite record, either good or bad, with the local authority of the way in which they have been conducting their premises.
The need for local authorities to have a greater degree of control in applying conditions was debated on the previous amendment. If it is known that nudity is to be allowed on premises, a restriction may be desirable. The issue of children has been raised. A local authority might wish to limit admittance to people of a certain age; whether it should be 18, which is the drinking age, or younger is another point for discussion. There is a need for the right to attach conditions in such circumstances. The local residents would certainly want such conditions attached. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I support my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. As Members of the Committee have said on previous amendments, this is an important area. Much representation beyond the Committee has been made to all of us in relation to Clause 18. There is considerable concern and unrest. It makes sense that those on the licensing authority should be involved as well as the police. They often have the ears and eyes of the local community, sometimes from a different perspective from that of the police. It therefore seems wrong to exclude them.
Baroness Blackstone: I will not return to the issues of Clause 18 that were addressed by my noble friend Lord McIntosh. I will respond to the specific amendments,
110
which might help the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. They would strike at the heart of the Bill, which seeks a workable balance between the rights and interests of local people and businesses and those of licensees and the industry. It seeks to make the system as light touch and simple as possible while providing adequate protection.
The Bill provides for statutory consultees, such as the police, fire and environmental health authorities, as well as local residents and businesses, to have a say in all applications for new licences, in applications to vary operating conditions and to call for the review of existing licences. We must remember that many of those authorities are part of the local authority; we should not see them as totally separate. Where one such body makes a representation, a hearing will be held and the appropriate conditions attached to meet relevant concerns.
We want businesses to thrive and to see employment enhanced. We do not want businesses to be subject to unnecessary burdens or restrictions. That is why where no representations are made no hearing will be required. It is also why representations will not be considered where they are not related to the likely impact of the licence or where the same representations are made frivolously or vexatiously.
Those who make relevant representations will, along with applicants, be able to appeal against any decisions to grant licences or club premises certificates, to vary licences or certificates or to issue provisional statements.
As regards decisions to grant or vary licences or certificates, they will be able to contend that the grant or variation ought not to have been made or that the conditions ought to be modified. So that does offer a real say and a great deal of protection. The requirement that the representation be relevant is still central and offers the same protection to the interests of licensees and also avoids clogging up magistrates' courts with costly and time-consuming appeals which are not related to the objectives. They might be malicious or go back over ground which the licensing authorities have already covered.
We are confident that those with valid concerns will find it easier than before to have a say in licensing decisions. It is of course important that the police and other enforcement bodies, as well as the local community, have a strong voice in the determination of applications. Indeed, it is essential that the police are able to object to the designation of a new premises supervisor where in exceptional circumstances they believe that the appointment would undermine the crime prevention objective.
We have given undertakings to the police that these arrangements will take place. Where trouble does flare up the police will be better able to take the necessary action quickly and, I believe, with a minimum of confusion. At the same time I am alive to industry concerns that the procedures associated with the designated premises supervisor should not become too burdensome. Designated premises supervisors will be personal licence holders and will therefore have had to

111
meet the requirements in relation to training. Therefore, it is right that objections should be limited to those made by the police on the grounds of the crime prevention objective.
By changing the requirement that representations be relevant, these amendments would open up the way for representations from almost anywhere, leading to uncertainty for the industry, drawing out the application process and certainly making it a lot more costly. A major problem with the current system is that all applications for a liquor licence require a court hearing when in the great majority of cases that is not really necessary. This Bill provides for most applications where there are no concerns or implications for the licensing objectives to be dealt with administratively. That will lead to significant savings. It is not clear why we should go back to a system where all cases are decided by a hearing regardless of whether one is really needed. It is also unclear why the net should be widened and the requirement that representations are focused on the licensing objectives and are made for the right reasons be removed.
The Bill gives local people and local businesses a stronger voice than they have had before to comment on local issues. It is transferring licensing functions to bodies with local knowledge and, importantly, who are directly accountable to local people. While ensuring a consistent national framework the Bill will protect local concerns and be responsive to them while at the same time ensuring that industry is unduly restricted or subject to unnecessary red tape or costs. In the light of what I have said, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for what she has said. I certainly hope that at Report stage we can reduce the complexity of so many amendments. I shall read what the noble Baroness has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 183 and 184 not moved.]
[Amendment No 185 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 186 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Hooper)The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Hooper): If Amendment No. 187 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 188 to 190 because of preemption.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 12, line 30, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Baroness said: A personal licence holder who holds a valid licence should not be under challenge under such a vague term as "exceptional circumstances". Exclusion by way of conviction of a criminal offence—more than 40 are already listed in
112
the Bill—is sufficient to ensure that such a further test and obstacle should not have to be overcome. On what basis will a council decide on the validity of a police objection? The Bill reintroduces the vague fit-and-proper test in cases that, by their nature, are exceptional. The police will have sufficient powers through either the review process or powers of disclosure—which they can use when and if the circumstances that they fear are about to occur. The system should be and is robust enough to exclude the need for further powers. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: This is an extraordinarily open-ended and vague way of dealing with a problem that does not really exist.
Is the person about whom the statement is made then made aware of it and of who has made it? Is the person left in ignorance and just informed that he or she is not to become a designated premises supervisor—or is he or she entitled to be told that a complaint has been made about them by the police and to be told the nature of the complaint?
In a Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, keeps telling us has to be as precise as possible, this is a vague, difficult and potentially unfair clause. It would give undue power to local authorities, without the proper balance of the individual being able to know about a complaint made against him, who has made it and on what grounds.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am really puzzled by this amendment, which is the only one in the group that has been spoken to. It would remove the requirement on the police to give a statement when making representations about the specification of a designated premises supervisor on a premises licence, to the effect that in the exceptional circumstances of the case, it would undermine the crime prevention objective to do so.
I do not know whether this was intended, but the amendment would remove the need for the police to give reasons for objecting to a premises supervisor. That is not what I heard the noble Baroness or the noble Lord to say, but that is what the amendment says. I should have thought that the balance that we have—where exceptional circumstances are needed for the police to intervene but where they have to give reasons—is the right way forward.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Are the reasons made known to the person about whom the complaint is made?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, certainly. What is the point of giving reasons unless the people to whom they refer know about them? They are not secret.
Baroness Buscombe: I appreciate that the Minister is somewhat surprised by the amendment. We do not necessarily want to do away with the power to have a statement where, in the circumstances of the case, the

113
premises supervisor would undermine the crime prevention objective. I should have made it clearer that this is, in a sense, a probing amendment. The wording,
"due to the exceptional circumstances of the case",
is not clear. It sounds vague and broad and does not make it clear that a proper explanation will be given as to why the police are making a particular statement.
I am grateful to my noble friend for asking what the words,
"due to the exceptional circumstances of the case",
mean, given the fear that the police might simply offer "clue to the exceptional circumstances". We are looking for reassurance that there will be more clarity.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry if I was not clear enough. We are saying that we want the provisions for a change in a designated premises supervisor to be as simple as possible. We want to place as small a burden as possible on applicants and to make sure that it is possible for businesses to continue. It is only in the circumstances that I described when I addressed Amendment No. 154—and those are exceptional circumstances—where the police have good reason to think that a situation is dangerous that they would intervene. They would not just say that that was the case but would give their reasons for intervening.
Baroness Buscombe: I am grateful to the Minister for expanding the point. It is reassuring to me and, I hope, to the industry—which is particularly concerned about the matter—and to members of licensing authorities to know that it is expected that proper reasons would be given, whatever the exceptional circumstances may be. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 188 to 190 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 191:
Page 12, line 36, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 191, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 228 concerning the granting of premises licences.
On coming to subsection (10) of Clause 18 I found myself slightly bemused. It states that,
"a licensing authority may grant a licence … subject to different conditions in respect of different parts of the premises concerned".
Can the Minister shed some light on the reasoning behind the measure? It seems strange that different conditions could be applied to one part of a premises but not to the other. I cannot think of a circumstance where such a situation would be necessary or advisable. To take the matter to the extreme, would it not be possible to have different sets of conditions for one premises? If so, it could easily cause confusion and misunderstanding. I do not see why the provision described in paragraph (a) is required. It appears to me
114
to be both superfluous and troublesome. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me to the contrary. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I hope that I can give the noble Baroness the reassurance she seeks. The Bill is all about flexibility. I refer to the flexibility that may be necessary when a licensee wants to keep his main premises open beyond 11 o'clock at night. However, he also has a beer garden which is an enormously social place in which to be at lunch time and perhaps also in the early evening. However, it is not such a sociable place, certainly not for neighbours, at two o'clock in the morning. Therefore, the granting of the licence may be dependent upon the licensee making it clear that service will cease in the beer garden and that it will not be open for the consumption of liquor after 11 p.m. However, the hostelry itself may be able to continue serving after 11 without causing any disturbance to others.
Another example in the context of licensed premises in general might be a licensed bar in a cinema. One would not want young people to be present in such a bar very late at night. However, they should clearly have access to the cinema if a late film is being shown. The restriction would be placed on their ability to patronise the bar but not to attend the film. Those are two instances where we argue for flexibility. We believe that that flexibility should be sustained. I hope that the noble Baroness accepts those examples.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Is the measure capable of being interpreted to decree that, if one has a pub with two bars, one could have 100 people in one and 150 in the other, that that would be a requirement of the licensing authority and that the premises licence or the designated premises supervisor would have to ensure that that balance was maintained? If that is the case, unless guidance is given about how the measure is to be implemented, a local authority could make the operation of licensed premises almost impossible by imposing a series of balancing requirements with regard to the capacity and utilisation of different bars. Can paragraph (a) of subsection (10) be used in that way? Potentially it would be complex and difficult to administer from the licence holder's point of view.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I hear what the noble Lord suggests. I do not think that it is conceived that two rooms in the same hostelry should be subject to different considerations in quite that way. But my illustrations surely are the basis on which we would need flexibility. That flexibility needs to be interpreted in accordance with common sense. I was seeking to illustrate that there are areas within the framework of the measure where we would need the necessary flexibility.
The noble Lord is right about two dissimilar rooms in terms of capacity. If one room is used for one purpose—and which clearly has a vastly greater capacity than the other—the licensing authority would say that there is a certain number related to that and a

115
different number for a much smaller room. But we are not looking to make these issues intensely complex, we are trying to create the flexibility within which intelligent decisions can be made in order to meet the four broad objectives of the measure.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his reply. I like the idea of flexibility. I am sure I speak for all Members of the Committee in relation to the need for flexibility. I welcome the intervention of my noble friend Lord Hodgson. As to the example that the Minister gave with regard to shutting off the beer garden at 11 o'clock at night, I cannot imagine being the barmaid who will have to push everyone out of the garden and into the bar and so on. It will be quite difficult to implement that in practice. That said, we welcome the need for flexibility. We welcome the examples. Certainly, we will think about what the Minister has said. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Lord Harris of Haringey Lord Harris of Haringey moved Amendment No. 191A:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
"POLICE REPRESENTATIONS.
(1) Where representations are made by the chief officer of police for a police area in which the premises are situated and where those representations contain a statement that, due to the exceptional chrcumstances of the case, he is satisfied that extra policing costs, which in his opinion will be significant, will be incurred as a likely effect of the grant of a premises licence, the licensing authority must take such of the steps mentioned in subsection (2) as it considers necessary.
(2) The steps are—

(a) to grant the licence subject to the condition mentioned in subsection (3),

(b) to exclude from the scope of the licence any of the licensable activities to which the application refers,

(c) to reject the application.

(3) The condition is that every year the holder of the premises licence granted in accordance with subsection (2)(a) shall pay to the police authority for the area in which the premises are situated a sum to be determined by the licensing authority to defray the costs of policing referred to in the representations made under subsection (1)."
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 191A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 247A, 441A and 441B. My reason for tabling these amendments stems from my experience over the past two and a half years as chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority. I declare that as an interest. During that time I have spent a great deal of time visiting every London borough to hear how policing issues are working out and what particular problems and difficulties may arise.
In an enormous variety of parts of London the issue of policing implications for licensed premises emerges as a significant problem. That is the reason for the amendment. Amendment No. 191 A is designed to give the police an opportunity to make representations to the licensing authority to the effect—this would not be
116
a routine matter, it would be intended to be flexible and to be an alternative to objecting to the grant of a licence—that, because of the exceptional circumstances of a particular application, there would be extra policing costs, and that those extra policing costs would be likely to be significant.
If such a representation were made—and only if—the licensing authority would be required to consider it. It would then have discretion as to whether to proceed and to place as a condition on the licence that the holder of the premises licence should pay an annual sum each year to the police authority to defray the costs of additional policing. The remaining amendments are designed to ensure that the process would allow an appeals process. If people felt that the licensing authority had acted inappropriately in response to representations, there would be a mechanism for an appeals process and also a mechanism for review at a later stage.
I believe that there is widespread concern in London, and more generally around the country, about specific licensed premises—I refer not to licensed premises in general but to some individual ones—either because of what the licensee hopes will happen in those clubs or because of the number of people likely to attend. The concern could be about the way people are likely to behave inside and outside or about the way in which premises are managed or are likely to be managed.
Quite recently the Greater London Assembly, of which I am a Member, held hearings on 24-hour licensing. Members of the Association of London Government, among others, presented evidence to an all-party delegation. There was concern that there would be insufficient police resources to cope with any anticipated increase in disturbances, resulting from the proposed reforms. That was expressed in terms of the volume of policing needed at one location and the spread of that resource throughout the night. That is a concern, I suspect, shared around the country. It was thought that that would require the police authority to re-think its policing priorities and objectives to ensure that additional policing was available. That would mean police resources diverted from other functions.
Later on in the inquiry the deputy assistant commissioner responsible for the Westminster area presented evidence. He highlighted again the point that if there is a rise in the number of licensed premises, there will be a commensurate rise in disorder which will skew resources to deal with that. If there is a plan to say that this is going to be a place, as he said, that has a huge number of licensed premises, then we need to think how we will fund public services to cope with that. If someone comes in to make a legitimate profit, how do we fund the policing that might be needed?
Officers may be taken away from a housing estate where they are sorely needed in order to go to police late-night drunks. He cited a number of examples where holders of licensed premises voluntarily make a contribution to policing costs. The problem is that that is a voluntary requirement. It is not something that the

117
irresponsible licence holders will necessarily do; nor is there necessarily any agreement about the level of contributions.
For those who may think that this issue applies only to central London, I was particularly taken by representations received from my honourable friend the Member of Parliament for Hornchurch about the problems faced in Havering. The borough does not have a high level of policing resources and, by and large, does not need them. With the number of licensed club premises in Romford Town—I use this as an example—the vision that he conjured up was of large numbers of highly excited young Essex girls and boys congregating in Romford town centre in the early hours of the morning. This clearly presents issues which require a considerable policing input into a borough which, by and large, does not have a very large policing resource.
Where exceptional policing costs are likely to be incurred through a licence application there should be some arrangement whereby, as a condition of such a licence, the police authority receives a contribution towards those costs. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: I agree with the noble Lord. There should be some provision of this kind. But he is talking about one aspect of additional costs imposed by the late-night economy. It could be extended to other areas such as the effect on health, street cleaning, graffiti and all the things associated with the presence of large numbers of young people in an area where they are not particularly well supervised.
With regard to policing in central London, when I recently had the privilege of visiting West End Central and Charing Cross police districts with the chief inspector, I was told how resources were provided. In the case of Charing Cross, officers were asked to volunteer for permanent night duty instead of the several nights on, several nights off, they had been working previously. It was found that that system was much more acceptable to the officers concerned and that, by having 13 officers on duty all night, they were able to provide a far more effective service. Absence due to sickness among the officers concerned went right down, as the Committee may imagine. When they did not suffer jet lag twice a week they were much more likely to remain on the job.
I congratulate the police on the way they have coped with some of the problems in central London—but at severe cost, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, mentioned. That will be the case in every area where we have the late-night economy. Inevitably, the more premises are open throughout the night, the more police officers will be required and the higher will be the cost imposed.
When I asked the Minister about the levels of crime in the Charing Cross and West End Central police districts on December 19th, she said, at cols. 784–5, that she would be cautious as a social scientist about connecting any differentials shown by the analysis for which I asked with late-night drinking because many other factors entered the causation of violent crime.
118
Ideally, what would be useful—I have written to the Minister to suggest this—would be to consider figures relating to a variety of police districts in which there is a concentration of late-night drinking establishments to ensure that there are no local variables peculiar to the West End Central and Charing Cross areas. When the Minister comes to make the inquiries she promised me, I should be grateful if she widens their scope accordingly.
The Minister went on to discuss drunkenness in particular. That is an extremely bad guide to the level of offences associated with the late-night economy because it is so closely connected with the propensity of the police to arrest people for that offence. The figures in Scotland show that clearly. In 1979, there were 13,626 drunkenness offenders; in 1999, there were 478. As a matter of common observation, drunkenness has not been virtually eliminated in Scotland during that period. There is clearly more of it than there was.
So either the offenders are not being charged a t all or, when they commit offences, they are charged not with drunkenness but with some other crime. However, the Scottish figures have been used to "prove" the success of extended opening. The English and Welsh figures show a similar pattern, although not quite so dramatic. It is manifestly absurd to claim that there is less drunkenness in 2000 than there was in 1997, as I am sure the Minister would be the first to acknowledge.
Wherever we have the late-night economy, large increases in police costs will be associated with it. I do not understand why the entertainment industry, which will make vast profits from the extension of drinking hours, should not cough up a little of that money to help the police. I would go much further than the n noble Lord, Lord Harris. I would have a levy on the industry to make it pay for all the costs that it imposes on the community—such as street cleaning and the large increase in the number of casualties in the accident and emergency departments of our hospitals. I am happy to support the noble Lord's limited demand in the hope that it will open up the discussion of all those other areas.
10 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My starting point is that the Government want to see the police properly resourced. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary confirmed as recently as 5th December a significant investment in the police. Policing will receive a 6.2 per cent increase in funding for the year 2003–2004 and at least a 4 per cent increase in the two years after that. That will allow an increase in police officer strength to 132,500 officers.
Against that background, we have a number of concerns about what these amendments would mean. First, it is not confined to premises selling only alcohol. It covers every form of premises to which a premises licence might apply. For example, it covers concert halls, theatres and cinemas, as well as pubs and night-clubs. It is very sweeping in its potential impact.

