Sitting of 23 January 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

  Public Service Agreements
  1. Peter Bottomley: If he will make a statement on the system of assessing performance against the targets he has set for outputs from his public spending increases. [92731]
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): The Government have invited the Comptroller and Auditor General to take responsibility for the validation of systems used in reporting on public service agreement targets. The National Audit Office is conducting a pilot study and full implementation will get under way from April this year.
  Peter Bottomley: I hope that the Treasury and the National Audit Office will survey passengers, pupils, parents and the police about what they feel about the targets being set and that the feedback will go to Departments. While people still receive letters from hospitals saying that appointments made more than a year ago have been postponed for a further year and that the hospitals hope to receive the funding that is necessary for them to meet their targets—I have such a letter with me—many will need a lot of convincing that the targets for the Departments' work or for the Treasury's standards are being set properly or met. The past five years have been disappointing.
  Mr. Boateng: I will, of course, be happy to receive and respond to the letter that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I know that he takes these issues seriously and that he thinks about them. He will therefore recognise that public service agreement targets represent a major reform in public administration. He will also recognise their importance in focusing Departments on delivery, and that point applies to Departments across the board. He will further recognise the technical challenges in relation to data collection and, yes, the need to ensure that customer satisfaction and opinion are taken into account in measuring outcomes. That is why I know that he will welcome the National Audit Office's involvement. That will produce results that he
  416
  and I know will assist in making sure that this tool—it is no more than that—becomes effective in promoting delivery.
  Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the question of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) would be academic if we were to enter the euro? Far from there being increases in public expenditure in Britain, we would be required to accept deep cuts in public investment. Does my right hon. Friend accept that, whereas the Chancellor's prudent interpretation of the stability and growth pact would drive a coach and horses through it, the Commission's destructive interpretation would unfortunately drive another coach and horses through the Chancellor's spending plans?
  Mr. Boateng: My right hon. Friend is stretching the question somewhat, but I am bound to say that the questions of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) are always academic and thoughtful. This one was no exception.
  Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe): Can the Chief Secretary confirm that the Chancellor has been invited to attend and give evidence to the Public Administration Committee on the question of targets? Will that invitation be accepted?
  Mr. Boateng: The Chancellor—or rather the Treasury—has indeed been invited to give evidence. As the Minister responsible for PSA targets, I look forward very much to doing that.
  Mr. Howard: I am delighted to hear that the Chief Secretary is going. Will he confirm that, at the Treasury's request, we provided it as long ago as 25 November with a 300-page dossier that shows that the Government have failed or are failing on 40 per cent. of the targets that they set in 1998 and on 75 per cent. of those set in 2000? The Treasury has repeatedly been asked to provide the calculations on which its ludicrous claims are based. Will he now provide the justification?
  Mr. Boateng: We have provided the calculations. The true figures are 87 per cent. and 93 per cent. I look forward to studying the evidence that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would seek to produce to substantiate his figures, which, on the face of it, appear to be absolute nonsense.
  Mr. Howard: The Chief Secretary has had that evidence since 25 November; it is in our document. Despite repeated requests, he has failed to provide any supporting evidence for the figures that he has just given. Is it not the truth that the target regime is a shambles? Did not the Secretary of State for International Development tell the Select Committee there has been a proliferation of targets and that they are seen as what she described as control freakery? The Chief Secretary's Customs and Excise department described one of its targets as a crude selective measure, and five major Departments, including the Department of Health and the Home Office, have still not published the reports that were promised last autumn. Does this total shambles not tell us more about the Government's

  417
  failure to deliver on the public services than any of the right hon. Gentleman's weasel words? Is it any wonder that the Chancellor did not have the guts to answer this question himself?
  Mr. Boateng: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is going on a bit, but I think that he has missed the point. Is he really suggesting that any management system, business or enterprise worth its name should not use targets? Even he will know from his experience at the Bar that the most rarefied of chambers—I have no doubt that he was a member of a rarefied set of chambers—has targets. It has targets for responding to the telephone and for fee levels. Is he suggesting that we should not have targets because, frankly, that would be absurd?
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) is indicative of the fact that Labour Against the Euro is a broad church? Surely the setting up of the Franco-German axis in the past few days strengthens the arm of all of us who are against the euro and encourages the Chancellor to keep weaving and dodging.
  Mr. Boateng: As someone who worships and preaches in a broad church—but not that broad church—I must say that my hon. Friend stretches the point, although he is entitled to do so. He might reflect on the issue of targets, however, and in particular whether the 20 per cent. across-the-board cut on spending proposed by the Conservatives would enable us to deliver on our commitment to improving public services, health, education, transport and infrastructure. The cut would be a disaster and I am sure that the whole House—or at least its Labour Members—will join me in condemning that approach.
  Matthew Taylor (Truro and St. Austell): Can the Chief Secretary tell us how many of the targets that the Treasury claims have been met have been only partially met—or what is commonly known to the layman as not met?
  Mr. Boateng: I have a little list, which I am happy to share with the hon. Gentleman in detail. Some 87 per cent. were met or partly met—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Hold on a minute. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that it is not worth setting a target that requires 75 per cent. of 11-year-olds to meet numeracy standards when the Department for Education and Skills has ensured that 73 per cent. of those pupils perform to that standard, which is up from 62 per cent. when the Conservatives had stewardship of the nation's affairs? I think that that is a target worth striving for.

  Debt Relief
  Ms Julia Drown: What action he is taking to discourage UK companies from pursuing litigation against heavily indebted poor countries. [92733]
  Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: What his assessment is of the International Monetary Fund's latest proposal for a sovereign debt restructuring mechanism. [92739]
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): To avoid individual creditors blocking the restructuring of poor countries' debt, we are proposing the adoption of collective action clauses on a worldwide basis and we are supporting at the IMF meetings in April the proposed new sovereign debt restructuring mechanism. I can also tell the House that, in the case of vulture funds, we are calling on the World Bank to announce expert support to highly indebted poor countries dealing with debt. I can also announce that the UK Government will provide legal help to poor indebted countries facing those problems.
  Ms Drown: I welcome the Chancellor's response. When companies such as Iceland sue Guyana for £12 million, does not that undermine the Government's commitment to debt relief? If Guyana gives in, that will create a further problem because it will be breaking the UK's agreement, through the Paris club, that one creditor should not be given preferential treatment. However, given the huge support for debt relief in this country, surely the big issue is that the customers and shareholders of Iceland probably do not want it to sue in the first place.
  Mr. Brown: Because the system of debt restructuring is voluntary, and until we get the collective action clauses and the debt restructuring mechanism in place, moral suasion will remain important. We have to look at individual cases to see what can be done. The Nestlé case in Ethiopia was well publicised. There have also been cases in Sierra Leone, Uganda, which involved Yugoslavian vulture funds, and Nicaragua.
  The Guyana case arises from 1976 and involves a company called Booker plc. It concerns the ownership of a plant and Booker is asking for compensation from the Government. The issue will go to collective arbitration. In other words, the international court for settlement of such issues will rule whether the debt is valid. Even if it were ruled to be valid, I would hope that, in the interests of resolving the problem, the company would make the resolution of it part of the general debt forgiveness that is being given to Guyana. I hope that it can be solved on that basis.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: Can my right hon. Friend give some indication of the time scale for the establishment of the new debt restructuring mechanism? Will he assure the House that he will take a lead in international

  419
  negotiations to establish such a mechanism, and ensure that it is established somewhat more quickly than the many years that the IMF said that it would take?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend raises an important point. If we are to have a sensible system of crisis prevention and crisis resolution—after all, nearly 100 financial crises have led to the need for debt restructuring in the past decade or so—we must get a new mechanism in place. Collective action clauses exist in Britain, and we propose them for the rest of the world.
  The sovereign debt restructuring mechanism proposed by the IMF board would produce an internationally validated and respectable system to which each country could sign up. That would require a change in the IMF articles of association, which is why some have proposed that, in the meantime, there should also be a voluntary code that banks and bondholders could follow as well.
  The important thing is that we see progress, with all countries supporting the need for such a mechanism at April's IMF meeting, and that transitional measures that deal with my hon. Friend's point that there is a need for action on this matter now are put in place. It is in all our interests to avoid the kind of financial crises that have led to poverty as well as economic dislocation in some countries. The proposals from Britain will make a huge difference.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury): The Chancellor mentioned Ethiopia. I had the pleasure of leading a parliamentary delegation to Ethiopia in December, and we saw at first hand the absolute desperation of people there, who are already becoming hungry. Is it not iniquitous for Nestlé to claim up to $6 million from that country? Is it not claiming that sum at rather a sensitive time, especially given that the claim arises from a business deal that it did when Ethiopia was under a Marxist Government? Should it not have taken rather more care then? Does the Chancellor agree that the Treasury should join the Secretary of State for International Development, who has been very generous towards Ethiopia recently, in trying to persuade Nestlé to drop the claim completely?
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that there is all-party support for resolving the issue. There are 60 million people in Ethiopia. The average income is about $100 a year, which is about $2 a week. There are 40 million people facing starvation. It would seem strange at this point to demand extra repayments from a country that is attempting to reform, having got rid of the Government who incurred the debt with Nestlé in the first place. Nestlé has now said that, although it is important that the money is paid, it will give all that is received to famine relief in Ethiopia.
  I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree, however, that we need a system that avoids such problems recurring—or at least if they do occur, one that offers a quick way of dealing with them. That is why we propose the collective action clauses and the new sovereign debt restructuring mechanism for future debts. That is also why we are helping Ethiopia at the moment. I shall meet the President of Ethiopia—as will the Prime Minister—when he is in Britain in the next few weeks so that we can offer help with legal advice and by
  420
  other means to resolve some of the problems. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman knows, much of the Secretary of State for International Development's aid budget has been diverted to help tackle the famine in Africa.
  Adam Price: Is the Chancellor aware of reports that point to the IMF's role in turning a food shortage in Malawi into a severe famine? Indeed, the IMF was implicated in the Malawi Government's disastrous decision to sell their food reserves. In the light of that fact, and given that debt repayment last year constituted 20 per cent. of Malawi's budget, would it not be right to write off its debt?
  Mr. Brown: The important thing is first to implement the poverty strategy mechanism—in other words, to ensure that IMF and World Bank policies do not run counter to each other, and that we can take the steps necessary, where decisions are being made, to match economic restructuring with social justice programmes. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree with that.
  Only 50 per cent. of the aid necessary has so far been pledged for the famine. Even though countries have given some money, it is simply not enough. I hope that, on an all-party basis, we can support other countries in joining us in giving the money necessary to avoid the famine that is hitting not just Ethiopia but all the countries surrounding Malawi.

  International Monetary Fund
  Kali Mountford: What proposals he will make to the International Monetary Fund at its next meeting to change its regulations. [92735]
  Mr. John McFall: What progress he has made on the international financing initiative. [92737]
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): While there is insufficient support in the international community for new IMF regulations that would increase special drawing rights to release new funds for international development, there is now interest from the IMF, the World Bank, the United Nations and IMF member countries in the United Kingdom's recommendation of a new international finance facility. Today, therefore, the Secretary of State for International Development and I are publishing our detailed proposals for that facility, which would release $50 billion a year in additional aid for investment for the poorest countries to tackle problems of health, education and poverty. I hope that we have all-party support for that British initiative.
  Kali Mountford: I am delighted with my right hon. Friend's answer. If long-term investment stability and growth are good enough for the British economy, they must surely be right for developing nations. Is it not therefore right to tell the IMF that, instead of always looking to the short term, it must look at long-term relationships in developing nations between donor and

  421
  recipient states so that they can make proper economic decisions in their own right and have the economic growth that we enjoy?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. In return for a commitment from developing countries to pursue policies for stability, growth and the opening up of trade and investment, the international community, particularly the richest countries, should be prepared to say that we will help to meet the millennium development targets: ensuring that poverty is halved by 2015; that every child gets primary education, instead of 120 million being without it; and that infant mortality is cut by two thirds, as is possible with available medical technology. I hope that Britain says unanimously that that is both necessary and urgent.
  Mr. McFall: I thank the Chancellor for that initiative. He knows that we have seen a reversal in the fortunes of poor countries over the past few years that has made them even poorer, which is why long-term commitment is essential. What progress has the Chancellor made with his international partners in ensuring that they accept the proposals? We know that aid and debt issues are popular with our constituents, and many thousands of people in our constituencies are signing up on that, so what can we do to ensure progress on that humanitarian objective and achieve our millennium development goals by 2015?
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken an interest in the matter as Chairman of the Treasury Committee. I believe that the International Development Committee will also take an interest in the progress of the initiative. I have talked to almost all the Finance Ministers who will be present at the G7 meetings and European Finance Ministers' meetings about those matters, and I believe that it is possible to gain support. I hope to be able to announce later what initiative we can take at the G7 meeting in February and the IMF meetings in April.
  The fact of the matter is that aid per person in sub-Saharan Africa was $33 a year 20 years ago, but is now only $20 a year, which is simply insufficient, even with all the reforms to meet health and education needs and anti-poverty programmes in those countries. I hope that we can galvanise opinion around the world, but it is also important that the Churches, faith organisations, local groups and non-governmental organisations play a major part, not only in persuading people in Britain of the importance of this but, as they did in the debt campaign, in persuading other countries round the world to support the initiative.
  Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle): Will the Chancellor look at the IMF regulations on gold in the light of his disastrous decision, against the making of which I repeatedly warned him at the time, to sell most of Britain's gold reserves at the bottom of a long bear market and at $100 a fine ounce below yesterday's close at $360? How much of the taxpayer's money has been lost as a result?
  Mr. Brown: The purpose of the sale of gold was to rebalance the holdings of Britain's reserves. It should have been done 20 years ago, so that we had proper
  422
  balancing and proper risk sharing. I think that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on the question about international development, and agree that he might also wish to support our international finance facility to help the poorest countries.
  Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham): When discussing international economic stability, will the Chancellor—having presided over a bigger stock market boom and bust here than in many other parts of the world, thanks to his rapacious policies against the corporate sector—take some advice for a change to stave off a boom and bust in the housing market, which could be deeply damaging to many of our constituents?
  Mr. Brown: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to tell the shadow Chancellor how to run Opposition policy on the economy, but we will take no lectures from the former Cabinet Minister on boom and bust policies—15 per cent. interest rates under him.
  Ms Oona King (Bethnal Green and Bow): When I met the head of the IMF in Rwanda five years ago, he told that me that although IMF policies had been satisfactory, unfortunately all the human capital had been destroyed—very unfortunate. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the IMF has changed beyond description since then, but that it must change further? Could he encourage it to take even greater account of what the IMF terms "human capital"?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. I praise the work that she has done in international development and her visit to Rwanda, which was important in alerting this country to some of the problems. We are right to praise the IMF for leading on debt relief over the past few years. There was only one country likely to get debt relief; the number is now 27, and it could be 35. There could be $100 billion of debt relief. With regard to the problems of Rwanda, the way forward is the poverty reduction strategy reports that would enable the country to pursue economic policies with the programme of social reconstruction that are in the best interests of that country. On that basis, I believe that we should be providing far more extensive aid for education, health and the anti-poverty programmes of the country. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of education for the future.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The Chancellor's statement is to be welcomed. Does he accept that the IMF must bear some responsibility for letting people know how it is dealing with issues? Many people in our country are confused about what has happened in Malawi. Does the Chancellor agree that the Governments of Malawi and other countries must take some responsibility for their mismanagement of their economies? Having referred to faith communities, does he recognise that hospitals run by faith communities in Malawi are in dire straits partly because the western nations have been recruiting staff here to look after our interests, whereas those staff are needed in countries such as Malawi?
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving his party's support to the international finance

  423
  facility. I believe that, throughout the United Kingdom, parties may wish to support what we are trying to do. He is right that our proposals are not designed to allow Governments to abdicate their responsibility for what happens in their own country. They are designed to strengthen Governments as they try to make the reforms that are necessary. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that when only $20 per head is going in aid to the poorest countries, and only 7.5 per cent. of that is going to education and only 3.5 per cent. to health, those are insufficient resources to enable us to say to those countries that we can reach our side of the bargain with them—that we will help tackle the health, education and social problems. It is a bargain—a deal. The countries must reform to make it possible for aid to be used well. We must increase the amount of money that we are prepared to provide. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support.

  Foreign Direct Investment
  Mr. Nigel Beard (Bexleyheath and Crayford): If he will make a statement on recent trends in foreign direct investment into (a) the United Kingdom and (b) the European Union. [92736]
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown):: Our year-to-year figures are influenced by a number of factors. Britain's stock of foreign direct investment is at 19 per cent. of the total—the highest in Europe and, after the USA, the second highest in the world. A detailed analysis of recent trends in foreign direct investment will be published shortly.
  Mr. Beard: Is there any implication in the figures of a preference for the eurozone at the expense of the United Kingdom among foreign direct investors?
  Mr. Brown: I know that this is a controversial issue among some people, but we must consider a range of factors that are in play. The main influence of foreign direct investment is mergers and acquisitions. That is 90 per cent. of foreign direct investment. In the recent stock market changes, there has been very little merger and acquisition activity. Equally, the figures are affected by relative exchange rates and by what decisions are being made in the United States, as opposed to decisions being made in Asia and Japan. It is a complicated picture, which is reflected in the fact that there has been a big change in the relative position of manufacturing and financial services over the past few years. The fact of the matter is that foreign direct investment has risen dramatically over the past 10 or 20 years, but trends are at work, including the restructuring of the international economy, that must be looked at. That is why we plan to publish a full paper on this issue in the near future.
  Mr. Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford): As the Chancellor said at the beginning of his reply, inward investment is vital for the UK economy, but to compete, we must have an attractive regulatory and tax regime. Given that, and the fact that business taxes here are already higher than in competing nations such as the United States, Ireland and indeed Germany, why are the Government raising taxes yet again with a £1.7 billion
  424
  increase in national insurance contributions? Does the Chancellor not realise that this tax on jobs will simply create another burden that business cannot afford?
  Mr. Brown: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. First, we have cut corporation tax from 33 to 30 per cent. Secondly, we have cut capital gains tax from 40 to 10 per cent. in most cases. Thirdly, we have cut small business tax from 23 to 19 per cent. Those are proportionately bigger cuts than have happened in the United States of America. What also surprises me is that the shadow Chancellor, speaking at a meeting only two days ago, praised us and said that our labour market was more flexible than in other European countries. How can the Opposition have two different views at once, or is that merely the basis on which they now proceed?
  Mr. James Plaskitt (Warwick and Leamington): Foreign owners of companies in my constituency tell me that they came to the UK because of factors relating to our flexible labour market, regulatory climate and low tax regime. Does my right hon. Friend agree that while those will continue to be the dominant factors in such decisions, foreign investors in the UK will not indefinitely run a currency risk with the rest of Europe?
  Mr. Brown: As I said, a number of issues will determine the future of foreign direct investment. That is why a full analysis is being carried out. It will be published as part of the euro assessment, as I announced to the Select Committee on the Treasury in our evidence at the beginning of September. My hon. Friend must also bear it in mind that one reason why the UK is attractive is not only our tax rates, but the stability of the UK economy. We have now had low inflation for a long time, and while there has been a recession in America, Germany and Japan, our economy has continued to grow. That is one of the reasons why 1.5 million more people are in work than under the Conservatives.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Adrian Flook (Taunton): What recent representations he has received on the effect of Government policy on competitiveness of the financial services provided by the City of London. [92738]
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): The Treasury regularly receives representations from many sources about the effect of Government policies on the competitive position of the City of London's financial services industry. The agreement on the taxation of savings secured in Brussels earlier this week by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Paymaster General is a clear demonstration of the positive role that the Government are playing in championing the City.
  Mr. Flook: The Minister forgot to mention stamp duty on share transactions. In a globalised market, the City of London operates as a major financial centre, yet that duty affects only British companies, as well as impacting on the value of any individual's pension to a total of £8,000. Will the British Government help to level the field for British companies, and more

  425
  importantly, help pensioners after the imposition of the disastrous pensions tax introduced by the Chancellor and abolish stamp duty?
  Ruth Kelly: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but perhaps he could explain to the House why during 18 years of Conservative government, his party did absolutely nothing to reduce or remove stamp duty on shares. Perhaps he could also explain to the House how he would propose to raise the £3 billion revenue—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is for the Minister to explain the policies of the Government.
  David Taylor: Is it not the case that, since 1999, about a third of the international financial service transactions denominated in euros have been carried out in the City of London? Does that not highlight the views of those of us in Labour Against the Euro that the siren voices on the Labour Benches and the eurozealots among the Liberal Democrats are wrong to suggest that membership of the euro is necessary for a successful financial services industry?
  Ruth Kelly: The City of London has performed well since the euro was launched. We strongly welcome that. Indeed, it reflects the City's hard work and preparation, with the co-operation of the Bank of England, before the launch. My hon. Friend should be patient and wait for the assessment of the five economic tests, which, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has often said, will be published by the end of the first half of this year.
  Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham): How does the Financial Secretary respond to the controversial suggestion by the chairman of the London stock exchange that maximum harmonisation of financial regulation and minimum national discretion is the best way in which to preserve the City's competitiveness in Europe?
  Ruth Kelly: I have not heard the comments of the chairman of the London stock exchange, but the Government and the majority of participants in the City do not share the view that the hon. Gentleman outlined. We strongly believe that fair tax competition is the way forward. That is why I emphasised the importance of the agreement that was secured earlier this week and sets a new agenda for sharing information on taxation matters.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye): What estimate he has made of the number of people who will be eligible in October to receive pension credit in the Hastings and Rye constituency. [92740]
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): Last year, 3,500 pensioners in Hastings and Rye were receiving the minimum income guarantee. They and others will benefit from the pension credit. Nationally, the
  426
  Department for Work and Pensions aims to ensure that at least 3 million pensioner households receive their entitlement by 2006.
  Mr. Foster: I thank my right hon. Friend on behalf of the pensioners of Hastings and Rye for the enormous difference that the minimum income guarantee has made to their lives. They receive some 30 per cent. more than they would have received under the Conservatives' inflation-only increases.
  I also thank my right hon. Friend for the opportunity for those who have saved to take advantage of the new pension credit, which will ensure that thrift as well as work pays. How will she ensure that each pensioner knows how to make the claims?
  Dawn Primarolo: The pensioners who receive the minimum income guarantee will be transferred automatically. We will write to all pensioners to inform them of their entitlement. There will be a national campaign supported by local partners—people who have regular contact with pensioners. Pension Service centres will run surgeries, including drop-in surgeries. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions, and the shadow Chancellor, whose constituency is next door to my hon. Friend's, to ensure that all pensioners receive the massive increase to which they are entitled under the pension credit.
  Several hon. Members rose
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members are standing, but the question relates to only one constituency.

  Equitable Life
  Norman Lamb: If he will make a statement on Equitable Life. [92741]
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): The Government appreciate the genuine difficulties that many of Equitable Life's current and former customers face.
  The Government recognise the importance of events at Equitable Life. That is why we set up an independent inquiry under Lord Penrose. Our main concern is to ensure that the lessons arising from this situation are learned. That will allow both regulators and the industry to develop the tools that they need to avoid similar incidents in future.
  Norman Lamb: I declare an interest as a former policyholder and apologise for not making that clear on the Order Paper. Is not it outrageous that the Penrose inquiry has started interviewing witnesses only this week? What hope is there for the hundreds of thousands of affected people when we have a dog's dinner of four inquiries? They are being conducted by Penrose, the parliamentary ombudsman, the financial ombudsman service and the complaints commissioner for the

  427
  Financial Services Authority. What are the Government doing to co-ordinate that to provide some hope of an outcome for all those affected?
  Ruth Kelly: I must correct the hon. Gentleman's understanding. One full independent judicial inquiry is being conducted into Equitable Life. The other inquiries to which he refers result from independent decisions made elsewhere. They are of interest but not direct concern to the Government. The Penrose inquiry covers 50 years and examines not only the regulator's actions but those of Equitable Life. Lord Penrose made it clear that he is keen to proceed as quickly as possible, consistent with providing a thorough and authoritative account of the relevant period.
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: I welcome the fact that the inquiry is under way, as will many people, but does my hon. Friend understand the anger and frustration felt by many of the policyholders at the fact that the market value adjusters that have been put on, taken off—with assurances that nothing further would happen—then put back on again, stems from the decision of the chairman and the chief executive to say to the public and to their policyholders that the funds would sustain their profitability in the long term even though there were no new policyholder entrants? Does she agree that that was a fundamental error in their assessment of how to take the company forward?
  Ruth Kelly: I certainly understand and sympathise with the distress felt by the policyholders at Equitable Life. The company has made it clear that it considers itself to be solvent, but it has also pointed out to its policyholders and the regulators that there are fundamental uncertainties associated with its accounts. I believe that policyholders recognise, particularly in the light of the difficulties and uncertainties reflected in the global stock market at the moment, that they are not alone in experiencing either exit penalties or cuts in bonus payments. Of course, that does not make it easier for them, but at least it puts the matter into some sort of context.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury): It is not sympathy that the Equitable Life policyholders and those with annuities want, it is action. On 12 December, the Minister told the House that Lord Penrose had
  "begun a programme of witness interviews."—[Official Report, 12 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 388.]
  Yet, in another place on Tuesday, Lord McIntosh said:
  "The inquiry started to interview individual witnesses only yesterday."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 January 2003; Vol. 643, c. 554.]
  Those answers cannot both be right. Which Minister misled which House?
  Ruth Kelly: The conduct of the inquiry is clearly a matter for Lord Penrose himself. When I made the comments to which the hon. Gentleman refers, that was the information that Lord Penrose had made available to the Treasury. It is clearly an independent inquiry, and
  428
  I think that policyholders expect a thorough, independent inquiry to be carried out and that all the lessons that can be learned are indeed learned.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: This involves not only the Financial Services Authority, the parliamentary ombudsman and Lord Penrose; it also involves the Exchequer. The policyholders require a sign that action will be taken to defend their interests, that the Treasury is not just waiting for Penrose, and that something is going to be achieved.
  Ruth Kelly: It was clearly an important decision to set up a full, independent judicial inquiry to consider all the circumstances that led to the situation at Equitable Life. Lord Penrose has said that he will not hesitate to allocate blame where blame is necessary. We set up the inquiry to learn all the lessons that we can, so that this situation does not recur. Action is being taken and it will be seen to be taken.

  Oil Supplies
  Norman Baker (Lewes): What recent assessment he has carried out to establish the correlation between the cost of oil supplies and the performance of the British economy. [92742]
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): In the last five years, Britain has had to cope with an oil price that has ranged from $10 to $35 per barrel. In these circumstances, and given the changing dollar exchange rates, it is all the more important for the growth of the British economy to hold to a disciplined monetary and fiscal policy. OPEC has said that it seeks an oil price of between $22 and $28 and, following the events in Venezuela, it has recently announced increases in its production target of 1.5 million barrels a day.
  Norman Baker: Given the global increase in oil consumption, and the fact that the supply of this finite resource is set to peak and be exceeded by demand, which will inevitably lead to further price increases, and that oil is disproportionately found in the volatile middle east, is it not important to the long-term economy of this country that the Treasury should have a strategy to reduce our dependency on oil? What is that strategy? It is not working, because renewable energy generated only 3.1 per cent. of our electricity last year, compared with 3.3 per cent. the year before. We must reduce our dependency on oil. What are the Government doing about that?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman must wait for the energy paper, but I disagree with him: we have taken measures in successive Budgets to discourage dependence on one sole fuel. I also disagree with his first premise. The international community must act to increase oil supplies at this point, and that is why OPEC made its decision. The initial problem arose from Venezuela, which produces 3 million barrels of oil a day. Ninety per cent. of production has been withdrawn, and it is right to increase production.

  429
  Iraq is responsible for 2.4 million barrels of oil a day, 1.7 million of which are exported. It is also right for OPEC to ensure that its supply is established for the months to come.
  Miss Anne Begg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while low prices are tempting to motorists, who always want low oil and petrol prices, the British economy—particularly the economy in my area—depends on a relatively high price? If the oil price drops below $8 a barrel, production on the North sea continental shelf shuts down overnight. If the Exchequer is to secure its return from taxation of the oil industry, and if at the same time there is to be a viable oil industry in north-east Scotland and indeed throughout the United Kingdom, the price of oil must be about $20 a barrel, if not slightly more.
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend, along with her fellow Members representing north-east Scotland, campaigns consistently for the oil industry and the contribution it makes to the British economy. We are still an oil exporter as a result of the wealth in the North sea. We want to encourage the future development of fields in the North sea, and we will continue to pursue a policy that gives the oil industry huge incentives to develop future fields and the new production that is available from the North sea. Obviously we must balance the need to keep the price low to help the growth of the domestic economy with our needs as an oil producer.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: Did the Chancellor see yesterday's disastrous figures showing that the number of firms operating below capacity is at a 20-year low? Is that due to oil price increases, or does the Chancellor agree with the Confederation of British Industry, which says that it is almost entirely due to a huge increase in red tape and bureaucracy, which is stifling enterprise?
  Mr. Brown: I know it is the hon. Gentleman's policy and that of the shadow Chancellor to suggest that Britain is somehow in recession. The fact is that America has been in recession, Japan has been in recession and Germany has been in recession, while the British economy is growing. The hon. Gentleman should be congratulating us.

  Development Aid
  Mrs. Betty Williams (Conwy): What discussions he has had with (a) Churches and (b) other faith groups about his proposals for increasing development aid to the poorest countries. [92743]
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Meetings to consult on our proposed international finance facility have been held with the major non-governmental organisations. After private discussion with faith leaders, we will put our proposals on additional aid for investment—an increase from $50 billion to $100 billion a year—to a joint seminar with
  430
  faith groups at No. 11 Downing street. I wish to thank Churches and other faith groups for their continued support for such an initiative.
  Mrs. Williams: I welcome the initiative launched yesterday at Chatham house. Members and friends of Penuel chapel in Bangor, and other organisations in my constituency, will also welcome it.
  Does my right hon. Friend accept that the millennium development goals are very ambitious? Does he agree that if they are to be achieved we must build a strong coalition at local, national and international level?
  Mr. Brown: As I said yesterday in the speech that I was privileged to make at Chatham house to a conference on these issues, it is important for a coalition to develop between business, Governments, international organisations, and faith groups and Churches, as well as the NGOs. We are arranging a series of meetings to inform people nationally and locally. Today we are publishing a programme for the international finance facility, which will be sent to all Members of Parliament. I hope that they will be able to inform faith groups and NGOs in their constituencies of what we propose. As I said earlier, I hope that there can be all-party support for the initiative.
  Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): In rightly seeking to provide further aid for those who need it most, the Government have specified the importance of streamlining conditionality and enabling greater ownership among emerging markets and developing countries. What did the Chancellor mean by that, what has he done, and what does he intend to do?
  Mr. Brown: The whole point of replacing what was called the structural adjustment facility of the International Monetary Fund—which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, was very unpopular with developing countries—with what are called poverty strategy reduction reports is that there is both country and community ownership of the poverty strategies. There is a requirement to consult civil society before the reports are produced. It is conditional on the production of programmes to tackle health and education problems and poverty that grant aid is disbursed by international organisations. Conditionality is now being built into the way in which the World Bank and the IMF view the position, but there is also conditionality in relation to genuine measures to tackle the problems of poverty. The IMF and the World Bank are working closely on that.
  Helen Jones: During his discussions, has the Chancellor had any discussions with faith groups on building links with their sister organisations in other countries, particularly in the United States, to urge them to support the millennium development goals? Can he report any progress on urging the United States Government to increase their contribution to development aid and to recognise that to make the world a safer place, there must be a war on poverty as well as a war on terrorism?
  Mr. Brown: I agree that a world disfigured by poverty can be neither just nor stable. I think that there is general agreement that action must be taken to deal with

  431
  poverty. What the United States has done is pledge $5 billion extra aid by 2006. What we are doing is talking not only to the United States Administration but to NGOs and other groups in the United States. I believe that there is to be a joint conference between British and American Churches on aspects of that proposal.
  Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): Meaningless verbiage.
  Mr. Brown: From a sedentary position, the shadow Leader of the House says that what we were saying on those things was meaningless. I hope that he will withdraw that allegation.
  Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden): Will the Chancellor take it from someone who spent some years of his life working on development programmes in underdeveloped countries that what the developing countries most need is free access to developed countries' markets, not least in agricultural products, for which the Churches are rightly campaigning? What they do not need is for us to export policies that we now reject in this country, namely, subsidising and protecting our industries. If we recognise that they will not work here, should we not be so demeaning of the underdeveloped countries to suggest that they might work there?
  Mr. Brown: It is the opening up of trade and of opportunities for investment that, combined with the programme for aid, will help the developing countries most. The two things must go together. If the developing countries are prepared to open up to trade and to allow private investment to play its role in the development of their countries, we must in turn support them with rises in our aid budgets and with the new international finance facility. The two must go together. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will support the European Union's anything but arms initiative to open up trade for developing countries, so that we get rid of the agricultural protectionism that has been such a problem. I hope also that he will support what must be the other side of the bargain: the increased resources, so that children can go to school, ill health among babies and mothers can be removed, and poverty can be halved at least.

  Industrial and Provident Society Legislation
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: What plans he has to reform industrial and provident society legislation; and if he will make a statement. [92744]
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): The strategy unit has conducted a review of the legal forms available to social enterprises, including industrial and provident societies. The report made recommendations to improve the current legal framework, which have been the subject of a public consultation. We are currently examining responses received and considering options for taking forward the recommendations.
  Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply and for the way in which she has engaged with the
  432
  issue of industrial and provident society reform over the past 18 months, but does she recognise that there remain significant unnecessary differences between the accounting requirements and the insolvency and business rescue requirements of industrial and provident societies and companies? Will she consider what further opportunities there are to make the necessary corrections to those regimes?
  Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes important points in respect of industrial and provident society legislation. It is the Government's intention to update that legislation in line, for example, with company law when company law is reformed. It is also important that he drew attention to administration procedures during the recent passage of the Enterprise Bill and secured an enabling clause that will allow us to make the changes that he proposes. We are considering what our priorities for the sector should be and hope to make progress.

  Child Tax Credit
  Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge): What representations he has received about the child tax credit. [92745]
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): Since first announcing the development of the child tax credit and working tax credit in Budget 2000, we have received a large number of representations on all aspects of the system from a wide range of interest groups. We are grateful for the contributions to that process, which assisted in the design of the new tax credits. The Inland Revenue and the Treasury continue to consult informally on a range of tax credit issues, including the child tax credit.
  Mrs. Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the new tax credit will mean a welcome and generous increase in family finances? Will she also confirm that it will be paid to the main carer, who is usually the woman, and that that may lead to quite a sharp reduction in some men's pay packets?
  Dawn Primarolo: I can confirm that, for recipients of working families tax credit who will also receive the child tax credit, the average increase could be of as much as £12 a week. I can also confirm that the payment will go directly to the main carer—normally the mother—and that that will result in a transfer of moneys from the father to the mother in April of this year. That is in line with the views of most men. According to a recent poll, 64 per cent. of men said that they believed that support should go to the mother, and 70 per cent. believed that the mother was most likely to spend the money on the children. When the transfer occurs in April and mothers receive the money for the first time, I hope that all hon. Members will remember those poll figures, and celebrate the importance of spending money on children.
  Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere): The Paymaster General and the Government constantly rename and reconfigure the tax credits, but will they bear in mind the

  433
  importance of take-up? For example, what has been the take up, proportionately, of the baby tax credit introduced in April last year?
  Dawn Primarolo: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman will support the Government in ensuring that his constituents receive all the money to which they are entitled. I am grateful to hear that he is so concerned to ensure that that take-up takes place. I can confirm that the current tax credits have received a higher take-up than any of the family credit obligations under the previous Conservative Government. Some 800,000 people receive family credit, and 1.3 million people already receive working families tax credit. Millions more will receive the tax credit. We must ensure that they all enjoy the support of the House, and of the hon. Gentleman.

  Government Resources (North-east)
  Vera Baird (Redcar): What plans he has to further increase Government resources going into the north-eastern region. [92746]
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): Details of regional distributions of historic Government spending are published annually in the public expenditure statistical analyses. The Government's spending plans for 2003–04 to 2005–06 were set out in the White Paper published last July following the 2002 spending review. This will result in an increase in Government resources going to the north-east region.
  Vera Baird: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, but he will appreciate that, despite the considerable efforts that the Government have made and continue to make, the north-east remains firmly at the bottom of almost every national economic league. Is not it time to kick start our region's economy by relocating at least one Government agency or Department away from overheated London and up to our lovely region? That would be very welcome in Redcar.
  Mr. Boateng: My hon. and learned Friend makes a good point, and I am sure that those with direct
  434
  responsibility for the location of Government offices will hear what she says on behalf of her constituents. She will welcome the fact that we are taking action to reduce imbalances between and within regions, especially in respect of her region. We have given the regional development agencies increased funding and flexibility. There has been an indicative allocation rise for her own RDA, from £227 million in this year, to £240 million in 2005–06. That will help to address the problem that she has rightly
  pointed out.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: The Chief Secretary will be aware that Teesside airport in the north-east region does not enjoy a direct rail link. Would the Government prefer the limited amounts of public funds available to be put into establishing a rail link to an existing airport, such as Teesside, or would they prefer a completely new airport to be constructed at Finningley?
  Mr. Boateng: The hon. Lady makes an important and serious point, which will no doubt be considered by the responsible Department. I have no doubt that the Department of Transport will take into account what she says.
  What is interesting, however, is that this is a call for yet more public spending from a party that purports to be committed to reducing public expenditure. It cannot have it both ways. Simply to say that it is a saving is to fall into the same trap as the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) fell into. He landed his party with a commitment to cut 20 per cent of—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Cousins.
  Mr. Cousins: For over 100 years Scotland and Wales have had special arrangements reflecting their special needs—and quite right too—and the ability to make local national priorities within those allocations of things that the people of those areas thought it was right to focus upon. When can the north-east region expect to have the same arrangements?
  Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend makes a serious point that reflects his own passion for regional government. He will have welcomed the announcements made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in that regard.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: May I ask the Leader of the House please to give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 27 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Electricity (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Bill. Followed by a motion to establish a Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department.
TUESDAY 28 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Railways and Transport Safety Bill.
WEDNESDAY 29 JANUARY—Motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 30 JANUARY—Opposition Day [4th]. There will be a half-day debate on humanitarian contingency for Iraq on an Opposition motion.
FRIDAY 31 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the week after will be:
MONDAY 3 FEBRUARY Remaining stages of the European Parliament (Representations) Bill.
TUESDAY 4 FEBRUARY—Consideration of the First Report Session 2002–03 (HC 171) from the Joint Committee on House of Lords reform.
WEDNESDAY 5 FEBRUARY—Motion on the Police Grant report (England and Wales) 2003/2004.
Motions on the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2003/2004 and the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2001/2002: Amending Report 2003.
THURSDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
FRIDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall in February will be:
THURSDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Debate on Southern Africa food crisis.
THURSDAY 13 FEBRUARY—Debate On legal and advice service tackling social exclusion.
THURSDAY 27 FEBRUARY—Debate on the nineteenth Report from the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee, Session 2001–02 on the New Towns; their Problems and Future (HC 603) and the Government Response (CM 461).
On Thursday 16 January, I informed the House that it was planned to hold the next meeting of the Committee on the Convention on the Future of Europe on Wednesday 29 January at 2.30 pm to consider the fifth and sixth reports of the United Kingdom representatives to the Convention. To avoid a clash with a pre-arranged meeting of the Praesidium of the Convention, it is now proposed that the Committee on the Convention on the Future of Europe meet instead on Wednesday 12 February at 2.30 pm.
The information is as follows:

PAC Report 2001–02

Report No.

Title of Report

Publication Date

1st

Managing Risk in Government Depts

23 November 2001

2nd

Improving Construction Performance

5 December 2001

3rd

The Cancellation of the Benefits Payment Card Project

6 December 2001

4th

The Renegotiation of the PFI-type Deal for the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds

12 December 2001

5th

MOD: Major Projects Report 2000

28 November 2001

6th

MOD: Major Projects Report 2000—The Role of the Equipment Capability Customer

28 November 2001

7th

Sale of Part of the UK Gold Reserves

19 December 2001

8th

OFWAT: Leakage and Water Efficiency

4 January 2002

9th

Tackling Obesity in England

16 January 2002

10th

The Acquisition of German Parcel

11 January 2002

11th

OFGAS: Giving Domestic Consumers a Choice of Electricity Supplier

17 January 2002

12th

The Radiocommunications Agency's Joint Venture with CMG

23 January 2002

13th

Regulating Housing Associations' Management of Financial Risk

9 January 2002

14th

The Millennium Dome

1 February 2002

15th

How English Further Education Colleges can Improve Student Performance

7 February 2002

16th

Access to the Victoria and Albert Museum

14 February 2002

17th

MOD: Maximising the Benefits of Defence Equipment Co-operation

15 February

18th

Inland Flood Defence

1 March

19th

Ship Surveys and Inspections

15 March

20th

Educating and Training the Future Health Professional Workforce for England

8 March

21st

Better Value for Money from Professional Services

14 March

22nd

The Channel Tunnel Rail Link

21 March

23rd

Inland Revenue Appropriation Account 1999–2000

22 March

24th

MOD: Risk of Fraud in Property Management

20 March

26th

Better Regulation: Making Good Use of Regulatory Impact Assessments

12 April

27th

Medical Assessment of Incapacity and Disability Benefits

10 April

28th

Better Public Services Through Joint Working

18 April

29th

Non-Competitive Procurement in the Ministry of Defence

19 April

30th

The Auction of Radio Spectrum for the Third Generation of Mobile Phones

26 April

31st

Postcomm: Opening the Post

1 May

437

Report No.

Title of Report

Publication Date

32nd

The Implementation of the National Probation Service Information Systems Strategy

3 May

33rd

Income Tax Self Assessment

9 May

34th

Policy Development: Improving Air Quality

24 May

35th

Losses to the Revenue from Frauds on Alcohol Duty

17 May

36th

Progress on Resource Accounting

19 June

37th

Handling Clinical Negligence Claims in England

13 June

38th

NIRS2: contact extension

7 August

39th

Giving Confidently: The Role of the Charity Commission in Regulating Charities

3 July

40th

NHS Direct in England

10 July

41st

Ministry of Defence: Major Projects Report 2001

4 July

42nd

Managing the relationship to secure a successful partnership} in PFI projects

1 July

43rd

The use of funding competitions in PFI projects: The Treasury Building

17 July

44th

The misuse and smuggling of Hydrocarbon Oils

18 July

45th

Inpatient and Outpatient Waiting in the NHS

18 September

46th

Inappropriate adjustments to NHS Waiting Lists

18 September

47th

The New Landfill Tax Credit Scheme

25 July

48th

Helping to reduce world poverty

31 July

49th

Ensuring that policies deliver value for money

31 July

50th

Pipes and Wires

8 August

51st

Agricultural fraud: the case of Joseph Bowden

22 August

52nd

e-Revenue

29 August

53rd

Reducing prisoner reoffending

5 September

54th

Improving public services through e-services

28 August

55th

Fraud and Error in Income Support

11 September

56th

Ministry of Defence Combat Identification

21 August

57th

The operation and Wind-up of Teesside Development Corporation

14 August

58th

Improving Student achievement and widening participation in higher education in England

12 September

59th

Delivering the commercialisation of the public sector

15 August

60th

Royal Travel by air and rail

4 September

61st

The management of surplus property by trusts in the NHS in England

19 September

62nd

The New Deal for Young People

9 October

63rd

Construction of Portcullis House, the new Parliamentary Building NB Replied to by House of Commons as an HC Paper

24 July

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that statement, and particularly for the news about the Praesidium, which I am sure excited us all hugely.
Today being Thursday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Well spotted"]. I see that I have woken up some hon. Members.
Today being Thursday, we have of course had departmental questions from 11.30 am to 12.30 pm, and now we shall have business questions for however long you deem appropriate, Mr. Speaker. Then a statement is to follow.
By my calculations, that means that for the legislative business before us, a very important Bill to which we are supposed to give our full legislative attention as a House of Commons, we shall have about three and a half hours to consider the seven groups of amendments that you have selected, Mr. Speaker. The arithmeticians among us will readily calculate that that is about 30 minutes per group. That is the amount of time the Government have seen fit to allow the House to do its job of scrutinising legislation—30 minutes for each group of amendments to a Bill for the entire House to give its attention, including all speeches and all consideration. That is the result of the so-called modernisation process, whereby to get Members out of this building as quickly as possible on Thursdays, we are now reduced to that sort of business.
If the Leader of the House will not turn back the clock—that is a bit much to expect at this stage—can we have protected time for our legislative duties? That is all I ask, given that we must have statements from Ministers and so on. Surely, it is more important that we do our job as a legislature than that we all go home early on Thursdays. Therefore, I ask the Leader of the House to give this matter his urgent attention, and I hope that he will give us an undertaking about protected time for legislation.
Yesterday, as reported at column 322 of Hansard, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) pointed out that a written ministerial statement by the Deputy Prime Minister has been sneaked out on the very important subject of reduced right-to-buy discounts—something that affects all Members of Parliament and their constituents—yet, to date, we have no opportunity to question the Deputy Prime Minister. We are left with the written ministerial statement and, so far, nothing else. Is that how we shall conduct our business in future? Is the Deputy Prime Minister afraid of the House? Is he ashamed of what he said in his written ministerial statement?
Why is the Deputy Prime Minister allowed to hide behind the written ministerial statement procedure and not come to the House to say what he wants to do and be questioned by Members of Parliament on behalf of their constituents? That is the missing piece in all this. I do not want to hear the Leader of the House say, "Oh well, written ministerial statements are better than the old planted questions", which were their predecessors. I want him to tell us when the Deputy Prime Minister will come to the House to answer for his policies, instead of hiding behind that sordid little parliamentary device.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that during business questions on 16 January, duly recorded at columns 819 and 820 of Hansard, I raised the matter of the Secretary of State for Defence having somehow allowed to get out

439
into the public domain the matter of Fylingdales on which he was going to make a statement the following day.
On 20 January, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight)—who is in his place beside me—returned to this issue and said with regard to the Secretary of State for Defence that the statement on troop deployment
"was widely trailed in the Sunday newspapers and in today's media. This appears to be a recurring pattern with the current Secretary of State."
As reported in the same column of Hansard, one of your Deputies, Mr. Speaker, said:
"Mr. Speaker is well aware of the matters to which he has referred, and is deeply concerned about them. I understand that he intends to take them up with the Ministers concerned."—[Official Report, 20 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 47.]
That was bad enough, but on 22 January—yesterday—my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) was again obliged to raise a point of order with you, Mr. Speaker, in which he said that
"on the BBC News website, there was a headline saying "University Funding Shake-up Unveiled."
So what the Secretary of State for Education and Skills was going to say in the House was widely known in the media before he came here. You, Mr. Speaker, said:
"I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about this matter. He has written to me; I shall investigate and report back to the House."—[Official Report, 22 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 320.]
The Leader of the House shares with you, Mr. Speaker, a responsibility for guardianship of the role of the House of Commons vis-à-vis Ministers, but we are now witnessing casual, serial disregard of the role of the House by Secretaries of State. I should like to hear from the Leader of the House what is he going to do—along, I hope, with you, Mr. Speaker—to force Secretaries of State to drop that practice, to have proper regard to parliamentary process and to come to the House to allow Members of Parliament to hear matters before the rest of the world hears about them.
Mr. Cook: I think that I can begin by agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman that this is Thursday—everything else is rather more conditional than that.
First, we rise at 6 o'clock on Thursdays because the House voted for that, and I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it did so by the largest majority for any of the propositions on which the House voted on that day. I would totally deprecate any suggestion that Thursday therefore becomes some kind of second-class day; it is a full day of parliamentary time. It is very important to demonstrate to the world that we are taking business on Thursdays in the same way as we do on any other sitting day at Westminster.
On the statement on the right to buy, I cannot but rise to the right hon. Gentleman's claim that this is a sordid device. It is vastly more transparent and open than the system of planted questions that it replaced and which was used extensively by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the 18 years when they were in office. It has always been the case that at times Government statements will be made in written form in Hansard rather than orally from the Dispatch Box. As for yesterday, when the written statement was made, there was a full, major oral statement on higher education in
440
the House. It is simply not possible for me to arrange for every Government statement to be done orally from the Dispatch Box. If it were, I would have the right hon. Gentleman complaining that we did not have enough time to scrutinise legislation properly. I am pleased to inform the right hon. Gentleman that the Deputy Prime Minister answers questions in the House next Wednesday and will be happy to answer questions on the right to buy or any other issue. As a result of the changes and modernisation, which the right hon. Gentleman constantly deprecates, it is now possible for Members, having seen that written statement, to table an oral question on that subject in time for the exchanges next week.
On the issue of press speculation before oral statements in the House, the reports in the press that preceded the statement on troop deployments did not in any way reflect the full nature of the statement. Many were quite wrong. None was accurate about my right hon. Friend's statement. The statement on the BBC website about the forthcoming higher education statement was wildly wrong. I cannot stop the BBC and newspapers speculating about what might be said in Parliament. We live in a free country with a free press. I was gratified when I tuned in to the "Today" programme on the day of the higher education statement to hear it lament that it had been unable to get a Minister to come and comment on the forthcoming statement. I welcome that. It shows that Ministers fully understand the importance of speaking to this House before the media.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I support the request for a debate on the forced sale of rented accommodation at a substantial discount in areas such as the south-west? It has caused untold misery to those seeking affordable housing. It is a proper request and I am delighted that the Conservatives would wish to expose their absurdity in that particular matter.
Will the Leader of the House take the opportunity now or at least before the debate announced for 4 February to reiterate the Government's position on the reform of the House of Lords? I do not know whether in his busy morning he had an opportunity of to read the speech—I suppose it was a speech, but it was actually an extraordinarily bloodcurdling diatribe—from the Lord Chancellor. Yesterday in the other place the Lord Chancellor referred to an imaginary centre of gravity. It is the centre of gravity which the Leader of the House is constantly urging us to reach. On a number of occasions during that extraordinary speech the Lord Chancellor made peculiar references to the issue of hybridity. For example, he referred to
"my mission in this debate to save us from the parliamentary disaster of hybridity."—[Official Report, 22 January 2003; Vol. 643, c. 831W.]
He then made some other references to that. Does the Leader of the House accept that in making this extraordinary statement the Lord Chancellor has not only ignored the mandate of the Labour Party at two successive general elections, but torn up the White Paper to which he put his own name and which advocated hybridity and mixed membership, and ignored the advice of the royal commission set up by the Government, the Public Administration Select Committee of this House and the report of the Joint

441
Committee of both Houses which, in theory at least, his House was debating yesterday as we did on Tuesday? Can the Leader of the House now give us an absolute guarantee that the Members of the other place, who after all have a lot of self-interest in this matter, will not be allowed a veto—that the turkeys will not be allowed to vote against Christmas?
Mr. Cook: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the measures that we are taking to curb abuse of the right to buy—[Interruption.] Abuse is the correct word. Private speculative companies are going round putting up money on an agreement with tenants that they will purchase the houses from them three years subsequently. That is happening, and I would be sorry if any Member of the House, even among the Conservative party, did not recognise that that is an abuse, and one that we are right to try to curb. The hon. Gentleman said that in some areas of acute housing demand, a real crisis of social housing is being created. That is why, in a limited number of target areas, the Deputy Prime Minister has acted. Some of his proposals will require primary legislation, full debate and examination in this House, in the course of which the hon. Gentleman will have other opportunities to make those excellent points, with which we fully agree.
I have not, as yet, studied fully the Lord Chancellor's speech so I cannot therefore say whether it is a bloodcurdling diatribe. On the whole, however, bloodcurdling diatribes are better studied in the hours of darkness than in the morning. On the question of the centre of gravity, I stress to the House that it is important that all of us—this is not just a matter for me, the Lord Chancellor or the Government—try to identify our centre of gravity on 4 February. That will require Members to show some flexibility, not necessarily insisting on their first and best priority, but finding common ground with others on where the best compromise can be found with the largest support for reform of the second Chamber. I would be surprised if that compromise did not require some form of mixed membership. A year ago, the Government committed themselves to mixed membership of the upper House when we proposed 20 per cent. elected and 80 per cent. appointed. It is not my impression that that White Paper was unpopular because it proposed 20 per cent. elected members; the difficulty with public opinion was in relation to the 80 per cent. appointed. I am doubtful about whether we will remove those anxieties on the part of public opinion by going for 100 per cent. appointed.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley): Will my right hon. Friend allow a debate on the reopening of the custody suite at Chorley? It seems absurd that a population of 100,000—a constituency of 80 square miles—does not have lock-up facilities for the police, and that prisoners must be taken to Skelmersdale, which is way outside the constituency. That takes much-needed police off the streets: two policemen are required when someone is arrested.
Mr. Cook: I fully understand the anxiety of my hon. Friend, which he expresses forcefully, on behalf of his
442
constituents. In the first instance, as he will appreciate, this is a matter for the local police authorities, not for me, and it would be wrong for the Government to insist on the precise location of police cells. I am sure that his request will be well reported in his locality and will be heard.
Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell): Inevitably, the Foreign Secretary's mind is on the fight against terrorism and the situation in Iraq. Can I urge, however, that he does not take his eye off Zimbabwe? Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Foreign Office Minister to come to the Dispatch Box next week? First, can the House be assured that we will veto Mugabe's visit to Paris, apparently on President Chirac's extremely unwise invitation? Secondly, can we have a fuller response than the one that we received in Westminster Hall, when Ministers said that they were sympathetic to tougher and tighter smart sanctions against the regime, including against business men who are funding that regime?
Mr. Cook: First, I say to the hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Right hon. Gentleman."] I stand corrected. May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I fully share his view on the importance of upholding the ban on travel by Mugabe and his associates? Currently, 79 of them are named in the EU ban, and it is important that that ban is upheld and observed by all 15 countries that voted for it, including France. In Monday's meeting of the General Affairs Council, I understand that there will be a debate on taking forward the extension of that ban, which will expire next month unless such a decision is taken. Britain will of course seek to make sure that that ban is extended, and I want that ban to be upheld fully by all member states of the European Union. We will continue to review what sanctions we can take against Zimbabwe that will bring home to the regime our total condemnation of the way in which it is behaving and our particular abhorrence of the way in which it is interfering, with political motivation, in the distribution of food. No civilised person could possibly uphold the idea that food should be denied to people because of the way in which they had voted in the past. We are, of course, also very sensitive to the fact that any decision that we take must not increase the hardship and suffering of the people of Zimbabwe. We want to show that Britain is on their side. Our enemy is not the people of Zimbabwe; our concern is the regime in Zimbabwe.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling): May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and all those involved in the decision on the fact that, today and for the first time, there will be a cross-departmental question time in Westminster Hall on youth policy? When he considers the future business for Westminster Hall, may I urge him to learn from this example and to consider whether we can hold many more of this type of question time?
Mr. Cook: I am very glad that we are holding the innovative cross-cutting question session. That is one of the products of the modernisation agenda that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) keeps condemning. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his part in pressing for this. I very much hope that hon. Members will take part in the session in the spirit in