119
Noble Lords may recall that prior to the introduction of the Police Reform Bill in the last Session of Parliament, the Home Office published a White Paper for public consultation on the issue of police reform. It included the idea of schemes by which certain entertainment outlets might agree to make voluntary payments to the police for the disproportionate costs of policing associated with their premises. We fully support such schemes.
But there is a great deal of difference between voluntary and compulsory schemes. Compulsory schemes could drive a major wedge between the police and the industry at a time when we need them to work together and with others in partnership to defeat crime and anti-social behaviour. Certainly, there would need to be very widespread public consultation on this issue before we could agree to take it forward.
The financial impact on the industry would also have to be carefully analysed. The hospitality and leisure industry is a major part of the wider tourism industry. The well-being of this industry is important to our economy. Since 1997, it has provided one in four of all new jobs created in the UK and one in five that have been created in pubs and bars.
We should also recognise that this would be an additional tax on industry by another name. Under the terms of the amendments, it would be a tax for the benefit of police authorities imposed by the licensing authority and not by the Government with the consent of Parliament. The phrase "no taxation without representation" could come back to haunt us.
Sales of alcohol in this country exceed £25 billion each year. More than £12 billion in alcohol duty and VAT is therefore generated annually. It is paid by the customers of entertainment outlets who cause the alleged policing problems. Those customers are also paying income and local tax, which can be added to the duty and VAT that I have already mentioned. The more people attending licensed premises, the more alcohol being consumed, the more tax that will be paid.
The industry is also paying normal taxation falling on businesses, which also helps pay for the costs of policing, and is entitled to question these amendments.
This is a very complex matter and I would be instinctively against allowing the potential for such blanket charges. However, there may be a case—I put it no higher than that—for a court power to make an order requiring payment to the police where convictions have been obtained for permitting disorder on licensed premises. That would not be a tax but a penalty incurred and applied in appropriate circumstances by a court. Again, I do not think that we should venture down that road without consultation on the issue. In these circumstances, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his comments. I am well aware that other services are also affected by this. Indeed, Deputy Commissioner Trotter, in his remarks,
120
highlighted the problems of toilets, refuse collection and so forth. I am also aware of the permanent night duty experiments in the Charing Cross area, which have had a beneficial effect.
I am somewhat perplexed by the responses that I have received from the Minister. Yes, of course there will be, and there is, a growth in police numbers. Yes, of course the amendment applies to every type of premises; it was intended to do so. There are extra burdens on the police in terms of very large venues—such as concert halls, from rock concerts, film premieres, and so forth. There are costs in regard to policing outside football clubs which would also be picked up as part of this.
The point is that such a provision would provide an opportunity for the exceptional cases or the areas where there are real problems to be picked up on the basis of representations by the police and then to be determined by a licensing authority—which under Bill's proposals will be democratically elected; so the argument that there is no taxation without representation is clearly spurious.
My noble friend made the point that it would be much better to have a voluntary arrangement rather than a compulsory one. Of course it is much better if those who cause the most problems are happy to volunteer to make a contribution. But I suspect that if one asks the communities around the various types of establishments that we have been talking about, one will find that it is those who are least responsible who cause the most problems and who are the least likely to enter into voluntary agreements. For those reasons, I believe that it is necessary to include a provision which can, under certain circumstances, require such licence holders to make some kind of contribution.
Similarly, I am not convinced about the argument that the amendment could create a wedge between the police and the industry. A wedge is created at present by irresponsible licence holders who do not enter into discussions.
The fundamental problem that I have is this: yes, of course this proposal could be interpreted as a tax; but it is proposed that the circumstances should be exceptional; and that the discretion would be exercised by an elected authority. That point deals with the argument that there is no taxation without representation. In any event, taxation agreed by Parliament would necessarily apply across the country.
An issue that arises in regard to many of these establishments is that they are very localised. Havering is a low crime borough, but the problems of Romford town centre and of the clubs in Romford are extreme, and other suburbs have to deal with similar issues. The problems of Westminster are the result of a concentration of licensed premises in the centre of London.
I was interested in my noble friend's comments about the possibility of imposing a court penalty. If she is saying that the matter could be returned to at a later stage, I am happy on this occasion to seek to withdraw the amendment. But I believe that we should not lose

121
the opportunity of this Bill being before Parliament without trying to get some resolution on these matters. While I accept that there should be consultation on the principle, I suspect that if one asks most of the communities in the areas close to the licensed premises referred to, they would want to see a proper financial contribution being made to cover the extra costs— particularly the policing costs—associated with such premises.
Subject to those remarks, and in the hope that my noble friend will consider these matters further, and perhaps also consider further the remarks that she has made about court penalties, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Mandatory conditions where licence authorises supply of alcohol]:
[Amendment No. 192 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 193 not moved.]
Clause 21 [Prohibited conditions: plays]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 194:
Page 13, line 26, after "plays" insert "or adult entertainments"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 195 and 196.
Clause 21 deals with the conditions that may be attached to a premises licence which authorises the performance of plays. The clause states that no condition may be attached to the licence in respect of the nature of the play to be performed. It is only on the grounds of public safety that conditions may be added to the licence.
My amendment seeks to make the point that plays and performances in a licensed venue may well include what I have described as "adult entertainments"—that is, lap dancing and other sexually explicit shows. When we discussed the issue of unrestricted access for children, it became clear that many of us shared the fear that children might have access to licensed venues that put on such performances. These amendments seek to provoke a response from the Minister. Subsection (1) does not allow any conditions as to the nature of the play in licensed premises to be added to the licence. Perhaps that should be rethought. One would suppose that strip joints might merit a different set of conditions from a community hall that might like to stage a play. If adult entertainment is to be
122
provided in a licensed venue, surely the licensing authority should be able to impose conditions on the licence. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I accept the fact that the clause does not address every form of entertainment that we may think is in questionable taste, but it is clear what we are seeking to achieve. The clause carries forward a provision that appears in Section 1(2) of the Theatres Act 1968. The aim is straightforward —to prevent licensing authorities from attaching conditions that relate to the nature of the play to be performed or the manner of its performance, except when that is justified as a matter of public safety.
The issue that we emphasise is that the Bill does not seek to interfere or intervene in all manner of activities that are better left to other regimes of regulation or left unregulated altogether. The more mature Members of the House recall the situation before 1968 and the attempts at censorship of plays. We remember the extreme difficulties that that created in so many ways, by bringing the law into great disrepute. We would not want to go back to that situation in a licensing measure, or to recreate censorship that has long since ceased.
I recognise the intent behind the noble Baroness's amendment, but emphasise the fact that strip joints, lap dancing and other activities are covered by other restrictions on licensing. We are not prepared to accept a restriction in this measure that would reintroduce censorship of plays in this country. That is why the clause is drafted as it is.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I am not sure whether I succeeded in provoking him. However, as long as the issue of unrestricted access for children remains in the Bill, I shall continue to attempt to provoke the Minister during the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House. On that basis, for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 195 and 196 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Lord Grocott Lord Grocott: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [H.L.]
(First Day)
Monday, 13th January 2003.
The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. The Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung—if any noble Lord is speaking then, he should stop as soon as soon as possible—and it will resume after 10 minutes.
Title postponed.
Clause 1 [Service of overseas process]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, leave out "country outside the United Kingdom" and insert "participating country"
The noble Baroness said: In rising to move Amendment No. 1, I want to check with my colleagues that the sound is on. They were having difficulty. It sounds as though my microphone is operational, but there may be problems which the officers could sort out for us.
There can be no doubt about the importance of international co-operation on exchanging information on criminal matters, especially on terrorism. We all know that. The proof has been cruelly thrust into the public domain over the past week with the discovery of people from overseas who are alleged to have been making ricin in North London. I understand that some have appeared in court today and that other related arrests have been made overnight.
With that background, I want to comment briefly on our general approach to the Bill. It will colour not only our approach in Committee but, more importantly, on Report. As the Deputy Chairman reminded us, in Grand Committee we may not vote, but on Report we shall bring back matters that will not only be further examined but they may be subject to a matter of contest.
Our approach is to probe the intent of the Government and to ensure that the Bill achieves its objectives and does not cause loop-holes or contravene the ECHR. Both of those matters could fatally damage the potential of the Bill to assist the tracking of criminals for the protection of the public without limiting personal freedoms to an unacceptable degree. It is our intention to ensure that the Bill is as effective as possible in achieving the Government's objectives.
The Government have said that many of the provisions of the Bill have to be adopted as they are part of international agreements already reached and they have been subject to parliamentary scrutiny via the EU Select Committees of both Houses.
As I and other Members of the Committee have recognised, for anyone to track down the various comments on the various parts of the Bill in the mountain of paperwork that those Select Committees have so assiduously produced to date will be a nightmare. The problem was highlighted four days ago when the Government produced 44 amendments, including one new clause. I do not complain about those amendments, most of which appear to be technical. Those which are not technical appear properly to respond to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
Today, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, was kind enough to write to me to let me know that the Government will introduce further amendments to the Bill with regard to the mutual recognition of orders freezing terrorist property. I can understand the Government's keenness to introduce aspects of the framework decision relating to the freezing of terrorist property which does, as they say, form a key part of the post-11th September EU anti-terrorism road map. They say that the amendments will further demonstrate the Government's commitment to combating terrorism at all possible levels. We shall certainly support that commitment and it puts into context the way in which the legislation is becoming more complex as we deal with it, not less.
It is therefore important that we obtain clarity from the Government about the application of the provisions of the Bill in order to assist Parliament and those who in the real world will be affected by the implementation of the proposals. That is not an excuse but I hope it is an explanation for some of the amendments we have tabled to the first part of the Bill.
Clauses 1 and 2 are, for the most part, a reenactment of provisions already contained in Section 1 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990. However, I have tabled some amendments to seek clarification from the Government about the way that these powers have been used in the past and,

GC3
more importantly, will be used in the future in relation to countries other than what are called in the Bill "participating countries"; namely, countries other than the member states of the European Union and other countries specified by order of the Secretary of State. As we have a senior Law Officer with us in the Committee today, I anticipate that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, may have some practical examples of how effective the 1990 Act has been and where it needs to be strengthened.
Clause 1 allows the authorities in the United Kingdom to serve process or other documentation that has originated in various categories of proceedings taking place in another country. As paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Explanatory Notes state, because of the existence of procedures for direct service by post in the Schengen Convention and the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, in practice, the provisions of Clause 1 will regulate only cases where such,
"direct service is not appropriate",
or where,
"documents are issued in countries which are not 'participating countries"'.
I find this part of the Bill a nightmare and would therefore welcome clarification from the Minister as to the way in which the Secretary of State intends that the powers in Clause 1 should be exercised in these two situations. In particular, when do the Government envisage that direct service under the convention provisions will, in the words of the Explanatory Notes, not be "appropriate"?
In respect of countries which are not "participating countries", does the Secretary of State intend to make distinctions between different types of country in exercising the discretion conferred on him by subsection (3) on whether or not to serve proceedings? Does the Secretary of State at present have such a policy in respect of requests for the service of process from countries where the rule of law is not properly enforced? What would happen—this is a wild speculation but these are wild times—if the Secretary of State received a request from the Governments of Iraq or North Korea—or perhaps slightly more realistically, the Government of Zimbabwe—to serve process in relation to criminal proceedings taking place in those countries? I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the challenge that the Bill presents at times, even though it has the benefit of being a comprehensive re-enactment of the 1990 Act rather than what we have seen in respect of other Bills whereby we have inserted amendments into prior legislation. Nevertheless, it is not always a simple matter.
Clause 1 replaces Section 1(1) and (2) of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 and differs only in that Clause 1(2) defines "process" more widely than in the 1990 Act. The amendment would restrict the service that the UK
GC4
currently provides to overseas authorities because it would mean that we could serve overseas process documents only via the Secretary of State. In practice, that would mean the UK Central Authority based in the Home Office. We could do that only in cases involving participating countries. For the purpose of this chapter, "participating countries" would be defined as EU member states or other states designated by order.
The result of the amendment would be that process from non-participating countries could be served only directly. That would not be helpful because it is exactly countries outside the EU that need to be able to use our central authority. In practice, countries designated as "participating countries" will mainly be EU and Schengen states. Under the mutual legal assistance convention and Schengen, those countries will be expected to send process directly and not via the central authority.
Furthermore, direct process is less regulated than service via the central authority. Therefore, the effect—I am sure unintentionally—of the amendment would be that service from the further-afield countries would be less regulated than that from EU member states. For those reasons, we believe that amending the Bill in this way would represent a backwards step. There is no requirement in the 1990 legislation, which was introduced by the previous government and has in general worked well for the past 11 years, to designate countries for the purpose of service of process. For those reasons, we feel that this probing amendment is not appropriate.
The noble Baroness properly asked about situations where service by post would not be appropriate. Article 5.2 sets out the circumstances where procedural documents may be served via the central authority; for example, when the address of the recipient is not known, where the law of the requesting state requires proof of service beyond proof that can be obtained by post, and when it has not been possible to serve a document by post or where the requesting state has good reason for considering postal service to be ineffective or inappropriate.
I turn to the question regarding Iraq. Clause 1(3) is not an obligatory provision. It contains the word "may". It always remains open to the Secretary of State to decline to comply with a request. Clearly, there is a burden of responsibility on him when making an appropriate response to any such request. I hope that that has answered the probing amendment to the satisfaction of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for his opening salvo. He will not be surprised to know that we shall want to examine part of his answer in greater detail later, particularly with regard to his comment that in general the 1990 Act has worked well. As he will notice from the thrust of our amendments, we want to tease out precisely how that has worked and why the Act has been comprehensively re-enacted in this Bill, but with additions. We also want to know why there may now be opportunities to go a little further.

GC5
The Minister is right to point out the defects in the amendment. They were intentional defects—a vehicle by which to probe the background to these issues. We would not take them further at a future stage, except with regard to the comments that the Minister made about the definition of participating counties. As he said, they are mainly EU and Schengen countries. There will be occasions in the future when we shall want to look in great detail at the definition of "participating countries" and the way in which that list may or may not be increased by the Secretary of State.
With regard to that matter, we have tabled other amendments and when debating them I can go into greater detail than is right or proper at this stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 12, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 3 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Carlisle. They seek to probe the types of documents that may be served under Clause 1 and the nature of the proceedings that are covered by the power. I should particularly welcome the Minister's views on the ways in which subsection (2) of Clause 1 goes further than the existing wording of Clause 1 of the 1990 Act. In particular, subsection (2)(b) extends the provisions of the 1990 Act to a much greater range of proceedings; namely, what are called "administrative proceedings" as well as "clemency proceedings".
I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify one point on the drafting of subsection (2)(b) relating to the definition of "administrative proceedings" in Clause 52(1) That definition states that the term means:
"proceedings outside the United Kingdom to which article 49(a) of the Schengen Convention applies (proceedings brought by administrative authorities in respect of administrative offences where a decision in the proceedings may be the subject of an appeal before a court)".
That definition of "administrative proceedings", that applies in subsection (2)(b) of Clause 1, clearly ties the term to the provision of Article 49(a) of the Schengen Convention. Article 49(a) of the convention states that it applies to:
"proceedings brought by the administrative authorities in respect of acts which are punishable under the national law of one of the two Contracting Parties, or of both, by virtue of being infringements of the rules of law, and where the decision may give rise to proceedings before a court having jurisdiction in particular criminal matters".
Is it therefore the case that the service of overseas process under Clause 1 of the Bill in relation to such proceedings may be made only where the proceedings have originated in a country which is a party to the Schengen Convention? Is there, therefore, a distinction between the service of process in criminal proceedings— which, as I read the Bill, may be in relation to such proceedings in any foreign country—and service in administrative proceedings? I would welcome the
GC6
Minister's views on that point. Perhaps he could also give some examples of what types of proceedings are classed as "administrative proceedings". I am sure that all Members of the Committee would be grateful for that.
Further, subsection (2) is drafted in much broader terms than those in the 1990 Act in respect of the documents to which it applies. The Bill uses terms such as,
"any process … for the purposes of criminal proceedings",
and,
"any document issued or made … in administrative proceedings".
Clause 52(3) defines the term "process" as including both court documents and,
"any other document issued by a prosecuting authority".
Section 1(1) of the 1990 Act refers to a much narrower class of documents; namely:
"a summons or other process requiring a person to appear as defendant or attend as a witness in criminal proceedings in that country or territory".
It also refers to,
"a document issued by a court exercising criminal jurisdiction in that country or territory and recording a decision of the court made in the exercise of that jurisdiction".
There is therefore a difference in the definitions.
Can the Minister shed a little more light on the kind of documents which would be covered by the expanded definition used in the Bill, in particular, in relation to documents issued by prosecuting authorities—I know that amendments have been tabled in relation to them—and those that may be issued in connection with "administrative proceedings"? What is the full extent of the range of documents to which the provisions of Clause 1 will apply? I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I advise the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 3.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: In speaking to the earlier amendment, my noble friend Lady Anelay referred to the obvious importance of the purpose of the Bill. Clearly, it is one that we all support. We must do everything we can to improve co-operation in the service of criminal documents in criminal proceedings at a time when more major crime is of an international nature as regards drugs, the laundering of money and terrorist activity.
I have tabled a probing amendment to leave out subsection (2). While we accept the principles and purpose of the Bill, it is right that we should know in plain and simple terms, first, what changes and improvements are being made and to what extent the powers are being made wider than those in the 1990 Act and, secondly, the countries to which the powers apply. Moreover, they should be reciprocal in that those countries should be willing to act in a similar way in the process of documents provided from this country.

GC7
I want to concentrate merely on subsection (2) and the widening of the terms which at present exist for international co-operation. Subsection (2) states:
"This section applies—
(a) to any process issued or made in that country for the purposes of criminal proceedings",
which, as I understand it, is similar to that which is provided in the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990; and,
"(b) to any document issued or made by an administrative authority in that country in administrative proceedings recording a decision of the authority".
So far as I can see, that is a totally new power and presumably a widening of the co-operation in the service of documents on people who are living in a country other than that in which the proceedings are being taken.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us what that means. What are the administrative proceedings to which subsection (2)(b) refers? Who is the administrative authority in the country which is to make the applications? Do we have similar administrative authorities in this country? Do we have similar administrative proceedings? Are these meant to be proceedings separate from those of a criminal nature?
The Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 clearly is limited to the assistance in the process of summonses and documents relating to criminal matters. What is intended by "administrative matters"? In this country, an administrative matter might be said to be proceedings under the health and safety regulations; proceedings under planning matters; and possibly various taxation matters. What are the administrative proceedings to which the Home Office is intending to provide a service in this country relating to the process of documents which do not exist at the moment?
Clause 52 is a definition clause. It states that,
"'administrative proceedings' means proceedings outside the United Kingdom to which article 49(a) of the Schengen Convention applies (proceedings brought by administrative authorities in respect of the administrative offences where a decision in the proceedings may be the subject of an appeal before a court)".
Presumably, they are to be administrative proceedings which are in some ways limited to the fact that they can be subject to an appeal before a court. But what does that mean? Almost any administrative proceedings one can look at in this country would at the end, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, would agree, be subject to judicial review. Is judicial review the equivalent of proceedings being subject to an appeal before a court? I do not say that there may not be a good explanation but I would like to know why we need to widen the powers in this way in this Bill, which appears to go far outside the field of criminal matters and open up matters of a totally different kind. To which countries will the provision apply? Is it reciprocal? There is no reference to the receipt by other countries of documents emanating from this country in the administrative procedures.
GC8
I rise merely to learn the purpose of the clause because it is important that we do not suddenly find that we are passing provisions which may be convenient and, happily hanging around for a long time to be cleared up, can easily be dropped into a Bill that is being debated without relating to the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Renton: I do not dispute the Government's good intentions with regard to this matter. I want to confine my remarks to Amendment No. 3 proposed by my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. I believe that we need to be careful about the use of the expression "administrative proceedings". By implication, and bearing in mind that the expression "criminal proceedings" is used in Clause 1(2)(a), we must assume that administrative proceedings exclude all criminal proceedings and indeed exclude other judicial proceedings.
We must bear in mind that because the expression
"a country outside the United Kingdom"
has been used in subsection (1), subsection (2) must refer to administrative proceedings in any country in the world. They may have their own definitions of "administrative", "judicial" and "criminal" proceedings. I am not worried about the Government's intentions, but merely about the way in which subsection (2)(b) and (c) are expressed.
Lord Filkin: I thank the three Members of the Committee who have spoken on these interesting and important probing amendments. They will not be surprised to learn that our principal stand is that for reasons I will seek to outline we do not believe that they are appropriate and that they would put extra and unnecessary restrictions on the service of documents relating to overseas criminal proceedings in the UK. Therefore, we believe that we are going backwards from the procedures which have operated under the 1990 Act.
The first amendment would remove the definition of the types of process covered by Clause 1 so that the scope of subsection (1) would not be defined. That would widen the scope to cover all processes without reference to the type of proceedings and enable a completely open interpretation of "any process or other document". Again, that may not be the intention but we believe it to be the effect.
Subsection (2) is essential to provide guidance to those issuing and receiving procedural documents, especially because the category of relevant proceedings has been widened, as has been noted. Deletion of this subsection would leave it open to a judge to interpret "any process or other document" in any way he saw fit, potentially opening it up to include all types of procedural document with no relevance to criminal or related proceedings.
While the first of the two amendments would have removed the definition of the scope of subsection (1), thus expanding it unreservedly, the second of the two would have defined the scope of process, we believe, unacceptably narrowly. Paragraphs (b) and (c) list types of proceedings in relation to which, under the terms of Article 49 of the Schengen Convention, the

GC9
UK is obliged to assist. Removing these paragraphs would render us unable to assist in relation to these proceedings and would put the UK in breach of its international obligations, which is clearly not what we wish to do.
These subsections relate to administrative offences—a category of offence that does not exist in the UK but does exist in some of our partner countries. In some EU countries, for example, offences such as driving offences are dealt with in that way. This may not be serious criminality but it is part of a general process of offering mutual legal assistance. If we are to have good relations with our EU partners and receive their full co-operation, we must be able to assist even in the more mundane cases.
I shall try to develop some of the other issues raised. Why have the arrangements been widened? Under the provisions of the Schengen Convention and the MLA convention, we are obliged to provide assistance in relation to these new types of proceedings. In certain circumstances, such as clemency proceedings and certain civil proceedings, these administrative proceedings are linked to criminal proceedings. While the UK itself does not have proceedings equating to all of those, nevertheless it must be able to assist. The current draft enables us to do so.
Administrative proceedings are not restricted to participating countries. In this context, the administrative proceedings are not ones with which we are familiar, but I have already covered that point. The powers are reciprocal on the basis that there is an obligation on all EU members states to implement them. They are clearly not reciprocal in regard to other countries because such a reciprocal agreement is not in place.
Administrative proceedings cover only those where there is an appeal to a criminal court. On that basis, I assume that the ability to apply for judicial review is not appropriate, but I shall check that point. Judicial review clearly is a form of appeal, but I do not think that the ability to appeal to a court under judicial review implies, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, suggested, that the matter is necessarily on all fours with the administrative proceedings. The process is defined in Clause 52(3). However, in the context of administrative proceedings, we are not certain what documents might be included. We therefore have to give scope to the description of "any document" in that respect.
I believe that, at heart, these questions reflect the extent to which it is possible to define "administrative proceedings" and, therefore, the extent to which there are adequate safeguards and protections in the absence of a definition. I am not seeking to imply in my remarks that we feel that anything is wrong in the drafting. However, I should like to look with some care at the issues raised in the questions to see whether I can answer them further and more fully in writing in order to put beyond any doubt the uncertainties expressed. With that offer, which is not an unusual one to Opposition Members, I trust that, at this stage, the Committee will be happy to let matters rest.
4 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am sure that the Minister, who is very well informed on these issues, will appreciate how difficult it is for lay people to understand them. Is he saying that paragraphs (a) to (d) are all separate and mutually exclusive, or do they overlap? Are administrative proceedings—a definition of which my noble friend Lady Anelay has requested—different from the proceedings outlined in paragraphs (a) to (c), or has that been included to ensure that the list covers all possibilities? Is that a valid question or have I misunderstood the position?
Lord Filkin: It is a perfectly clear question, as the draftsmen have given us none of the benefit of the usual "ands" and "ors". I am told that, in the absence of the "ands" and "ors", the list is intended to cover everything. One may therefore imply an "or" between them; in other words, a document could be covered by one or more. The provisions are self-standing or could be dealt with in conjunction.
Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. When he gives some thought to those issues, will he bear in mind the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, in relation to reciprocal arrangements and whether such arrangements are appropriate before an order is signed in relation to any other country designated by the Secretary of State?
Lord Filkin: Yes, indeed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I have listened to what has been said. I was confused when I came into the Committee, and I am still a little confused. It is worrying that in a Bill to make,
"provision for furthering co-operation with other countries in respect of criminal proceedings and investigations",
and,
"to extend jurisdiction to deal with terrorist acts or threats",
driving offences were the one example of an administrative matter that the Minister gave in his reply. If driving offences can be considered as among the administrative causes, we really are widening the scope of the Bill beyond what most of us, and certainly I, would consider reasonable. Have I misunderstood what the Minister said, or am I correct that the Bill is taking powers to widen the scope far beyond what some of us think is necessary and what we were led to believe on Second Reading?
Lord Renton: Before the Minister replies, I wonder whether it would be helpful if I made a very simple suggestion. I think that the problems to which my noble friends and others have drawn attention would be easily solved if, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), we were to leave out the expression "by an administrative authority" and, in the next line, refer not merely to "administrative proceedings" but to "judicial proceedings"—which would of course include criminal proceedings. That is a simple solution for overcoming the difficulties expressed.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: One would hesitate to question the views of my noble friend Lord Renton on

GC11
any form of immediate drafting as being likely to be totally accurate and of assistance. Nevertheless, although my noble friend may have provided the Minister with the answer to his problems, the problem certainly exists. In his original reply to my request, the Minister seemed to say that we have had to bring in administrative proceedings because certain administrative proceedings are analogous to criminal proceedings in this country, and driving offences were the only example that he gave. However, where does it say that he is limited to that type of proceedings?
As my noble friend Lord Renton forcefully pointed out, as the clause states that,
"This section applies … to any process issued or made in that country for the purposes of criminal proceedings",
and then goes on to say that it applies to any document in administrative proceedings, the implication is that those are not criminal. Clause 52 states that "administrative matters" are limited to those in which,
"a decision in the proceedings may be the subject of an appeal before a court".
However, I do not think that that answers the question. Although I totally accept the Minister's statement that judicial review is not a "criminal matter", it is an appeal before a court. There is nothing in Clause 52, the definition clause, to show that "appeal" means "subject to appeal being brought before a criminal court". At the moment, the provision seems to cover administrative matters, of a civil or criminal nature, started by administrative authorities which are subject to any appeal before a court. I think that the word "criminal" should be imposed at some stage to make it clear that it is intended to limit the provision to offences of this kind.
Finally, I do not think that the Minister really answered my question about what type of proceedings the Government have in mind. Although they are not "criminal proceedings" as such, breach of planning procedures could, I imagine, end up in the criminal courts. Breach of health and safety regulations could certainly be the subject of criminal proceedings. They would be the subject of criminal proceedings rather than being brought as an administrative process. I should like to hear more from the Minister. I am particularly grateful for his kind offer to put in writing the Government's thoughts on this matter, and look forward to the opportunity to reflect on his comments.
Lord Filkin: The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked whether this was a widening of the administrative proceedings to which we are accustomed and expressed concern about driving offences. In that respect at least, I think that the position is clear and not hostile. If I committed a driving offence in Germany, it would be perfectly possible under the 1990 Act for the service of proceedings to occur in the United Kingdom. All that I was instancing by referring to driving offences was the fact that some issues which are criminal offences in this country are dealt with in administrative proceedings in other European Union countries. It seems to me perfectly right and proper that we should co-operate with judicial support
GC12
mechanisms if an administrative process rather than a strictly criminal one regarding a driving offence is initiated.
I turn to the reflections of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and to the seductive offer to amend the Bill "on the wing" made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I shall certainly resist that offer. As I said, however, I should like to give some thought to the points raised and decide whether I can make a fuller response to answer those perfectly understandable questions. In essence, the issues raised go to the heart of mutual legal assistance and are in the nature of the Bill itself. I shall write shortly to noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments. I believe that the amendments point us in the direction that we shall have to take for at least the next two or three sittings if we are to ensure that we take the type of care and attention for which your Lordships' House and its Committees are renowned. These types of issue do not grab the headlines in the Sun—unless, that is, we get them wrong and the legislation falls short of public expectations. I think that we are all grateful to the Minister for his offer to write to us and provide further explanation and illumination of these matters.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for pointing out that no Committee Member would in any way quarrel with the Bill's intentions. I am also grateful to him for again demonstrating mental agility which I cannot match: he redrafted the provision almost before I had finished reading the first draft. I shall carefully examine his suggestion on redrafting.
My noble friend Lord Carlisle made it clear that we are concerned that, where the Bill goes more broadly than the 1990 Act, we do not let ourselves in for unintended consequences. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, also carefully raised that issue. I hope that, in the letter that the Minister has promised, he will address, for example, the issues raised by my noble friend Lady Carnegy with regard to the redrafting of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). We received from officials a quick response on that issue. One of the advantages of sitting in Grand Committee is that, at least at this end of the Committee, we get a little advance warning of answers as we hear the advice from officials before the Minister is able to interpret it in his own manner. However, it is important to clarify that drafting issue, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy for raising it.
It is also important that, in his letter, the Minister explains to the Committee which offences other than driving offences that might fall within the definition of "administrative offences" are analogous to criminal proceedings. We will have to be sure about that before we reach later stages.
The Minister has still not quite answered the question about reciprocity in EU and other countries. In reply to my noble friend Lord Carlisle, the Minister said that the EU powers are reciprocal. Later, of

GC13
course, we will have to know how other countries enforce these matters and at what stage reciprocity will be achieved. We will also need to know what agreements the Government have with countries other than our EU colleagues which may be pertinent to the Bill.
Some important issues have been raised in this debate. I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to write to noble Lords. Obviously, we will want to see those responses before we decide what action to take on Report.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am not familiar with the correct procedure in Grand Committee. To whom will the Minister be writing? Will he write to all those present in Committee or only to those who have spoken? If it is the latter, I trust that I have just assured myself a copy of the letter.
Lord Filkin: By signalling his interest, the noble Lord has assured that he will receive a reply. Usually, a reply would be sent only to noble Lords who have spoken in the debate and thereby signalled an interest in the issues. I envisage that there will be one fairly comprehensive letter which seeks to address all the issues. Usually, as a matter of courtesy and practice, I would also seek to copy both Opposition Front-Benchers regardless of whether they had spoken.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I tell my noble friend Lord Pearson that we will attempt to copy the correspondence we receive from the Minister to all those on our Benches who have expressed an interest in the Bill. We may occasionally fall down on that, but we shall do our best. I am also reminded by my noble friend Lord Bridgeman that, on occasion, the Minister has been kind enough to place such letters in the Library. He may consider doing that on this occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2 line 9, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State may by order make regulations prescribing the circumstances in which a document is (or is not) to be deemed as having been served for the purposes of subsection (3)."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 4 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 10 which is grouped with it. The amendment poses a simple question: what constitutes good service and proof thereof? The Explanatory Notes tell us that, following entry into force of the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, which I shall try henceforth to call MLAC,
"most procedural documents will be sent directly by post from the issuing authority in countries which are participating in the MLAC or the Schengen Convention to persons in the United Kingdom".
Subsection (3) replaces Section 1(2) of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, giving the Secretary of State—or, in Scotland, the Lord
GC14
Advocate; I always take care of Scotland when my noble friend Lady Carnegy is in the Committee, and also when she is not—discretion in how to serve a document.
Amendment No. 4 would allow the Secretary of State to specify in secondary legislation the circumstances in which a document is deemed to be served under the provisions of Clause 1. The amendment seeks to clarify exactly when the process or document is served. Is it, for example, when the Secretary of State posts the letter or when it arrives? What happens if it is lost in the post? What happens if personal service is required but the person in question cannot be contacted? Can the document be left at his or her home, for example, or would it have to be handed over in person? There is a problem, of course, with multi-occupation households.
The amendment may seem to address issues about dancing on the head of a pin. However, having sat as a magistrate for 13 years and seen the difficulty of delivering and proving good service, and having sat on the social security appeals tribunal, I am perfectly well aware of the extraordinary steps people will take to prove that they could not possibly have received a document. These are very serious matters where it is important to ensure that service is achieved.
Amendment No. 10 takes this point further in relation to the provision of receipts. I take it that the words "if possible" refer to the possibility that a person may be unable or unwilling to sign a receipt. However, do they also envisage other circumstances in which the documents may be "served" with out the person actually being present?
I recognise that these provisions of the Bill replicate to a great extent what is already in the 1990 Act, but it would be helpful if the Minister could comment briefly on them and perhaps outline the experience of the Government and chief officers of police in operating them over the past 13 years, so that we are sure that we can achieve proper service when the Bill has been enacted. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: Amendment No. 4 would introduce what we believe would be potentially restrictive and unnecessary regulations and limit a procedure that has worked effectively for 12 or so years without such regulation. Requirements and regulation are, in the Government's view, unnecessary. Hundreds of documents are received by the Central Authority every year and are served effectively without the existence of regulations of this nature. Subsection (3) simply replicated Section 1(2) of the 1990 Act, which did not contain a regulation-making power.
This is the first of a number of amendments requiring the making of regulations to set out the detail of arrangements. The amendments' purpose, we presume, is to ensure full parliamentary accountability and scrutiny, or alternatively through probing in Committee, to ensure that there is not a need for such regulating power.
The Government do not consider that parliamentary scrutiny is necessary of the minutiae of arrangements which have been working well for some