443
which it is offered. It will provide an opportunity for an informal, reflective exchange of views that can take place not necessarily with the party-political heat that is associated with this Chamber. I am conscious of the fact that the debate will be watched by much of the youth press and by many young people to see how seriously Parliament takes political issues and the political views of young people. If it is a success, as I hope that it will be, we will certainly look for opportunities to repeat this experiment in Westminster Hall.
Sir George Young: To return to the debate that the Leader of the House has announced for 4 February—the second leg of the two-day debate on House of Lords reform—he will recall that, in his important contribution to the debate on Tuesday, he repeatedly referred to the Labour manifesto that committed the party to a more democratic upper House. Against that background, can he give the House an unequivocal assurance that there can be no question of the Prime Minister voting for a wholly appointed second Chamber?
Mr. Cook: I would not seek to give an assurance on behalf of any Member of the House. Seven options will be before the House and any Member is open to vote for any of those seven options. I have made my position clear from the Dispatch Box, and I will do so again on 4 February. There is no collective Government view on the matter, and I would deprecate any attempts to read into the expression of view of any one member of the Government a collective view on behalf of everybody else.
Mr. Tom Watson: After yesterday's statement on higher education, will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on student funding? Many Labour Members seek reassurance from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills that his proposals to allow vice-chancellors to charge differing fees will not mean that kids from the poorest backgrounds will be priced out of going to the best universities.
Mr. Cook: I fully understand that there is great interest in the House in yesterday's statement. I am sure that we will have a number of other opportunities to reflect on and explore its proposals. I invite my hon. Friend to give credit to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for those elements of the proposals that will particularly assist children who come from the socio-economic groups that are under-represented at university. First, pressure will be applied to make sure that all universities take seriously their obligations to ensure that they offer fair access and seek to open their doors to people who may not have traditionally gone to them. Secondly, the abolition of upfront fees will be a material consideration to students from poorer backgrounds. Perhaps most important of all, the reintroduction of maintenance grants will apply to the students that my hon. Friend mentioned. That means that 30 per cent. of all students will receive a maintenance grant of £1,000. At present, they do not get it, and it will make quite a difference to a number of students who are considering whether they can afford full-time education at university.
Richard Younger-Ross (Teignbridge): May we add our congratulations to the Leader of the House on the
444
decision to hold a cross-cutting debate on youth policy? I am sure that it will be a success. What other subjects is he considering for future debates? Will it be possible to hold questions on vocational education? I ask that, because he might not be aware that agricultural courses are being cut across the country. In my constituency, we have the proposed closure of Seale Hayne college, and it would be helpful if Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and from the Department for Education and Skills could come along to discuss access to agricultural education.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman makes his constituency point elegantly. I am not sure that it quite adds up to a case for a cross-cutting question session in Westminster Hall. However, I am sure that he will find other opportunities to pursue the matter.
On the hon. Gentleman's question about process, I welcome his support for the innovation that is taking place in Westminster Hall. We will look for other subjects of a broad cross-cutting character that might provide a parallel to the current experiment on youth questions. We will, of course, have to discuss the matter with the Chairman of Ways and Means and seek his agreement. We will carry forward the dialogue in the light of today's question session.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington): My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is almost a feeding frenzy in the City over the sale of Safeway. That has important ramifications for employment in west London where up to 1,300 jobs are at risk, with 2,000 to 3,000 jobs being at risk around the country. That could result in a near monopoly situation in the retail sector. Can we have an urgent debate on this matter in the coming week, so that we can examine the powers that the Government have to intervene in this matter?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend draws attention to the many bids that are in for Safeway. I fully understand his constituents' apprehension about what that might mean in terms of employment in his region. We have well-developed mechanisms to maintain competition policy, and the Government have acted to make sure that we streamline and strengthen the requirements of competition policy. Any bid will have to be assessed through those mechanisms in the normal way. I certainly assure him that Ministers will be conscious of the consequences for employment of any such bid. Should there be significant consequences, we will want to look to how we can help any affected area in the way that we have repeatedly done wherever there have been employment consequences before.
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch): The week after next, we are due to debate the local authority grant settlement. Can the Leader of the House tell us when the final settlement will be announced? At the moment, representations are being made about how unfair the provisional grant is to Dorset in particular, and I would be interested to know when we will hear whether the Government have taken into account the representations that have been made. When will the people of Christchurch, who have been singled out in the whole west country by being effectively deprived of their

445
right to buy, have the chance through their elected representative to make representations to the Government on this important issue?
Mr. Cook: The debate on the local government settlement takes place not next week, but the week after. I fully understand the importance of all hon. Members seeing the final settlement well in advance of the debate, and I will make sure that that point is conveyed to the Department.
On the other point that the hon. Gentleman raises, the written statement made it clear that some of the issues will be taken forward by order and that others will have to wait for primary legislation. Either way will give hon. Members the chance to make what representations they wish. In the event that Conservative Members wish to make representations against the steps that we are taking and to do so on behalf of those who are speculating unreasonably and abusing the system and to maintain the situation in which there is excessive pressure on social housing in their constituencies, I am sure that not only we will wish to hear that. Many of their constituents will wish to hear it, too.
Mike Gapes: May we have an early debate on the role of political parties in helping the vulnerable? In particular, can my right hon. Friend arrange that all Members of Parliament from the borough of Redbridge are able to take part in such a debate? We would then be able to discuss the closure of the mental health day care centre in my constituency by the Conservative council in the London borough of Redbridge where the Leader of the Opposition is, of course, a Member of Parliament.
Mr. Cook: I am tempted to respond to my hon. Friend's proposal so that all of us can hear more fully of the difficulties of living with a Conservative council and about the priorities of those councils, which are not necessarily helpful to the vulnerable in the community. I recall that, last year, the Leader of the Opposition urged all Conservative Members to spend a week with the vulnerable in their constituencies. It is a matter of regret that, my opposite number, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, has not yet reported to us on his week with the vulnerable in Bromley. We might invite him to reflect on that and to report more adequately next Thursday when we meet again.
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): Will my right hon. Friend give more consideration to persuading Ministers to allow more notice to be given of the Committees considering statutory instruments and delegated legislation? At present, we have minimal notice and people are put on the Committees even though they do not want to serve and know nothing about the subject. However, there are also Statutory Instruments Committees for which we would like to volunteer because we are interested in the subject. It is not beyond the capacity of man to organise a system that provides a longer running time for such Committees. That would help to make the Committees meaningful rather than the charade that they are. That is particularly true for Northern Ireland matters where whole Acts of
446
Parliament are considered in Statutory Instrument Committees. Finally, the Northern Ireland Grand Committee is due to meet. What will be its business?
Mr. Cook: On the period of notice, I am advised by the Deputy Chief Whip that that has been doubled from the traditional one week to two weeks for Statutory Instrument Committees. That should help hon. Members. Indeed, it is unusual for us to have more than two weeks' notice of forthcoming business.
On Northern Ireland Orders, we are conscious of the problem for the House, and the particular problem for those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies, of trying to replicate the system of consideration that was available when the Northern Ireland Assembly was in being. We are frank about the fact that we cannot do that in full, but we are considering ways in which the Northern Ireland Grand Committee could be strengthened and whether there are other ways to handle the problem.
Andrew Mackinlay: What business is planned for the Northern Ireland Grand Committee?
Mr. Cook: When I have the details, I will ensure that my hon. Friend is advised of them.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): The Leader of the House is concerned about whether this country, together with the United States, enters into a conflict in Iraq. He knows that all hon. Members are also increasingly concerned about it and interested in it, as are the people of this country. Despite the Government's right to use the royal prerogative, is not it possible for the House to have the opportunity to debate Iraq and whether we should enter into a conflict with it on a substantive motion so that our people, especially the forces that will be committed, know that our troops have the full support of the House and the people of this country in the event of war?
Mr. Cook: As I have said a number of times, it is inconceivable that any Government would commit British forces to action without the full support of the House of Commons. No Government would commit forces to military action in the event of any doubt about that support.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have repeatedly said that we have no problem with a vote on a substantive motion on the commitment of forces. We would welcome that and would arrange it. However, we have a responsibility to the military forces on the precise timing of that. If it can be done in advance, then good and well, but there are obvious inhibitions on introducing a motion that commits British forces to a secret attack at 2 am next Thursday. We must have some flexibility on when the vote may take place. There is no doubt in our minds, and there can be none in the mind of any hon. Member, that action involving military forces must be taken with the support of the House.
Mr. Roy Beggs: May I bring to the attention of the Leader of the House early-day motion 558?
[That this House remembers with deep sadness the Omagh bombing of 15th August 1998 in which 31 people, including seven children and two unborn babies, were

447
murdered by the Real IRA; commends the courage of the families of the victims of this bombing in launching an unprecedented civil legal case against five named individuals, suspected of planting the bomb, and the Real IRA; urges the public to continue to contribute to the Omagh Victims' Legal Trust which still requires money to fund the case, expected to be heard in Belfast High Court later this year; and condemns the decision to grant legal aid to two of the suspects, Michael McKevitt and Liam Campbell, who are both known to be very wealthy men as a result of their lifelong involvement in terrorist activity.]
According to the Daily Mail, two suspects for the Omagh bombing, Michael McKevitt and Liam Campbell, believed to be prominent leaders of the Real IRA and who have become wealthy men through terrorist crime, are to be granted legal aid paid for by British taxpayers. The early-day motion condemns that. It is outrageous that legal aid should be provided for those suspected of being responsible for the murder of 29 people and two unborn children when private finance has to be raised to support the victims of that crime who can get justice only through an unprecedented civil action. Can time be made available to consider whether the legal aid regulations require amendment so that suspects and victims are treated equally under the law?
Mr. Cook: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and I am grateful to him for giving me advance notice of his question. I think all hon. Members will agree that, as a matter of principle, anyone who is brought before our courts and charged with a serious offence, such as murder, should be defended. That is an important principle of our criminal justice system. In the event that they cannot afford the defence themselves, it is right also that that should be made available to them at the expense of the state.
The hon. Gentleman says that the two accused people are wealthy. If the Daily Mail or anyone else has evidence that they may not have made a full declaration of their assets to the Legal Aid Board, I urge them to share that with the police and the Legal Aid Board. A false declaration not only cheats the legal aid system, but is a criminal offence.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough): On Tuesday, I mistakenly criticized your office, Mr. Speaker. I also made another error at column 258 when I wrongly claimed that Lord Lipsey had changed his view on the composition of the House of Lords, for which I apologise. I have also written to him to apologise. Will the Leader of the House allow me an apportunity to set the record straight by confirming that the noble Lord has not changed his unfortunately mistaken views following his elevation to another place?
Mr. Cook rose—
Andrew Mackinlay: Say, "I agree. I concur with my hon. Friend."
Mr. Cook: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his prompt. He will forgive me if I do instandly reach out for it.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) has had the opportunity to put right the record on Lord Lipsey's views. I am sure that
448
he will be appropriately grateful to her for that. I doubt whether her exchange with him has changed either his views or her own. Going through the debate of the past two days, however, I was encouraged to note that about one in three of those who spoke in the other place expressed some support for an elected element within the second Chamber. That is substantial progress on the position a year ago. Although Lord Lipsey may not have changed his views, I am encouraged that there is a certain tide—or at any rate a gentle breeze—in the second place which we must try to encourage.
Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh): Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on job losses, because it would give me an opportunity to highlight the unfortunate decision announced by Powergen this week to make 210 of my constituents redundant at the facility in London road, Rayleigh? I am sure that he will appreciate that I am extremely concerned about that decision and am keen to do what I can to protect my constituents' interests, including by raising the matter in the House.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to express the concerns of his constituency and community at that loss of jobs. I assure him that, as always, Departments will be willing to consider what might be appropriate by way of assistance to his community to cope with the consequences of a localised redundancy of that order. We are well aware of the difficulty that individuals and communities face as a result of job losses, but we take some pride in the fact that since we have been in office, 1.5 million more people are in work than there were at the time of the 1997 general election, 250,000 of whom came into work in the past year alone.
Ms Diane Abbott: I thank my right hon. Friend for making time for a debate on defence yesterday, when many of my hon. Friends and colleagues made a series of excellent speeches against a war with Iraq.
The hon. Member for Congleton—
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Macclesfield.
Ms Abbott: I apologise.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir N. Winterton) said that it is important to have a vote in the House on a substantive motion. It is also important that that should take place before British troops are dispatched to war. The House is aware that there is no precedent for
that in recent times, but it is highly unlikely that the tens of thousands of American and British troops massed on Iraq's borders will attack in secret, as my right hon. Friend suggested. The country does not understand why it is possible to dispatch British troops in such a major deployment without a vote in the House on a substantive motion before it happens.
Mr. Cook: First, my hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that the House had an interesting debate yesterday in which the issues were again fully ventilated. That was one of a number of debates in the House on the subject, including one before Christmas when the Government put a substantive motion before it. At that time, the House massively endorsed our approach to

449
ensure that we conduct the management of the crisis in Iraq through the United Nations, to which it also gave its full support.
I have no doubt that the House will discuss the issue on a number of other occasions. Indeed, this Administration was punctilious in ensuring that it had many opportunities to discuss issues that affected the deployment of British troops in Afghanistan and Kosovo. We will certainly do the same in relation to Iraq. Whether the vote on the commitment of military troops will take place before or after they are put into action will be judged at the time, but there can be no question whatsoever of the British Government committing British troops if there is any doubt about us securing support for that within the House of Commons.
It is important that we remember also that the matter may not necessarily end with the commitment of military troops. The strategy for which we voted involved ensuring that we uphold the UN resolution. If we can secure the compliance and co-operation of Saddam, there will be no need for the UN to authorise military action to uphold that resolution. The key to making progress and avoiding war rests not in this Chamber, but with Saddam Hussein in complying with his obligations under the resolution.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): May we please have an urgent debate in Government time on the effect of prison overcrowding on rehabilitation programmes for persistent offenders? Given that the prison population is projected to rise from approximately 72,000 now to 109,000 by 2009, that purposeful activity in prisons has consistently declined since this Government took office in 1997. and that 84 per cent. of 14 to 17-year-old thrice-convicted offenders are reconvicted within two years of their release from custody, is not it important that this House has the opportunity to debate the centrality to public policy of rehabilitation programmes if we are to create a peaceful society and the law and order for which all democratically elected legislators rightly pray?
Mr. Cook: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about overcrowding in prisons; it is shared on both sides of the House. I also absolutely agree with him that arranging creative and constructive activities to assist rehabilitation in prisons is more difficult when wardens are stretched and there is stress as a result of overcrowding. We are certainly considering ways to ease that overcrowding. Indeed, 3,000 new prison places will come on stream over the next year.
Having said that, I must say to the hon. Gentleman, who often takes a courageous and bold idiosyncratic stance—
Mr. Forth: And wrong.
Mr. Cook: One can see the amount of courage the hon. Gentleman requires by the support he gets from his Front Benchers. I shall try to give him more support than he gets from his right hon. and hon. Friends. It would help us to minimise the threat of overcrowding in
450
prisons if we were not urged so often by Conservative Members to lock up even more people, and criticised by them when we do not do so.
John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland): My right hon. Friend will be aware of the job losses announced by BAE Systems earlier this week: 265 on the Clyde and 700 in Barrow. Despite the work of the unions, Scottish Enterprise, Glasgow city council, the Scottish Parliament and the elected representatives of the area, and an agreement struck last year to secure the present employment level, here we are again. Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on the losses and the company's conduct towards its employees?
Mr. Cook: As a fellow Scottish MP, I fully understand the enormous impact that that will have on my hon. Friend's community and on the wider region. I entirely share his concern. It is indeed a matter of deep regret that a commitment made last year has not been kept by the company. He will be well aware that we will be working with the Scottish Executive to consider whether there is any way in which we can be of assistance to the local community and to those most intimately affected.
Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton): Will the Leader of the House arrange either for a Home Office statement or for a substantive written explanation to be put in the House of Commons Library concerning the Prime Minister's answer yesterday to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who asked about drug crime in areas outside inner cities—the suburbs and the wider country? The Prime Minister said:
"we are ensuring that people who need drug treatment are given it".—[Official Report, 22 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 296.]
I must inform the Leader of the House that the police recently told me that the waiting list for such treatment in Devon is more than 52 weeks. It would therefore enlighten the House to hear in more detail exactly what the Prime Minister meant in making that pledge yesterday.
Mr. Cook: I am delighted to assure the House and clarify that this Government have greatly increased the amount of funds going into the kind of drug treatment to which the hon. Lady referred. Indeed, recalling from memory, I believe that we are increasing the total volume by 50 per cent. There is of course pressure on the provision of residential treatment in particular. We are looking at how we can widen treatment, possibly by the use of alternatives to residential treatment. However, we have provided substantial additional resources and I have no doubt that we will continue to do so.
I was asked earlier about the business of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. I am delighted to be able to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay).
Andrew Mackinlay: I have some clout!
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend should never underestimate his clout, which is quite considerable and taken very seriously on these Benches.
I am advised that yesterday a decision was reached to have two sittings of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. On 4 February, it will sit at 2.30 pm to

451
discuss the Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, and on 6 February it will meet to discuss the Budget (Northern Ireland) Order 2003.
Pete Wishart: Can we have an early and urgent statement by the Foreign Secretary, so that he can explain to the Scottish fishing community why his Department blocked any prospect of European Union compensation, seemingly to ensure that the British EU rebate would be secured? In that statement, would he describe the benefit to Scotland of being represented by a United Kingdom delegation, which has sold out not only the Scottish fishing industry but any prospect of EU compensation?
Mr. Cook: I rise wearily for the umpteenth time to try to explain to the hon. Gentleman, who represents the Scottish National party, the reality of the fishing industry: there will be no fishing industry if there are no fish.
Mr. Ken Purchase: What a surprise.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is surprised by that, but I find that I am repeatedly obliged to make that point from this Dispatch Box.
It is as a result of that UK delegation that the degree of reduction was brought down from 80 per cent. to 45 per cent. Although, of course, I fully understand that the fishing community would have liked a further cut in the reduction, that would have been inconsistent with ensuring that cod stocks survive. I do not believe that that cut would have been secured by a delegation that did not have the clout of the combined United Kingdom behind it.
On the issue of compensation, the hon. Gentleman should
not deceive his own people. He knows perfectly well that the British Government and the Scottish
452
Executive are considering ways in which they can increase support for the fishing communities. Several millions of pounds have already gone their way over the past few years in order to compensate for the pressure on the fishing industry. There will be more coming. It is important, though, that we ensure that maximum added value is provided and that we do not end up with a formula by which that added value is then reduced by the rebate.
Mr. Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead): Given that the Royal College of Surgeons has suggested that there should be one accident and emergency unit for every 500,000 people; that that is regarded as having considerable weight by strategic health authorities all over the country; that that threatens A and E facilities from Northern Ireland to the Isle of Wight, including—particularly as far as I am concerned—hospitals in Hertfordshire; and given that the Government have things called diagnostic and treatment centres, which seem to be a booby prize when one's A and E is shut, will my right hon. Friend agree to have an early debate on such units in our health service?
Mr. Cook: I am not sure that a debate is required, as my hon. Friend has amply and fully made his point. There is a familiar and well-known dilemma in A and E provision—specialists in the field are clearly of the view and have some weight and evidence behind them—that the more specialised the centre, the better the chance of successful intervention. The more specialised centres will of course tend to be found in areas that have the largest populations to serve. At the same time, we must balance that with ensuring fair access to A and E facilities, which is not always consistent with locating them near very large populations. Any judgment on those two aspects is a difficult one to make. It is probably not best made at the centre but by each local health board. I very much hope that both issues will be weighed carefully in order to reach the right outcome.

Excise Diversion Fraud
1.19 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on this week's Court of Appeal case, known as Stockade, arising from investigations into the Fort Patrick bonded warehouse in 1996–97. Stockade is linked to the London City Bond—LCB—cases, which were investigated by Customs and Excise from 1995 onwards. I wish to inform the House of the actions that the Government have taken to deal with this series of frauds when organised criminal gangs took advantage of weaknesses in the Excise regime.
I can confirm to the House that since 1997 we have tightened Excise controls and made fundamental changes to the management of Customs cases. I can report that the independent inquiry that the Attorney-General and I jointly established in November, which anticipates the implications of LCB for cases like Stockade, is already under way. In 1998, we tightened the regulation of Excise warehouses to tackle the specific loopholes that the criminals were using in the Stockade and LCB frauds, but fraudsters and smugglers constantly change their methods, so the law enforcement challenge is continuous. In 2000, we commissioned the independent Rogues review to look at Excise losses and Customs' methods of control. We accepted 62 of the 65 recommendations, and have continued to tighten the duty suspension regime since.
For the first time ever, Customs has made comprehensive estimates of the revenue losses facing all the main indirect taxation regimes, and we now have detailed strategies with substantial new resources in place to tackle smuggling and indirect tax avoidance and fraud. Investigations in Excise cases are necessarily long and complex, reflecting the scale and sophistication of the criminal organisations involved, but the prosecutions that followed in the LCB-related cases have highlighted for Customs issues about the status of informants, the handling of documentation and disclosure of information to the courts. The Government have already put in place important changes to reduce the risk from such problems, which date from the 1990s, but of course in such complex criminal investigations there will always be some cases that fail.
In legislation, we passed the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to establish a surveillance commissioner and set common guidelines on the use of informants for all law enforcement agencies. Statutory codes of practice enforced under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 govern the process of disclosure in criminal investigations. Far-reaching changes have also been made within Customs. A new chairman was appointed from outside the organisation in January 2000, and new senior staff on law enforcement have been appointed. With new case controls, training programmes and professional standards, the management of Customs investigations is being thoroughly overhauled.
In addition, from April last year and following the recommendation of the Gower-Hammond report, which the Government commissioned, responsibility for prosecution decisions and accountability for Customs'
454
prosecution function has been taken away from Customs and placed with the Attorney-General. Following the collapse of the London City Bond cases in the Court of Appeal two months ago, the Attorney-General and I jointly established the independent Butterfield review. Its terms of reference are to consider the circumstances that led to the termination of the LCB cases, examine the wider issues and advise on whether Customs' current criminal case handling meets statutory requirements and best professional practice. The review has unrestricted access to Customs staff, facilities and papers, and Mr. Justice Butterfield has been asked to report to us by June this year.
The Government are still dealing with the fallout from events that date from the mid-1990s. We have commissioned and acted on independent reports from Rogues, Butler and Gower-Hammond. We have made important changes to the way in which Customs investigations and prosecutions are handled, and the independent inquiry to deal with the concerns from this week's case is already up and running. Wherever necessary, we will do more, and the Butterfield review will play an important part in any further reform. It will be of great interest to the House, and I can confirm that a summary of the report and its recommendations will be laid before Parliament.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury): I am grateful to the Minister for his statement and his courtesy in allowing me prior sight of it.
The statement is welcome, especially as we have been pressing for it. It stands in marked contrast to the Minister's written statement in November on the London City Bond case, to which he referred today. Why did the Government see fit to smuggle out a written statement then, but finally see fit to speak on the mess and confusion in Customs now? Is it because the Minister realises that there is now a massive dossier of damning indictments against the department? Can he confirm that the collapse of that action cost the taxpayer some £100 million in legal fees? Can he confirm press reports suggesting that up to £2 billion of revenue has now been lost in fraud following that failed sting operation, for which there is nothing to show? Did not the collapse of the LCB case cost the Customs solicitors office alone some £450,000?
It is a disgrace that the convictions of those involved have been overturned by the prosecutors' failure to tell the court of the entrapment techniques employed. Will the Minister admit that up to 100 other convictions are in doubt? What exactly are the implications for compensation from the public purse? It is indicative of the shambles under the Government that their own Attorney-General ordered a judicial inquiry into the national investigation service only for another case to collapse while that investigation was taking place. Is it not the case that the Government have been forced to raise the minimum indicative levels of smuggling fraud following a High Court ruling against the Minister's Customs guidance in the Hoverspeed case last summer?
Can the Minister confirm a written answer of 31 January 2002, in which his colleague, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), said that the Chancellor was not even aware of the issues resulting from the Excise diversion fraud until June 2000—three years

455
after he came to office? Was not the subsequent Rogues report supposed to have ended the problems, and why has it failed? Can the Economic Secretary to the Treasury confirm that the Attorney-General was sent a monthly schedule of sensitive cases, including a number involving LCB, on 14 March 2001? Subsequently, has not the Customs solicitors office kept the Attorney-General abreast of developments? If it has, why has the chaos been allowed to escalate?
Does today's statement that an independent inquiry is already under way into this week's events mean that the Minister has consulted the Attorney-General about extending the existing Butterfield inquiry? Is that not needed in the interests of taxpayers and public services on which revenues rely? How far-reaching will Lord Butterfield's inquiry be? Does his remit include investigation of the appropriateness of powers of prosecution? Will there be a further oral statement on the Floor of the House when the inquiry reports?
Ultimately, despite the Minister's weasel words about the mid-1990s, the real truth is that the decision to prosecute was made under the present Government. The decision to spend millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on the case and the decision not to disclose participating informants were taken under them. The collapse of potentially successful major sting action was caused by decisions taken under them. Instead of tax fraudsters, taxpayers have been stung by the Government's action. Is that not why, in a vain attempt to cover their embarrassment, all the members of the Treasury Front Bench, excluding the Chief Secretary, have had to turn out for the statement, outnumbering their own Back Benchers?
The Economic Secretary must now turn his statement into action to reassure Parliament and the public that his guidance to Customs officers and his control over the department is tenable. Was not the Chancellor's aim in paragraph B56 on page 200 of the pre-Budget report, as recorded in a Customs and Excise press release on protecting indirect tax revenues on 27 November last year, to
"reduce the proportion of VAT which goes uncollected and produce more than £2 billion per year in additional VAT revenues by 2005–06"?
Is that strategy for Customs not seriously in doubt given the departmental chaos under the present chancellorship, and does that not blow another hole in the Chancellor's already downgraded forecasts for public revenue, public borrowing and the public deficit? Is it not plain that since the Government came to office in 1997, Customs and Excise, Britain's oldest revenue-raising body, with a proud history of dedicated professionalism, has been reduced to a chaotic mess? It faces judicial inquiry and police investigation. Its actions have been ruled illegal by the High Court and it is losing more of the theoretical yield of VAT through avoidance and fraud than when Labour came to office. Is the latest loss of taxpayers' money not another damning example of Customs in chaos?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Before the Minister responds, perhaps I may say to the House that it contravenes the sub judice rule for hon. Members to refer to any case individually in any detail.
John Healey: The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) started by accusing me of smuggling out the
456
statement to Parliament when the Attorney-General and I launched the Butterfield review in November, in immediate response to the collapse of the LCB case. We acted immediately; we informed Parliament immediately; we did so under the procedures established by the House for written statements. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that the problems with which we are dealing now date to the mid-1990s—frauds that were going on at that time, and investigations that were started and largely conducted then.
The hon. Gentleman accuses Customs in the broadest terms off the back of one case. [Interruption.] "Customs in chaos" was the phrase that he used. He needs to understand that modern criminal trials are as much about the process of the trial as about the guilt of the defendants. It is entirely wrong to condemn the entire Customs service as he did. In none of the cases that has been halted so far is there any evidence of wider criminal conspiracy or corruption within Customs. The Rogues report that we commissioned in 2000 looked into the matter and reached the same conclusion. Butler examined it and said the same.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should take some advice from his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who is not on the Front Bench. He well understood, back in 1995 when he was Home Secretary, the problems of condemning an entire service off the back of single cases. He stated, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin):
"I do not think that it is at all appropriate to infer from particular cases, however serious. generalised allegations about a propensity on the part of the police to behave in the way that the hon. Gentleman has imputed to them."—[Official Report, 16 May 1995; Vol. 260, c. 170.]
I suggest that the hon. Member for Eddisbury do his own research, instead of using The Daily Telegraph leader writers to do it for him. Their reports this week of £2 billion duty loss are entirely inaccurate. The hon. Gentleman asked for the figures. The duty loss in the LCB case was £340 million. The duty loss in the Stockade case was £89 million. [Interruption.] It certainly is not all right, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the fraud was perpetrated in the mid-1990s. It was going on under the previous Government.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me for detailed figures arising from the potential LCB-related cases and the fallout from them. Eight cases have collapsed so far. We are currently reviewing 20 further cases to judge the safety of the convictions. Thirty-two convictions have been overturned so far and no evidence has been offered against a further 15. Potentially, 93 convictions are susceptible if all the cases that we are currently reviewing are found to be unsafe.
The hon. Gentleman raised the point about sensitive cases. The Attorney-General, Customs Ministers and every law enforcement Minister will review sensitive cases. Listing and monitoring them is part of the effective management of the investigation and prosecution procedures—precisely the processes that were not in place in the mid-1990s, which led to many of the problems with which we are now dealing, following the collapse of the cases.
Finally, I confirm—the hon. Gentleman seems to be in some doubt, even though I made it clear in my statement—that Butterfield will consider the issues at

457
stake in the Stockade case. We set him the deadline of June to report jointly to the Attorney-General and me. A summary of the report and its recommendations will be laid before the House.
Matthew Taylor (Truro and St. Austell): Hon. Members on both Front Benches have reason to be embarrassed about the matter, which dates back to 1995. The Minister's statement was complacent in its reference, for example, to the fact that in complex criminal investigations there will always be some cases that fail. This is not simply a failure of a complex investigation because of the complexities of the case. We all understand that that will happen from time to time. This goes to the heart of the operation and the way in which Customs and Excise embarked on it.
It is ludicrous of the Minister to say that generalised criticisms of Customs and Excise should not be derived from the case, given that those in charge of the department have been changed, the departments' procedures have been changed, and substantive powers have been removed from the department as a result of these cases.
When, as in the present case, Customs and Excise commit to lawbreaking as part of an operation, as a means of trapping suspects, who gives authority for the law to be broken? Does it reach Ministers' desks? In the London City Bond case, the matter commenced in 1994 under the previous Administration, and continued until 1998 under the present Administration. Was ministerial authority sought for the operation, and if it was, who gave it? Was the then Minister made aware of the contingent liabilities through loss of revenue, which in fact occurred on a massive scale?
There have been a number of inquiries into the matter. Has the Minister ensured that the reports are all in the House of Commons Library so that they can be examined? Why will the Butterfield report not be published in full?
Most important of all, since it is the aspect of greatest concern to the taxpayer, is the question of costs. What is the Minister's estimate of the full potential cost if the Government drop the other cases now subject to appeal? At what stage were Ministers consulted on the liabilities when the decisions were taken to continue with those cases, long after—it seems—the Government were aware of the potential for failure of those cases? Is it not time to separate entirely the investigation and prosecution procedures? The Minister noted that some steps have been taken, but there has not yet been a total separation.
Much bigger costs arise from the loss of revenue. Can the Minister explain the apparent discrepancy between the figures provided by Customs and Excise—in the National Audit Office report, the National Investigation Service put the figure at £579 million in total—and by Ms Jan Wanstall, a senior Customs and Excise official, who was one of those who brought the failings of the case to the attention of the Government and others? Her evidence to the court stated that the losses to the Revenue from that fraud were £1.25 billion—a figure that no one disputed. In her testimony in court, she
458
alleged that that was a matter of the right politics. Will the Minister please explain the difference between those figures?
John Healey: The hon. Gentleman criticises the record of the Opposition and of the Government. I suppose he does so because he has no record of his own in government on which to comment. He accuses me of complacency in the matter. I utterly reject that, after everything that we have done to set up the Butterfield review and to make sure that it gets to the bottom of the lessons that are there to be learned in the LCB-related cases.
More importantly, of course it is right that we try to learn the lessons of what went wrong in the LCB cases, but what interests me more, and what I want to know as the Customs Minister responsible, is whether the steps taken by Customs in respect of investigation and prosecution are good enough. Do they meet the statutory requirements that we now have in place, which were not in place in 1995? Do they meet the best professional standards that are now in place and which may not have been in place in the mid-1990s? In particular, can we improve on what is currently being done?
On the hon. Gentleman's next point, no entrapment was involved in the cases. Using informants while allowing fraud to run, as it were, is an accepted, established and common part of law investigation and enforcement, but a question arises about the balance between allowing a fraud to run in order to pursue the investigation and nail those involved, and the scale of the loss of revenue to the Exchequer. It is the judgments that were made in 1995 and 1996 that were perhaps at fault in that regard. In the court cases that have folded at the moment, none of the techniques used in investigation has been questioned or criticised. It is the disclosure about those techniques that has led to the legal problems and therefore the unsafety of the prosecutions.
On the regime to oversee those issues, regulations are in place on the use of informants and statutory systems are in place on standards of disclosure. Of course, I was not involved in the decisions. It is wrong of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that a Customs Minister should be involved in operational decisions. Indeed, his doing so betrays a failure to understand the nature of law enforcement and the difficulty of such decisions.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a couple of other specific questions. To date, the legal cost in the LCB case is £7.4 million and in the Stockade case it is £760,000. He asked me about prosecution decisions and the handling of the cases—a matter that I explained in my statement. Perhaps he did not read the advance copy or listen carefully enough. From April last year, as the Gower-Hammond report, which we commissioned, recommended, we have separated from Customs responsibility for making decisions about prosecution and accounting for the conduct of the prosecutions

459
function and given it to the Attorney-General. Thus it is properly placed in the hands of one of the Government's Law Officers.
Several hon. Members rose
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I make a plea for brevity, so as to allow as many hon. Members as possible to be called. Of course, I also have the main business to protect.
Mr. Nigel Beard (Bexleyheath and Crayford): May I congratulate the Government on the statement and on the steps that have been taken over some years to remedy the record of grossly inadequate direction and management in Customs and Excise, which stretched back way before 1997, when this Government took office?
What is being done to remedy the position whereby cigarettes are being exported duty free to Andorra and smuggled back to this country? Is that one of the cases that will be reviewed?
John Healey: I accept my hon. Friend's criticism, as I know will Customs, about previous management problems. The strengthening of the board of commissioners, the appointment of a new chief executive on the law enforcement side and a raft of new staff have all helped to reinforce the capacity of Customs to deal with things in a better way.
On the serious problem of tobacco smuggling, my hon. Friend will be aware that the Public Accounts Committee recently conducted an inquiry and published a report. He will therefore know that Customs is working with each of the major UK tobacco manufacturers on detailed information about production, markets and exports. That will be encapsulated in what we call a memorandum of understanding, which represents a determination to disclose information and co-operate with Customs to stamp out widespread tobacco smuggling. He will be aware that one of the major companies, Imperial Tobacco, is now working more closely with Customs. We have not yet reached a point at which we feel that we can sign that memorandum of understanding, but I can tell him that the signs are at least encouraging.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): I am a great admirer of the Economic Secretary, as he knows, but he really must answer directly the very pertinent inquiry posed to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien). What is the expected impact of the collapse of these cases on the Treasury forecast of an additional £2 billion in revenues by 2005–06 from anti-VAT fraud measures? That forecast was made by the Government at paragraph B56 of page 200 of the pre-Budget report only a few months ago.
John Healey: The figures to which the hon. Gentleman refers are the projected revenue gains that we will achieve from the new anti-VAT fraud strategy that we have put in place—a result, in part, of the additional resources that we are putting into Customs. Those figures were audited, discussed and developed
460
with the National Audit Office. As the publication to which he referred suggests, they take their part in the projection of public finances for the future.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): These are very serious matters, as the Minister knows. Will he confirm that the Butterfield inquiry will take into account all the views of all the counsel involved in the cases that have collapsed? As one of the two shadow Law Officers in the House, I have had discussions with one of the counsel and I think that that would be very helpful.
Will the Minister assist in arranging for his noble Friend the Attorney-General to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) to discuss the implications of these collapsed cases? Will he concede today that whatever the date when the fraud started, all the relevant decisions that have led to the cases' collapse have been taken since this Government came to power? The decision to prosecute, all the decisions about how the evidence was to be presented and, most crucially and culpably, the decision not fully to disclose the role of prosecution witnesses to the defence have led to the collapse of the cases. Will he now confirm that he recognises that all those Customs and management decisions were fatally flawed and that that is what is costing huge amounts of taxpayers' money and will carry on costing more when compensation claims are taken into account for these and future collapsed cases arising from this shambles?
John Healey: There will always be problems with individual cases, no matter how good the systems and the decisions that are taken, when the complexity of the criminal investigations and prosecutions is such as it was in the series of cases in question. The Butterfield inquiry is an independent inquiry conducted by an esteemed and highly regarded High Court judge. It is proper that it is independent, so the judge will make decisions about how he conducts it. On the basis of the enormous amounts of material relating to the cases that we have already forwarded to the judge, it is clear that he is taking extremely seriously the need to get to the bottom of exactly what went on in the LCB-related cases.
I shall pass on to the Attorney-General the hon. Gentleman's request for a discussion on some of these matters.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye): May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the efforts that he has made to get to grips with this problem? May I also encourage him not to take the soft-touch and let-them-off-the-hook attitude of Opposition Members when people commit such offences and there is reasonable evidence to prosecute?
John Healey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that a tough prosecutions policy is an important part of the armoury that any law enforcement agency, including Customs, has for dealing with organised, systematic and often international criminal fraud gangs.
Adam Price: I am grateful for having had advance sight of the statement. On the collapse of an earlier case, Mr. Justice Foley accused the national investigation service of Her Majesty's Customs of having a culture of recklessness—

461
his words, not mine—and referred to a catalogue of illegalities. Will the Minister explain why Customs and Excise should not be brought into line with the police and stripped of control of its own prosecutions? Will he confirm whether any members of the national investigation service are currently suspended pending criminal investigations?
John Healey: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman received a copy of the statement. The courts made no suggestion of systematic corruption or criminality by Customs in any of the cases that the statement covers. I have dealt with control of the prosecution several times already. From April last year, the responsibility for the prosecution and accountability are matters for the Attorney-General, not Customs. That is proper.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool, Walton): Although I am a great admirer of the work of rank and file Customs officers, who have a difficult job, will the Economic Secretary assure us that we shall have full disclosure of all the details of the corruption and ineptitude that characterised the Charrington and Haase-Bennett cases, especially the use of criminal informers? Hitherto, senior management of Customs and Excise has been marred by evasion and obfuscation about information that should be in the public domain. Will my hon. Friend guarantee that that will be replaced by a policy of openness and transparency?
John Healey: I am certain that Customs and Excise has never previously published more information about its activities, estimates and analysis of the fraud and smuggling that confronts us. It has never published more about its work and the way in which it makes decisions.
My hon. Friend mentioned the use of informants in two cases. This afternoon, I am dealing with matters that are connected with the LCB case. The use of informants, and disclosure of information about that, is central to questions about the safety of the cases and the convictions. They will also be central to the Butterfield review and inquiry.
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon): In January 2002, I posed seven written questions to the Chancellor on the activities of Customs and Excise on the London City Bond fraud trial. Indeed, one was mentioned earlier. Although the Chief Secretary's answers were opaque to say the least and no action ensued, they revealed a murky trail of Customs and Excise not informing Ministers about what was going on, hundreds of millions of lost pounds—owing to criminals being allowed to pursue fraud on the basis that it might lead to catching larger fry—and failed prosecutions.
The Economic Secretary said that we should not base conclusions on one trial. We are not doing that. How many investigations have taken place? I believe that the figure is almost 200. If so, how can he claim that he is about to launch his investigation? Why has not that happened previously? Why has the problem been
462
allowed to continue for so long? Why has a full investigation by the Government not taken place to date?
John Healey: The independent report that we commissioned from Roques in 2000 considered some of those questions and problems; the independent review that we commissioned from Butler also did that. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the scale of the revenue loss that was caused to the country when the frauds were perpetrated. I have already told hon. Members that in the LCB case alone, there was a loss of £340 million. The Rogues report covered that period and calculated that the total Excise loss from fraudulent activities was almost £700 million. I remind the hon. Gentleman that that happened when the previous Government were in charge.
Mr. Djanogly: That is not acceptable.
John Healey: The hon. Member for Eddisbury asked me about revenue loss and I gave him the figures. I remind hon. Members that the problems that we are tackling and the cases that flow from them stem from the mid-1990s and the previous Government.
Mr. Richard Bacon: When I asked the chairman of Customs and Excise last year how many members of his organisation were subject to criminal prosecutions, before the Public Accounts Committee, he answered, "Seven", although he subsequently corrected that to 17 when I tabled a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Economic Secretary referred to several reports, including the Butterfield inquiry, the Butler report and Rogues report, which I am holding. I have read it carefully. He knows that they contain nothing about heroin sting operations in Pakistan. Is not it suggestive that so many inquiries are taking place? Does the Economic Secretary agree that the time may have come for a thorough inquiry into all aspects of the management and operation of Customs and Excise, excluding nothing? It should include the quality of the legal advice available to Customs and Excise—that appears at least suspect—the use and management of sting operations, of bonded warehouses and the Queen's warehouses, of debt management and of heroin trafficking and the criminal involvement of Customs officers.
John Healey: The Rogues report contains nothing about heroin in Afghanistan because it was designed to review and deal principally with the problems in the Excise regime and the operation of bonded warehouses. The hon. Gentleman points out the wide range of Customs' responsibilities.
Mr. Bacon: Have a review.
John Healey: I reject the idea that it would be useful to conduct a broad review that encompasses the full range of responsibilities.
Norman Lamb: The Economic Secretary made it clear that Ministers did not authorise the means whereby Customs and Excise conducted the investigations. However, were Ministers kept informed?

463
If so, who was informed? He did not clearly answer the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) asked, when he highlighted the discrepancy between the loss to the Revenue of £1.25 billion in the London City Bond case and the amount of £575 million to which NIS referred. That is a massive difference. What is the reason for it? Are police currently investigating any individual Customs officers in relation to fraud?
John Healey: It simply is not for Ministers to authorise the use of specific techniques or methods of investigation. That is an operational matter. The settlement of responsibilities between Customs and the Minister responsible for Customs means that there is no reason for the relevant Minister to be briefed continuously about the detail of operational cases.
On the figures that the hon. Gentleman cites, I reported to hon. Members that, in the LCB case, £340 million was lost to the Revenue in Excise duty when the frauds were run.

Points of Order
1.58 pm
Alan Simpson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you are willing to consider an abuse of hon. Members' rights. Under the experimental modernisation arrangements for the House, hon. Members were assured that our rights of access to the parliamentary estate and those of the public would be protected. On Tuesday, an enormous anti-war lobby took place outside Parliament, in Central Lobby and in meetings in the House.
Two events caused me great concern. First, members of the public who sought access to Central Lobby had any anti-war literature removed from them, including copies of that day's Daily Mirror, which happened to carry a "No War" slogan on the front page.
Secondly, after getting members of the public into the Grand Committee Room for the meeting that we had booked in the evening, Members of Parliament were told at 9 pm that we had to stop because the staff had to go home. Can we consider the precise arrangements so that opportunities for public and democratic debate are not removed entirely even when formal sittings have been completed?
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to make a separate but related point about the effect of the new arrangements. I voted against them because I was especially worried that many hon. Members would be required to be in two places at once. Will you discuss with Mr. Speaker and, if necessary, the Chairmen's Panel, the great difficulty for Front Benchers, like me, and Back Benchers of all parties when they have to be in a Standing Committee Upstairs, conducting the line by line, word by word, clause by clause scrutiny of measures, and in the Chamber? Those Committees clash more than ever before with the business in the Chamber. Under the new arrangements, we are also finding that it is difficult for organisations lobbying us on any issue to meet us for a working lunch—these were particularly helpful before—because now, particularly on a Wednesday, we have important matters such as Prime Minister's questions taking place over lunchtime. It is important, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you pass on to Mr. Speaker and to the Chairmen's Panel how very much more difficult these new hours are making it for us to do the job that our constituents expect us to do.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I shall deal first with the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson). I shall certainly draw his comments to the attention of the Speaker, the relevant Committees and Officers of the House. I understand his concern about this matter. On the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), his comments will have been heard, but I shall certainly draw them to the attention of the Speaker.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are about to start the debate on the Regional Assemblies

465
(Preparations) Bill. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House pointed out during business questions, we shall be considering seven new clauses and a number of Government amendments. Mr. Speaker has selected seven groups of amendments to be discussed. We are about to enter into a debate that will be timetabled to three hours. That gives us three hours for the consideration of what anybody would regard as a major Bill. Mr. Speaker has powers under the affirmative resolution procedure not to put the question if he feels that there has been insufficient debate. I realise that that power does not fall to the Chair under the procedures that we are using today. It is most unsatisfactory that so little time should be available for the debate on a very important Government Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that the power applies only to the negative resolution procedure. The House is currently operating under the programme motion that has already been agreed to, and the motion which we are about to debate.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Further to the point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you draw to the attention of the authorities responsible for such matters the difficulties that our constituents are having in coming to this place and taking advantage of the line of route arrangements, particularly on Tuesdays and Wednesdays—the days on which the great change has happened since last year? Our constituents have to be at the Victoria Tower entrance by 9.30 am—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that this matter has been agreed by the House? He may find it inconvenient, as may some of his and other Members' constituents, but it was agreed by the House. No doubt, his comments will none the less be noted.

Orders of the Day

  Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
  2.3 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move,
  That, having regard to the Resolution of Standing Committee A, reported on 19th December 2002, the programme order of 26th November 2002 in relation to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill be confirmed.
  As hon. Members know, the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill has recently received detailed scrutiny in Committee, following its Second Reading in the House in November last year. There were nine sittings of the Standing Committee, as well as one day on the Floor of the House when we considered clauses 1 to 4. I am grateful to all those hon. Members who participated in the consideration of the Bill for their constructive contributions.
  The Opposition have made a great deal of fuss about the timetabling of the Bill, and a lot of synthetic indignation has been expressed. Such was the provision of time in Committee that it was possible for the Opposition to spend an inordinate amount of the debates arguing about whether sentences should begin with the word "but". Members should be aware of that when they hear the Opposition making further protests about there being insufficient time to consider the substance of the Bill.
  The programme motion in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the House provides that the debate on the amendments and new clauses should be concluded one hour before the moment of interruption, and that Third Reading should be concluded at the moment of interruption at 6 o'clock. This has been agreed through the usual channels and should provide sufficient time to debate the 20 amendments and seven new clauses that have been selected. More than one third of the amendments to be debated have been tabled by the Government, mostly in response to concerns raised in Committee, and I hope that these will generally be welcomed. The Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) and I look forward to an interesting debate.
  2.5 pm
  Mr. Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge): I am disappointed with the Minister's opening remarks. My understanding is that nothing has been agreed through the usual channels. The timetable that we face today has been imposed on us by the Government. The Minister referred to the time available for the scrutiny of this very important Bill in Committee. I think he was being slightly disingenuous, because I stated quite explicitly during an earlier stage of the Bill that I recognised that the time allowed for consideration of the Bill in Committee was probably adequate, and that the problem was that the four key clauses underlying the principles of the Bill that were debated on the Floor of the House had been given a grossly inadequate amount of time. In fact, the House did not manage to debate all those issues.

  467
  The issue before us today is that we have a little under three hours left in which to consider a Bill of constitutional significance. That significance has already been recognised by the fact that part of the Committee stage of the Bill was taken as a Committee of the whole House. I would suggest to the Minister that in future the Government show a certain amount of self-restraint. When we have only a short period of time available for Report and Third Reading, the Government must resist the temptation to allow a second Government statement before that business begins. I hope that the Minister will agree with me on this, as he is not shy of debate and is generally keen to engage with important issues such as those that we are discussing today. Although I do not expect him to say anything publicly, I hope that he will privately make his views known to the Leader of the House, because a lot of his hard work preparing for the later groups of amendments—which will probably not be considered this afternoon—will have been wasted, as will the hard work of many Conservative Members, myself included.
  The new clauses and amendments that have been selected give wide scope for debate on some of the fundamental issues that have troubled Conservative Members—and, indeed, some Labour Members—during the earlier stages of the Bill. So this is a good selection of amendments, and it will provide a good opportunity to debate the issues that have caused some difficulty. I am only sorry that we shall not get through all those groups this afternoon. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) said in his point of order, seven groups have been selected for consideration. Frankly, it is inconceivable that we shall get to the last of them.
  There seems to be a serious flaw in our arrangements and procedures. On Report, new clauses are quite properly considered first, but on this occasion, all the new clauses have been tabled either by the Opposition, the Liberal Democrats or Back-Bench Members. Although I live in hope, I try to be a realist, and it is likely that the Government will resist all those new clauses. It is therefore likely that they will not be added to the Bill. I remain an optimist, but it is also likely that all the Government amendments will be made. They will be voted on, and the Government will use their majority to carry them, but they will not be debated because they appear towards the end of the selection list for today. It will necessarily almost always be the case that the items on the amendment paper that are certain to make it into the Bill will be those least likely to receive proper debate and scrutiny on Report. So the Government get their amendments without any debate or scrutiny, which effectively places the burden of scrutiny on the other place.
  Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Does my hon. Friend agree that it was presumptuous in the extreme for the Minister to imply that, because Government amendments on Report are principally responses to representations made by members of the Standing Committee, this should be an-open-and-shut case? Is it not possible that Members present today who were not
  468
  so privileged—I was not so privileged—as to serve on the Committee might wish to contribute to constructive deliberation on the amendments?
  Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but it is not true that all the Government amendments are responses to points raised by Opposition Members in Committee—although it is true that at least one group is a direct response to the Minister's resistance of a point raised by them then. Not the least of my disappointment when I learnt that we would probably not reach that group today was due to the fact that the Minister would have no opportunity to proffer his thanks to the Opposition for drawing attention to the issues involved.
  Mr. Raynsford: I hope the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that Government amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11—which are indeed at the end of the list and therefore may not be reached if he and his colleagues speak at length; I hope they will not do so—are a direct response to an amendment that he tabled in Committee. I said then that I would table amendments to meet his objective, and I hope he will accept these amendments as an expression of my appreciation and thanks for his efforts.
  Mr. Hammond: I am glad we have managed to get that out of the way. But I think it disingenuous of the Minister to suggest that a debate on seven groups of new clauses and amendments—one important group, the second, contains four new clauses—can be completed in the time available, which is less than two hours and 45 minutes. That is clearly not the case. This has nothing to do with delaying or other tactics on the part of any Members on either side of the House; it is simply a reflection of the inadequate provision of time.
  Let me respond to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) by saying that at least one Government amendment and subsequent Opposition amendments to it are in response to representations received by the Government from the Electoral Commission. Given that the commission is an innovative body, I think that Members would be interested in exploring the process whereby the Government have published a Bill, the commission has made representations to the Government, and the Government—to give them their due—have responded. That too is an innovative process in our constitutional arrangements, involving a new body, which bears scrutiny and questioning. Sadly, it will be subject to neither.
  As I was saying before the Minister intervened, it is ironic that changes in our procedural rules designed to make this place more modern and efficient have cast the burden of scrutiny on to the other place—the unreformed other place—which must now do the work that most of our constituents think they have sent us here to do: the work of scrutinising legislation properly before it is enacted.
  I shall end shortly, because another irony is that the longer we discuss the inadequate allocation of time the more time we use up. Let me say to my colleagues, however, that the second group of amendments and new clauses will allow debate on what I believe to be key issues. I hope that we reach later groups, and I certainly

  469
  hope that the debate on the first group is reasonably brief so that we can reach the vital second group, although I do not hold out much hope of our getting much further than that.
  It is conceivable that, on some occasions, timetables can work, but if they are to work they must be fair and reasonable. Timetables such as this, providing less than three hours for consideration of a constitutionally significant Bill, bring any timetabling system into disrepute. To the Government's shame, an important constitutional Bill will yet again go through this place on the nod, and another nail will have been hammered into the coffin of our parliamentary democracy.
  2.15 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton): I shall not take 10 minutes to oppose the motion. I shall make two points.
  The Minister is right that the Conservative spokesmen spent a long time debating whether the word "but" should begin a certain part of the Bill, thus wasting a fair amount of the time available, but he was wrong to propose the motion in this way. The two statements have taken up time, and according to our modernised procedures the business of the House ends at 6 pm. That has truncated the time available for this important Bill, which we deeply regret. We cannot therefore support the motion.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: I had not intended to speak, but I was so incensed by the Minister's speech that I felt that I must make some response.
  I entirely rebut the claim by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) that time was wasted in Committee. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), I had the privilege of serving on the Committee, and thoroughly enjoyed it. I felt that the Committee's proceedings were measured and focused, and raised important issues.
  As for the alleged killer point that some time was spent in discussing whether the word "but" should feature, does the Minister recall the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer)—who is sitting behind him—making a point that some of us were making? He said that court cases could take weeks and months, and that tens of thousands of pounds could be spent on deciding the meaning of the word "and" or the word "but" in a statute. It is actually quite important to ensure that legislation is accurate, and a "but" or an "and" in the wrong place can make a big difference.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Might that not be why so much time was spent discussing the word "but"?
  Mr. Streeter: I agree. I certainly think that there has been no time wasting or filibustering.
  Mr. Hammond: Is not the Minister's point disingenuous? I acknowledge that the Committee did not use all the time available to it. We did not take advantage of the opportunity for a 10th sitting, because
  470
  we had been able to complete the part of the business that was due to be dealt with in Standing Committee. The problem related to the part that was to be taken on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is right. I was about to make the same point. I thought that the Committee proceedings were measured, sensible and focused; but there was not enough time for debate on the issues that had to be dealt with by a Committee of the whole House. I had prepared two speeches that could not be delivered. I feel that the country has been cheated of a significant amount of wisdom.
  Jim Knight: Is there not something bizarre about our wasting time on this debate when we could be debating the Bill, and talking about the word "but" yet again?
  Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong.
  Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely you can confirm that if there was ever any question of time being wasted you would be the first to point that out to the House, and return it to order.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): The hon. Gentleman is right, but I also ensure that Members have the opportunity to put their points of view. When it comes to wasting time, I will certainly make the necessary decision.
  Mr. Streeter: The hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) was entirely wrong. As I said at the outset, I did not intend to speak in this debate, and I realise that my speech is eating into time that could be spent on the amendments; but sometimes a point of principle must be put on record. I feel that I am well placed to make this point, for, unlike some of my colleagues, I do not oppose timetabling in principle—
  Mr. ForthShame!
  Mr. Streeter: My right hon. Friend disagrees with me. I understand that: I disagree with him. I think that a Government are entitled to their business. I remember from my days in the Whips Office under that great, successful Government of 1992 to 1997 that there were times when the Whips tried to find speakers for debates on the Floor of the House. I felt that that was wrong then and I feel that it is wrong today. I am not against timetabling in principle but there is surely an implied contract which says that a timetable motion that is laid before the House should give sufficient time for hon. Members on both sides of the House—Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike—to discuss in detail the legislation that is before us. The length of time involved will be determined by the weight and substance of the legislation being considered. In this case, we are talking about a constitutional matter that is so important that we had to discuss the first two clauses on the Floor of the House, yet today we have three hours to deal with seven groups of amendments. Not only is it an important matter, as we heard in Committee and when the Bill was discussed on the Floor of the House, but there are