GC15
years. If germane issues regarding service issues or problems from the past dozen years come to light, I shall reflect on them and ensure that we provide the relevant information.
Amendment No. 10, to Clause 2, would make personal service of process valid only if the person carrying out the service obtained a receipt signed by the person on whom it was served. Although the Government can see the reasoning behind this, to safeguard the rights of the recipient, we believe and know from current practice that it would create an unnecessary barrier to service of process. The wording of the clause merely replicates current arrangements as set out in Section 1(5) of the 1990 Act.
As I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, knows only too well as a magistrate, there are occasions when a person refuses to sign a receipt even when served a document by a police officer. However, the Government believe that this should not be capable of rendering the service invalid. Where that does occur, the constable is required to report it to the UK Central Authority, which will record that the document was served but that the recipient refused to sign the receipt. Police experience itself has not revealed any problems operationally, bearing in mind that many of the relevant documents are for witnesses rather than for defendants, so that there may be less need to seek to avoid service.
On the issue of why the category of procedural documents has been widened, under the provisions of Schengen and the MLA convention, as I said, we are obliged to provide assistance in relation to the new type of administrative proceedings. Furthermore, it may be necessary to prove that a person has received a document. It may be a necessary procedural step in some proceedings. For that purpose, personal service may be a necessary device. It is most likely in the case of service of summons on the defendant. For those reasons, the Government do not believe that the amendments are necessary.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I have one question for the Minister. He explained that the subsection contained the word "may" which gave the Home Secretary a discretion in responding to the request under Section 1(1). He went on to explain that that would give the Secretary of State the power to refuse to do so in matters that, as has been said, might arise at present in Zimbabwe or Iraq. Does the "may" have anything to do with the method of service? The Bill states that the Secretary of State may,
"cause the process or document to be served by post or, if the request is for personal service, direct the chief officer of police",
to do so. Does there have to be a request for personal service before personal service can be used, or does the word "may" give the Home Secretary a general discretion to allow the document to be served by post or by personal service if he so wishes?
Lord Filkin: On the last point, the Secretary of State usually would seek personal service only when he or she has been requested to do so. One can readily
GC16
understand the reasons for that: as it is a more complicated and lengthy process, it would usually be done only when the requesting authority has specifically requested it. I shall reflect on the other points and, unless there is further advice, come back to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, on them.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will reflect on these matters and report back; it is most helpful. He clearly highlighted why the issues are important when he said that there may be a need in later proceedings to prove the efficacy of service—which is what the amendment itself hinges on. We are not in any way trying to create extra bureaucracy to entangle anyone. We were trying to find a hanger for the provision, and this was a convenient place to deal with it. The Minister was right to say that there are occasions when it is not necessary to refer to regulations in the Bill itself and that parliamentary scrutiny of those regulations is occasionally not necessary. On other occasions, however, it is absolutely vital that there are such regulations by order. We shall come to those regulations later in our consideration of this Bill and of other legislation.
Amendment No. 4 was moved merely to stimulate debate and I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. In regard to service of these documents, they are, as he said, served on those who are witnesses and not on those who are yet accused persons. As he knows, particularly in international crime, a witness may become an accused person. It is therefore important that service is properly achieved.
Given the Minister's offer to look further at this matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Clause 2[Service of overseas process: supplementary]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 20, after "stating" insert "in ordinary language"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 5, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 6 and 8. The amendments would clarify the form of the statutory notices that will accompany the service of overseas process. In that respect, the Bill again replicates provisions in the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990.
The amendments simply raise the issue of the drafting of the statutory notices and whether they are drafted in terms that are easily understandable to those upon whom they are served. That is particularly important for the giving of notice about the effect of subsection (2) of Clause 2, which makes clear that there is no obligation under the law of the United Kingdom to comply with the process. Are the terms of the form left to the Home Office and to individual chief officers of police, or is there a standard national or

GC17
international form of the notice to be used in all cases? What has been the practice over the past 13 years? I would welcome clarification from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: The overall purpose of the amendments is to ensure that people served with process relating to overseas proceedings are made fully aware of the consequences of that service. Evidently, the amendment reflects the Opposition's concern that recipients of such documents may not fully understand the implications. It is right and proper to make sure that that is not the case. The Government are sympathetic to the intention behind the amendments, but we do not believe that they are necessary or would add anything to the existing situation.
Clause 2 merely replicates Section 1(3) to Section 1(6) of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, which governs existing MLA arrangements. It was brought in by a Conservative government. The clause already contains adequate safeguards to ensure that the recipient of such process is aware that it does not impose any obligation under UK law and to ensure that recipients are aware of the consequences under the law of the country where the process was served.
The amendments would require the letters informing the recipients of overseas process to be written in "ordinary language". That would cause difficulties. It would be difficult to know what was meant by "ordinary language", as the concept is itself open to interpretation. The more substantial point is that the letters are nothing new. The UK Central Authority, based in the Home Office, has sent them out since the 1990 Act came into force. I can assure the Committee that the letters are written in straightforward language. I have had a look at them, and even I could understand them. To put that beyond doubt, I am happy to give illustrations to the Opposition Front Benches.
Is it open to the Home Office to determine the format? Yes, it is. There is no international form, and I shudder at the thought of the negotiations that will lead to its production. For those reasons, I hope that the Opposition, when they see the letters, will see that we share the intent of making sure that people who are served process understand clearly and fully their obligations.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am unable to understand what the noble Baroness means by "ordinary language". Ordinary language in Smithfield Market is different from ordinary language in Carey Street. That being the case, I cannot understand why it was necessary to table the amendment.
All that we need to stress is that the person should understand what is meant by the process. My noble friend the Minister has given chapter and verse on that.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I can understand what the noble Baroness is getting at. The Minister said that the letters were written in language that even he could understand. He is a Minister of the Crown and a
GC18
former chief executive of a local authority. He would be able to understand such things, whereas normal people—ratepayers and such people—would not.
I do not want to make too much of this, for I understood what the Minister said. Nevertheless, we are discussing a complicated Bill. Some of the documents that are served on people are just as complicated. We need Explanatory Notes to tell us the way through, so we should not be too critical if someone tables an amendment to get clarification and some assurances that people will be able to understand exactly what any notice served on them means. The consequences of not understanding could be serious.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: One of the things that a person is to receive is an indication that he,
"may wish to seek advice".
We are told that the service of documents has been widened by Clause 1, so that it will cover,
"any process issued or made in that country for the purposes of criminal proceedings".
Presumably, that would include a summons to arrest someone to attend his trial. It is fairly wide. When it is suggested that the recipient may wish to seek legal advice, from whom will it be suggested that he seek advice? Will he be able to receive assistance from legal aid in this country?
Lord Filkin: I can add little to what common sense—a dangerous term—tells us about that. It is up to an individual who is invited to reflect on whether he needs legal advice to make a judgment as to whether he should go to a solicitor, to the NACAB, which gives simple legal advice in some cases, or to others. In many cases, that decision would be straightforward, and the person would go to a solicitor, if he needed advice on a potential criminal prosecution. I understand, however, that such a person cannot apply for legal aid in such circumstances.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I will pursue the point slightly further when we get to Amendment No. 7.
I am grateful to Members of the Committee for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was right to go to the heart of the matter: what do we mean by "ordinary language"? We mean language that the recipient of the notice can understand. It highlights our greatest difficulty, which is that we are drafting legislation that should be appeal-proof and judicial review-proof. The Bill will achieve government policy objectives, but it should also be written in something resembling real language that can be understood not only by practitioners but by others. That is the greatest problem. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said that it was important that the consequences for someone who does not understand something could be severe.
I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out that it is the Home Office that determines the matters. We shall return to the matter of comprehension of proceedings, particularly in cases in which people do not have the language in which the notice would

GC19
ordinarily be issued. Having heard what the Minister said I stress that this is an opening salvo on the matter I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 21, after "seek" insert "legal"
The noble Baroness said: I move Amendment No. 7 separately because it refers to the seeking of advice, something to which we shall return in more depth later in the passage of the Bill.
Subsection (3) replicates, with minor amendments, what is in the 1990 Act. The amendment was tabled to probe the nature and quality of the advice that would be available to persons on whom overseas process is served in the United Kingdom under Clause 1.
We spoke about the administrative proceedings included in the scope of Clause 1. However, the exact nature of what is happening may not be readily apparent to persons on whom process in administrative proceedings is served. We may have a better understanding when we receive the Minister's letter in which he will give examples of what the administrative proceedings may comprise, but it may be difficult for people who have grown accustomed to and who one hopes—understand the United Kingdom's system of justice fully to comprehend what such proceedings in other countries are all about.
Can the Minister say a little more than he did a moment ago to my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, about the kind of advice that the Government expect people to seek? The Minister referred to the citizens advice bureaux. I declare a non-pecuniary interest as president of my local NACAB. I have served as adviser to and chair of the management committee for a quarter of a century. I am aware that, although the bureaux are funded locally, they would not normally have the expertise on-site to answer questions relating to such judicial matters and might have to send people to solicitors. That raises the question of who bears the cost. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: As the Committee will recognise, the thrust of Clause 2(3) is to try to ensure that, when people are served with a notice, they have it made clear to them that they may wish to seek advice before responding. It is right and proper that the state should do that, so that such persons are in no doubt that it could be a significant issue for them. However, we do not think that it is right, proper or necessary to go further and second-guess what form of advice they should receive. We need only indicate that the people may wish to seek advice on the meaning of the documents and their potential implications.
The amendment would require the notice accompanying the process to indicate that the recipient may wish to seek "legal advice". The 1990 Act does not specify that that advice should be legal, so we see no reason to change the legislation in that
GC20
respect. That is because we are concerned that explicit references to "legal advice" might be over-restrictive and would not necessarily assist the recipient, when other, less formal advice—from an employer, from the NACAB or from the Central Authority itself—might be appropriate.
The standard notice that accompanies the overseas process suggests that the recipient seek legal advice. Given the nature of the documents, it is highly likely that the recipient would turn to a legal adviser for assistance. Persons on whom documents are served often telephone the UK Central Authority or seek advice from their solicitor. There are solicitors who have specialist expertise in such areas. For those reasons, we think that it is right to draw people's attention to the fact that they may wish to seek advice, without thinking that it is right or proper to spell out the exact form of that advice, which may differ according to circumstances or the preference of the recipient.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful for the Minister's response, but I would be grateful if he could consider giving some information at a later stage on the Government's view on whether legal advice is necessary in addition to other advice. Do the Government think that this is such a complex area that legal advice is as much required as anything else?
I heard the Minister say that people often phoned the UK Central Authority. Can he elicit for us information about the kind of advice that it gives? Is the authority telephoned simply for advice on the possible procedure or on whether people will need to present themselves to give evidence by television or telephone? Does the advice for which the Central Authority is asked go to the nub of the legal issues? People may have to ask for advice on many matters. It may be straightforward getting advice on how to fill in a form asking for personal details, but finding out how to respond to a particular legal process could be a detailed matter. I hope that the Minister will consider that.
We may return on Report to the subject of legal advice and the importance of access to it, not in the narrow form implied by this amendment but more widely. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 25, after "a" insert "party or"
The noble Lord said: This is a brief amendment. Clause 2(1) states:
"Subsections (2) and (3) apply to any process served in a part of the United Kingdom by virtue of section 1 requiring a person to appear as a party or attend as a witness".

GC21
Subsection (3) states:
"The process must be accompanied by a notice"
that, among other things, must indicate that,
"under that law, he may not be accorded the same rights and privileges as a witness would be accorded to him in proceedings in the part of the United Kingdom in which the process is served".
There is no reference to rights and privileges as a party, although that would be desirable. Is there any reasons why the words that we propose do not appear in subsection (3)? I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: Clause 2 provides that overseas process must be accompanied by a notice covering such matters as the rights and privileges accorded to persons appearing in overseas proceedings. The notice must be given to persons appearing as a party and to those attending as a witness. That is because subsection (1) provides that subsections (2) and (3) apply both to parties and witnesses. The note that accompanies the process falls within subsection (3) and will be given to someone whether he or she appears as a party or as a witness.
The note will be the same in both cases and will use standard wording, indicating that the person may not be given the same rights and privileges as a witness as would be accorded in UK proceedings. The amendment would mean that the notice would also have to indicate that the recipient may not have the same rights and privileges as a party.
The drafting of the subsection reflects Section 1(4)(c) of the 1990 Act, which has not, to our knowledge, caused any problems. We are changing the term "defendant" in the 1990 Act to "party", but that is simply because "overseas process" can relate to some overseas administrative and clemency proceedings—our old friends again—as well as ordinary criminal proceedings. The use throughout of the term "defendant" would not be appropriate, as we would not always be talking about criminal proceedings. However, there is no difference of substance from the 1990 Act, and we see no reason to change the existing legislative position, which appears to work well.
A party to proceedings must already be given a notice setting out his rights and privileges as a witness. We have identified no additional rights and privileges that would be accorded to a party to the proceedings, so we cannot see the need for the amendment. That is particularly so given the fact that the Bill is based on the corresponding provision in the 1990 Act. The intention is that the notice will be given to parties to proceedings and to witnesses. Having taken advice, I am happy that the current drafting achieves that. We respect the thrust of the amendment, but, for the reasons that I have given, it is not necessary.
Lord Goodhart: I am dissatisfied with that reply. The Minister appears to be saying that the notice under the terms of subsection (3), indicate that there are rights and privileges as a witness and as a party. In fact, the rights of a party and the rights of a witness are not necessarily the same. In some cases, the rights of a party may be different. For instance, under UK law, a
GC22
party cannot be compelled to give evidence, whereas a witness can, subject to the right not to incriminate himself.
It would be appropriate to recognise that rights may be different. The fact that no problems have been caused because the drafting was got wrong in the 1990 Act is no reason to say that the drafting should not be corrected in the Bill. It is a minor matter, but I ask the Government to think again about it. We shall probably bring it back for a further short discussion on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Filkin: We will always consider with care what is said in Committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [General requirements for service of process]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 2, leave out "believes" and insert "suspects"
The noble Baroness said: I forbore to speak on the last amendment because I thought that your Lordships might have had enough. It is like a monologue from me at the moment, so it was intriguing to listen to the debate.
In moving Amendment No. 11, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. The amendments go back to the question of language. They raise the question of the language that will be used when the United Kingdom process is served overseas, if the person on whom the process is to be served does not understand English.
The Explanatory Notes state:
"Subsection (3) creates an obligation on the person at whose request the process is issued to meet the MLAC requirement relating to translation where he is aware that the recipient does not understand English".
It is difficult even when one does understand English. Amendment No. 11 relates to the standard to which the person at whose request the process is issued or made will have to be satisfied before making available a translation of the process. The Government have stated that the appropriate standard is that the person,
"believes that the person on whom it is to be served does not understand English".
My amendment would change "believes" to "suspects" and probes the nature of the evidence on language that must be available before translation is provided. I hope that the Minister will shed some light on that issue.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 relate to the issue of the specific language in which the translation will be provided. The Bill uses the phrase "an appropriate language". To whom, what or where is it appropriate? The Bill does not define how a language is to be judged to be appropriate in each case. Nor does it say who will make that judgment. In Belgium, for instance, there is more than one language in current use, and that is not the only example. It might not be immediately obvious

GC23
what is an appropriate language. Other than by implication through the use of the word "appropriate", there is no requirement for the language that is used to be one that the person understands. What will happen if the person on whom the process is to be served understands more than one language?
I hope that the Minister will clarify the issue, particularly in the light of the requirements of paragraph 3(a) of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which specifies that a person has the right,
"to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him"
I appreciate that that paragraph is not directly relevant to the service of criminal process, but it must inform our debate on the language in which such documents are presented. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: The intention behind the amendments is to ensure that a person overseas who receives documents relating to UK criminal proceedings is able to understand them. That is right and proper. However, the Government believe that the clause achieves that.
The first amendments would require the person requesting that the process be served to provide a translation, if he suspected that the recipient did not understand English. The person asking for the process to be served would be the person running the investigation concerned—for instance, a police officer or an investigator for Her Majesty's Customs and Excise or the Serious Fraud Office. In the Bill, the requirement for a translation exists if the issuer "believes" that the recipient does not understand English. It reflects the exact wording of Article 5(3) of the mutual legal assistance convention. Changing the word to "suspects" would widen the obligation to include cases in which someone might not believe that the recipient did not understand English.
The requirement to provide a translation is a new safeguard and does not exist in the 1990 Act, although, in practice, most international process documents passing in and out of the United Kingdom are already translated. The provision confirms existing good practice. The Government consider that "believes" is the appropriate term for implementing the UK's international obligations, as there is a balance to be struck between providing proper safeguards and imposing unnecessary burdens.
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 4.58 to 5.8 p.m.]
Lord Filkin: Before the Division, I was stating why we believed Clause 3 was adequate. It merely puts current good practice on the face of the legislation.
Amendment No. 12 would require the translation to be in "the", rather than "an", appropriate language. The Government believe that that is unnecessarily restrictive. To take the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the recipient may be bilingual;
GC24
and therefore more than one language might be appropriate. For example, someone living in Belgium may speak French and Flemish, in which case a translation into either language would be appropriate. The amendment may be intended to ensure that there is no risk that the documents might be in a language that the recipient does not understand. That is a good intent. However, the requirement for "an appropriate language" is entirely sufficient. The word "appropriate" refers to the reader. If the language could not be understood by the recipient, it would not be appropriate.
Amendment No. 13 is redundant. It would require the language into which the service is to be translated to be one which,
"the person on whom the process is to be served understands".
But that is already provided for. Although "appropriate" is not defined, a language not understood by the recipient of the papers is self-evidently not appropriate. Clause 3(3)(b) imposes a requirement that the process be translated into a language that the recipient understands.
The person making the request for the process to be served will be a police officer or other investigator involved in the investigation. As they will usually have some knowledge of the person on whom they seek to have process served, they will be able to judge what language the recipient will understand. It will not be in the practitioners' interests to serve process that cannot be understood by the recipient, as it is unlikely that it would be responded to.
The person issuing the process is likely to have some knowledge of whether or not the recipient speaks English. For example, if the process is a witness summons, the issuer will know who the witness is, and will be likely to have had previous contact with that person and the authorities in the country of residence. There is no absolute requirement to establish in advance whether the recipient understands English. But if, for example, a document is to be served on a Portuguese national residing in Portugal, the issuer is likely to believe that the recipient does not understand English and should translate the document, or relevant parts thereof, into Portuguese. In most circumstances, therefore, documents are likely to be clearly comprehensible by, and appropriate for, the recipient.
Without wishing to be tedious, for those reasons, we have not, in practice, experienced problems with that. The clause merely puts current good practice on the face of the legislation.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister, in particular for his elucidation. As we left the Committee room, I was reminded by my noble friend Lady Carnegy that it is easy to slip into "jargonese". I know that I am doing that myself. I was grateful to the Minister for making clear that the decision in question will be made by the person running the investigation. It is useful to know that because, as the Minister rightly said, that person is likely to have background knowledge of the witness. The Minister gave the example of Portuguese. I shall give as an example Spain, where the language used can