  471
  profound reservations about the legislation on both sides of the House, including among Labour Members. That is why it is important that these matters get a fair hearing.
  At the moment we are rightly discussing the future of the other place and House of Lords reform. It is my strong belief that we have not yet gone far enough in reforming this House but the key issue on which this House fails time and again is proper scrutiny of legislation. One of the key—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the programme motion refers to a particular piece of legislation. Perhaps he could address his remarks to that programme motion.
  Mr. Streeter: I was getting carried away with my own incredible eloquence, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise.
  We need time to study every piece of legislation—in particular this Bill, which deals with weighty constitutional matters on which hon. Members on both sides of the House have profound disagreements. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made the point during business questions that there should be protected time for legislation. I strongly agree. I ask the Minister to take that back to his colleagues. What has happened this afternoon is totally unacceptable and unnecessary, and the Government need to think again.
  2.22 pm
  Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): I am unhappy on two counts. First, I am unhappy about some of the remarks made by the Minister and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) about the debate that has already taken place in Committee. Secondly, I am unhappy about the very fact of the tabling of the programme motion. I shall deal first with the first point.
  I take the gravest possible exception to the casual and gratuitous abuse that has been showered by the Minister and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton on three serious, committed and diligent parliamentarians, my hon. Friends the Members for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). In performance of their parliamentary duties on behalf of their constituents, they have sought in Committee and elsewhere properly and in detail to consider the legitimate policy proposals that have been unveiled by the Government. To suggest that three such serious and earnest Members would be guilty of evasion, procrastination or attempted filibustering is not only untrue but unworthy of the right hon. and hon. Members concerned. These are serious issues and they need to be debated.
  Secondly, I am unhappy—I make no apology for the fact—about the tabling of the programme motion. In fulfilment of our responsibilities to our constituents, it is extremely important that we in this place are not inward-looking—that we do not gaze at our own navels—and that we provide a proper context for the consideration of our business, including programme motions.
  472
  I know that we do not refer to people in this place other than Members of Parliament but we are aware that, even though there is diminishing public interest in politics, and growing and pervasive cynicism about politics and politicians—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should remind the hon. Gentleman that the motion under discussion is the programme motion to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill. Perhaps he would address his remarks to that motion.
  Mr. Bercow: I was turning to precisely that point. I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for getting me to do so.
  Matthew Green (Ludlow): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In six minutes' time, the first ever youth question session will take place in Westminster Hall. If Conservative Members force a vote by speaking for so long, they will disrupt the first ever youth question session. Can we have a ruling on that?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Important though that may be, it is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to you for your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker. Even by long-stablished Liberal Democrats standards, that intervention was particularly asinine.
  On the subject of the programme motion to which you rightly direct me, Madam Deputy Speaker, let us provide the context for members of the public listening to our proceedings and observing them to make a judgment on whether it is the Government or the Opposition Members objecting who are right on this important matter. Let us be clear what we have in mind. In this context, I go back to what was stated from the Opposition Front Bench, if the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton feels able readily to contain himself for a limited period to allow proper attention to be paid to the important debate that needs to take place.
  Mr. George Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman at the moment.
  I want to address the point that was rightly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. He referred to the number of amendments and new clauses that we have to consider. The point that I want to put on record is this. The Government want us to consider between now and 6 o'clock proposed new clauses and amendments to crucial legislation. the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill—I do not think we would disagree about that—on the subjects of provision for further referendums; the preconditions for holding referendums and definition of regions; the local government review; the commencement of the legislation; referendum questions and statement; order

  473
  for combination of polls; and directions to the Electoral Commission. None of those matters is trivial. All are important.
  Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight): Does my hon. Friend agree that he should emphasise in that list the regional boundaries, to which hon. Members on both sides of the House may wish to refer?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing individual clauses or amendments but the programme motion.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the significance of the argument lies in the importance and the number of the proposals that the Government are putting to the House. As you can readily testify, I am being customarily fair-minded about it. I could be extremely hostile to the Bill. No doubt I would be if I had been on the Committee or were going to take part in detailed debate on every aspect of it, but I am making the point that the proposals before us are important. The Government have a mandate, and it is entirely legitimate for them to put forward these proposals.
  Dr. John PughWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: I will in a moment if the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a few moments.
  What is not legitimate is for the Minister, suffused with the importance of his proposals and with a righteous indignation welling up in him at anyone's daring to contest their content, should object to other right hon. and hon. Members fulfilling their responsibilities. I do not know, and I doubt that the Minister, despite his estimable talents, could possibly know, how many hon. Members present have received representations on these matters, what those representations have been and whether those representations have necessitated right hon. and hon. Members further debating them on Report. This is the gravamen of the argument against what the Government are arrogantly proposing. It is unacceptable so to truncate consideration of these important matters as to allow approximately three hours for seven new clauses and 20 amendments to be considered on Report.
  Dr. Pugh: The hon. Gentleman has said three or four times what the Front-Bench spokesman said once. I see little merit in repeating an argument that was put eloquently from the Front Bench about 10 minutes ago.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman never disappoints: he is almost invariably wrong. On the ground of statistical probability, it is conceivable at some stage in the unspecified future that on the law of averages—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That may well be the point, but once again I bring the hon. Gentleman back to the motion.
  Mr. Bercow: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was saying that the hon. Gentleman might one day be right by accident, but not today. I am sorry that he does not think the matter important. My thesis—
  Dr. Pugh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: No. The hon. Gentleman is hoist by his own petard and cannot have it both ways. He says that we are taking too long, then prolongs matters with inconsequential and irrelevant interventions. My concern is that we shall have only some six and a half minutes to consider each new clause and amendment. I am not a qualified mathematician or statistician, but that is a generous assessment: it assumes that there are no Divisions, and that we have a seamless debate on all the groups of amendments. However, votes will be held, as part of the healthy tradition of British democracy, which retains some pride and vitality in its lungs. That means that the debating time will be even shorter.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has often pointed out—he did so at business questions today—we are again witnessing the triumph of ministerial arrogance over parliamentary propriety. That is unacceptable. It is a derogation of our duty to constituents. It must be steadfastly opposed.
  2.31 pm
  Mr. Kevan Jones: I rise to support the programme motion. I had the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee considering the Bill. There was a lot of filibustering in our debates, including an hour spent on the word "but". The Opposition put forward no substantial alternative to the proposals for regional assemblies, although the Liberal Democrats made some vague attempts. A lot of time was spent on anodyne points. This afternoon, the nearly 32 minutes spent filibustering on this motion will eat into the main debate, because the Tories have nothing to say about regional government. They fear that a proper three-hour debate would expose them on this issue.
  Jim Knight: Does my hon. Friend recall that, in the debate on the programme motion in respect of the clauses to be debated in the Chamber, we had the same rigmarole, with Opposition Members arguing against the motion but then not staying to take part in the debate?
  Mr. Jones: I do recall that. My constituents in the north-east want this Bill, which they consider to be important. The Conservatives are wasting time, and that will not help tackle some of the problems faced by regions such as the north-east. When a referendum is held, I hope that people remember that the Opposition had no alternatives to propose.
  2.33 pm
  Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight): I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the programme motion, and shall begin by dealing with a couple of the points raised by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). First, I do not believe that even using the time spent on the programme motion would give us enough time to debate adequately all the substantive business set down for this afternoon.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: How will the hon. Gentleman justify wasting time this afternoon to my constituents in the north-east, who are keen for the Bill to become law and who have the right to say what happens in their region?
  Mr. Turner: I am not sure that it is my duty to justify that to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. My duty is to

  475
  represent my constituents. The hon. Gentleman must justify to his constituents the business and decisions of the House, and especially the way in which he votes. I would not dream of treading on his toes by expostulating to his constituents—or to the constituents of any other hon. Member—about the direction in which the House is going.
  The House is keen to proceed to the main business, and I shall not detain it any longer. However, many hon. Members not yet present in the Chamber may be aching to contribute, especially in connection with regional boundaries. That applies to those hon. Members who represent parts of the county of Durham that used properly to be part of the north riding of Yorkshire, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), who represents people detached by the appalling Heath-Walkerian reforms from North Yorkshire. It applies also to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), some of whose constituents used to be in North Yorkshire.
  I could go on, but I see that that would not be welcome. I am sure that the House takes my point, and I hope that the programme motion will be defeated.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 153.

  Division No. 60]

  [2:36 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Clelland, David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Coaker, Vernon

  Austin, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Barnes, Harry

  Coleman, Iain

  Beard, Nigel

  Cooper, Yvette

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Cousins, Jim

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Benn, Hilary

  Cruddas, Jon

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Best, Harold

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Blackman, Liz

  Cummings, John

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Borrow, David

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  David, Wayne

  Brennan, Kevin

  Davidson, Ian

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Browne, Desmond

  Denham, rh John

  Bryant, Chris

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dismore, Andrew

  Burden, Richard

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Burgon, Colin

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Cairns, David

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Casale, Roger

  Edwards, Huw

  Caton, Martin

  Efford, Clive

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Challen, Colin

  Etherington, Bill

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Chaytor, David

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Clapham, Michael

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Flint, Caroline

  476

  Follett, Barbara

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Love, Andrew

  Foulkes, rh George

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Galloway, George

  McCabe, Stephen

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gerrard, Neil

  McDonnell, John

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  MacDougall, John

  Gilroy, Linda

  McFall, John

  Goggins, Paul

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McKechin, Ann

  Grogan, John

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hanson, David

  McWilliam, John

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Mallaber, Judy

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Mann John (Bassetlaw)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Healey, John

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Heppell, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Heyes, David

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Merron, Gillian

  Hodge, Margaret

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Moran, Margaret

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Morgan, Julie

  Morley, Elliot

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mullin, Chris

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Illsley Eric

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  O'Brien Mike (N Warks)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Olner, Bill

  Jamieson, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jenkins, Brian

  Organ, Diana

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Owen, Albert

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Perham, Linda

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Picking, Anne

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Plaskitt, James

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Pollard, Kerry

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Pound, Stephen

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Kidney, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prescott, rh John

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Purchase, Ken

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Purnell, James

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Rammell, Bill

  Lepper, David

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  477

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

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Rooney, Terry

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Timms, Stephen

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Salter, Martin

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Trickett, Jon

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sawford, Phil

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Ward, Claire

  Singh, Marsha

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Watts, David

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  White, Brian

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Southworth, Helen

  Wills, Michael

  Spellar, rh John

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Squire, Rachel

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Woolas, Phil

  Stevenson, George

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stringer, Graham

  Joan Ryan and

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Derek Twigg

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Clappison, James

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Collins, Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Conway, Derek

  Bacon, Richard

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Barker, Gregory

  Curry, rh David

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Bercow, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Blunt, Crispin

  Doughty, Sue

  Brady, Graham

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Evans, Nigel

  Brazier, Julian

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Fallon, Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Burns, Simon

  Flook, Adrian

  Burstow, Paul

  Forth, rh Eric

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Cameron, David

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Cash, William

  Francois, Mark

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Gamier, Edward

  478

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Paterson, Owen

  Gidley, Sandra

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Goodman, Paul

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Grayling, Chris

  Redwood, rh John

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Rendel, David

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Greenway, John

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Hammond, Philip

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hawkins, Nick

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Heald, Oliver

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Heath, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hendry, Charles

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hermon, Lady

  Selous, Andrew

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Shepherd, Richard

  Holmes, Paul

  Simmonds, Mark

  Horam, John (Orpington)

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

  Howard, rh Michael

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Jack, rh Michael

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Spring, Richard

  Keetch, Paul

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Steen, Anthony

  Streeter, Gary

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Stunell, Andrew

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Syms, Robert

  Lamb, Norman

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lidington, David

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Loughton, Tim

  Thurso, John

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Tredinnick, David

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Malins, Humfrey

  Viggers, Peter

  Maples, John

  Whittingdale, John

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Wiggin, Bill

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Wilkinson, John

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Moore, Michael

  Willis, Phil

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wilshire, David

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Norman, Archie

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Young, rh Sir George

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Ôpik, Lembit

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Page, Richard

  Angela Watkinson and

  Paice, James

  Mr. Laurence Robertson

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  The, having regard to the Resolution of Standing Committee A, reported on 19th December 2002, the programme order of 26th November 2002 in relation to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill be confirmed.

  Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
  Not amended in the Committee and in the Standing Committee, considered.
New Clause 2

  FURTHER REFERENDUM ON PETITION
  '(1) This section applies if an elected assembly for a region has been established pursuant to a referendum held under section 1(1).

  (2) The Secretary of State shall by order cause a further referendum to be held in a region specified in the order if he is presented with a petition requesting such a referendum signed by not less than 5 per cent. of the electors eligible to vote in the region as defined in section 3(1).

  (3) The question to be asked in a referendum held pursuant to an order under subsection (2) above is the question set out in section 2(1).'.—[Mr. Hammond.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  2.49 pm
  Mr. Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No.12, in page 3, line 15 [Clause 5], leave out 'five' and insert 'ten'.
  Mr. Hammond: Mindful of what was said in the previous debate, I shall attempt to be brief. The main issues of concern to hon. Members mostly fall in the second group of amendments, so I hope that the debate on this group will be relatively short.
  Clause 1 provides for regional referendums to be held on creating elected regional assemblies. There is no provision for a threshold for turnout or, indeed, a threshold for yes votes. Hon. Members will be mindful of what happened in the Welsh Assembly elections. Clause 5 will give the Government the power to hold repeat referendums—if they fail the first time, they can try again after a five-year gap—so a ratchet effect is being introduced.
  The Government need to achieve only a tiny majority on a tiny turnout, once, to create an elected regional assembly. They will need to shift public opinion only momentarily to get their way, and they will get as many goes as they like at achieving that. In effect, in a region where a referendum has been fought and narrowly lost, a sword of Damocles will hang over local government in that region.
  Under the Government's proposals, an elected regional assembly will necessarily involve the abolition of one of the tiers in two-tier local government areas. It will be impossible for local authorities in those areas to continue to carry out their functions, to improve the delivery of public services and to recruit and retain good staff with the constant threat of a further referendum just five years down the line, and therefore the possibility of abolition or reorganisation.
  This group of amendments consists of two parts. New clause 2 would insert the concept of citizen-initiated recall ballots. If an elected regional assembly were established and 5 per cent. of the electorate in that
  480
  region petitioned for a new referendum to be held, the Secretary of State would have to call a new referendum and exactly the same question as before would be put.
  Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman says that a sword of Damocles should not hang over people in local authorities because of the uncertainty that their arrangements may change if regional assemblies are created. He is now arguing in the new clause that a sword of Damocles will similarly hang over people because the arrangements might change back again. Is not that contradictory—or is that just what we are used to?
  Mr. Hammond: The Bill will allow the Government to hold a second referendum on a whim, but we propose to give effect to the will of the people. We have to have things one way or the other. We need either sensible periods between referendums and sensible thresholds so that a tiny majority in a tiny turnout cannot determine the issue, or a mechanism for going back if it all turns out to be a dreadful mistake.
  New clause 2 would allow mature reflection. It would deal with the situation where the elected regional assembly perhaps turns out to be something rather different from what the electors had been led to believe, bearing in mind that no legislation setting out the powers and functions of elected regional assemblies will be available to them at the time of the referendum. It would allow a wake-up call for the silent majority. It would allow a route back from what the Government would like to see as a one-way ratchet.
  New clause 2 would allow an assessment to be made based on the experience of an elected regional assembly in operation and the unitary organisation of local government that that necessarily involves, rather than one based only on the Government spin that would be available before the referendum. The threshold of 5 per cent. that is proposed, which is similar to that for mayoral ballots, is a tough target. It is not so easy to organise a petition of 5 per cent. of all the electors in a region.
  We oppose the currently proposed elected regional assemblies because they will not address the real problems created by the Government's centralising tendencies and they will not address the issues facing England post devolution, but we do believe in democracy. Certain safeguards need to be put in place because elected regional assemblies are not just matters for individual regions; they concern the whole of England. If those safeguards can be put in place—some of them will be dealt with in the debate on the second group of amendments—we are confident that, in a fair and open ballot where all the people of England have an opportunity to express their views on a settlement for England, the Minister will get his answer. We are confident that our view will prevail.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has clarified the fact that the Conservatives will oppose regional assemblies. However, you said in Committee that you recognised that people in the north-east are interested in having a

  481
  regional assembly. Will the Conservative party in the north-east therefore oppose the establishment of a regional assembly there?
  Mr. Hammond: I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you did not say anything in Committee, but it is important to put on record the fact that I certainly recognised in Committee that there are concerns in the peripheral parts of England about the centralising tendencies. [Interruption.] There is nothing pejorative about the word "peripheral".
  Joyce Quin: Yes, there is.
  Mr. Hammond: No, there is not. It is a geographical term, and there is nothing pejorative about it at all.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie): Can the hon. Gentleman say where the central heart of England is?
  Mr. Hammond: If the hon. Gentleman had allowed me to finish, I was about to say that I recognise that there is concern in the geographical periphery of England about the London-centred Government and their centralising tendencies, grabbing power and accumulating it in Whitehall. That is a fair point, and I have acknowledged it in Committee. We simply do not believe that the Government's chosen route is the way to address that issue. We do not believe that it presents a plausible, credible and durable solution for all of England, post the devolution settlement for the nations of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Kevan Jones rose—
  Mr. Hammond: I said that I would try to be brief; I shall give way once more to the hon. Gentleman and then I want to make progress.
  Mr. Jones: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm whether the Conservative party in the north-east will campaign for a no vote in any referendum there?
  Mr. Hammond: I suspect that the Conservative party in the north-east will campaign for a no vote in any referendum there. However, we are now dealing with provisions for further referendums if such referendums are held and are unsuccessful from the Government's point of view, and if there is a rejection in relation to amendment No. 12. Indeed, under new clause 2, we want to create an opportunity for a recall ballot if there is a yes vote.
  The point is that a fair and open process is not being proposed. Electors are being asked to vote blind. They will not know what the powers of the new assembly will be. They will be asked to vote for regions that have no identity and, in many cases, little credibility. They will be asked to vote for local government reform, the effect of which they will not know until it has happened. The Government want to create a one-way ratchet so that
  482
  there is no going back. In the absence of any requirement for threshold of support for the creation of elected regional assemblies, with an ability for repeat ballots every five years and because electors will be voting blind, simple fairness and equity demand that there is a way back, and new clause 2 would provide it.
  Amendment No. 12 addresses the provisions in clause 5 on repeat referendums. Clause 5 will allow repeat referendums to be called every five years. I have discussed that with business, interested organisations and local government members, and we believe that five years is too short a period for pragmatic reasons. If a referendum were lost, to have the threat of a further ballot in just five years' time would plunge local authorities in that region into chaos. There will be recruitment and retention problems and service delivery problems.
  Repeat referendums will effectively create a state of permanent campaign for the ensuing four years or so. That is not in the interests of the citizens of any region. It is not in the interests of good local government, and it is certainly not in the interests of what should be the Government principal objective: improving the delivery of public services. The public want the Government to focus on public service, and they want their local authorities to deliver them. So five years is a recipe for chaos. I suggest that 10 years is the minimum period acceptable from a practical point of view. We tested various other periods in Committee. I hope that the Minister will be persuaded that 10 years is a sensible compromise.
  Jim Knight: I listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said about amendment No. 12, but I do not see any time limit in new clause 2 about the reversal process. Is that an omission or does he think that people should be able to get together 5 per cent, and reverse the result of a referendum at any time?
  3 pm
  Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is right. There is no provision for a time limit on repeated recall ballots. I considered that issue. I envisaged that the Minister would raise it. If he is prepared to concede that time limits are sensible and that a recall ballot is a good mechanism and needs to be time limited and if he will propose or accept a sensible time limit on repeat referendums under clause 5, I shall certainly consider withdrawing this new clause. I should be happy if the Minister would table a new clause in the other place which would create a symmetry, so that referendums for the creation of elected regional assemblies and referendums for the winding up of elected regional assemblies on a citizen initiative have an equal, level playing field. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. If the Minister is prepared to take that on board, at last we are beginning to achieve something.
  Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton): If the Conservatives press the amendments to a vote we shall oppose them. They want to pass these amendments because they want to wreck the anti-devolution movement. These powers should be vested in the regional assembly. When the Government introduce a powers and functions Bill for the regional assembly, as I hope they will, I hope that they will put forward a proper

  483
  constitution for those bodies. When those bodies are created it should be up to them to decide whether there is an opinion in the region that the assembly should be dissolved. It is not for the Secretary of State or Whitehall to decide that after devolution has taken place. The Conservatives may have a point in that the people of the regions should have a way of changing that constitution, but the new clause is not the way to do it.
  Mr. Hammond: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said, but he often seems to live in an ideal world. Has he heard of the concept of turkeys never voting for Christmas?
  Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is into pejorative words today about voters and parts of the country. Those whom he calls turkeys are the people who will vote for the assembly members. If voters want to vote in people who will dissolve the assembly, they will be free to do so. This is an inappropriate system. The hon. Gentleman suggests that we are living in some sort of cloud cuckoo land. He is completely wrong. We want regional devolution because we want the quango state that the Conservatives created democratised. That is what is important. When the quangos have been abolished, it could be up to the people of the region to decide whether they have faith to continue with regional assemblies. We shall vote against the Conservative amendments.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: I support these amendments. The Government are proposing an imperfect constitutional settlement. I cannot really believe that they intend that the long-term constitutional arrangements for this country should involve some parts with elected regional assemblies and others without. That is not a sustainable framework. It is important, therefore, that there is some recall mechanism in place so that the people of the region can undo the wrong which they may come to realise they have done.
  We keep talking about the north-east but that is something of a distraction because we are legislating for the entire country. If arrangements need to be put in place for a particular area, let us talk about it, but let us not legislate for everyone just because of one corner—albeit an important corner—of the country. By the way, we in the south-west are peripheral. That is not a pejorative thing to say; it is a fact of geography—we are a long way from the centre. We need mechanisms to undo what may be done. If the north-east goes down this route and votes blind for an elected regional assembly, in a few years time people there may come to think that it is an expensive talking shop and brings them no benefit whatever.
  Jim Knight: Is it Conservative party policy to offer a recall referendum for the Greater London Assembly?
  Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that there is none in place. My answer is that we would not start from here. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the appointment of the Mayor of London has been a terrific success, I invite him to think again.
  It may not be just the north-east that votes for an elected regional assembly. We have heard that the north-west does not believe itself to be a coherent
  484
  region, nor does the west midlands. Other parts of the country have shown little interest in this proposal, but there are defensive reasons why such parts may find themselves voting for an elected regional assembly. They may then have even more reasons to seek to undo that decision in future.
  Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a MORI poll showed that in the north-west there was 97 per cent, identification with the region? Is he further aware that a BBC poll showed that over 72 per cent, of people in the north-west supported a directly elected assembly?
  Mr. Streeter: I was aware of neither. I was basing my assumptions on comments that I have heard the hon. Lady's colleagues make in this Chamber and in Committee as the Bill has proceeded, that the north-west does not consider itself to be a coherent region and there is little interest in this measure.
  Mr. George Howarth: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of his hon. Friends and I took part in a debate on Granada television, following which there was a telephone poll, and that the majority of people who responded were opposed to a north-west regional assembly?
  Mr. Streeter: I hate to intrude on a private grief. Sadly we do not get Granada television in the west country, or at least not very often, unless it broadcasts "Coronation Street".
  Although other parts may not want an elected regional assembly it is possible that because another region or other regions have plumped for it, they feel that in some intangible way they are missing out. They might mistakenly follow the same route. People make decisions for all sorts of reasons. Therefore, some sort of recall mechanism should be in place.
  I was interested the other day when we debated the House of Lords that an hon. Gentleman spoke powerfully about how in Scotland many people are realising that the electoral settlement of Members of the Scottish Parliament elected on a list system was causing chaos and confusion in Scottish constituencies and wish that more thought had been given to that. I got the impression that many in Scotland wished to undo that particular mechanism. Elected regional assemblies may cause confusion with people who are elected to sit on those assemblies tripping over the toes of Members of Parliament and vice versa, colliding with MEPs going about their duties, and stepping on the toes of local councillors. I predict that there could well be immense confusion about respective functions, responsibilities and powers. That in itself may cause right hon. and hon. Members to reconsider their opinions on whether elected regional assemblies are right. That is another reason why there might be a recall mechanism.
  My hon. Friend is right that 5 per cent, is a high threshold. Such a percentage cannot be put together on a wet Sunday afternoon. A lot of people have to sign a petition. That gives the Government all the reassurance that they need that it would not be lightly triggered, but would be available if people felt strongly.
  Finally, I shall deal briefly with amendment No. 12, which I would like to support. I know from discussions with local authorities throughout my constituency that

  485
  there is little likelihood of the south-west going for a regional assembly—I have never met anyone in my part of the region, Devon and Cornwall, who is in favour of it—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may disagree, but I remind them that Dorset is not in Devon and Cornwall. No one has mentioned it to me on the doorstep, and I have not had a single letter or phone call to my constituency office saying, "If only we had an elected regional assembly, all of my problems would be over." There is no interest in that in my part of the world.
  Because local government is charged with looking ahead and looking around corners, however, it is already planning what might happen if there were a south-west elected regional assembly and what might be the impact on local councils. As I have said previously, West Devon borough council was already having meetings about how it would respond if there were an elected regional assembly, several years down the track, and the Electoral Commission were to conclude that Devon should be carved up into two or three unitary authorities. Its contingency plans have already introduced uncertainty, and if, every five years, the sword of Damocles is to hang over local government—which, as my hon. Friend rightly says, will have a great impact on recruitment and retention and the sense of security and stability—that will be an unnecessary infliction on its exercise of its lawful and statutory duties. I urge the Minister, who is reasonable, sensible, sensitive and impressive—
  Mr. Leslie: Which Minister?
  Mr. Streeter: Both the Under-Secretary and the Minister for Local Government and the Regions. I hope that they will think about that and change five years for 10 years in the Bill, and that they will agree to a recall mechanism, too.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: I support entirely the thrust of amendment No. 12 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). I am concerned, however, about the threshold of 5 per cent. I would have welcomed a lower threshold although I wholly support the principle of the amendment.
  To illustrate the difficulty of achieving that 5 per cent., I draw the attention of the House to the question that was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) on 20 January. He asked the Minister for Local Government and the Regions,
  "how many representations he has received from electors living in (a) the south-east region, (b) Hampshire and (c) New Forest East constituency in favour of the establishment of an elected regional assembly".
  The answer given by the Minister was that
  "between the dates of 9 May 2002, when the White Paper was published, and 30 November 2002, the office of the Deputy Prime Minister recorded 18 respondents from the south-east who were in favour of an elected regional assembly … of whom two were from Hampshire."—[Official Report, 20 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 168W.]
  In relation to getting a 5 per cent, threshold, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that there are some 6 million electors in the south-east region.
  Mr. Hammond: It is worse than my hon. Friend fears: there are 8 million electors in the south-east region. I
  486
  understand his concern. I thought long and hard about the figure of 5 per cent, and I tabled it in an attempt to reach for some consensus or centre ground on which I hope that the Minister and I can meet. It does not seem to me an unreasonable suggestion that there should be some recall mechanism. While I know that my hon. Friend takes a rigorous view on these matters, I hope that by going for 5 per cent. I will demonstrate to him that I am reaching out to the Minister in a spirit of compromise.
  Mr. Swayne: I am persuaded and reassured by my hon. Friend, who, throughout the Committee proceedings, was entirely reasonable, as he is being now. I will follow his lead and accept 5 per cent. Nevertheless, Labour Members should be reassured that 5 per cent. will be very difficult to achieve.
  3.15 pm
  Jim Knight: Given everything that the h on. Gentleman has said about the difficulty of reaching a threshold of 5 per cent., would it not have been easier to have listened to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey)—I know that that is difficult, but on this occasion he is correct. It would be much easier for electors to elect people to a regional assembly and have them dissolve themselves in the same way that electors in the European elections, I am afraid, occasionally vote for the UK Independence party in the full knowledge that it is standing to dissolve a Parliament with which it does not agree.
  Mr. Swayne: Turkeys do not generally vote for Christmas. Once an elected assembly is established there is little prospect of it dissolving itself. What this carefully crafted new clause does is to provide a means by which citizens can initiate the political process and exercise people power: power for the greater part of the population as expressed in terms of the 5 per cent, requirement in the petition.
  Mr. Leslie: Will the hon. Gentleman, who is moonlighting in his usual role as a Whip, say whether, being so persuaded of the need for a 5 per cent, trigger mechanism, or any trigger mechanism, he feels, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) pointed out earlier, that that should also be applied to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly?
  Mr. Swayne: I do not want to stray from the terms of this debate, which is on the regional assemblies. I am therefore not prepared to be tempted by the Minister to go beyond that brief. I was interrupted in the train of thought that I was drawing to the attention of the House with respect to the difficulty of achieving a petition of 5 per cent, of the electors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge says, the south-east region has 8 million electors. Eighteen responses were received in favour of a regional assembly. In Hampshire, there are more than 960,000 electors—not people, electors—but there were only two respondents in favour of the proposals. The Ministers know their uphill task. They have therefore devised an ingenious mechanism: any response whatever is counted as interest in favour of a referendum. The fact that someone might be wholly against an assembly, and might write to say so, will

  487
  nevertheless be counted as someone expressing an interest in a referendum. Our task in securing a petition will not be nearly so easy as the method that the Ministers have devised for themselves.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: I am shocked and amazed at the implicit duplicity of Ministers if, as my hon. Friend asserts, they should count a clear expression of objection to a regional assembly as an argument in favour of a referendum. I know of the huge amount of work that has been done by our colleagues, MEPs representing the south-east, in campaigning against a referendum. Is he saying that Ministers are genuinely taking such expressions against as expressions of interest in a referendum being held?
  Mr. Swayne: I will preface my answer by saying that I am keen to move on to the next group of amendments. My hon. Friend should study the Official Report of the Standing Committee, as this was an issue that the Committee considered in some depth. The position is precisely as he fears.
  Jim Knight: Does the hon. Gentleman not recall the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) talking about the sword of Damocles and about his concerns about the effects on people in local authorities? Is it not valid for a community to decide to campaign for a referendum so that it can resolve the issue even if it is against an assembly? It is perfectly valid for people to organise for a referendum so that they can say no.
  Mr. Swayne: I doubt very much that the people writing to the Secretary of State to say that they do not want a regional assembly have any idea that their letters are counted as though they are in favour of holding a referendum.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has provided a mechanism by which we can put an end to the ratchet effect and can avoid what I described in Committee as African democracy. We want one man, one vote, once. Then the matter will be settled and there will be no going back. That is the reverse of what Ministers have provided for the proponents of regional assemblies. They will be able to go on ad infinitum and hold referendums every five years. It is therefore entirely appropriate to accept amendment No. 12 and to make the figure 10 years. In Committee, I argued for 20 years—a generation—but I will accept my hon. Friend's reasonable compromise of 10 years.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: I want to make two points. The first is to admit that I am a little confused by the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). The question is, who are the turkeys? He asserted, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), that the description of turkeys voting for Christmas was a slur on the electorate in a given region. I do not think that it
  488
  was a slur. The epithet "turkeys" was addressed not to the electors in the region, but to the members of the putative assembly.
  Mr. Hammond indicated assent.
  Mr. Swayne indicated assent.
  Mr. Turner: My hon. Friends nod in agreement, so we have got that clear. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton was slightly wrong.
  My second point was about the threshold that the electors—not the turkeys—would have to achieve under the new clause to enable a second or recall referendum to take place. I disagree with the assertion of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), because I have experience of petitions being obtained for a whole range of purposes.
  Before 1997, I was pleased to assist schools with the complex but invigorating process of achieving grant-maintained status. It was necessary for 20 per cent. of the parents of the pupils registered at a school to sign a petition for a referendum, which was conducted by postal ballot, to take place. A huge number of parents from almost 2,000 schools were willing to sign a petition. They signed up in such numbers that referendums were called. It is not difficult to reach a threshold of 20 per cent., or one that is even higher than that.
  I cite the case of the west Wight ambulance or the Tennyson ambulance, as it is called. It was given to the area by the widow of Alfred Lord Tennyson, who was a distinguished resident of the west Wight. The ambulance serves the area covered by the parishes of Freshwater and Totland, the town of Yarmouth and the parish of Brighstone in my constituency. That area has a population of about 8,000. However, when the Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS trust proposed to redeploy the Tennyson ambulance, I received a copy of a petition signed by 4,000 electors—such was the level of interest in the deployment of a single ambulance. Imagine the level of interest that there would be in the deployment of the many millions of pounds that Labour Members wish to tear out of the grip of electors and hand over to the bogus assemblies. As it would not be difficult to achieve a 50 or 20 per cent, threshold, it is reasonable to propose a 5 per cent, threshold, and my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is to be commended for that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West also referred to people power. Putting power into the hands of the electors is the best way to determine such issues. It is not right to call the electors turkeys. I challenge the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton to tell me when a regional or national Assembly has voted for its own dissolution. If he can provide a substantial example of that, I might be forced to conclude that new clause 2 does not justify my support, but I do not believe that such an example exists.
  I want to echo one or two remarks that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) made on the frequency of referendums. The referendums will be deeply unsettling. They will entail the abolition of a tier of local government and redeployment of a huge number of local government staff and officers. That will make recruitment to those

  489
  posts difficult. It is better to enable local government to operate in a stable environment—indeed, that is the objective of the Minister for Local Government and the Regions—but knowing that the sword of Damocles hangs over the assemblies every five years does not contribute to stability.
  Mr. Leslie: Thank goodness the Conservatives objected to the programme motion. They clearly wanted to spend much more time debating the main issues. It is a shame that only two of their Back Benchers are in the Chamber. Perhaps they will flood in later for other groups of amendments.
  The Conservatives are using new clause 2 to introduce the right for 5 per cent, of the electorate to sign a petition to requisition a further referendum on the establishment of an assembly once it is up and running. That would be a recipe for uncertainty and extremely disruptive to the operation of an assembly. Elected regional assemblies will be strategic and focus on the long term so they need certainty. What would happen if such a petition was successful, a further referendum was requisitioned and people voted to abolish the assembly? New clause 2 gives no idea of who would take on the assembly's responsibilities. Would they return to Whitehall?
  Mr. Hammond: The reason for that is that nowhere in the Bill is there anything about what the assembly's responsibilities might be. The Government are inviting people to vote blind in a referendum for elected regional assemblies. We will have to wait a long time before we see the legislation that sets out their powers.
  Mr. Leslie: Well, goodness gracious me, if the hon. Gentleman has not noticed the voluminous White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice", which describes in great detail the roles, functions and activities of elected regional assemblies, he may need to do a bit more research.
  A 5 per cent, threshold to trigger a further referendum would be unprecedented in our constitution. No other body has a 5 per cent, threshold for a re-ballot. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) asked the interesting question of whether the Conservatives would apply it to the Greater London Authority. The same could be said of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. [Interruption.] The Conservatives, including one of their Front-Bench spokesmen, the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who is temporarily on the Back Benches, suggested that that was not within the Bill's scope, but I think that they were frightened to answer the question. If they believe that people should be able to challenge a decision to devolve powers and create an assembly or Parliament as a right, they should say whether that would apply to all parts of our country. I am surprised that they could not face up to that.
  A 5 per cent, minority being able persistently, veraciously and repetitiously to frustrate the settled will of the majority of people in a region would be not only a distraction but extremely costly and wasteful. There would be the costs of the referendums and of demolishing an elected regional assembly once it had been set up.
  3.30 pm
  Mr. Andrew Turner: The Minister suggests that a 5 per cent, minority is unsuitable to cause a recalled referendum. What level of interest does he regard suitable to cause an initial referendum?
  Mr. Leslie: That is also set out in the White Paper. We are trying to give people the opportunity to make a choice. We are not talking about the establishment of an assembly, but simply about whether there should be a referendum to establish one. The hon. Gentleman opposes giving people a choice and letting them express their will in a referendum.
  It is most unfortunate, but it is important to say that I agree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) that the electorate have the perfect capacity to elect people to run these assemblies and then say what those assemblies should be doing. The new clause is not necessary because people would have every opportunity both to consider the merits of an assembly in the initial referendum and to shape that assembly every four years in elections to it.
  Mr. Davey: Will it be the Government's intention when they introduce a Bill on the powers and functions of regional assemblies to create a constitution for them to allow an elected party to such an assembly to dissolve it?
  Mr. Leslie: Obviously, we shall have to look at that nearer the time, but I imagine that most Members would accept that Parliament is perfectly capable of making a judgment on the continuity issues of any assembly. I believe that that deals adequately with the point raised by hon. Members who want to consider the question of dissolving an assembly.
  Mr. Hammond: I do not want to fight the battles of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) for him, but this is an important point because it drives a coach and horses through what the Minister is saying. Will an elected regional assembly have the power to dissolve itself or not?
  Mr. Leslie: Parliament decides to set up devolved authorities and assemblies, so that will be a matter for Parliament.
  I am curious about the Conservatives' claim that once an elected regional assembly is established, voters should have the opportunity to change their minds whenever they want. However, amendment No. 12 would deny voters in a region without an assembly the chance to change their minds for 10 years. They want to impose a minimum 10-year gap from the date of a no vote to when any subsequent referendum can be held in the same region. That is completely inconsistent and unfair.
  Mr. Hammond: If the Minister is prepared to agree on behalf of the Government to accept the 10-year

  491
  provision in clause 5, I would certainly be willing to withdraw new clause 2 and retable it in the Lords to include a 10-year lockout.
  Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman brings me to my next point: precisely why a 10-year gap is wrong and why we oppose the measure.
  Mr. Swayne: Tease!
  Mr. Leslie: I should like to tease the hon. Gentleman over what he said in Committee. It was interesting that he argued for a 20-year gap, saying that he wanted to distance himself from the CBI suggestion of a 10-year gap. He said:
  "I am not so concerned about the limit of 10 years that the CBI suggested. I think that our amendment suggesting a limit of 20 years is about right."
  When asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) whether he actively disagreed with the CBI, the hon. Gentleman said:
  "I do in this case. I think that the period should be a generation",
  and he repeated that today.
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) did not weigh in to support his hon. Friend, as he did in Committee, when he said:
  "The CBI is looking at these matters from the narrow perspective of business … However, it cannot be a concluding perspective".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 3 December 2002; c. 26–30.]
  The fact that the Conservatives have changed their mind and accepted the 10-year gap in the space of just one month proves my point. People can change their minds in less than 10 or 20 years. The Government's five-year interval strikes the right balance between a reasonable opportunity for people to change their minds and the avoidance of uncertainty and the repeat costs of a referendum. A five-year gap is a minimum—the exact period will depend on the soundings of opinion taken by the Secretary of State—and there is not a requirement to hold referendums in a five-year cycle. The Government have not plucked that five-year figure from the air. As Members will know, five years is the maximum interval between general elections and is also the standard interval for European parliamentary elections. I believe that five years is the right interval. I hope that Opposition Members will not persist with their new clause and amendment and I urge them to withdraw them.
  Mr. Hammond: The Minister is skating on extremely thin ice. In the space of about two minutes, he said that people can change their minds and should have the opportunity of repeat referendums within a period of no more than five years to try to create an elected regional assembly, but then set his face firmly against the idea that, having voted for elected regional assemblies, people may change their mind and wish to do away with them. In response to a question from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), he made it clear that elected regional assemblies will not have, as the hon. Gentleman would like, the power to abolish themselves. Electors electing those assemblies will not
  492
  have the UK Independence party option referred to earlier of electing members committed to the abolition of the assembly.
  The Minister's position is therefore inconsistent. He put administrative convenience above democracy and displayed breathtaking arrogance, as he said that it is all right for Ministers to have the disruptive power to impose referendum after referendum until they achieve their objective, then a ratchet operates and things can never go back to the way they were before. However, he said that it is not all right for the people the have the power through democratic action to call a referendum and reconsider a decision. I urge my right hon. and lion. Friends and, I hope, all other right-minded, right-thinking Members to support me in pressing the new clause to a division.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 342.

  Division No. 61]

  [3:37 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hammond, Philip

  Amess, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Heald, Oliver

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hendry, Charles

  Bacon, Richard

  Hermon, Lady

  Barker, Gregory

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Bercow, John

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Howard, rh Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Jenkin, Bernard

  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

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Cash, William

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lidington, David

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Chope, Christopher

  Loughton, Tim

  Clappison, James

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Collins, Tim

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Maples, John

  Curry, rh David

  Maude, rh Francis

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Evans, Nigel

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Fabricant, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Fallon, Michael

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Page, Richard

  Flook, Adrian

  Paice, James

  Forth, rh Eric

  Paterson, Owen

  Francois, Mark

  Pickles, Eric

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Garnier, Edward

  Redwood, rh John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Robathan, Andrew

  Goodman, Paul

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Grayling, Chris

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Greenway, John

  Ruffley, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  493

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Tredinnick, David

  Shepherd, Richard

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Viggers, Peter

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Walter, Robert

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Whittingdale, John

  Spring, Richard

  Wiggin, Bill

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Wilkinson, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Wilshire, David

  Swayne, Desmond

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Syms, Robert

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Angela Watkinson and

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mr. Laurence Robertson

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Ainger, Nick

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clelland, David

  Allan, Richard

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cohen, Harry

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Coleman, Iain

  Austin, John

  Colman, Tony

  Banks, Tony

  Connarty, Michael

  Barnes, Harry

  Cooper, Yvette

  Barrett, John

  Corston, Jean

  Beard, Nigel

  Cousins, Jim

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cruddas, Jon

  Bell, Stuart

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Benn, Hilary

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Best, Harold

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Blackman, Liz

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Borrow, David

  David, Wayne

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davidson, Ian

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Brennan, Kevin

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Denham, rh John

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Browne, Desmond

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bryant, Chris

  Doran, Frank

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Burden, Richard

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Burgon, Colin

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Burnett, John

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burstow, Paul

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Edwards, Huw

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Efford, Clive

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Cairns, David

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Etherington, Bill

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fisher, Mark

  Caplin, Ivor

  Flint, Caroline

  Casale, Roger

  Follett, Barbara

  Caton, Martin

  Foster, rh Derek

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Challen, Colin

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Chaytor, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Foulkes, rh George

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Galloway, George

  494

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lepper, David

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gerrard, Neil

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Gilroy, Linda

  Linton, Martin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Goggins, Paul

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Love, Andrew

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Grogan, John

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hancock, Mike

  McDonnell, John

  Hanson, David

  MacDougall, John

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  McIsaac, Shona

  McKechin, Ann

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  McNamara, Kevin

  Healey, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Heath, David

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hendrick, Mark

  McWilliam, John

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Heppell, John

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Heyes, David

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Holmes, Paul

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Merron, Gillian

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Moore, Michael

  Hutton, rh John

  Moran, Margaret

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Morgan, Julie

  Illsley, Eric

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Mullin, Chris

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Jamieson, David

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Jenkins, Brian

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Organ, Diana

  Jones, Martyn (ClwydS)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Owen, Albert

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Perham, Linda

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Picking, Anne

  Keetch, Paul

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Plaskitt, James

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Kidney, David

  Pound, Stephen

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Lamb, Norman

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Purchase, Ken

  495

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Rammell, Bill

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Stringer, Graham

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Stunell, Andrew

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

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

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Rendel, David

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Rooney, Terry

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Thurso, John

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Timms, Stephen

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Touhing, Don (Islwyn)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Trickett, Jon

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Turner' Dr Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Salter, Martin

  Sanders, Adrian

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sawford, Phil

  Tynan, Bill (Hamiltton S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Ward, Claire

  Sheerman Barry

  Wareing Robert N

  Sheridan, Jim

  Watson Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Shipley Ms Debra

  Watts, David

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  White Brian

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Singh, Marsha

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Willis, Phil

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Wills, Michael

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wood Mike (Batley)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wright Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns & Kincardine)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Soley, Clive

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Southworth, Helen

  Wyatt, Derek

  Spellar, rh John

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Squire, Rachel

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Jim Fitzpatrick and

  Stevenson, George

  Mr. Phil Woolas

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

  PRE-REFERENDUM
  '(1) Subject to subsection (3), the Secretary of State may by order cause a referendum to be held throughout England about the establishment of elected regional assemblies and the reorganisation of local government within regions with elected assemblies.

  (2) The date of the referendum must be specified in the order.

  (3) No order under subsection (1) may be made unless a draft order under subsection (1)(a) of section (Regional Boundaries) has been published.

  (4) The questions to be asked in a referendum held in pursuance of an order under subsection (1) are—

  "(1) Do you support the proposals for the creation of regions in England, as proposed by the Secretary of State and the subsequent holding of regional referendums in regions where sufficient levels of interest exist, about the creation of elected regional assemblies?

  (2) Do you support the idea of reorganising local government in areas that currently have both county and district or borough councils into single tier unitary authorities if an elected regional assembly is created?".

  496

  (5) The questions must be preceded by a statement from the Electoral Commission, setting out any information it believes requisite for the proper understanding by persons entitled to vote of the questions.

  (6) Sections 3 and 4 of this Act shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to a referendum held pursuant to subsection (1).'.—[Mr. Hammond.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Hammond: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
  New clause 4—Certification prior to referendum—

  '.(1) Before making an order under section 1(1), the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that, during the period of twelve months prior to the laying of the order, neither the Regional Chamber nor the Regional Development Agency within the region to be specified in the order have carried out any activities which they do not have power to carry out and which are intended to influence the outcome of such a referendum.

  (2) The Secretary of State shall, prior to making an order under section 1(1) and after satisfying himself in accordance with subsection (1), issue a certificate confirming that he is so satisfied.'.

  New clause 6—Definition of Regions—

  '(1) The Secretary of State may by order define regions for the purposes of this Act.

  (2) In exercising his power under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall define Cornwall as a region.

  (3) An order under this section shall be subject to affirmative resolutions of both Houses of Parliament.'.

  New clause 8—Regional boundaries—

  '(1) Before making any order under Parts 1, 2 or 3 the Secretary of State shall—

  (a) invite all local authorities in England (except London) to submit to him proposals for the creation of regions for the purposes of this Act; and

  (b) invite such other persons and bodies as appear to him to represent relevant interests throughout England (except London) to submit to him proposals for the creation of regions for the purposes of this Act; and

  (c) upon receipt of submissions in response to paragraphs (a) and (b) invite the Electoral Commission to comment on the submissions and to make proposals to the Secretary of State for the creation of regions for the purposes of this Act having regard to—

  (i) the desirability of all regions being, in so far as is not incompatible with (ii) below, of approximately equal population size; and

  (ii) the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities

  (d) publish the proposals made to him by the Electoral Commission under paragraph (c); and

  (e) make an order creating regions for the purposes of this Act, having regard to the proposals published under paragraph (d).

  (2) For the purposes of this section "relevant interests" means professional bodies, trades unions, voluntary organisations, faith groups, political parties, business organisations and community organisations.

  (3) For the purposes of subsection 1 paragraphs (a) and (b), the Secretary of State shall set out a timetable for the giving of responses to him.'.

  Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 8 [Clause 1], at end insert—
  '(2A) No order may be made under subsection 1 unless a referendum has been held pursuant to section (pre-Referendum) and the Secretary of State has considered the result of the referendum and determined on the basis of it that sufficient interest exists in the creation of elected regional assemblies.'.
  Amendment No. 26, in page 1, line 13 [Clause 1], leave out 'made recommendations' and insert
  'been directed to prepare to carry out a review'.
  Government amendment No. 4.
  Amendment No. 15, in page 13, line 3, leave out clause 26.
  Amendment No. 3, in page 13, line 4 [Clause 26], leave out from first 'region' to end of line 5 and insert
  `is as defined in an order made under section (Regional Boundaries).
  Mr. Hammond: Clause 1 grants the Secretary of State the power to call referendums in specific regions. The amendments deal with the pre-conditions for them.
  The Government are going off at half-cock. They are so anxious to proceed that they are building on sand. If they want regional devolution and elected regional assemblies, they should start by sorting out the regions. They should then ascertain whether there is a genuine appetite for the regional assembly solution throughout England, including for the local government reorganisation that they have linked inextricably to elected regional assemblies. The third tick in the box before embarking on the devolution road is ensuring that no hanky panky is happening in the regions and that no existing bodies are doing things that perhaps they should not.
  New clause 8 is the key to the group. Two big issues have dominated our debates about the Bill in Committee and on the Floor of the House. First, the Government have decreed that local government reorganisation is a necessary concomitant of elected regional assemblies. New clause 3 covers that. Secondly, we must consider the shape of the regions. The Government are accused of focusing on only one or two regions and not proposing a genuine all-England solution. Their proposals thus ignore the fact that many English regions lack coherence and credibility for the purpose that the Government support.
  Most regions simply do not stack up.
  The areas of the Government offices for the regions, which the Government are now proposing to follow, were created for a completely different purpose, namely, administrative convenience and the delivery of administrative government throughout England. I understand that their origin goes back further than that, because the boundaries on which they are based were originally derived from the wartime division of Britain into direction of production regions for food and agricultural planning purposes. That is quite different from the matter now before us. They were never intended to be coherent democratic units. They have been given spurious credibility by being used as the basis for the regional development agency boundaries, but they were never intended to be democratic geographical units.
  498
  There are huge disparities of geography, economic strength and population between the different regions. The north-east region, for example, has a population of 2.5 million, compared with the south-east region's 8 million, which is more than three times as many. The north-east has a gross domestic product of £26 billion, against some £132 billion in the south-east, which is more than five times as much. The north-east region is the smallest, geographically, with 8,500 sq km, while the south-west's proposed region has a superficial area of 23,000 sq km. The north-east has 30 parliamentary constituencies, compared with the 83 that the south-east actually has, and the 96 that it would have if the distribution of parliamentary seats were proportional to population.
  So the north-east is by far the smallest region—I do not say that in a pejorative sense—on every criterion, yet the whole structure builds around it. It will almost undoubtedly be the first to go for a referendum, and most hon. Members agree that it is the most likely to agree to an elected regional assembly. Perhaps this is no coincidence. The smaller the region, the greater the chance of a coherent identity in that region—we shall no doubt hear later from the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), who is not in his place at the moment, about the claims of Cornwall to be an identifiable region but the Government have set their face firmly against any attempt to create real, meaningful regions.
  During the course of our deliberations on the Bill, we have heard from Members on both sides of the House that people in north Shropshire do not regard themselves as part of the west midlands, that Oxford does not have very much in common with Dover, and that south Essex has an entirely different focus from Cambridge or the north Norfolk coast, yet they find themselves in the same region. The south-west region consists of very disparate entities and communities that do not see themselves as a region at all. In our last debate on the Floor of the House, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) referred to the north-west region as "the fictional north-west". All these regions have a common theme: they have no natural centre, no natural focus and no coherent sense of identity.
  Mrs. Ellman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is totally wrong to talk about the north-west having a fictional identity, when polls consistently show people in the region identifying very strongly with the north-west as a whole? Is he aware that a recent poll conducted by the north-west constitutional convention found that more than 73 per cent, of people in Merseyside wanted a directly elected north-west assembly?
  Mr. Hammond: It is not for me to intrude on the private grief on the Labour Back Benches. The words "fictional north-west" were not mine; they were uttered by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East—another Merseyside Member. I think that this is something that the Merseyside contingent has to sort out for itself, and I shall not contribute further to that particular bit of in-fighting.
  Mr. George Howarth: It may surprise the hon. Gentleman that I shall not indulge in a debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs.

  499
  Ellman) at this point. Does he believe that it would be possible, within the compass of new clause 3, to establish systems of city-wide government? If so, does he think that that would be a worthy objective?
  Mr. Hammond: I was about to mention city government. This is exactly the point that we are trying to make. If a settlement of the English question is to be durable, and if the decentralisation of power in England is to work, it has to start from the bottom up. It has to build on units with which people have an affinity, and with which they can identify. The purpose of new clause 3 is to put in place a consultation process, so that people can say to the Government, "It may take an extra year, but we simply cannot use these Government office regions that were created for a completely different purpose and are completely wrong for this democratic purpose, just for the sake of saving a few months." We must start at the beginning; I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
  4 pm
  I was about to say that I know many Manchester and Liverpool Members are interested in the concept of city government as another way of approaching the decentralisation of government in England, and that is a perfectly legitimate aspiration. Even among supporters of regional decentralisation, however, there is no agreement.
  I was looking—as one does—at the website of the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) at the time of the last general election. On that Labour party-liveried website, he extols the virtues of something called the northern region to his constituents. He says:
  "The Northern region would include the counties of Northumberland, Tyne and Wear, Durham and Cleveland; and, if the people of Cumbria wish it, Cumbria".
  Interestingly, perhaps intriguingly, that is not envisaged in the Government's proposals, which illustrates one of the problems that they face.
  On his four-page website on a regional assembly for the north, the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge quotes the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), who was then a Minister, as saying:
  "The Government intend to bring forward legislation that will enable the electorate within the regions to determine whether they want an elected assembly."
  The hon. Gentleman quotes his hon. Friend as supporting the Government's proposals. We see now, however, that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley has serious reservations, not about the principle of regional devolution but about the route that the Government have chosen, and specifically about the choice and use of the old offices of the regions boundaries.
  Many Labour party members who supported the abstract notion of regional devolution had no idea at the time that they were signing up to devolution to the existing administrative regions. It is clear from the White Paper—I confirm to the Under-Secretary of State that I have studied it assiduously—that the Government envisage the offices of the regions working, as the White Paper puts it, hand in hand with the elected regional assemblies. They see an argument for coterminous boundaries. That means, of course, a beefed-up
  500
  Government office of the regions standing over the elected regional assembly, ensuring that what it does complies with the Government's requirements. It means, in effect, a prefect system.
  Joyce Quin: Having followed the debate in the Labour party, I suspect, more closely and for longer than the hon. Gentleman, let me tell him that for a long time the regions covered by the Government office have commanded a wide spread of agreement in the party. They are thought to be the appropriate units on which to build regional government. Regions are not prisons, however. It is perfectly possible for the north-east to co-operate with the north-west or with Yorkshire and Humberside. Rather than always seeing such arrangements as confining, the hon. Gentleman should perceive that this is a new type of politics enabling partnerships to be forged.
  Mr. Hammond: The right hon. Lady has underlined the fact that the consensus that existed in the Labour party has started to break down as the details have become clear.
  Of course regions are not prisons. What I am suggesting is that if they are to be robust and durable, they must be built on firm foundations. I plead with the right hon. Lady and some of her colleagues from the north-east to understand this. I think they genuinely find it difficult to understand the objection of Members from regions such as the south-east and east of England, which make no sense at all. We understand that their region is probably the most coherent and has the strongest sense of identity. It is also the smallest. Why should we in the south-west, the east and the south-east face the Government's insistence on regions four times the size of the hon. Lady's, with no sense of cultural identity, no coherence and no economic, geographic or historical logic? Why can we not have an input in the process of defining the regions in which we will live and by which we will be administered?
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Is not the main point about this Bill that it will give the people in those regions the option of whether they want regional government? Why is the Conservative party afraid of giving people a say in how their regions are governed?
  Mr. Hammond: I go back to the website of the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge. The problem is that, if this is to be a durable solution, it must be a solution for all of England, not just part of England. The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge, perhaps sticking his neck out rather a long way, says on his website with the Labour party masthead on it:
  "English Regional Government is the answer to the 'West Lothian Question'. It will promote innovation and variety in the governance of our country."
  In other words, it will deal with the post-UK settlement for England. If it is going to do that, it must deal with it for all of England. It must not be seen as a sectional solution that addresses the agenda only of certain parts of the country.
  Scotland is a nation. No one could doubt that. London is a city. No one could doubt that, but the south-east region, my region, is nothing. No one feels allegiance to it. No one identifies themselves as a citizen