GC25
be a sensitive issue. The person running the investigation may not know whether a recipient would insist on a translation into Catalan or into more traditional Spanish, if I can call it that without offending the whole of Spain. It is important that that be clear.
The Minister is right to say that this is a new safeguard, and it would be wrong to hamper it with unnecessary burdens. But we are still finding it difficult to understand how some processes will work. The Minister has helped in that regard. There may be other occasions where the fog remains. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
On Question, whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I apologise, as the confusion is probably my own. I do not understand the differences between Clauses 2 and 3. As I understand it, Clause 3 is the reciprocal arrangement to Clauses 1 and 2 and deals with the service of processes on UK citizens abroad for the purposes of criminal proceedings in this country. By contrast, Clauses 1 and 2 deal with the issue of processes, summonses and documents in relation to criminal proceedings abroad on people in this country who normally live in another. That is clear. We heard in previous debates that, where a notice is served requiring a person to attend as a witness or a party to proceedings, the service itself imposes no obligation under English law. Clause 2(1) states that there is no such obligation where notice is served,
"in a part of the United Kingdom … requiring a person to appear as a party or attend as a witness".
Subsection 2 makes clear that the service of that notice, and a failure to comply with it, imposes no obligations under English law against that person. Subsection 3 states—and we had a short debate on this—that the individual on whom it is served must be told that his failure to comply cannot result in proceedings against him in this country. Clause 2(3)(b) adds that it should indicate,
"that the person on whom it is served may wish to seek advice as to the possible consequences of his failing to comply with the process".
The Minister gave as an example that, if a person is summoned to attend criminal proceedings, that is a serious situation, and he might wish to receive advice on what will happen if he does or does not respond to the notice. Paragraph (c) provides that the person must be told that his treatment when he returns to his country may not be in accordance with how he would be treated if he remained in this country.
Under Clause 3, although the power to serve will be similar, the effect of the service will be totally different. Subsection (4) states:
"Process served outside the United Kingdom requiring a person to appear as a party or attend as a witness—
(a) must not include notice of a penalty".
GC26
Subsection (5) specifies:
"If process requiring a person to appear as a party or attend as a witness is served outside the United Kingdom, no obligation to comply with the process under the law of the part of the United Kingdom in which the process is issued or made is imposed by virtue of the service".
As I understand it, that means that, where a notice is served on a person to attend as a witness or a defendant, he must be told that his failure to comply with it would have no effect in this country. To reiterate, subsection (5) states that there is,
"no obligation to comply with the process under the law of the part of the United Kingdom in which the process is issued or made is imposed by virtue of this service".
Surely, as in Clause 2, the recipient should be warned of the effects under the law of the country to which he is going of his failure to respond to the notice or attend proceedings.
Subsection (6) specifies that,
"failure to comply with the process does not constitute contempt of court and is not a ground for issuing a warrant to secure the attendance of the person in question".
So, what is the advantage of having the power to require people abroad to attend proceedings—through a system of quick service of a summons for a criminal offence—if they are told that there will be no consequences, such as a contempt of court charge, if they ignore the notice and fail to attend proceedings? That is contrary to the provisions of Clause 2, which deals with the service of process in this country on people who come from abroad.
I have probably muddled the point. I noted the confusion while reading the legislation during the Division in your Lordships' House. I apologise if I have not made myself clear. I am confused as to why Clauses 2 and 3 are at odds with each other, if the intention behind the Bill is to have reciprocal arrangements for the improvement of co-operation on criminal matters.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Filkin: As usual, I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, is being obtuse or foolish in any respect. I intended to ask exactly the same question when I read that part of the Bill. I shall seek to set out the reasons for our position.
As the noble Lord said, Clause 3 deals with the service of UK process abroad, not necessarily on UK citizens. It deals with situations where a court in England, Wales or Northern Ireland wishes to serve process on a person outside the UK. It is an essential part of mutual legal assistance. The clause builds on the existing arrangements in Section 2 of the 1990 Act. The range of documents included in the word "process", however, is defined in Clause 52 to reflect the wider definition set by MLAC. That clause also deals with the requirements set out in Article 5 of MLAC, which deals with cases where it is known that the recipient does not speak English, as he was previously spoken to.
Clauses 3(5) to (7) deal with the consequences of non-compliance with the process. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, noted, process served outside the UK

GC27
does not of itself impose any obligation on the recipient under UK law. So, failure to comply with the process does not constitute contempt of court. That is because the objective is mutual legal assistance, not mutual recognition. To impose mutual enforcement of process would have been a radical step beyond the scope of the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters.
In practice, however, people largely comply with requests. If they do not, it would always be possible to ask the police in their country to take a statement. Furthermore, as subsection (7) explains, if the person served subsequently comes to the UK, he could be served with the documents again, and would then be subject to domestic provisions on non-compliance. So, if he continues to ignore the process he could be in contempt of court. That is at the heart of why a contempt of court charge is not immediately threatened to the recipient of notice served abroad. It was not felt possible to go that far under MLAC.
Clause 3(5) mirrors Clause 2(2). There is no extra-territorial effect either way. For those reasons, on how far mutual processes should go rather than getting to the fundamentals, we do not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, expected. That is the nature of the agreement and what we are seeking to enact in primary legislation.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Service of process otherwise than by post]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 24, at beginning insert "such"
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 15, which is grouped with this amendment. The amendments seek to probe the nature of the arrangements that will apply when United Kingdom criminal process is served overseas otherwise than by post. It would require that the arrangements be prescribed in secondary legislation. Paragraph 29 of the Explanatory Notes states:
"The arrangements that will apply will be that documents will be sent via the Secretary of State to the central authority of the other country, which will transmit the process to the recipient".
If those are the only arrangements that can be used, why not include that statement on the face of the Bill? Without its inclusion, one is led to believe that there must be other arrangements that will apply at other times. Is the Secretary of State considering making other arrangements in the future? If so, what are they?
One could argue that, in practice, the arrangements will be made by the Central Authority in the other country rather than by the Secretary of State. There is no reference in Clause 4 to the sorts of issues dealt with by Clause 1(3) or Clause 2, which spell out in greater detail how the personal service of overseas process is to take place in the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: These amendments would require an order setting out the arrangements for the service of procedural documents to persons outside the UK where they are not served by post. We do not believe that anything could be gained by having such arrangements in cases where direct transmission is not used for whatever reasons set out by order. The 1990 Act referred to arrangements made by the Secretary of State in precisely the same way as this Bill does. Those arrangements were never defined by order. The Government consider it unnecessary to define them now.
In practice, the procedural law of the overseas country involved will govern when a document is deemed to have been served. There will be variations among countries. Under the 1959 convention, service can be made by post, and proof of service may be a receipt. For those reasons, we think that the 1990 Act was sound and that the corresponding provision in this Bill is appropriate.
Lord Goodhart: I have a good deal of sympathy for this amendment. Provision on service abroad should be spelt out in more detail than at present. After all, service in the United Kingdom is dealt with in rules of court, which are statutory instruments; therefore, they do not necessarily require the approval of either House of Parliament, and are not subject to parliamentary control.
I understand that problems will arise and that the practice used may depend on the procedure of the country where the process is to be served. But it is not good enough to leave arrangements to be made by the Secretary of State.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks. I am not trying to overburden the system with more bureaucracy, but this is one of several areas that need to be clarified. The Minister has still not stated what other arrangements might be considered. I give notice that we will need to return to the matter. Perhaps the Minister will consider it before Report stage. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, we need clarity, particularly in provisions relating to service abroad. On this occasion, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 31, leave out "there are good reasons for thinking" and insert "the Secretary of State is satisfied"
The noble Baroness said: I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 17. Members, not least the noble Lords, Lord Filkin and Lord Bassam—whom I note is also in his place—will recall the debate in your Lordships' House on 8th July on the desirability of using the word "thinks" in legislation during the passage of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill in the previous Session—the debate is recorded at col. 482 of Hansard. I am sure that it is fresh in all our minds. In another place, the Government responded

GC29
to the concerns raised and replaced the phrase "the Secretary of State thinks" with "the Secretary of State is satisfied that". Noble Lords welcomed that.
However, Clause 4(3)(c) contains the condition,
"that there are good reasons for thinking that service by post will not be effective or is inappropriate".
My amendment seeks to raise the issue of what those good reasons must be. Who will have to do the thinking now that they are present; and, most importantly, to what standard? Will it be the Secretary of State or the Central Authority of the other country? The Minister, in responding to a previous amendment, gave us reason to think that the Central Authority might make the decisions. One assumes that the other country must be a participant in the arrangements before the conditions in subsection (3) would apply at all.
Amendment No. 17 also seeks to probe the nature of the circumstances in which service will be effected in a participating country in accordance with the arrangements made by the Secretary of State because service by post is inappropriate. It is reasonably easy to understand how service by post may be ineffective, as the preceding words of the paragraph state—we have already discussed the issue—but in what circumstances do the Government envisage that service by post will be inappropriate? After all, as the Bill is currently drafted, paragraphs (a) and (b) are absolutely obvious and seem to cover all eventualities. I am having difficulty in thinking of others. Paragraph (a) states that the correct address of the person is unknown; and paragraph (b) states that it has not been possible to serve the process by post. So what is left that could be covered by paragraph (c)? Who makes the decisions and on what basis? I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Filkin: Clause 4 makes clear that the service of process by post is the norm for process from one member state to be served on a person in another member state. The clause makes service by post optional to persons in countries which are not in the EU and which have not been designated as "participating countries". Service other than by post to participating countries is possible only in strictly limited circumstances. Service by post should be quicker and more efficient than service through the Central Authority, provided that a full address is known and there are no other circumstances applying which make it inappropriate—for example, if the intended recipient was known to be living in France but his exact address was not known, the documents could realistically be served only by the French central authority.
Amendment No. 16 seeks to require the Secretary of State to make a decision as to whether it is inappropriate to serve documents directly. But the Secretary of State will not be the authority making the decision. The court issuing the document will assess whether there are good reasons why service by post is not appropriate.
GC30
Amendment No. 17 would limit the reasons for not serving by post. It would remove the discretion of the courts to rely on personal service in cases where, for some reason, postal service would be inappropriate and ineffective. Service by post should be quicker and more efficient than service through the Central Authority, provided the full address is known and there are no other circumstances making it inappropriate.
As to the question about "good reasons", the good reasons will be in the mind of the person issuing the document, not the Secretary of State. There may be a procedural requirement that the document be served other than by post to allow a particular procedure—for example, trial in absence—to be followed. I hope that that explains why we believe that the clauses as drafted deal most appropriately with the intent.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. At the end of his explanation he answered my main question of what is covered by paragraph (c). His answer made me more concerned than relieved and I shall need to look at it further. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [General requirements for effecting Scottish citation etc.]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 39, at end insert—
"( ) Where citation or issue is by the prosecutor, is to be effected or the document to be served outside the United Kingdom and the prosecutor believes that the person against whom it is to be effected or on whom it is to be served does not understand English, the citation or document must be accompanied by a translation of it (or, in the case of a document, by a translation of so much of it as is material) in an appropriate language."
The noble Lord said: These are technical amendments tabled at the request of the Scottish Executive. Their purpose is to ensure that the Bill accurately reflects Scottish procedure. The usual situation in Scotland is that the citation is effected or the document issued without reference to the court. Because in certain circumstances the court may be involved, the references to that situation are retained within the clause.
In Scotland, it is usually the case that the procurator fiscal will effect the citation without the need for reference to the court. In that case, it will be for the procurator fiscal to ensure that if he believes the intended recipient does not understand English, a translation should be provided in an appropriate language.
However, it is also the case in Scotland that there are certain circumstances where the court may be involved—for example, where the accused fails to appear. For these circumstances, therefore, the reference to the court has been retained in the clause.
The amendment relating to Clause 52 defines processes for Scotland to take account of Scottish procedure in this respect. It is a technical matter and relates to the Scottish procedure of citation. Whereas the terms "process" and "summons" are appropriate for the remainder of the United Kingdom, in Scotland "citation" is used to describe the situation in criminal proceedings whereby someone is called to court to answer the proceedings or to give evidence as a witness. Amendment No. 134 is necessary to reflect these Scottish procedures in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: At a recent meeting with civil servants of the Scottish Executive, a Scottish Law Lord was kind enough to comment that the drafting of Scottish Bills was extremely good. He believed that the way in which it was being done reflected very well on Scotland. I do not know whether the Minister has tried reading out loud the first four lines of the amendment but, by any standards, I cannot understand them. I do not know whether there has been confusion in their transmission or whether I am being stupid, but I do not believe that the law of Scotland should contain the clause.
Can the Minister tell the Committee what the amendment means? It states:
"Where citation or issue is by the prosecutor, is to be effected"—
what is to be effected?—
"or the document to be served outside the United Kingdom and the prosecutor believes that the person against whom it is to be effected or on whom it is to be served does not understand English".
The Minister explained why the adjustment had to be made—I am sure that we are all grateful that the Bill is being made wholly appropriate for Scotland—but can that wording be right? Will the noble Lord check that the wording is right? Perhaps there is a lawyer on the Committee who will tell me that it is right. I simply do not understand what it means.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I join with my noble friend's request for clarity. As I understand it, by inserting Amendment No. 19 into the Bill subsection (3) would state:
"Where citation or issue is by the court, is to be effected or the document to be served outside the United Kingdom and the person at whose request that is to happen believes that the person against whom it is to be effected or on whom it is to be served does not understand English, he must".
I do not understand that English. I would be grateful for clarification on how that would operate.
Lord Goodhart: The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, has challenged me but I find it no easier to understand than she does. It seems to me, although I am not knowledgeable in Scots law, that it should read:
"Where citation or issue is by the prosecutor and is to be effected or the document is to be served".
GC32
That may make some sense. The wording at present does not.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Those are precisely the changes I had pencilled in myself. The noble Lord and I must be right between us.
Lord Filkin: I was invited to make one of two responses to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour: either to explain what it means or to go away and check whether we believe it is accurate. Of the two courses, I shall take the latter. It seems to my advisers that there may well be a typo here. Rather than make amendments on the wing, we shall double check and write to the noble Baroness. I am almost certain that that is the case, which puts me in the unfortunate position of, yet again, having to acknowledge the skill of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, in the scrutiny of Scottish legislation—or, rather, legislation affecting Scotland.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes): Is the Minister seeking to withdraw the amendments?
Lord Filkin: No. I do not wish to withdraw them at this stage. I should like to have the amendments incorporated into the Bill but, with the leave of the Committee, on the undertaking that we shall bring forward clarification on Report if, as I believe is the case, there is a typographical error. I shall write to Members of the Committee who have spoken on this issue well before Report stage so that there is no doubt whatever about that.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: At this stage we agree to the Minister's request for imperfect legislation—which this may well be—to go through, but it should be on the record that we on these Benches allow this to happen with sorrow. We are in Grand Committee and we cannot take any other action. As the Government have decided not to give an explanation, we are being asked to adopt an amendment which we believe to be wrongly drafted. However, on the basis that we shall take action on Report if the Government are unable to give a proper explanation or redrafting by that stage, we shall not object at this stage. It is one of the difficulties we face in Grand Committee that we are not able to press the matter further.
Lord Filkin: I would not wish the Committee to imagine for one second that I am treating the matter lightly. At this stage I seek merely to get the amendment into the Bill while giving the categoric assurance that we believe there is a typographical error. I could make an amendment on the wing, but that would be to run the risk of compounding the problem. It is wiser that I bring back, as is likely to be the case, a further amendment on Report having got the matter into the Bill at this stage. I give the strongest commitment to the Committee that we are not treating the matter frivolously.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 40, leave out "the citation" and insert "citation or issue is by the court,"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Effecting Scottish citation etc. otherwise than by post]:
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 4, line 19, leave out "by the Lord Advocate" and insert "under regulations made by the Scottish Ministers"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 20 is the first of five amendments which the Law Society of Scotland is anxious that the Committee should consider. In this amendment, and three of the other four, the suggestion is that under Part 1 of the Bill as it applies to Scotland, some of the functions assigned to the Lord Advocate should in fact be given to Scottish Ministers. The Law Society has chosen four examples; I suggest that we have already passed one example to which this argument may apply under Clause 1, although I am not sure of that.
On page 7 of the Government's Explanatory Notes, it states that Clause 6 is the Scottish equivalent to Clause 4 The notes continue:
"It reflects the provisions of clause 4 but provides that the Lord Advocate, rather than the Secretary of State is to make arrangements for service of a citation or document otherwise than by post".
The Explanatory Notes do not explain why this difference should be made in Scotland.
The Law Society points out—this occurred to me before it wrote to me—that it would be better in Scotland, too, if the arrangements were made not by the Lord Advocate but by Scottish Ministers. The Lord Advocate is a Member of the Scottish Parliament and a Minister in the Scottish Executive. He is also responsible for all prosecutions in Scotland. He wears all the time two hats. The Law Society suggests that there could well be under this clause a conflict of interest for the Lord Advocate because in carrying out his roles as prosecutor and of setting up these arrangements he will be performing two conflicting tasks.
The Law Society also states—this is a different point and I am not sure whether it is right—that the arrangements the Scottish Ministers make should be made by order so that they are in black and white in secondary legislation. This would be different to the arrangements for England and Wales under Clause 4, but that is the preference of the Law Society of Scotland. When I asked the Law Society to explain why it thought it should be different, it simply said that it thought it would make better Scots law. I am not in a position to argue about that.
I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply. It is an argument that will arise in later amendments but they relate to different circumstances. They are not grouped and it is better that we treat them separately. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Filkin: As the Committee is aware, this clause is the Scottish equivalent to Clause 4 and is needed to reflect the Scottish procedure of citation. In Scotland, the Lord Advocate will carry out the functions given to the Secretary of State in the remainder of the United Kingdom.
The proposed amendment to Clause 6 returns to the theme of requiring additional regulations. Clause 6(1) provides that citations and other documents in Scottish criminal proceedings which are not effected or served abroad by post are to be effected or served in accordance with arrangements made by the Lord Advocate. The amendment proposed would have the effect of replacing arrangements made by the Lord Advocate with arrangements made under regulations by Scottish Ministers.
The Government do not believe that it would be helpful to establish under regulations the arrangements for effecting citation abroad in cases where direct transmission is not used, for whatever reason, as proposed by the amendment. The 1990 Act refers to arrangements made by the Secretary of State in the same way as the Bill refers to arrangements made by the Lord Advocate. These arrangements have never been defined by regulations and the Government consider it unnecessary to do so now.
Seeking to have arrangements set out in regulations is a common theme of some of the amendments we have discussed so far. We have already referred to it in connection with Clause 1 and Clause 4 and, again, we argued that it was unnecessary.
With regard to the replacement of the Lord Advocate by Scottish Ministers, again we do not believe it appropriate. The Lord Advocate will be fulfilling the administrative role of central authority for Scotland, and where it is not possible to effect citation by post, requests for assistance of this kind will be dealt with by his office, and the Bill is correct to reflect that position in Clause 6.
Although mutual legal assistance in England and Wales is dealt with in the Home Office, in Scotland it is dealt with in the Crown Office under the direction of the Lord Advocate. It has worked well like this in Scotland since 1990. Indeed, we are suggesting that the Lord Advocate should become the territorial authority for mutual legal assistance generally in Scotland. The Scottish Ministers at large have no role in the execution of mutual legal assistance. For these reasons, we believe the amendment is unnecessary and undesirable.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I appreciate the arrangements made by the Crown Office; they are familiar to me as a layman. Now that I know that some of the words used by noble Lords in discussing the Bill are not used in Scotland— all this talk of "process" is a complete mystery to me—I am beginning to understand much better.
I shall read with interest what the Minister said. He believes that, contrary to the Law Society suggestion, there will be no conflict of interest for the