  501
  of south-east England. The overwhelming majority of people would not be able to define it, unlike the constituent counties.
  If a geographical region called London and the south-east were created, perhaps that would have a certain coherence and economic and geographical logic, but it would underline the problem. It would be so overwhelmingly the largest region in the country in terms of population, gross domestic product and geographical area that it would make the system unworkable. Therein lies the problem: the messy, inconvenient fact that England cannot be divided neatly into regions that have any meaning for their people unless the Government are prepared to contemplate a significantly larger number of significantly smaller—in some cases—regions.
  Andrew George (St. Ives): The hon. Gentleman is making extremely valid points that imply that the Conservatives might be in favour of devolution. On the assumption that they might be, does he agree that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) would be right if the Government gave the people a genuine vote on regions that exist, rather than on synthetic regions that do not and that are therefore destined to fail? The Government will succeed in their plan to establish regional government if they accept the type of flexibility that the hon. Gentleman recommends.
  Mr. Hammond: That is precisely my point. I make no bones about it. We shall vote against the Bill on Third Reading, but the purpose of Report is to try to improve the Bill. Unless the Minister deals with this issue, he will not produce a workable solution for all of England. It will be a solution that may or may not work in some of the regions—the north-east is the obvious one in people's minds—but it will not work in the south-east region or the east of England region; I do not think that even the Minister for a moment believes that it will. The hon. Gentleman is right.
  The Minister will never create a durable solution that is based on meaningless lines drawn on maps in Whitehall, with as much relevance to the situation on the ground as the lines drawn by colonial 19th century treaty makers on a map of Africa. In unitary areas, the Government propose that regional government will necessarily involve the introduction of another tier of government. In existing two-tier areas, elected regional assemblies will necessarily involve the loss of the historic and much-identified-with counties. Many people will reject that model of regional devolution for a variety of reasons, but the main reason, and the reason why resistance is likely to be least strong in the north-east and greatest in the south-east and east of England, is that people do not identify with the regions that the Government are putting them into.
  Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman says that, by necessity, unitarisation would mean the loss of shire counties, which people identify with. I agree that people identify with the shire county, for example, of Dorset, which I represent, and speaking personally, if there were a unitary structure in my area, I would favour the
  502
  retention of Dorset as the unitary authority, with the abolition of districts. Nothing has been said by the Government that militates against that.
  Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman would therefore move the point of government further away from the local community.
  Jim Knight: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again and allowing me to expand on what I said. I should like reinvigorated and re-empowered parish and town councils to represent communities in a unitary county. I am pleased that the Department is giving parish councils more power, but I should like that to be extended.
  Mr. Hammond: I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's elaboration of his thoughts for the counties with smaller populations when he makes his contribution to the debate. The Minister has been coy about admitting it, but for the larger and more populous counties a unitary option is unlikely to be appropriate for reasons of sheer size.
  Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman is right. My concern is that it is not in the Government's gift to promise unitary counties, although that may be desirable in certain circumstances. The Government are prejudging the outcome and are putting the cart before the horse.
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)indicated assent.
  Mr. Hammond: The Minister nods, but the Bill means that that matter is in the Government's gift. The boundary committee will make a recommendation, but the Bill as drafted means that the Secretary of State will be able to implement that in whole or in part, as he thinks fit.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we have had frequent exchanges on this matter. The boundary committee will be able to resolve the appropriate and best unitary structure, based on counties or districts, or combinations of districts. The recommendation will be for the boundary committee to make. Technically, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government will implement the recommendation, but the independent boundary committee will make the decision. That must be right.
  Mr. Hammond: I hoped that the Minister was rising to accept the amendment that he rejected in Committee, which would have required the Secretary of State to implement the recommendations of the boundary committee in full, if an elected assembly were established in a region. However, that is not what the right hon. Gentleman is doing. He has retained the discretion to implement the recommendations, or not, and to do so in full or in part. That provision is contained in the Bill.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am sorry to go through this again, but the Committee dealt with this matter in detail. The hon. Gentleman has taken an intelligent and assiduous

  503
  interest in the matter, and I thought that he would appreciate that the process is modelled entirely on the existing legislation passed by the previous Conservative Government. The existing procedures mean that the Government implement recommendations made by an independent body—in this case, because the structures have changed, that body is the boundary committee.
  Mr. Hammond: I had not realised that the Government had imposed a self-denying ordinance to the effect that they would only introduce legislation that exactly mirrored what the previous Conservative had done.
  Clause 15(2) states:
  "The Secretary of State my by order give effect to all or any of the recommendations of the Boundary Committee for England".
  That looks to me like a clear ministerial discretion to implement, or not to implement.
  If the Minister wants the proposed structure to work, he must create regions with which people can identify. The Opposition will vote against the Bill on Third Reading, but we are trying to improve the Bill. If the Minister wants it to work, a necessary precondition is that people identify with the regions—all of them in England, not just one or two—that he is trying to build on.
  In Standing Committee, the Minister said:
  "We propose that boundaries for elected regional assemblies should mirror the existing administrative boundaries used by Government offices … We believe that those regions reflect a logic in terms of population, geography, economic weight and, in many cases, cultural identity."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 12 December 2002; c. 227.]
  I have enough respect for the Minister not to think that he believes that for one minute. It was not sensible of him to say that: to use his term, it is clearly "guff". If the Government cannot trust the people, they should at least consult them. New clause 8 would require proposals to be gathered from representative bodies, business and professional organisations, trades unions, Churches, local authorities and political parties. It would then require the boundary committee to comment on those proposals and to make recommendations to the Secretary of State, having regard to the objectives that regions should be of approximately equal size, where possible, and that the identities and interests of local communities should be respected.
  4.15 pm
  Joyce Quin rose—
  Mr. Hammond: I shall not give way, because I am conscious that we are rapidly running out of time and that many other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate.
  I recognise that there is a tension between size and cultural identity, but it is not irresolvable. The second step introduced by new clause 3 is that regions defined under new clause 8, with a draft order produced, should then be put out to consultation with the people in an England-wide referendum. And before the Minister picks me up on it, that referendum includes London, and why not? This is supposed to be an England-wide solution.
  504
  The first step is that we ask people to become involved in defining what the boundaries of the region should be. The second is that we put in a referendum to the people of England essentially three questions: "Do you support the proposals for the creation of regions in England, as proposed by the Secretary of State?"—in other words, the regional boundaries that are proposed; "Do you support the idea of referendums for elected regional assemblies in those boundaries in areas where there is sufficient interest?"; and, as a separate question, "Do you support the idea of reorganising local government in those areas that go for elected regional assemblies?"—in other words, an element of decoupling of those questions.
  Dr. John Pugh: If for example, with regard to the first question, people vote for the creation of regions, but on the second question they vote against the reorganisation of local government, is the hon. Gentleman tacitly suggesting that the Conservatives would then support, responding to the people, a four-tier structure?
  Mr. Hammond: If the hon. Gentleman had contained himself for a moment he would have heard me say that if there is a strong yes vote on the first two questions and a strong no vote on the third question, the Government will have to think very hard about their compulsory linking of unitarisation with elected regional assemblies. It is a messy business, but that is democracy. There is a need for a wide test of opinion on all three questions.
  The Government try to insist that questions can be put on a strictly regional basis, but that is not correct. Post the United Kingdom devolution settlement, post the London government settlement, there is a need for an English settlement, which has to work for all of England. A solution that appeals perhaps only to one or two regions, or one that is built upon the sand of incoherent and unloved artificial regions, is not such a solution. New clause 3 gives a proper opportunity to test opinion England wide. It is more important to get it right than to get it quickly.
  I shall very briefly touch on the other new clauses and amendments.
  New clause 4 has been tabled specifically to allow an opportunity to discuss issues that were raised in previous debates about whether matters that are not proper are currently going on, in particular in relation to the north-west regional chamber. I shall leave it to other hon. Members, perhaps from that part of the country, to address that issue. The Minister was asked to look into the matter, and he says that he has. This morning he sent out copies of letters that he has sent to the relevant people in the north-west region reminding them of their obligations. But I had hoped to hear from the Minister today whether he had made any investigation of whether any of the matters that have already occurred are improper and represent spending that is not properly authorised for that purpose. New clause 4 would require the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that there is no improper behaviour going on within the regional structure before a referendum can be called.
  New clause 6 was tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I regard it as the economy version of new clause 8. Having saved their money, or their drafting time, with the

  505
  economy version of the new clause, they then splashed out on the bolt-on added extra of the Cornwall option. There is no provision for consultation. There is no process. There is just an order-making power for the Secretary of State. The only place that is protected is Cornwall, which would then on the face of the Bill be defined as a region. No doubt the hon. Member for St. Ives will tell us why that is so.
  Amendment No. 2 provides that there shall be no regional referendum under clause 1 unless the England-wide referendum under new clause 3 has been held, and of course no England-wide referendum under new clause 3 can be held until the regional boundary-setting process under new clause 8 has been gone for.
  That would take a little longer, but it would ensure that what the Government hope to build is at least built on durable foundations.
  I must touch on amendment No. 26, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, before I finish. Clause 12 provides for a local government review, and the Government's intention is to require an all-unitary solution in areas that opt for elected regional assemblies. The Government's clearly stated intention is to publish the recommendations of that local government review before a referendum takes place, so that electors will be fully aware of the intended reorganisation of local government in their areas.
  Amendment No. 26 quite shamefully seeks to postpone the review until after the referendum. The precondition that requires a review under clause 12 to have taken place would be replaced by a requirement only for the Secretary of State to have instructed the boundary committee to be prepared for that review.
  So the Liberal Democrats, whose rhetoric is about transparency in government, have demonstrated by that amendment that the reality is that, when the truth will hurt their cause, they want to conceal it and suppress the boundary review process until after the referendum has taken place. That is typically inconsistent because new clause 7—also tabled by the Liberal Democrats—addresses what we call the pig-in-the-poke problem by deferring the implementation of the legislation until the power of elected regional assemblies has been set down in statute. [Interrupted]
  I hope that I did not hear the hon. Member for Kingston and Surhiton (Mr. Davey) say that I was deliberately misleading the House. Perhaps he would like to stand up and say that. If he reads amendment No. 26 very carefully, he will find out precisely what it does: it seeks to postpone the holding of the local government boundary committee review until after the referendum, so that electors who vote in the referendum will not know the changes that the boundary committee will propose to local government in their area when they vote. They will have been deceived.
  I shall soon conclude my remarks because of the pressure of time. This group of amendments addresses some of the most serious weaknesses in the Bill. It proposes consultation on the appropriate definition of regions, and it provides for a referendum when the division of England into regions is known, and for a test of England-wide public opinion. It would introduce a proper test of appetite for an imposed local government
  506
  reorganisation. I strongly recommend to the House the amendments and new clauses that stand in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself.
  Mr. Graham Stringer: I should like to make one thing clear in response to the speech made by the Conservative spokesman. I voted for the Bill on Second Reading because of the Labour party manifesto commitment to give people a choice about whether or not they wanted elected regional assemblies. I have become persuaded that the detail of the Bill will not deliver what it is supposed to deliver, so it would be wrong to deny people the right to vote against having an assembly.
  If the Deputy Prime Minister reaches the judgment that people in the north-west have sufficient interest and they are given the right to participate in a referendum, I hope to persuade them to vote against having an assembly. The reason for that is that this paving Bill has been wrapped up by those who support it with the view that it will somehow solve the West Lothian problem, that it will tackle regional disparities and that it will deal with the democratic deficit that those of us who live in the regions believe exists. We do not have enough say in many of the public bodies that deliver our services.
  I came to believe, as we considered the Bill clause by clause in Committee, that it will not do what was outlined in the White Paper. I also do not believe the argument that there is a great deal of desire for it in my part of the world, the north-west. I share the view that the north-west is a recent fiction of the television companies. We can solve the conundrum that was posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), who rightly commented that MORI polls and surveys conducted by the BBC give different results from those conducted by Granada. If people are asked whether they want more democracy and more say in things, by and large they say yes. That is especially so if one puts it in the context of the years of Conservative Government during which people in the north-east, the north-west and Yorkshire indeed, most of the regions—were deeply resentful. People will then say, "Yes, we want less of that and more control over our own lives." To put it in a different context—this would be true in the case of Manchester or Liverpool—if people are asked whether they want more bureaucracy, more politicians, elected regional assemblies whose members represent constituencies of a quarter of a million people, or a loss of power from local authorities, they give a completely different answer.
  Mrs. Ellman: Does my hon. Friend accept that the proposals in the Bill are not about removing powers from local authorities, but about democratising the powers that exist in an unelected manner in the regions? In particular, they deal with accountability for regional development agencies, housing investment, heritage, sports and cultural funding, and many other areas in which regional decisions are taken on a north-west basis without elected accountability.
  Mr. Stringer: The answer to that depends on one's historical understanding of where the money that funds the regional development agencies comes from. Much of the money that used to be in the urban programme was given to the Housing Corporation and to English

  507
  Partnerships and has now appeared in the regional development agencies. We are dealing with a historical process that has taken resources from the local level and put them much further up. I do not accept the basis of my hon. Friend's position.
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, has a long history of supporting regional government. There is a debate to be had, and we are having it. It is certainly necessary to take some control away from the centre and to democratise many public services. However, I am deeply suspicious, given our debates in Committee and on Second Reading, because the Bill proposes unique mechanisms that, as far as I am aware, do not exist anywhere else. When the Government rightly proposed that city and district councils should have the right to decide whether they wanted an elected mayor, the electorate were given the right to campaign and petition for a referendum on that. In other instances of changes in the democratic structures, the Government have stipulated the right way to do it and imposed it. I may be wrong—one's knowledge is not always complete in such matters—but I cannot think of a precedent whereby the decision on whether to have a referendum about a regional assembly is dependent on the subjective judgment of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. When challenged in Committee, my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench were unable to give any indication of what the subjective opinion of the Deputy Prime Minister would be when he came to consider whether there was indeed sufficient interest.
  When we looked at the document that was being sent out to various bodies to get information from them, we noticed that question 7 asked respondents to give not only their own subjective impression but their subjective impression of whether other people were interested. As a basis for changing the structure and seeing whether there is an interest, that is entering the land of fantasy. As I said in Committee, given my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's commitment to this matter, the only real test that the Government will use is whether, in a particular circumstance, that referendum will be winnable.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Kevan Jones: I understand my hon. Friend's position, and I understand that some people in all regions, including the north-east, are vehemently against elected regional assemblies. But is it not a fact that the Bill will give local people the say in whether they want a regional assembly? It will not be down to the Deputy Prime Minister, or any Minister. It will be down to the people. What is he afraid of in relation to people being given a choice about whether they want an elected regional assembly?
  Mr. Stringer: My hon. Friend has misunderstood what I was saying and what is in the Bill. People in the north-east and the north-west will not be given the right to say whether they want a regional assembly if my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister does not think they are interested enough. The Deputy Prime Minister will have the right to say whether they have that right. My point was simply that the people of the north-east or
  508
  the north-west should be able to petition to have that right to vote. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me on that point.
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said that it was a debate in Committee that led him to present new clause 4. That is what has led to my suspicion that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister wants elected regional assemblies. We have a regional assembly: should that body funded by the Government and by local authorities be allowed to spend that public money to campaign and work for what is clearly a political end and a matter of political dispute between the parties and within the parties?
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions has sent a letter to me and other members of the Committee saying that he has reiterated the legal position to those bodies: unless they are spending private sector money, they cannot campaign on those issues. I shall read just two sentences from the letter printed in the Manchester Evening News on 6 December 2002 from the chief executive of the north-west regional assembly. He said that
  "it is essential for the future prosperity of Manchester and the whole of the north west that the region has the chance to elect its own regional assembly."
  Some of my hon. Friends will agree with that, but it is clearly a political campaigning statement. The same applies to the following:
  "The north west needs to be one of the first regions to hold a referendum and gain our regional voice."
  That is something that one hears within the Labour party, but it is not the role of the chief executive of the north-west regional assembly to voice that. Presenting the information is one thing; campaigning is another. I do not know whether private funds have been given to the chief executive to use facilities to put that out in his name and the north-west regional assembly's name. I hope, however, that my right hon. Friend is sufficiently concerned to find out whether Government or public sector money has been used for campaigning.
  Ministers are convinced that the north-east and the north-west should have elected regional assemblies. I think that there are other political priorities. It was a mistake for Ministers, in their Labour party capacity, to say that resources from the Labour party office should be devoted to winning this campaign. I would not want to overestimate the problem, but there is a threat from the British National party in parts of Lancashire. Our campaigning efforts would be better directed at that.
  I shall conclude my remarks, as I know that many other Members wish to speak. The need for devolution exists but, unfortunately, the mechanisms in the Bill will not lead to its achievement.
  Mr. Edward Davey: It is right that the House should focus on the two key issues: the definitions and boundaries of the regions and the fact that the local government reviews, which the Government seek to link with the referendums on the regions, should be decoupled from them. People outside the House recognise that the Bill requires amendment in both regards. Liberal Democrats have led the opposition on the two issues from the start, and I am pleased that the Conservatives have realised, after the proceedings in Committee, that they are the two key issues and have

  509
  woken up to that fact. Although the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) took 30 minutes to make his points, I am delighted that he has recognised that the Liberal Democrats' agenda for opposition to the Bill is the right one.
  Decoupling the local government review from the referendums is one of the key issues, and the hon. Gentleman said that Liberal Democrat amendment No. 26, which would achieve that aim, is wrong and would not allow democracy to prevail. However, it has been our policy for a long time—we have a policy; the Conservatives do not—that the regional assemblies should decide the review of local government in their region. That is the democratic way. We have tabled amendments and, although some of them have not been selected, the hon. Gentleman can read the amendment paper and see them for himself. The fact that he dealt with the Liberal Democrat case by ignoring those amendments does him no credit.
  Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman hogged enough time, so I will not give way to him on this point. With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will seek to divide the House on amendment No. 26 because it is so important.
  Joyce Quin: I, too, have expressed my support all along for decoupling. Although I support the idea behind the hon. Gentleman's amendment, I do not believe that it is necessary for the regional assembly then to address the issue. Regional government and local government are entirely separate and I regret the fact that there is confusion between the two in the Bill. I am keen for there to be no confusion, so I rather regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman has formulated his amendment as he has.
  Mr. Davey: I accept the right hon. Lady's point. It is not the ideal formulation, and the amendments that we tabled in Committee did not take this form. However, we are trying to reach a compromise with the Government. If they are worried, we have tried to make it clear that the referendum could assure the people that the regional assemblies would consider their concerns about there being too many authorities below the regional level. If the Government had accepted the principle in the amendments that were unfortunately not selected, they would have enabled that process to take place.
  I accept that the current amendment is a compromise, but I hope that the Government will accept it, as it would help the referendums to be won. If we could argue to the people who are concerned about too many tiers of government that the regional assembly would, after it was elected, consider that point without prejudging the issue, some of those understandable concerns might be allayed. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) feels strongly about that point, as do many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. They want people to have the choice about the structure of local government in their regions. They want the regional assemblies to give them that choice.
  Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood the comments of my hon. Friend the
  510
  Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) to whom he will not now give way. We are not at all in favour of allowing elected regional assemblies to decide on the local government review. We have suggested an additional question so that the voters themselves can have their say. That is very different from the hon. Gentleman's proposal.
  Mr. Davey: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. We want the regional assemblies to consider the proposals made by the boundary committee for England and to put them before the people so that they can vote on them. So the regional assembly would consider them, which is a more devolved approach, and the people would have a choice.
  Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davey: No, I want to make progress.
  It is vital to decouple the two issues. I hope that the other place will take that seriously and Members of all parties will co-operate to ensure that the decoupling works. It makes sense in terms not only of democracy, but of ensuring that the agenda goes ahead.
  The second key issue is regional boundaries. New clauses 8 and 6 and amendment No. 15 deal with that in different ways. None of them is perfect, but they offer options. If the Minister is convinced by our argument, I hope that he accepts one of them, although my guess is that he will not. An important issue is at stake, as I think the Minister knows in his heart of hearts. Some regions, such as the north-east, the north-west and Yorkshire and Humber, will have boundaries that are accepted in general. There may be a few complaints about them, as we heard from one or two hon. Members in Committee and today, but that is the case in general for those three regions. However, in other parts of the country there is much debate and concern about the regional boundaries established by the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, to which the Bill relates.
  As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said, we should not accept some regions, such as the south-east. They are far too large. People do not identify with them and the boundaries need to be reviewed. I think that that is the case for all the regions except the three that I identified.
  Andrew George: My hon. Friend says that, in his heart of hearts, the Minister understands the conundrums that the Government will face when their zones are unacceptable to the people in their so-called regions. We are not attacking the Government, but advising them. Does my hon. Friend share my fear that the Government will find themselves in a straitjacket? They need to return to chapter 6 of the White Paper and recognise the need for flexibility when considering the future of the boundaries.
  Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend is right. A series of events will take place. Referendums will be held in the north-east, north-west and Yorkshire and Humber. I hope that those are won and regional assemblies are established there. I predict that a future Government will then ask for a review of the regional boundaries of the remaining English regions. They will have to do that

  511
  because none of the referendums in the other regions is likely to be won unless they do. People who are strongly committed to regional devolution will be unable to bring themselves to support the campaign because they cannot support a region called the south-east of England.
  It would be much better for the Government to admit that and allow the Bill to contain a review of regional boundaries, even if it excludes the three regions with boundaries that I believe are acceptable to the people in those areas. That would enable the referendums in the north-east, north-west and Yorkshire and Humber to go ahead so that we do not stop the movement for regional devolution. It would also allow us to put right the problems in the rest of England.
  4.45 pm
  Joyce Quin: Given what the hon. Gentleman has said, does he agree that the argument made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), which was basically that because the north-east was smaller than any other region, it should have to wait until every other region, including the south-east, was happy with its boundaries before being allowed to have a regional assembly, was utterly preposterous?
  Mr. Davey: The hon. Lady is right; it was preposterous. The problem for the Conservatives is that because they do not believe in regional devolution, they have no policies—they do not know what else to do. They would be happy to keep the quango state. They support regional government but just do not like any democracy in it. That is why their position is untenable.
  I am keen to hear from the Minister in reply to this debate and to give him sufficient time in which to do so, so I shall quickly refer to the other amendments. Although I have some sympathy with the intention of new clause 3, it is fatally flawed because it would prevent a variable geometry—different regions going at different speeds. New clause 4 has something to recommend it. I would be worried about illegal expenditure by the RDAs or other public bodies before the referendums. I certainly oppose amendment No. 2, which is a surrogate turnout threshold amendment. We have had that debate.
  The key issues before the House—we will presumably get a chance at least to vote on the decoupling issue raised in new clause 3 and, hopefully, amendment No. 26—are decoupling the local government review and the regional boundaries. If the Government gave way on those two issues, they would have an awful lot more support both in the House and throughout the country.
  Mr. Raynsford: This is a complex group of amendments, I shall try to address all the new clauses and to respond as well as I can to the issues that have been raised.
  New clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to hold a national referendum across England, including London, which would ask two separate questions. One would be on whether people supported the proposals for the creation of regions and the subsequent holding of regional referendums. The second would be on whether people supported the idea of reorganising local government into unitary authorities where an assembly
  512
  is created. Amendment No. 2 would mean that no regional referendum about elected regional assemblies could be held until a national referendum had been held.
  I am interested in the approach of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) to the people of London in these and other changes that the Conservatives have proposed. New clause 3 would give Londoners a vote on whether they were supportive of holding referendums about elected regional assemblies elsewhere in England despite the fact that there is no intention that London itself should have an assembly. It already has its own elected city-wide authority following a referendum in which the people of London voted yes. According to the Conservative party, the people of London would be asked to vote again even though, as I understand it, the Opposition have no intention of in any way changing any of the existing institutions in London. What a preposterous waste of time and money.
  New clause 3 would also give Londoners a vote on whether they supported the idea of restructuring local government in two-tier areas—despite the fact that London already has wholly unitary local government. So, that proposal makes no sense at all. Under new clause 8, however, London would be specifically excluded from making proposals for changes in regional boundaries despite the fact that neighbouring local authorities outside London could do so. That illustrates the total incoherence, incompetence and inconsistency of the Opposition's approach. It tells us that new clause 3 has no serious or useful purpose. It is simply part of the official Opposition's ill-thought-out tactics to use any means to try to deliver referendums on whether to establish elected regional assemblies.
  The Conservatives have made their opposition to regional assemblies clear; the hon. Gentleman stated it again this afternoon. As he will hear later, his noble Friend Lord Strathclyde made a scandalous statement yesterday in the House of Lords implying that the Conservative party in the other place would entirely ignore the views of this democratically elected House and try to stop the Bill becoming law. That comes from a party which accused us of arrogance, yet its unelected friends in the House of Lords are trying to dictate to this House which Bills should become law. That is a very dangerous challenge to our constitution, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who has made some disparaging remarks about the Government this afternoon, will immediately condemn his noble Friend's outrageous position.
  Mr. Hammond: While the Minister is talking about the unelected and unrepresentative upper House can he confirm that it is now Government policy that the upper House should be wholly elected?
  Mr. Raynsford: I put to the hon. Gentleman, who has no elected friends in the Chamber at all, to consider the right of Lord Strathclyde, a Member of the unelected House of Lords, to make the following point in a shameful speech last night:
  "I have something to say to the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip as a word of advice and perhaps even a warning, based on what I have heard of the view of most Members of this House about the general awfulness of elections. His regional assemblies Bill? No chance."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 January 2003; Vol. 643, c. 826.]

  513
  How deplorable that an unelected House should tell the Commons what legislation should come through and that a Member of the Lords should refer to the "awfulness of elections". I hope that the hon. Gentleman will condemn that deplorable abuse of Conservative powers in the House of Lords.
  Mrs. Ellman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the comments that he has just quoted are easy to equate with an Opposition whose Members cannot be bothered to attend this important debate and who, when in government, set up regional Government offices, clearly with the intention of wielding power in the regions without accountability to the people of the regions?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Before the Minister answers, time is short, so perhaps we ought to get back to the new clause.
  Mr. Raynsford: Of course I shall do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, while concurring entirely with the views expressed by my hon. Friend.
  Thinking about the effect of the Conservative amendments, we would have a long debate on regional boundaries under new clause 8 and amendment No. 3. New Clause 8 would insert into the Bill a procedure for creating new regions. It would involve submissions by local authorities and other "relevant interests" on proposed new regions, after which the Electoral Commission would submit another set of proposals to the Secretary of State. Presumably, there would be a consultation, but that is not explicit in the amendment. An order would then have to be made creating new regions.
  The Opposition replaced new clause 1 with new clause 8 so that they could include a provision excluding Londoners from the invitation to make proposals for regional boundaries. As I have already suggested, that is nonsense, as it would be open to people outside London to suggest changes to London's boundaries, but Londoners could not even make a proposal that London's boundaries should remain unchanged—how typical of the Opposition's incoherence. The process set out in new clause 8 could take years, given the resource implications for the Electoral Commission and the lengthy consultation that is envisaged. The consultation proposed by the Opposition would be time-consuming, expensive and unproductive. It would also, on the basis of past experience, be divisive and acrimonious, as most boundary disputes are.
  That brings me to new clause 6, which was tabled by the Cornish enclave of the Liberal Democrat party. It would enable the Secretary of State by order to define a region for the purposes of the Bill, and would uniquely oblige him to define Cornwall as a region—another ill thought out proposal. In every other part of the country, the Secretary of State would have freedom to define regions. That curious aspect of the new clause probably explains why the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) did not put his name to it. It gives the Secretary of State extraordinary power to define
  514
  regions everywhere else in the country—not, I think, Liberal Democrat policy—while requiring him to define Cornwall as a region.
  Andrew George: The Minister well knows that the new clause is a probing measure as I have spoken to him about it. If the Conservatives had not spent quite as much time debating the management of time we would have had a chance to debate the issue. There are important issues about the size of regions. The Minister knows that it is not the size of the Cornwall region that is problematic, but the fact that it is politically inconvenient for him.
  Mr. Raynsford: I accept entirely the strength of feeling in Cornwall about its historical cultural identity. We understand that very much—indeed, we supported the campaign for the recognition of the Cornish language in which the hon. Gentleman was strongly involved. We were happy to accede because it is right for Cornwall's unique cultural heritage to be respected and preserved, but that is a very different proposition from the designation of Cornwall as a region. Regions are an intermediate tier of Government between the national and local level. A significant number of functions are currently discharged at regional level, such as economic development and planning. To be effective, such arrangements must operate on a large enough scale, and must be properly differentiated from the functions of local government, which should continue to be discharged at a local level. That, we believe, is the right way forward for Cornwall—to benefit from its membership of the wider south-west region in terms of planning, transportation and economic development, while preserving and enhancing its unique qualities through the work of its local authorities, and in particular through Cornwall county council, whose excellent performance was recently recognised by the comprehensive performance assessment. In response to the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), I have to say, in words that will no doubt immediately be recognised by him, na wrav kammenn. That means no way, in Cornish.
  Andrew George: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: Briefly.
  Andrew George: Ow dysky da, ha clapya da. He has learned well—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Any words that the House does not immediately understand must be repeated and translated immediately thereafter.
  Andrew George: I was about to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I said that the Minister had learned well and spoken well, and I am grateful. However, he will ultimately find that there is no way that the people of the Government's south-west zone will accept a region on that basis. He will have to revisit the issue. I urge him not to place a straitjacket around himself from which there is no escape.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As I said before, we have not put a straitjacket around

  515
  ourselves. In the White Paper we made it clear that there is an opportunity and flexibility to look again at regional boundaries in due course. We do not believe that that is appropriate at present. It would be divisive and would prevent progress towards establishing elected regional assemblies, but there is no straitjacket.
  I must make progress, as time is very short. New clause 4, although apparently a sensible proposition as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge proposed it, is unnecessary and unworkable, and appears to be designed, like so many other Opposition amendments, to wreck the Bill. It would make it impossible for the Secretary of State to begin the process of moving towards a referendum for elected regional assemblies if any individual in either of the organisations mentioned, over which the Secretary of State has no control, should, for whatever reason, step outside their powers in the 12 months prior to the moment when the referendum is to be ordered. It is clearly a wrecking proposal.
  Amendment No. 26 from the Liberal Democrats would remove the requirement for a local government review to be carried out by the Boundary Committee before an order causing a referendum was made. Rather, the committee will only have had to be directed to prepare to carry out a review. We believe that any local government review of a region should be carried out before a referendum on elected regional assemblies, so that voters are fully informed of the implications of a yes vote for local government in their region.
  We also believe strongly that three tiers of government would be too many. It must be a feature of regional government that where people vote for regional government, it should be against a clear understanding that there will be a unified tier of local government, in just the same way as there is in London, Scotland and Wales. That is the precedent. We think that it is right and that it should apply in the English regions, too.
  Finally, Government amendment No. 4 is a minor tidying amendment, designed to make it clear that it is by order that an order under clause 1(1) to cause a referendum to be held is varied or revoked. It therefore makes it clear that any order to vary or revoke a clause 1(1) order would also be subject to the provisions in clause 27, and that the affirmative resolution procedure would apply. I ask the House to support amendment No. 4 and to reject the other amendments.
  Mr. Hammond: The Minister often speaks of synthetic anger. We have seen a virtuoso display of synthetic anger from the master himself. He speaks of our amendments being wrecking amendments. They would not have been selected and they would not be on the amendment paper if they were wrecking amendments. They are sensible amendments. The Minister refers to the lack of attendance in the Chamber, on all sides. I tell him why there is a lack of attendance in the Chamber: his guillotine meant that hon. Members in all parts of the House saw that they stood no chance of being called in the debate and went off to do better things.
  I am disappointed that the Minister has not listened to our arguments and has rejected all proposals to make his own structure more robust and durable, but I cannot say that I am entirely surprised. I will ask my hon.
  516
  Friends to vote in support of the new clause. I shall also ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether we can have a separate vote on new clause 8, and if Liberal amendment No. 26 is pressed to a separate Division, I shall ask my hon. Friends to oppose it on the grounds—
  It being Five O'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Orders [29 October 2002, 26 November 2002 and this day.]
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 334.