GC35
Lord Advocate. If that proves to be the case, of course, the Law Society will be satisfied. I shall be interested to read what the Minister said. I shall consult with the Law Society to ascertain whether it wishes to make any further points.
Lord Filkin: We do not believe there will be a conflict of interest. If I can find further argumentation or evidence to satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, and her advisers, I shall forward it by letter.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank the Minister for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Requests for assistance in obtaining evidence abroad]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 4, line 34, leave out "it appears to"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 21, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 22 and 23, which are grouped with it.
Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 relate to the standard of proof that will apply when an application is made to a judicial authority in the United Kingdom to request assistance in obtaining evidence abroad. I recognise that the phrase "it appears to" is already used in the 1990 Act, but it would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord who is to respond could explain how it is being interpreted by the courts. Is the criminal standard of being satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt of the matters specified applied, or is a lower standard of proof applicable?
Amendment No. 23 seeks to ensure that an application for assistance under Clause 7 would include information on the procedure for gathering evidence lawfully and the admissibility of evidence in the United Kingdom. Different countries have different procedures and different laws on admissibility. Indeed, ours are about to change, too, if we are to take anything from the Criminal Justice Bill making its passage through another place. Can the noble and learned Lord say whether any problems have been encountered in relation to the use of evidence obtained under the provisions of the 1990 Act in respect of the legal rules on evidence that apply in the various parts of the United Kingdom? Are the authorities of other countries routinely informed by the United Kingdom of what rules will apply to evidence gathered in those countries once it is in the United Kingdom and ready to be used in our investigative and judicial process? I beg to move.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): In rising for the first time, perhaps I may respond to a question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, when she noticed my presence at an earlier stage. She asked whether or not I would be able to say anything about the practical issues which lie behind the objectives of the Bill. At Second Reading, my noble friend the
GC36
Minister emphasised how important are the provisions of the Bill, particularly those under the part with which I am dealing, and I am happy to re-emphasise that.
It has become apparent to me from my responsibilities as the superintending Minister for the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office and with certain responsibilities for other prosecutors that we now face a situation where the threat of crime is global. It has increasingly become global as criminals operate across international boundaries, whether trafficking young women from the reaches of eastern Europe, smuggling drugs from South America or laundering money through every financial centre in the world.
Criminals operate across boundaries and without respect for national frontiers through international travel and through cyber space. National law enforcement agencies, on the other hand, are trammelled by rightly having to operate within our own national frontiers. While the criminals treat boundaries and frontiers with contempt, we respect them, with the consequence that when it is necessary to bring proceedings in order to investigate crime, which so frequently these days involves a foreign element, the law enforcement agencies cannot do what they would do within their own countries. They have to look for assistance from other law enforcement agencies, often through the courts or judicial authorities of other countries. If we do not keep up to date the procedures under which we are able to do so, we will not keep up to date with the criminals, who are becoming more and more sophisticated.
I have no doubt whatever that bringing up to date and modernising our procedures for obtaining help and assistance in the way laid down in this part of the Bill is absolutely key to the fight against global crime. I was glad to note how strongly the noble Baroness endorsed our objectives and expressed her desire to make the Bill as effective as possible in meeting them.
As to the amendments—the noble Baroness spoke to Amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 23—the first relates to the standard that judicial authorities have to meet before granting a request. As the noble Baroness noted, the language used in the clause replicates exactly the language in the 1990 Act. Section 3(1) of that Act refers to certain matters "appearing to" the court rather than requiring that the court be satisfied of them. It contains exactly the same test for the issuing authorities as the one in the Bill as currently drafted. We are not aware of any difficulty which would justify changing that test. So the first and second amendments—both of which would have that effect—are not acceptable.
The noble Baroness asked me whether or not the test applied is the criminal standard of appearing beyond reasonable doubt. At that stage of the process, when assistance is being sought for the purposes of a prosecution, whichever way it is, one would not expect proof beyond reasonable doubt to be necessary. The evidence would go towards a total picture which, at the completion of a prosecution, would focus on a particular criminal standard. So, in regard to Clause 7(1)(a)—does

GC37
it appear to a judicial authority that an offence has been committed or that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed?—the words speak for themselves.
Amendment No. 23 seeks to place an additional requirement on requesting authorities to provide in the request information on procedures in regard to the gathering and admissibility of evidence in the requesting country—in this case the relevant part of the United Kingdom. The consequence of that amendment could be that requests are rejected for not including such information. There is no international obligation for us to provide that information and there is no particular reason to believe in any given case that the court which receives the request from abroad would need that information; that it would not be sufficiently familiar with existing procedures or unable to obtain information about them if it was in doubt.
Requesting authorities provide this information where they consider it to be appropriate and, in many cases, good practice may indicate that they would do so. But the Government do not see a need for this to be imposed as an obligation and fear serious disadvantages if it is. It would be an additional requirement, not imposed by international obligation, which could impede a proper request for assistance. We are trying to ensure that we remove unnecessary obstacles. I hope that that explanation is of some assistance to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that response, in particular for his survey of the difficulties that we all face.
He referred to the importance of judicial systems being able to respond as rapidly as possible and the difficulty of maintaining the currency of legislation. The 1990 Act is 13 years old and has served us reasonably well, but the noble and learned Lord referred to the problem of cyber space crime. My noble friend Lord Bridgeman will warm to this theme when we reach the parts of the Bill dealing with banking. We on these Benches are very much aware of the difficulty of combating crime which may take place in less than a second, where funds are transferred not only once, twice or thrice but a hundred times around the world from one account to another in an attempt to hide finances. We are all-square with the Government in recognising the difficulties in dealing with that kind of crime.
The noble and learned Lord referred to the trafficking of drugs and people. We shall be tabling an amendment, on which we hope the Government will look kindly, in regard to trafficking in guns. We are always concerned about that issue, but particularly at this time.
The noble and learned Lord was most helpful in his detailed response to the amendments. We have no intention of making life more difficult for the authorities except in circumstances where we believe the action they are taking could be more burdensome than necessary to individual liberty. That is not the case in this respect.
GC38
I accept totally the noble and learned Lord's response to Amendment No. 23. As he said, the amendment could lead to serious disadvantages in the system. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 21.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 5, line 28, leave out from beginning to second "the" in line 30.
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 24 relates to the requirement in subsection (7) of Clause 7 to state the relevance of the information requested when requesting information about banking transactions in connection with an investigation.
The Explanatory Notes state at paragraph 34:
"Subsection (7) requires that any outgoing requests for information about banking transactions made to participating countries under Article 2 of the 2001 Protocol 10 the MLAC must clearly state the relevance of the evidence to the investigation. This is in line with the conditions set out in the Protocol"
That sounds like an eminently sensible precaution. There are no problems with that.
My question to the Government is this: why do the requirements of subsection (7) apply only to banking transactions and not to all requests for information? Are there good operational reasons why the relevance of the information should not be specified, perhaps in relation to terrorism or drugs investigations? We accept that that may be the case. Are the Government saying that the requirement to state the relevance of the information sought should apply only to banking transactions, or that it should apply to all transactions but that because of the requirements of the protocol to the MLAC it is necessary to state that provision on the face of the Bill for the avoidance of doubt?
Is the Minister aware of the way in which overseas authorities will approach their decisions about information sought here in the United Kingdom? Will there be a like provision on requests for information on banking transactions in overseas countries? I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: The Committee will be aware that subsection (7) is the new part of the clause. The rest of the clause essentially re-enacts the 1990 Act provisions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, subsection (7) is there because of the extension brought about by the 2001 protocol to the convention.
The position in relation to requirements for assistance outside this area of information on banking transactions is dealt with in the convention. As the Committee will know, all that the convention requires—I am reading from Article 14 of the 1959 convention—is the starting point in relation to all of these provisions. It is the "mother convention", the Council of Europe convention. That requires that requests for mutual assistance—ignoring irrelevant parts—shall indicate,
"the object of and reason for the request".

GC39
All that is required is that it should state the object of and reason for the request as well as certain other items that do not matter for the purposes of the present discussion; whereas the protocol requires more specifically the information that is set out in subsection (7).
The first and formal answer is that it is only in the context of this kind of request for information on banking transactions that the international requirement is that information should be stated. That is an answer. I shall take it a stage further. Why have such a situation? As I understand it, the reason is because of the particular demands that such a request for information can impose. I would anticipate that it would require investigative time and expense precisely because of the potential complexity of financial banking transactions. Because of that, when the negotiators set out the protocol they decided that specific additional requirements should apply to requests for the measures to be taken. In contrast to ordinary mutual legal assistance cases, where the general requirements that I have identified apply, they considered it was appropriate that in this kind of case there should be the additional requirement.
The answer goes to the protocol. Plainly at the time it was thought about by the negotiators for good reason. I answer the noble Baroness's question in that way. We would not want to add additional requirements to the category of cases, the ordinary—if I can term them so—mutual legal assistance cases where this additional requirement does not at the moment exist. That is the reason why we resist the amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. He has highlighted some difficulties that I have had in eliciting the information. As he so rightly says, the mother of this is the 1959 convention. It has been a nightmare trying to track through from the original documents the various additional protocols. As I have never served as a Member of the European Parliament or indeed on the Council of Europe, I find the documents more impenetrable than our own. I am grateful to him for his assistance.
As the Minister points out, the protocol has taken a further stance on this particular category of banking issues. We shall return to the theme, but I am grateful to him for his explanation today, which has satisfied me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Will the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General be good enough to explain exactly what is the difference between a prosecuting authority and a designated prosecuting authority? Perhaps more appropriately I should ask: who are the prosecuting authorities and who are the designated prosecuting authorities?
GC40
If I understand the Bill correctly, the powers are very different. Under Clause 7 an application is made to a judicial authority. The clause states:
"If it appears to a judicial authority …

(a) that an offence has been committed or that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed, and

(b) that proceedings in respect of the offence have been instituted or that the offence is being investigated,

the judicial authority may request assistance under this section".
In subsection (5), we find that if the prosecuting authority or the person who is the prosecuting authority who makes an application is a designated prosecuting authority, he or she does not have to apply for judicial approval but can straightaway ask for assistance. Therefore, the difference between a prosecuting authority and a designated prosecuting authority is considerable. I realise that I have looked at the matter quickly, but a similar situation occurred under the 1990 Act. Is the Crown Prosecution Service a designated prosecuting authority? Is the Serious Fraud Office a designated prosecuting authority? If not, how will people become designated? Will that happen by order of the Home Secretary? In the 1990 Act it is done by statutory instrument. How can a prosecuting authority become designated and is it intended that there should be a form of parliamentary scrutiny of the appointment of designated as against non-designated prosecuting authorities?
Lord Goldsmith: The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, correctly picks up the distinction between the two categories. A prosecuting authority that is a designated prosecuting authority, as defined, can directly make a request for assistance. A prosecuting authority that has not been designated cannot directly make a request for assistance; it will have to come to the court and ask the court to make the order. That is the difference. The non-designated prosecuting authority will have to look to the court to assist in order that the request can be made. Therefore, it will make its application under Clause 7(1), whereas a designated prosecuting authority can—it says "may"—request assistance under the clause if the conditions are satisfied.
Who is a designated prosecuting authority? As the noble Lord rightly says, designation is by way of statutory instrument. I am pleased to find that I am the first in the list of the designated prosecuting authorities and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, will be troubled that the Lord Advocate appears only at number six on the list. Other designated prosecuting authorities include the Director of Public Prosecutions and any Crown prosecutor; the director of the Serious Fraud Office; certain other people including the Commissioners of Customs and Excise; the procurator fiscal; the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland; and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.
Those people are designated. If it would help I could add to the letter of my noble friend Lord Filkin and provide a list of them, although I have mentioned virtually all of them. If I add the Secretary of State for

GC41
Trade and Industry, that may be the entire list. From time to time other public bodies will prosecute. The prosecutors for the Department for Work and Pensions are not designated prosecutors and therefore would have to seek assistance from the court.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: The vast majority will be designated.
Lord Goldsmith: As the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales, the Serious Fraud Office, and Customs and Excise deal with the vast majority of prosecutions, and certainly the vast majority of prosecutions that are likely to require international assistance, I believe that the noble Lord is right to suggest that the majority will be designated.
Given that this matter arose on the Question whether the clause stand part, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his opposition to the Question.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Sending requests for assistance]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 5, line 44, leave out "In cases of urgency,"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 25 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 26 and 27. These amendments relate to the situation envisaged by subsection (3) of Clause 8 where requests for information may, in cases of urgency, be submitted either via Interpol or any other body able to receive them under any provisions adopted under the Treaty on European Union.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 27 deal with the issue of what kinds of circumstances would be deemed to be a case of urgency under the provisions of subsection (3). These amendments invite the Government to spell out in greater detail the procedure that will be followed for determining whether a particular case is indeed urgent, and how the procedure specified in subsection (3)—namely, the submission of the request via an international body—will speed up the obtaining of the evidence in question.
Amendment No. 26 seeks to clarify which organisations are covered by the definition in paragraph (b) of subsection (3), which states:
"any body or person competent to receive it under any provisions adopted under the Treaty on European Union".
The Explanatory Notes, at paragraph 37, refer only to Eurojust—I do not know whether that has an English or a French pronunciation so I shall say it in my own way—but the provisions of the paragraph go wider than that. To what other bodies do the Government envisage that the provisions of the paragraph may also apply, both now and in the future? As the previous Bill lasted for 13 years, this Bill should last for at least as long. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: The purpose of these provisions is to enable, in accordance with the mutual legal assistance convention, certain requests to be dealt with in a particular way. The provision on urgent requests,
GC42
Clause 8(3), to which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has referred, is intended to implement Article 6.4 of the convention on mutual legal assistance. That states that in urgent cases certain measures, particularly in relation to Interpol, may be used. It does not provide for routine requests to be transmitted in that way, so we do not believe that the convention would be implemented appropriately if Amendment No. 25 were to be accepted, as it would leave out the words, "In cases of urgency".
Amendment No. 26 includes a category beyond Interpol. That is the category identified as,
"(b) any body or person competent to receive it under any provisions adopted under the Treaty on European Union".
The particular body that is envisaged at the present time is Eurojust. That is how we pronounce it; others may pronounce it differently. It may help if at this stage I say what Eurojust is and does. It is a body set up to facilitate co-operation between EU judicial authorities. It was formally established in February 2002, although I believe that it had been operating in a shadow form for some time before that. Its purpose is to improve judicial co-operation in order to combat forms of serious crime. It does that by facilitating the co-ordination of investigations and prosecutions in cases involving more than one member state. Its members are appointed by each member state: a national member, a judge or equivalent senior prosecutor. We are proud to say that at present it is chaired by the British representative. It is based in The Hague.
The purpose of the provision is that once such a body or a person—perhaps a national member of that body—is authorised to receive a request, the provisions will apply. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked about this matter. We do not want to limit the provision so that it constantly has to be amended. I suggest that that is the benefit of putting the provision in general terms rather than trying to specify a particular body.
Amendment No. 27 invites the Government to make regulations prescribing the circumstances in which a situation is or is not deemed to be a case of urgency. I suggest that that would not be a helpful provision. Like beauty, to some extent what is urgent is in the eye of the beholder. To try to specify in an exhaustive way what "urgency" is in all circumstances would deprive this provision of the flexibility and a degree of discretion that it should have. I suggest that there will be no difficulty identifying what is and what is not urgent and that to try to spell it out in regulations would be counterproductive. Those are the reasons for inviting the noble Baroness not to press Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 27.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank the Minister for his response. It was helpful of him to say something about Eurojust. I am aware that one of the underlying difficulties in this matter is that we have to take so much on trust and we have to respect each other's systems. Eurojust plays a key part in building up that trust.

GC43
In preparing for this Committee I read the report of the European Union Committee of this House on the prospects for the Tampere special European Council. It made the point that at that stage the Home Office memorandum argued that public opinion is not yet always ready to accept that the judicial authorities and procedures of other member states are equivalent to our domestic courts, especially when our own nationals are involved. The committee agreed with that analysis. That is a difficulty. There has been an underlying suspicion of the validity of each other's procedures and Eurojust is an important body in trying to build up confidence. We need to accept that other bodies also are relevant. Today the Minister did not indicate any future bodies that may be involved.
I entirely accept what the noble and learned Lord said with regard to the amendments on urgency. There are occasions when flexibility can be acceptable even to the Opposition, and this is such a case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Use of evidence obtained]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 6, line 20, leave out "allowed" and insert "made provision for"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 28 concerns admissibility in the United Kingdom courts of evidence that has been obtained overseas after a request under Clause 7 of the Bill. Subsection (4) requires a court, in exercising its discretion to exclude such evidence, to have regard,
"(a) to whether it was possible to challenge the statement by questioning the person who made it, and
(b) if proceedings have been instituted, to whether the local law allowed the parties to the proceedings to be legally represented when the evidence was being obtained".
The amendment relates to the second of those criteria and tries to clarify the circumstances in which evidence may be obtained abroad in the absence of legal representatives. That is a theme to which we shall return in relation to later amendments.
It may be that the law of the country where the evidence is obtained allows a person to be legally represented, but it may not allow him or her to be represented at public expense in the same way in which he or she would have publicly funded representation in this country, where perhaps it is more readily available than elsewhere.
The provisions of the Bill replicate those of the 1990 Act. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the Committee something of the experience of the United Kingdom authorities and the courts in relation to the admission of evidence obtained abroad in the absence of legal representation. Perhaps he would also comment on the criteria that other countries apply in deciding whether they provide legal representation in
GC44
such circumstances, or simply allow for it to happen some time, somewhere, somehow, but nothing more definite than that. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I support the amendment. I should have declared my interests when I first spoke in Committee. I am one of the vice-chairs of the Council of Justice, a body that has submitted briefings on the Bill, and I am also a trustee of Fair Trials Abroad, an organisation with considerable interest in matters of this kind.
I certainly feel that it is highly desirable, even essential, that where evidence is taken abroad for purposes of criminal proceedings in the United Kingdom, that evidence should be subject to cross-examination by a legal representative of the accused. A point that occurs to me is whether that legal representation should be by a lawyer who practises in the United Kingdom and who, therefore, is likely to be involved in the proceedings, or whether that representation should be undertaken by a local lawyer. Matters would be a great deal more effective if they were undertaken by a lawyer from the United Kingdom who was familiar with what will happen during the proceedings and who may well appear at the trial.
If that were so, I would assume that any legal aid provided in the United Kingdom would extend to counsel appearing at a hearing outside the United Kingdom, and so the problems about whether legal or financial assistance is to be provided by the foreign countries would not arise. On the other hand, if it is envisaged—in my view this would be a good deal less satisfactory—that a local lawyer should participate in the hearing of the evidence, I suggest that it would be essential that the country should not only allow but also facilitate the provision of legal assistance.
Lord Goldsmith: I am grateful for the questions and comments raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I want to remind the Committee of what this provision is about. Clause 9 deals with a situation in which Clause 7 has operated. That is to say that there is a request process for evidence to be obtained abroad for use in some form of proceedings in the United Kingdom. There is a strong likelihood that the evidence that is being obtained is not the defendant's evidence. The defendant's opportunity to give evidence will take place within the English proceedings when he will be represented in accordance with the ordinary rules, with the benefit of legal aid should he qualify.
What is more, as matters stand at present, the strong likelihood is that the evidence that is obtained abroad will not be directly admissible in that form in any event. The evidence will be obtained, and if it is evidence that it is important to put to the defendant, the likelihood is that some way will have to be found of doing that. The most likely way is to try to get that person to give evidence in the United Kingdom or via the video link procedures mentioned in the Bill. Whether such a person comes to the United Kingdom to give evidence or is examined via a video link, I

GC45
understand that that person's legal representative would be an English legal representative or a Scottish legal representative who would be in a position to ask questions. Therefore all the proper safeguards would be met.
I understand that there may be exceptional circumstances in which legal aid for a defendant in proceedings in this jurisdiction may extend to providing certain assistance outside the country, perhaps in circumstances when some evidence is being obtained in a foreign court. Generally speaking, however, the procedure will be as I believe I have outlined.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may ask him to note that under Clause 7(2):
"The assistance that may be requested under this section is assistance in obtaining outside the United Kingdom any evidence specified in the request for use in the proceedings or investigation".
I can understand that evidence may be used in the investigation which will not, in itself, be used in the proceedings. But clearly this contemplates that the evidence may be used in the proceedings.
Lord Goldsmith: Indeed, it does. But equally I invite the noble Lord to consider the circumstances in which evidence would be admissible when obtained abroad without there being a form of opportunity for cross-examination directly in an English trial. I am helpfully told that in the recent Wickes trial—the long-running trial which Members of the Committee will have read about—the defence counsel went to Canada when a witness gave evidence by video link. Because of the circumstances of the case, I do not believe that the defendant was legally aided, but the principle may be the same. I may be able to provide further information on this matter, but perhaps the Committee will consider what I have said and take a view as to whether more information would be helpful.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his intervention. He has raised more matters on which I need to ask questions between now and Report so that I am clear in my mind. I believe that it would be helpful for the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to stand back and look at the application of legal representation in this particular circumstance.
The noble and learned Lord quoted the Wickes trial and said that it was particularly analogous to this issue. It may relate to the seriousness of the offences committed, but in the Wickes trial that was not proved. The noble and learned Lord may look rather ruefully in this case.
Certainly the Minister has given me cause to consider the matter between now and Report. It may be more helpful if I contact the Bill team and raise one or two issues with them. Following discussion, we may be able to avoid tabling an amendment on Report I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 6, line 22, at end insert—
"(4A) The Lord Chancellor shall arrange for training in the law and procedure of such countries other than the United Kingdom as he considers appropriate to be given to judges and magistrates before they sit in proceedings where evidence obtained pursuant to a request for assistance under section 7 is to be adduced."
The noble Baroness said: The monologue continues at this stage. This amendment would require that training in the law of procedure of appropriate countries is given to judges and magistrates before they sit in proceedings where evidence obtained pursuant to a request under Clause 7 of the Bill is introduced. I say that somewhat tongue-in-cheek; I seek merely to elicit information about current practice.
Members of the Committee will recall the debate on a similar amendment on the Floor of the House on 23rd July, as reported at col. 289 of the Official Report, in respect of a new offence—introduced, yet again, in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act—of contravening the immigration law of a member state. At that time, when explaining his reasons for rejecting my amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said:
"The Government do not expect judges and magistrates to be familiar with the immigration law of all other member states. New Section 25 does not require that of them. It provides for the government of the member state concerned to certify what the law is in that state and for the certificate to be conclusive as to the matters certified for the purposes of proceedings in the UK".— [Official Report, 23/7/02; col. 291.]
Basically, in English, that seemed to me to say, "They tell us. If we don't accept it, tough luck".
A similar procedure in respect of certification is to be found in Clause 14(3), but it is not in Clause 9. Therefore, no certification process is in play here and judges and magistrates will be able to look at the provisions of the local law in detail in deciding whether to exercise their discretion to exclude the evidence obtained pursuant to a request under Clause 7. Again, these provisions in the Bill substantially replicate those of the 1990 Act.
Therefore, I should be grateful if the Minister could give an explanation of how the courts have acted in considering the provisions of other countries' domestic law in this context over the past decade; that is, what the training has been and whether or not it has been found necessary to carry out arty training for judges and magistrates in this regard. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I do not understand the rationale behind the amendment. It is not as though magistrates and others who are concerned are unfamiliar with procedures abroad. Of course they are not, but they are not required to do anything about it. They are not required to go through the complex procedures that the noble Baroness has adduced. Frankly, I hesitate to say this but I do not believe that the noble Baroness knows what she is talking about.
Lord Goldsmith: Up until the last point, I had a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord,

GC47
Lord Clinton-Davis, said. I would approach the noble Baroness's amendment as follows. Many provisions of this kind of legislation will require some degree of guidance and some degree of training. Perhaps I may pay tribute to the way that the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Judicial Studies Board frequently take on new legislation, recognise the training requirements for magistrates and for more senior judges and do an enormously important and valuable job. I have no doubt that, whatever training is required and whichever provision of the Bill we are dealing with, the necessary steps will be taken without any requirement for it to appear on the face of the Bill.
As the noble Baroness said, these provisions replicate those in the 1990 Act. Therefore, there may be no need for additional training, and it may not matter whether that is because everything is well understood or because of the reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
I am also told that Home Office circulars will be drafted to deal with the procedures required by the new Act, if it becomes law. They will provide an additional source of information for those who have to operate them. I hope that those explanations provide some assurance for the noble Baroness as to the requirement.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I admire and love the noble Baroness enormously. I should not have said what I did. I am sure that she does know what she is talking about, but she should not have introduced this amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: As always, I am very grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. He and I are good sparring partners from opposite sides of the House.
My concern is that sometimes, when reading the Bill, other people find themselves in even greater difficulty than we do when trying to interpret what is happening. Also, the underlying theme that I have taken throughout is that, on many occasions, we now find that our courts are unable to make decisions; decisions are being made for them. Perhaps we are hinting at that here.
Certainly this is a serious amendment from the point of view of highlighting the difficulty that courts face in taking decisions where they must have regard to procedures that may have taken place overseas. It is important for courts to ensure that they do not try to make the wrong decision where they have discretion.
I am grateful for the Minister's comments about training. I certainly agree that the Lord Chancellor's Department has set up training where necessary. It is important that there is a proper budget for that. But, frankly, more important in relation to this amendment is the noble and learned Lord's assurance with regard to the Home Office circulars being drafted for overseas procedures. I am aware that not every single court around the country will be involved in that. Therefore, there will be specialisation, as there is in extradition matters directed at particular Bow Street magistrates.
GC48
As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will be relieved to hear, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
"FREEZING ORDERS
The Secretary of State shall appoint an independent person to make an annual report on the use of freezing orders and shall lay that report before Parliament when he receives it."
The noble Baroness said: This is a "special" for the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to appoint an independent person to make an annual report to Parliament on the use of freezing orders. I am very conscious of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, on 31st October last year. He said:
"My Lords, it sometimes seems that if we are stuck for an amendment we call for an annual report".—[Official Report, 31/ 10/02; col. 405.]
Yet again, I promise that I am not stuck for one now. I could find many more but that would mean that the monologue would go on for ever and a day, and even I cannot take that.
In moving the amendment, I am conscious that the Government are introducing a new provision into United Kingdom law, the use of which should be considered in the light of operational experience as well as developments throughout the European Union once the Bill becomes an Act. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said:
"The Bill will also introduce mutual recognition of orders to freeze evidence, as provided for by the EU's draft framework decision on the execution of orders freezing evidence. That is a major step forward that will significantly speed up the process of securing valuable evidence. Mutual recognition takes MLA one step further by recognising directly, as between EU member states, a request made by a court, so enabling a direct response with the minimum of formality".—[Official Report, 2/12/02; col. 973.]
Therefore, can the Government say how often they expect the powers contained in the Bill in relation to those domestic and overseas freezing orders to be used and whether they believe that the definitions used in the Bill, particularly the use of terms such as "substantial value" and,
"likely to be admissible in evidence",
in Clause 10(3) and the use of the term,
"any other authority in the country which appears to the territorial authority to have the function of making such orders",
in Clause 20(3) will require further consideration in the light of operational experience? Can the Minister tell the Committee the status of the draft framework decision and at what stage it is likely to become a decision rather than a draft decision? We need to be able to key into that kind of timetabling during our debates on the Bill. Is further legislation on these matters at the European level expected in the future or will the draft framework decision be the final word on the issue?
As I said, the provisions in the Bill on freezing orders are a new and potentially important element in legislation. It is important that we get the matter right. When we introduce these provisions into United Kingdom domestic law—particularly those that depend on the actions of authorities in other countries—it is important that they are kept under scrutiny in order to ensure that they operate for the benefit of the United Kingdom and its citizens.
Therefore, although I accept that on this occasion calling for an annual report in the amendment—something that in future I shall always refer to as the "Bassam device"—is a device, I seriously ask what kind of scrutiny there will be in future. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Is there anything in any other member state of the European Union which resembles this provision?
6.45 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: Perhaps the Committee will allow me to deal with the amendment and, in the course of that, to try to deal with a number of the questions raised, including the last one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to appoint an independent person to report to him on the use of freezing orders, and it would require the Secretary of State to lay that report before Parliament. The Government's view is that such an obligation is unnecessary and, indeed, that it would create unnecessary bureaucracy, impose a burden on the Secretary of State and the department and would not produce any significant benefit.
Why do I say, "would not produce any significant benefit"? First, among the issues to which the noble Baroness referred is the question of whether or not it is envisaged that there would be difficulty with definitions such as "substantial value" and whether something is "likely" to have substantial value. Those are well-tested and well-tried expressions because they appear in the 1990 Act. Therefore, I see no reason why we should anticipate any difficulty in their application under the new hat in this new provision.
How often will there be orders? I cannot answer that question at present. It is possible that others will have a view. We shall see when they start to work. If they seem to work well, then no doubt the applications for them will increase because they will be a useful tool in the fight against crime. These orders achieve something that the traditional mutual legal assistance route can also achieve, although by a route which we do not consider to be as effective or speedy. Therefore, it may well be that the result will be an increase in the number of mutual legal assistance orders sought because, by being quick, they are being effective.
However, even without the need for an independent report, it will be possible for MPs and Members of the House of Lords to obtain information by tabling Parliamentary Questions. Therefore, if there is any concern about its use, that will provide a proper and
GC50
existing method of scrutiny. That is perhaps a rather longer way of saying what my noble friend Lord Bassam said on another occasion.
I was also asked about the status of the framework decision. The framework decision on the freezing of assets and evidence has still not been adopted but I am told that it—and, in particular, the accompanying certificate—is in the final stages. It is hoped that it will be adopted at the earliest opportunity during the term of the Greek presidency.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked whether similar procedures exist in other countries. When the framework—
Lord Clinton-Davis: I asked whether there are similar procedures to the amendment.
Lord Goldsmith: If I have correctly understood the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I cannot say whether other countries require an annual report on the use of freezing orders to be placed before Parliament. I was going to say—perhaps I may complete this point and the noble Lord can then intervene to make clear his question—that when the framework decision is in place and when it has been adopted, other countries will set up the procedures for the basic provision; that is, for the freezing orders to be both sought and executed.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I should be very surprised if the procedures which have been adumbrated by the noble Baroness are copied in any other jurisdiction whatever. I know that my noble and learned friend will write to me if I am wrong about that and particularly if anyone has adopted the procedures outlined by the noble Baroness. But, as I said previously, I doubt whether that is the case.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When the framework decision is made, does the noble and learned Lord think it possible that the Bill may be wrong? The Government are obviously ahead of the game on this matter. He indicated that thus far no other country had begun legislating in this way, or did I misunderstand?
Lord Goldsmith: My understanding is that, so far as concerns evidence, the provisions in relation to freezing orders are well set out in the draft. There is no reason to think that there will be any difficulty in that respect. Indeed, I can go further than that. The substance has been agreed and it is the only thing outstanding. I was rather more cautious in my words previously. The only matter outstanding in terms of negotiation is the accompanying certificate.
Lord Goodhart: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can he tell us, either now or later, what information will be contained in the annually published judicial statistics in terms of orders requested and orders made and a breakdown of the other countries concerned?
Lord Goldsmith: I certainly cannot answer that question at present but I shall ensure that inquiries are

GC51
made. If a helpful answer can be given, the noble Lord will be told by letter, as will other Members of the Committee. Whatever the answer is, I shall ensure that his query is passed on. It is possible that a decision will not be made until rather later when the orders are in place and being used.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Again, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. As I said at the beginning, the amendment was a device in order to ask questions about what kind of scrutiny there would be. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that I am not in the business of carrying out gold-plating here. This provision is not applied overseas. On the other hand, there may be times when we need to have parliamentary scrutiny in position which would not be possible overseas but which would be entirely proper here. I accept that on this occasion there may be other, far better ways of achieving that scrutiny than by means of an annual report.
I was grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I shall certainly consider the issue of judicial statistics. That is a very practical route to pursue. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy for her intervention. It meant that the Minister was able to give greater clarity on the issue of the draft framework decision. I believe we shall need to look at that matter further.
Like all Ministers, the noble and learned Lord was keen to assure us that, in order to hold the Government to account, we need only to table a few Written Questions. That is one of the battery of weapons that we have and it is one that I certainly do not underestimate. Particularly in this House, it has brought about some very fruitful and careful responses from the Government. I give my word that I shall try to find the energy and the time to ensure that we continue to hold the Government to account wherever possible. We are always sure to realise too late when we have left great black holes that should have been filled. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Domestic freezing orders]:
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 7, line 1, leave out "is likely to" and insert "will"
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I want to explain to the Committee that I did not believe it was appropriate to spend time on Amendment No. 31 as the Minister had already obliquely made some response to it. I did not believe that it would be right to take up more time.
Amendment No. 32 raises the question of admissibility of evidence at a trial. How will the court approach the issue of deciding whether or not a particular piece of evidence is "likely" to be admissible, given the high degree of discretion which a trial court enjoys in deciding whether or not a piece of evidence should be admitted? Again, what tests will be applied and what standard of proof is involved?
I shall leave the proper explanation of Amendment No. 33 to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, but it may be helpful if I make a brief comment on it now to save me having to return to it later. As one reads the amendment, it looks completely acceptable. How could one object to it? It appears to be absolutely right in principle.
However, as I understand the situation, a domestic freezing order that is incompatible with one or more of the ECHR rights could not, in any event, lawfully be made by a UK court—I hope that that is the case—as the court making the order would be acting unlawfully under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act and would not be able to use the defence under subsection (2) of that section that it could not have acted differently because Clause 10(1) allows the court a discretion by the use of the word "may" in line 38 rather than "shall". If I have that wrong, I shall back the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, to the hilt, but I hope that this is one small matter that I have understood. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I shall speak to Amendment No. 33, which, as the noble Baroness has just said, is grouped with Amendment No. 32 and is in the names of my noble friend Lord Dholakia and myself.
I start by saying that I am not altogether happy with the use of the word "domestic" freezing order because it seems to me rather confusing. It may be easier to say that an order is a domestic freezing order because it applies to evidence in this country. In fact, that is not what it does. As we know, a domestic freezing order is one made by a court in the United Kingdom for the protection of evidence in a participating country.
The reason that we tabled the amendment was largely because of the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. A freezing order is one which deprives a person who is entitled to the benefit of property of the right to make use of it. The Joint Committee on Human Rights said in its First Report of the present Session that:
"The Bill engages a good many rights. The following seem to us to be in particular need of justification on human rights grounds—
—orders to freeze evidence under Chapter 2 of Part 1 engage the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of … the ECHR … and the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence under ECHR Article 8.
I note that in relation to overseas freezing orders, which are made by an overseas court for the freezing of property in the United Kingdom, a specific condition is attached under Clause 21(7) that giving effect to the order must not be incompatible with a convention right. No similar proviso is attached to Clause 10, and I simply seek confirmation of why it is not.
I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is right and that the Government take the view that that is implicit because a requirement of the Human Rights Act that statutes must be construed wherever possible as compliant with the Act would cover this situation. However, I would like confirmation of that and also an explanation as to why Clause 21(7) is needed. Would there not be a similar implication that an order made

GC53
by an overseas court cannot be given effect to in this country where it is inconsistent with the Human Rights Act?
Lord Goldsmith: I want to deal separately with the two amendments that have been spoken to. Amendment No. 32 would require that the condition for the order should be that the evidence must be shown to be admissible in the United Kingdom rather than that it would be likely to be admissible. This simply tracks precisely the same provision in relation to search warrants in the United Kingdom as required by PACE—the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. That, as the Committee will be well aware, sets out the safeguards which it has been thought are appropriate for intrusion into privacy, into people's homes or into the use of their property where domestic proceedings are at issue. To obtain a search warrant in the United Kingdom, Section 8(1)(c) of PACE, when read with Section 8(4), requires simply that the material is likely to be relevant evidence, and that implies an issue of admissibility. I would suggest that to require it to be demonstrated in front of a court which does not have the whole of the material in front of it that the material will be admissible is imposing far too high a burden and requirement.
As many if not all Committee members will know, questions of admissibility sometimes depend on what other evidence is available and on what the issues turn out to be. In those circumstances, to impose a requirement that it be shown that the evidence is admissible would be too high a burden. So in the Government's view there is no reason to go beyond the similar requirement under PACE in relation to United Kingdom search warrants. That is why we resist Amendment No. 32.
I turn to Amendment No. 33, to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has spoken. I make two initial comments. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is right to say that Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act imposes an obligation on courts to comply with the convention rights. Secondly, in the light of that, I am not sure what it is that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is worried about. We are talking about a form of order to be sought in circumstances in which particular conditions apply. Those conditions are that there are proceedings or at least investigations into a listed offence, which is a serious offence; and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is evidence of substantial value in relation to that investigation or prosecution which is likely to be admissible and not subject to legal privilege. I would suggest that, in those circumstances, just as with the United Kingdom search warrant, the intrusion on privacy and property is likely to be entirely justified by the requirement that it be used for the purposes of prosecution for serious crime.
So I am not sure what concern the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has in mind. We are talking about countries that are themselves signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights. The foreign authority asked to execute the order will itself have to give consideration in the same way as the United Kingdom
GC54
court would be able to do. That relates also to the point that the noble Lord raised on Clause 21(7), where it is manifestly clear that to give effect to an overseas order would be a breach of ECHR obligations.
7 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: There is nothing in the Act, is there, that specifies that a participating country must subscribe to the European Convention on Human Rights? It can be any country designated by an order made by the Secretary of State and could include countries that are not even European countries.
Lord Goldsmith: Under the definition of "participating country" in Clause 52, the only participating countries that would be designated without a further order would be those countries that are member states on the day appointed for the commencement of this provision, and all of those are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Goodhart: I entirely accept that. Of course, the power in Clause 52(2)(b) is to add,
"any other country designated by an order made by the Secretary of State".
Lord Goldsmith: As and when it appears to the Secretary of State appropriate to designate any other country, I would anticipate that the question as to the legal system and the safeguards in that other country would be matters to which the Secretary of State would have regard and to which others may wish to draw attention at the time that the order is proposed. I shall give way to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, if he wishes to intervene.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: If I ask this question now. I will not have to ask it during the debate on the Question that the clause stand part. How is the domestic freezing order enforced?
Lord Goldsmith: As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, there are two forms of order. There is the situation in which an order is made by a court in the United Kingdom and is then executed abroad, and there is the converse case. The Bill provides a speedy procedure for freezing evidence. For example, it may come to the notice of police officers investigating an actual robbery or a conspiracy to rob a bank that important evidence, in the form of firearms, is in a flat in Brussels. The Bill provides a procedure under which law enforcement officials can go to an English, Scottish or Northern Irish court and ask for an order to freeze that evidence.
The order will identify the evidence and will be transmitted speedily to the authorities in the other country, who will execute it, subject to the conditions set down. They will then hold the material until a request for mutual legal assistance is obtained and is granted. The evidence has been frozen, as it has been possible to move quickly to avoid allowing it to

GC55
disappear. The mutual legal assistance provisions will operate so that the evidence can be transmitted to the other country.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: The power to execute the order depends on the actions of the other country. Presumably, they will be required to have domestic legislation that provides for that. At the moment, none of them has.
Lord Goldsmith: None of them has it at the moment because the framework decision is not yet a decision, as has rightly been pointed out. Once it is, there will be an obligation on them to put in place domestic procedures that will give effect to the framework decision. The noble Lord is right to say that, in those circumstances, it would be for them to execute. As I said, all the countries concerned subscribe to the European Convention on Human Rights.
In any event, those are the reasons why, without inviting any further interventions, I invite the noble Baroness and, in due course, the noble Lord to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Dholakia: I wanted to probe that point. The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, asked about reciprocal arrangements, with particular regard to Clause 52(2), which allows the Secretary of State to designate other countries by order. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said that he would take that into account in a letter that he would send us.
The noble and learned Lord just said that the Secretary of State would take the human rights convention into account before making such an order. Am I right? Is that what he meant—or implied? If it is, we do not need to worry about countries such as Zimbabwe and others, as the convention would not apply in any case. Are there some complications? Can the noble and learned Lord explain what he has in mind?
Lord Goldsmith: I should not be taken as giving any undertakings on behalf of the Secretary of State. I am not in a position to do that. It does not mean anything more than that I think that it would need to be considered. I was saying that, under the terms of the Bill, certain countries would stand as participating countries because they are members of the European Union when the provisions come into force. They will have to be—they are—subscribers to the European Convention on Human Rights.
All that I said in addition to that was that, in the event that further countries were to be designated, it would be open to anybody to make a point about the standards that applied in that country when the Secretary of State put forward a proposal for designation. It is not necessary, at this stage, to speculate on the considerations that the Secretary of State will have in mind. That matter will be considered at that stage.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for his response and for putting on record the
GC56
fact that the definition of "likely" simply tracks the provisions of Sections 8(1)(c) and 8(4) of PACE, with regard to the UK search warrant. Like my noble friend Lady Seccombe, I went through agonising training on PACE as a magistrate. I shall look back on my training notes to see whether I still understand that part of it. That part was not in the Explanatory Notes, and it was important that the Minister was able to put that on the record.
The Minister's answer to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made me think that we may find ourselves examining even more carefully the order-making power to extend the list of countries beyond "participating countries" when we come to that part of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord sought to reassure the Committee by saying that there were protections and that, when the list was extended, the Secretary of State would take into account the human rights position in those countries. Gosh! It would be nice and easy to tick a box and think that that was it. We will have to consider that order-making power carefully.
I am satisfied with the Minister's answers on Amendment No. 32, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 7, line 7, leave out "any judge or justice of the peace" and insert "a circuit judge"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 34 stands in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Dholakia. I thank the Law Society for its assistance and briefing.
The underlying objective of the amendment is to ensure that the procedure in Clause 10 is consistent with existing practice. I am advised by the Law Society that applications for freezing orders to take effect in the domestic jurisdiction are usually heard by a circuit judge. The clause allows for applications for freezing orders to take effect in other jurisdictions to be heard by any judicial authority, including magistrates. That could mean, for example, that an application could be made on a Friday afternoon—I am not sure how many magistrates' courts outside the metropolitan areas sit on Friday afternoon—in an area unused to cases involving other jurisdictions for a freezing order to be made in relation to a journalist's notebook held, perhaps, in Paris. The Law Society may be referring to a particular case.
It is not appropriate that an unfamiliar application that involves complex proprietorial rights should be put before an inexperienced Bench. It would be more appropriate for any evidence defined as excluded evidence or that would otherwise come under the special procedure rules to be dealt with by the appropriate judicial authority in the United Kingdom. On principle, our procedures should require as much

GC57
rigour in applications relating to overseas jurisdictions as would be required in the domestic jurisdiction. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: The amendment also stands in my name and that of my noble friend. We support it for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, gave.
A freezing order is a significant order, and it may raise difficult issues. As we know, it may give rise to problems under the Human Rights Act 1998. Such orders are unlikely to be made every day, unlike search warrants, which are made frequently. By longstanding practice, search warrants are made by justices of the peace. It is appropriate that freezing orders should be made only by circuit judges and not by magistrates.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I do not automatically disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I am surprised that, on this occasion, when the Government are widening the provision relating to judges to include a circuit judge, the noble Lord is attacking the Government's proposal.
Magistrates would invariably be advised by a legally qualified clerk. That is a useful provision. It does not follow automatically, but, as the noble Lord said, if such applications are infrequent, it will almost invariably be the case that a legally qualified clerk would be in post.
Lord Goodhart: The Bill does not say that the judicial authority is a magistrates' court; it says that it is a justice of the peace. The decision can be made on an application made over the telephone to a magistrate. The application need not be made in court, in the presence of the justice's clerk.
Lord Clinton-Davis: That is right, but, as a matter of practice, that is unlikely to be the case. My wife was a justice of the peace. If, in her view, she was not qualified to deal with a matter, she would say so.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: The point is that the orders are likely to be requested at short notice. It is unlikely that anyone would wish to convene a court sitting with a clerk to hear the application. It is more likely that people will go to a judge in chambers or, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, make an immediate appeal to an individual justice.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Of course it is, but the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is saying that the issue should be dealt with by a circuit judge and only by a circuit judge. That is wrong. It is possible for a member of the higher judiciary to deal with the issue. If a matter is difficult and complex, it is open to the magistrate to say, "I will get some further advice" or, "I think that you ought to go somewhere else".
Admittedly, the issue should be further qualified' y my noble and learned friend, and I am sure that he will do that. However, we must recognise the way in which magistrates work. When a complex issue is referred to
GC58
them, they can say, "It is beyond me. I cannot do this". Or, they might say, "Hold on, I will take advice about this". They might suggest that the person concerned make an application to another judicial authority. Having said all that, and while I recognise that the noble and learned Lord is trying to do the right thing—
Lord Goodhart: I am not learned.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am sorry; I should never have referred to the noble Lord as learned. Both of us wish to achieve a situation that is practicable and desirable from the applicant's point of view. I am sure that my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith will apprehend this.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It is good to hear the noble Lord from his side of the Committee stick up for magistrates. That warms the cockles of my heart. If the matter involves guns in Brussels that must be frozen instantly otherwise disaster will occur, it is unacceptable for magistrates to say that they need to get advice, or to refer the matter to the Crown Court the next day. My noble friend's amendment addresses a good point. We shall hear what the noble and learned Lord has to say.
Lord Goldsmith: At the moment, if a police officer believes that there are guns in Birmingham, Bradford or Halifax, he can obtain a search warrant from a justice of the peace. We, rightly, take the view that justices of the peace are well able, through long practice and experience, properly to grant such search warrants. That is all the order does. It happens to be a search warrant in a different country. But, if noble Lords consider the terms of the domestic freezing order, as outlined in subsection (3), they will see that it is granted in circumstances where evidence,

"(a) is on premises specified in the application in the participating country,

(b) is likely to be of substantial value … to the proceedings or investigation",

of a serious offence; where evidence,

"(c) is likely to be admissible in evidence at a trial for the offence, and

(d) does not consist of or include items subject to legal privilege".

For all intents and purposes, it is precisely the same as a search warrant. It tracks the very language used in PACE, which, noble Lords will note, does not refer to a circuit judge, a High Court judge or a Court of Appeal judge, but a justice of the peace. Section 8 of PACE provides that a search warrant may be issued:
"If on an application made by a constable a justice of the peace is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing—

(a) that a serious arrestable offence has been committed; and

(b) that there is material on premises specified in the application which is likely to be of substantial value … to the investigation of the offence; and

(c) that the material is likely to be relevant evidence".

And so it continues. The Government's view is that magistrates are entirely fit and able to grant such orders. There is no reason why we should apply a different process to orders executed across a frontier.
Lord Goodhart: Does the noble and learned Lord not agree that a search warrant simply entitles someone to go on to premises to see what is there? One cannot, simply by virtue of obtaining a search warrant, seize any property found on the premises; there must be some other ground for doing that. On the other hand, a domestic freezing order protects evidence in the participating country pending its transfer to the United Kingdom. Does it not, therefore, go beyond the scope of a mere search warrant, given that it entitles, or requires, the requested country to detain the property that is the subject of a freezing order, and to send it to the United Kingdom?
Lord Goldsmith: With respect, the noble Lord is wrong. Section 8(2) of PACE provides that a constable may seize and retain anything for which a search has been authorised under a search warrant. There would be little point in a search warrant if a constable was not able to do that. I do not believe that there is any difference. If I am wrong I shall write to the noble Lord.
We have got into this difficulty because of a confusion instigated by the Law Society talking about an entirely different kind of procedure. Freezing orders, which used to be called Mareva injunctions, concern the freezing of assets and are entirely different from search warrants. It is quite right that magistrates should not grant that kind of order. It has nothing to do with magistrates and involves a completely different procedure. That may be the cause of the confusion.
The basic point is that in order to be able to operate effectively and quickly—which we all agree is the objective of this legislation—it is entirely appropriate to entrust this power to the well trusted justices of the peace who have been exercising exactly the same kinds of powers, albeit for searches and seizures domestically.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that response. We have had an interesting and important debate in regard to the role of magistrates which may perhaps be echoed in other Bills. Having been a lay magistrate, I should say that the noble and learned Lord was right to underline the valuable role that magistrates perform.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was right to raise the issue of precisely what this kind of freezing order may be. The noble and learned Lord the Minister suggested that the Law Society may have become confused with a Mareva injunction. That may well be the case. It is a matter about which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I will need to speak further with the Law Society. I suspect that it has a rather more fundamental objection and that it has been looking more closely at what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said about this being a one-stage application as far as magistrates are concerned and that they are giving the automatic power to freeze at the same time.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for pointing out the way in which magistrates carry out their duties very carefully. Although a clerk
GC60
is on duty at all times of the day and night and makes his responses absolutely to the letter, it may well be that the magistrate may not in all circumstances contact him. I know that whenever I was approached for a search warrant or any order involving family matters, my first port of call was to contact the clerk of the court. Indeed, that was point number one on the bullet list you were given to follow as a lay magistrate. Training should ensure that one does that, but it may not always be the case.
I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said. We need to ensure that what we achieve with this is practicable and desirable from the applicant's point of view.
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will be able to respond to one final question, which has occurred to me as a direct result of the way in which he has addressed us today. On page 7, subsection (5)(a) states,
"in relation to England and Wales, any judge or justice of the peace",
which I have sought to amend. In drafting the Bill, have the Government had regard to the provisions of the Courts Bill which is about to start its progress through this House next Monday? The noble and learned Lord is aware far more than I that the provisions of that Bill introduce a new definition in regard to judges: that is that judges—hey presto—will all become magistrates; they will become justices of the peace. Is it the Government's intention that when the Courts Bill has been passed—I do not know whether that will be before or after this one—this Bill will need to be redrafted so that it simply refers to "justices of the peace" because all judges will be justices of the peace and there may be duplication? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will take advice and give me a spot answer.
Lord Goldsmith: I am not going to give a spot answer. We will need to check the situation. It would be a remarkable result if that were the position. We shall check it and make sure that the noble Baroness is provided with an answer.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful. As my noble friends and I are to launch ourselves into the Courts Bill next week the issue is very much at the forefront of our minds. I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to look at the matter and come back to us. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Wednesday, 22nd January at 3.30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): The Committee stands adjourned until Wednesday, 22nd January 2003 at 3.30 p.m.
The Committee adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.

  North/South Language Implementation Body
  North/South Language Implementation Body
  Northern Ireland Policing Board
  Northern Ireland Policing Board
  Northern Ireland: District Policing Partnerships
  Northern Ireland: District Policing Partnerships
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  British Irish Agreement Bill 2002
  British Irish Agreement Bill 2002
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Stormont Estate: Gate Lodge
  Stormont Estate: Gate Lodge
  Foyle Valley Railway Museum
  Foyle Valley Railway Museum
  Prison Service: Safer Custody
  Prison Service: Safer Custody
  Prison Service: Court Escort Service
  Prison Service: Court Escort Service
  Prisoners: Deaths and Serious Injury
  Prisoners: Deaths and Serious Injury
  Criminal Records Bureau Review
  Criminal Records Bureau Review
  China: Human Rights
  China: Human Rights
  EU-Iran Human Rights Dialogue
  EU-Iran Human Rights Dialogue
  Israel
  Israel
  Afghanistan: Prisoners
  Afghanistan: Prisoners
  Congo
  Congo
  Africa: Landmines
  Africa: Landmines
  UNICEF Report on Child Participation
  UNICEF Report on Child Participation
  Indonesia: FCO Travel Advice
  Indonesia: FCO Travel Advice
  Iran: Arms Embargo
  Iran: Arms Embargo
  EC Regulations
  EC Regulations
  Iran: Nuclear Activities
  Iran: Nuclear Activities
  EU Englargement
  EU Englargement
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  MV "Prestige"
  MV "Prestige"
  Venice Commission: UK Membership
  Venice Commission: UK Membership
  Reproductive Healthcare
  Reproductive Healthcare
  Embryo Research
  Embryo Research
  Accidental Injury
  Accidental Injury
  Sex Selection
  Sex Selection
  Passive Smoking
  Passive Smoking
  Fallen Stock Disposal
  Fallen Stock Disposal
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Unlawful Deer and Hare Coursing
  Unlawful Deer and Hare Coursing
  Lawful Hare Coursing
  Lawful Hare Coursing
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Male Teachers
  Male Teachers
  Language Teaching
  Language Teaching