  Division No. 63]

  [5:14 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Allan, Richard

  Amess, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Heald, Oliver

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Heath, David

  Bacon, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Baldry, Tony

  Hermon, Lady

  Barker, Gregory

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Bercow, John

  Holmes, Paul

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Boswell, Tim

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Keetch, Paul

  Brady, Graham

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Brazier, Julian

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Burnett, John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Burns, Simon

  Lamb, Norman

  Burnside, David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Burstow, Paul

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Burt, Alistair

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Lidington, David

  Cameron, David

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Cash, William

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Loughton, Tim

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Chope, Christopher

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Collins, Tim

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Conway, Derek

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Maples, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Maude, rh Francis

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Moore, Michael

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Doughty, Sue

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Norman, Archie

  Evans, Nigel

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Öpik, Lembit

  Fallon, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Page, Richard

  Paice, James

  Flook, Adrian

  Paterson, Owen

  Forth, rh Eric

  Pickles, Eric

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Francois, Mark

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Garnier, Edward

  Redwood, rh John

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Rendel, David

  Gidley, Sandra

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Goodman, Paul

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Grayling, Chris

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Ruffley, David

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Greenway, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  Grieve, Dominic

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hammond, Philip

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Hancock, Mike

  Shepherd, Richard

  521

  Simmonds, Mark

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

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

  Tredinnick, David

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Viggers, Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Walter, Robert

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Whittingdale, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Wilkinson, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Streeter, Gary

  Willis Phil

  Stunell, Andrew

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Syms, Robert

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mr. Laurence Robertson and

  Thurso, John

  Angela Watkinson

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Ainger, Nick

  Cohen, Harry

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Coleman, Iain

  Alexander, Douglas

  Colman, Tony

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Connarty, Michael

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cooper, Yvette

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Corston, Jean

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cousins, Jim

  Austin, John

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Baird, Vera

  Cruddas, Jon

  Banks, Tony

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Barnes, Harry

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Battle, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Beard, Nigel

  David, Wayne

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Davidson, Ian

  Benn, Hilary

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Dawson, Hilton

  Best, Harold

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Blackman, Liz

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dismore, Andrew

  Borrow, David

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Brennan, Kevin

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Browne, Desmond

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bryant, Chris

  Edwards, Huw

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Efford, Clive

  Burden, Richard

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Burgon, Colin

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Burnham, Andy

  Etherington, Bill

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Farrelly, Paul

  Cairns, David

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Follett, Barbara

  Casale, Roger

  Foster, rh Derek

  Caton, Martin

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Challen, Colin

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Chaytor, David

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Clapham, Michael

  Galloway, George

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Clelland, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  522

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Grogan, John

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Martlew, Eric

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Merron, Gillian

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hendrick, Mark

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Moran, Margaret

  Heppell, John

  Morgan, Julie

  Heyes, David

  Morley, Elliot

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Hodge, Margaret

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Olner, Bill

  Hutton, rh John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Organ, Diana

  Illsley, Eric

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Owen, Albert

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Perham, Linda

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Picking, Anne

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  >Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kidney, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Purnell, James

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Rammell, Bill

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Leslie, Christopher

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Linton, Martin

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rooney, Terry

  Love, Andrew

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCabe, Stephen

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  McCafferty, Chris

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Salter, Martin

  McDonnell, John

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  MacDougall, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sawford, Phil

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McKechin, Ann

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sheridan, Jim

  McNamara, Kevin

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McNulty, Tony

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Singh, Marsha

  McWalter, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  523

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Soley, Clive

  Southworth, Helen

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Spellar, rh John

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Squire, Rachel

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Vis Dr Rudi

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Stevenson, George

  Ward, Claire

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Watts, David

  Stringer, Graham

  White, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wills, Michael

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Woolas, Phil

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Wright, Daivd (Telford)

  Timms, Stephen

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Timms, Stephen

  Wyatt Derek

  Tipping, Paddy

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Trickett, Jon

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Jim Fitzpatrick

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 8

  REGIONAL BOUNDARIES
  '(1) Before making any order under Parts 1, 2 or 3 the Secretary of State shall—

  (a) invite all local authorities in England (except London) to submit to him proposals for the creation of regions for the purposes of this Act; and

  (b) invite such other persons and bodies as appear to him to represent relevant interests throughout England (except London) to submit to him proposals for the creation of regions for the purposes of this Act; and

  (c) upon receipt of submissions in response to paragraphs (a) and (b) invite the Electoral Commission to comment on the submissions and to make proposals to the Secretary of State for the creation of regions for the purposes of this Act having regard to—

  (i) the desirability of all regions being, in so far as is not incompatible with (ii) below, of approximately equal population size; and

  (ii) the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities

  (d) publish the proposals made to him by the Electoral Commission under paragraph (c); and

  (e) make an order creating regions for the purposes of this Act, having regard to the proposals published under paragraph (d).

  (2) For the purposes of this section "relevant interests" means professional bodies, trades unions, voluntary organisations, faith groups, political parties, business organisations and community organisations.
  (3) For the purposes of subsection 1 paragraphs (a) and (b), the Secretary of State shall set out a timetable for the giving of responses to him.'. —[Mr. Hammond.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time—
  The House divided: Ayes 159, Boes 295.
  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1
  REFERENDUMS
  Amendment proposed: No.4, in page 2, line 16 [Clause 1], after 'may' insert 'by order'—[Mr. Raynsford.]
Clause 2

  REFERENDUM QUESTION
  Amendments proposed: No.5, in page 2, line 24 [Clause 2], after 'statement' insert
  in as nearly as may be the following form)'.
  No.6, in page 2, line 27 [Clause 2], leave out from second 'region' to end of line 33 and insert
  'If an elected assembly is to be established, it is intended that:
  the elected assembly would be responsible for a range of activities currently carried out mainly by central government bodies, including regional economic development; and
  local government would be reorganised into a single tier in those parts of the region that currently have both county and district councils. There would be no such reorganisation of other local authorities in the region.'. —[Mr. RaynsfOrd]

lause 6

  COMBINATION OF POLLS
  Amendment proposed: No.7, in page 3, line 29 [Clause 6], after 'may' insert]'—

  (a) make provision in connection with the combination of polls;

  (b) make provision for the creation of offences;

  (c)'. —[Mr. Raynsford.]

Clause 19

  ADVICE OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION
  Amendments proposed: No.8, in page 10, line 33 [Clause 19], leave out
  'The Secretary of State may'
  524
  and insert
  'Not later than the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which the referendum was held the Secretary of State must'.
  No.9, in page 10, line 35 [Clause 19], leave out 'Such a direction may' and insert
  'A direction under subsection (2) must'.
  No.10, in page 10, line 36 [Clause 19], after 'to' insert
  'such of the following matters as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate'.
  No.11, in page 11, line 6 [Clause 19], leave out 'or revoked'.—[Mr. Raynsfordi.]
  Question put, That the amendments be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 323, Noes 118.

  Division No. 64]

  [5:24 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Allan, Richard

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Clelland, David

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Coaker, Vernon

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cohen, Harry

  Austin, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Baird, Vera

  Colman, Tony

  Barnes, Harry

  Connarty, Michael

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Cooper, Yvette

  Battle, John

  Corston, Jean

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cotter Brian

  Beard, Nigel

  Cousins, Jim

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Bell, Stuart

  Cruddas, Jon

  Benn, Hilary

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cryer John (Hornchurcn)

  Best, Harold

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Blackman, Liz

  Edward (Kingston)

  Borrow, David

  Davey, Edward (Brisol W)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  David Wayne

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davidson, Ian

  Brennan, Kevin

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend

  Dawson, Hilton

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Browne, Desmond

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bryant, Chris

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dobsoa rh Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Burgon, Colin

  Doran, Frank

  Burnett, John

  Doughty, Sue

  Burnham, Andy

  Dowd' Jim (Lewisham W)

  Burstow, Paul

  Drew David (Stroud)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Cairns, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Efford, Clive

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Etherington, Bill

  Casale, Roger

  Farrelly, Paul

  Caton, Martin

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Fisher, Mark

  Challen, Colin

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Follett, Barbara

  Chaytor, David

  Foster, rh Derek

  Clapham, Michael

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  525

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Galloway, George

  Linton, Martin

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Love, Andrew

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Gerrard, Neil

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  McCabe, Stephen

  Gidley, Sandra

  McCafferty, Chris

  Gilroy, Linda

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Godsiff, Roger

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  MacDougall, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Grogan, John

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McKechin, Ann

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hancock, Mike

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  McNamara, Kevin

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  McNulty, Tony

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McWalter, Tony

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  McWilliam, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Heath, David

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Heppell, John

  Heyes, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hinchliffe, David

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Merron, Gillian

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Holmes, Paul

  Miller, Andrew

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moore, Michael

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Moran, Margaret

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Morgan, Julie

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hutton, rh John

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Illsley, Eric

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Olner, Bill

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jenkins, Brian

  Öpik, Lembit

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Organ, Diana

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Owen, Albert

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Perham, Linda

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Picking, Anne

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Plaskitt, James

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Keetch, Paul

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Pound, Stephen

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Kidney, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Purchase, Ken

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Purnell, James

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Lamb, Norman

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Rendel, David

  526

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Thurso, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Timms, Stephen

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Salter, Martin

  Trickett, Jon

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Sawford, Phil

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Singh, Marsha

  Ward, Claire

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  White, Brian

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

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

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Soley, Clive

  Willis, Phil

  Southworth, Helen

  Wills, Michael

  Spellar, rh John

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Squire, Rachel

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Stevenson, George

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Stringer, Graham

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mr. Phil Woolas

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Amess, David

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Bacon, Richard

  Evans, Nigel

  Baldry, Tony

  Fabricant, Michael

  Barker, Gregory

  Fallon, Michael

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Bercow, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Flook, Adrian

  Blunt, Crispin

  Forth, rh Eric

  Boswell, Tim

  Francois, Mark,

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (Sw Surrey)

  Garnier, Edward

  Gillian, Mrs Cheryl

  Brady, Graham

  Goodman, Paul

  Brazier, Julian

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Brazier, Julian

  Grayling, Chris

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Burns, Simon

  Green Damian (Ashford)

  Burns, Simon

  Greenway, John

  Burnside, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  Burt, Alistair

  Hammond, Philip

  Cameron, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cash, William

  Heald Oliver

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Hendry, Charles

  Hermon, Lady

  Chope, Christopher

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Collins, Tim

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Conway, Derek

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  527

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Ruffley, David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Shepherd, Richard

  Lidington, David

  Simmonds, Mark

  Lillley, rh Peter

  Soames, Nicholas

  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

  Streeter, Gary

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Malins, Humfrey

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Maples, John

  Syms, Robert

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tredinnick, David

  Murrison Dr Andrew

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Norman, Archie

  Tyrie, Andrew

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Viggers, Peter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Walter, Robert

  Ottaway Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Page, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Paice, James

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Paterson, Owen

  Pickles, Eric

  Young, rh Sir George

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Redwood, rh John

  Mr. Laurence Robertson and

  Robathan, Andrew

  Angela Watkinson

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  We have had full and extensive debates on the Bill. We debated it on Second Reading and our extensive debates in Committee were widely recognised as being thorough and good tempered. Those debates were followed by a full day's consideration in the House on the first four clauses and now by the debates on Report.
  The Bill is in good shape, and it is right that we should now commend it to the other House, where I hope that it will receive a fair and impartial hearing on all sides. I also hope that Lord Strathclyde's sadly unhelpful comments, to which I referred in my speech on the last group of amendments, will not be indicative of the approach that the official Opposition will adopt in considering the Bill in the other place.
  The Bill takes forward the Government's manifesto commitment to provide for elected regional assemblies where the people in the regions want them.
  Mr. George Howarth: My right hon. Friend is aware that I am opposed to the Bill in principle and that, as things stand, I would be inclined to vote against it on Third Reading. However, he is also aware that, if it were possible to develop new proposals for city-wide government in certain conurbations, I might look more favourably on the Bill. Can he give me any reason for hope about that?
  Mr. Raynsford: I know that my hon. Friend has reservations about the regional agenda, but the Government are committed to strengthening city
  528
  government and ensureing that our big cities and towns have effective representation. We have already considered a range of constitutional changes, cluding directly electing mayors, and we will continue constructively to explore ways in which we can reinforce the ability of our cities and towns to achieve effective city government. I hope that my hon. Friend will want to engage in a constructive discussion about such issues and that he will feel able not to vote against the Bill tonight.
  The principle on which the Bill is based is choice, exercised democratically by the people through referendums in each of the English regions. The Bill is at the heart of our programme to modernise our constitution, decentralise power and deliver better public services.
  It is a crucial step towards establishing a democratic voice for the English regions—a voice that has been denied them for too long. We want to give the people of our regions the right to choose; the ability to decide what is best for them; a distinct political voice; a regional level of democracy; and, above all, greater control over regional issues that matter, such as economic development and regeneration, planning, housing, transport, health, culture and the environment. This is an important and exciting Bill and I commend it to the House.
  5.40 pm
  Mr. Hammond: Although I do not wish in any way to detract from the Minister's achievement in getting this Bill through, he has certainly not won all the arguments, including some with Members on his side of the House. He has had a pretty thankless task in piloting the Deputy Prime Minister's pet project through its parliamentary stages. The Bill is an ill-thought-out measure. It seems rushed and fatally flawed even to some of those who favour regional devolution on the Government's model: first, because it insists on using the inappropriate and irrelevant Government offices for the regions' boundaries to define the regions; and secondly, because it couples the issue of elected regional assemblies with the compulsory unitarisation of local government—on which, to be fair, Liberal Democrat Members have focused throughout the debate.
  Elected regional assemblies will create an extra tier of government in the unitary areas and the loss of county councils in most of the shire district areas. That is a high price to pay for assemblies that are based on regions with which, in most cases, people will have little or no natural affinity. The regional assemblies will bring additional burdens of cost—extra costs on council tax payers, extra costs on business in the form of higher rates, and extra costs through the bureaucracy involved in paying for the prestige buildings, salaries and cars that will be demanded.
  What powers will the assemblies have in exchange for all those extra costs? Of course, we do not know, because we have not seen a Bill that sets out their powers, and we have learned precious little from the White Paper and ministerial statements. They will have political control of the regional development agencies, but no additional money. They will have influence over central Government decisions and will be able to put forward strategic plans, but always within the context of

  529
  a national framework and subject to the approval of the Government offices for the regions, which will be standing looking over their shoulders. They will have the planning functions that they have sucked up from county councils, which means that decision making will be more remote from, not closer to, local communities.
  Notwithstanding our disagreement with the principles behind the Bill, we proposed constructive solutions throughout its passage, but every one was rejected. Today, the Government have set their face against greater transparency by opposing a new clause that would have encouraged voters to understand the implications for local Government in their region of voting yes in a referendum. They have set their face against a process that would have allowed a building from the bottom up of regions that would have some meaning for the people who live in them—regions that people could respect and even come to love, rather than the irrelevant regions that the Government have chosen to run with. They have set their face against a referendum of all the people of England to test their appetite for elected regional assemblies and the local government reform that the Government insist must go with it.
  The Minister has got his Bill through this House, albeit without a proper debate, especially on the first four clauses, which are critical to the Bill, but were very time-limited in Committee. The Deputy Prime Minister has seen his pet project come to legislative fruition, but the Government cannot rely on procedure to avoid the real debate that will take place when the Bill reaches the other place. Because of the Government's approach—the rush, the refusal to compromise, the unwillingness to listen to the people and to create regions that have meaning and might stand a chance of winning the allegiance and affection of their inhabitants—they do not have a lasting and durable solution to the challenge of creating a model for decentralisation in England.
  5.44 pm
  Jim Knight: I am a keen supporter of the Bill. I was pleased to sit on the Standing Committee that considered it, and I enjoyed the experience. The Bill is the precursor to regional government, which I very much support for four principal reasons.
  First, it will increase the accountability of the many regional bodies—quangos—particularly the regional development agencies, which have done some useful work in the south-west, although I have concerns about the boards being accountable through the Secretary of State but not directly accountable to us in our region.
  Secondly, regional government will provide a strategic view. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is currently going through Parliament, and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) alluded to the fact that regional assemblies would exercise some planning powers under it. I support that, as it is appropriate to have a strategic approach within which sub-regional groups may mirror counties in many cases and deny what the hon. Gentleman said about the sucking-up of powers. It will certainly join up a lot of thinking. My area is lucky enough to have world
  530
  heritage status for our coast, which cuts across county boundaries. I look forward to a more strategic approach at a regional level to maximise the benefit of that status.
  Mrs. Ellman: Does my hon. Friend agree that any suggestion that boundaries should be drawn around cities would mean the isolation of areas that are not within those boundaries, particularly rural areas, and would not deal with vital regional issues in relation to economic development, population movement and the work of the regional development agencies?
  Jim Knight: I am interested by my hon. Friend's intervention, but I have no desire to get involved with the politics of the north-west in answering it. There are times when there is a clear relationship between a core and a periphery. That happens at a national and a regional level, and it can happen between a market town and its periphery. That may give some support to her without necessarily offending some of my other hon. Friends.
  The third reason why I support regional government is to provide a regional voice. Clearly, the north-east needs that voice. Even the south-west, however, with its rich diversity, has common strands of economic importance. We rely on agriculture, the defence industry and the tourism industry across the seven counties of the south-west. A clearer regional voice and set of thinking would be welcome.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that my constituency has many similarities with his and with much of the west country? Will he comment on the Department for Transport's recent airports map, which put my constituency off the coast of his constituency rather than off the coast of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)?
  Jim Knight: I have no desire to comment on a map that I have not seen. I enjoy viewing the Isle of Wight from my constituency when I am in Swanage, but I accept that, on the boundaries of regions, there are some who would like to be either side. I am sure that parts of Dorset would welcome the Isle of Wight coming home to us, along with its geology. I am content that we should proceed on the basis of the boundaries that we currently have for our regions, because that means that we can have regional government all the more quickly. In addition, the south-west has some common problems, such as our transport infrastructure and a lack of affordable housing, which, equally, a regional government could address.
  Finally, we need to resolve what is called the West Lothian question. We have seen the start of devolution in London with the Greater London Authority. We need to continue the process by developing regional government for England. I support the Bill and the fact that it is not imposing regional government on any region, as the electorate will be able to vote for it. It is not an addition of Government in most cases, and certainly not in the south-west, where we can see the unification of local authorities and strong parish councils, as I have argued throughout this debate.
  I want to allow other Members to speak, as many want to do so in the limited amount of time available. I urge hon. Members to support the Bill, and I look

  531
  forward to future legislation to finish off the job of the White Paper and resolve that important West Lothian question.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: There is a strong case for elected regional assemblies. The Liberal Democrats have advocated regional devolution for many decades, and it is a real pleasure to see that the Government are, at long last, beginning to take on that agenda.
  One argument for regional assemblies is based on the democratisation of the regional government that already exists. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) has made some of the arguments for democratising the quango state that was bequeathed to Britain particularly by the previous Conservative Government. The value of democratising the regional government that exists is that we could, I hope, push for better value for money. Many of these bureaucracies have overlapping responsibilities, vast offices, many chief executives and so on. Much of that can be rationalised in the new regional assembly process. We look forward to that happening and we encourage the Government to go further than they have.
  There are three major problems with the Bill. I touched on the first earlier today. The fact that the local government review is coupled with the regional referendums is a big mistake, and the Government will rue the day that they coupled the two. The second major problem relates to the fact that the Government have not allowed for a review of the regional boundaries. In responding to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), the Minister said that there might be reviews of regional boundaries in due course. I hope that that will be sooner rather than later, and it will have to take place before there are referendums in regions outside the north-east, the north-west, Yorkshire and Humber.
  The third major problem with the Bill is that it will allow referendums to go ahead without the electors knowing what powers the regional assemblies that they are being asked to vote for would have. That is a mistake. The Minister has cited the precedents in Scotland and Wales, but the Welsh vote was almost lost. One of the arguments used against the creation of the Welsh Assembly was that its powers were not set out clearly enough.
  Llew Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davey: I will not give way, because time is tight. It would have made much more sense if the Government had reassured us that they intended to introduce legislation, even in draft form, before the first referendum on a regional assembly took place.
  On Third Reading, we have to ask whether the glass is half full or half empty. Our view is that it is important that the cause of regional devolution gets going and that we start a process that has been long awaited. Despite the many flaws in the Bill, we will view the glass as half full and we will vote for its Third Reading. Although the Minister was right to draw attention to the words of
  532
  Lord Strathclyde last night and to say they were not appropriate, I hope that he will admit that it is the duty of the other place to scrutinise legislation.
  Mr. Raynsford: Not to stop it.
  Mr. Davey: Not to stop it—the Minister makes a valid point. I hope that noble Lords on all sides will work to amend the Bill in the way that some of us tried to do in Committee.
  Andrew George: I want to put on the record that, although I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said, I am afraid that I have reached a different conclusion. I believe that the glass is half empty. I agree with his analysis and will not try to stop the Bill, but I will not vote for it. I will abstain and I am sorry about that, but much more work needs to be done before it is palatable to us.
  Mr. Davey: I certainly understand why my hon. Friend has come to that conclusion. Many of us have had to think very hard about whether we would vote for the Bill because of the many problems in it. I understand why he wishes to take that action, but I urge my other hon. Friends to give the Bill its Third Reading, so that we can move on with regional devolution. The Bill will then move to another place where I hope it will be amended properly.
  5.54 pm
  Joyce Quin: I warmly welcome the Bill and I am glad that it is completing its proceedings in the Commons.
  I wish to make two points. First, in parallel with the Bill and complementary to it, the Government are undertaking a soundings exercise to try to find out how keen people in the regions are on holding referendums.
  I urge my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues across the Government to give publicity to that. Many other issues understandably dominate the news, but I am keen that people in the regions understand and appreciate what is on offer.
  My second point is that devolution has been a success so far, although it has thrown up interesting variations in policy, including enlightened approaches to nursing care, concessions for elderly travel and the establishment of children's commissioners. Although I encourage the Government to devolve functions to the regions of England, I also encourage them to consider some of those enlightened policies for England as a whole because many of them would be of great benefit.
  Having said that, I wish the Bill every success in its passage through the other place. I certainly hope that it does not attempt to block it. The Bill is a manifesto commitment and it would be constitutionally unacceptable for it to do so. I wish the Bill every success and hope that regional assemblies will be successfully established, especially in my region of the north-east.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. Streeter: The Bill is destined to join a growing list of half-baked and ill-thought-out new Labour legislation that has been put on the statute book since 1997. It introduces regional government on a piecemeal dyslexic basis, which will produce an asymmetric and unsustainable constitutional settlement for this great country. It introduces a system of taking soundings on the level of interest in a region which is so vague as to be utterly meaningless. The Deputy Prime Minister may as well open a window in Whitehall and stick his finger in the wind.
  The Bill introduces referendums with no thresholds, so even a tiny number of anorak-clad voters can effect constitutional change with no recall and no recourse if mistakes are made. It does not define the functions, powers and responsibilities of the new elected assemblies, and will be a recipe for confusion. It fails to give sufficient information to enable electors to make an informed decision. The Bill locks itself into regions that make no sense whatsoever—
  Mr. Hilton Dawson (Lancaster and Wyre): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Streeter: No, there is no time. The hon. Gentleman has just entered the Chamber; I have been here all day.
  The Bill locks itself into regions that do not attract local affinity or a sense of identity. How can it be right that Tewkesbury is in the south-west region when it is closer to Scotland than it is to Penzance?
  The Bill ushers in a massive and unnecessary upheaval of local government and will almost certainly spell the death knell to historic county boroughs over vast swathes of the country. It will take decisions away from local people and give them to elected regional assemblies, which will be accountable to no one. It is a clumsy, inchoate and incoherent measure. It will not stand the test of time and we should oppose it.
  5.57 pm
  Mrs. Ellman: I warmly welcome the Bill. It is a vital further step on the road to regional devolution advanced by the Government. Its purpose is to bring more power to the people in the regions, to narrow economic disparities and to stop the increasing flow of populations from the poorer north to the overheated south and south-east. It gives the voice of legitimacy to elected people in the regions to influence Government and European policy to benefit their economic development. It brings accountability to those decisions that are taken on a regional level and brings more focus to them.
  The Bill is of great importance to the country. It is of particular importance to the north-west and will be warmly welcomed in my constituency of Liverpool, Riverside. I look forward to it being put into practice and receiving support in the other place. It is a vital measure and I hope that it receives the full support of the House.
  5.58 pm
  Mr. Andrew Turner: As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) said, this Bill is deeply defective—and for two reasons. First, however, I should like to deal with the point that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) has just made about the drift from north to south. It is extraordinary that she can criticise such a drift while at the same time supporting her Deputy Prime Minister's proposals to build houses all over the south of England to encourage people to drift from the north to the south. I find that incoherent.
  The first reason why the Bill is unacceptable is that the boundaries of the regions do not match people's aspirations. I say that as someone who represents a constituency right on the edge of the south-east region—as defined by the Government—which has far less in common with Ramsgate and Milton Keynes than with Bournemouth and Portland.
  The second reason is the West Lothian question. We must resolve the problem that issues that matter to Members who represent English constituencies, or in future to those who represent constituencies without a regional assembly, can be voted on by those—
  It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Orders [29 October 2002 and 26 November 2002 and this day].
  The House divided: Ayes 331, Noes 123.

  Division No. 65]

  [6:00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Burnett, John

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Burnham, Andy

  Ainger, Nick

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cairns, David

  Allan, Richard

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Caplin, Ivor

  Austin, John

  Casale, Roger

  Baird, Vera

  Caton, Martin

  Banks, Tony

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Barnes, Harry

  Challen, Colin

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Battle, John

  Chaytor, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clapham, Michael

  Beard, Nigel

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Benn, Hilary

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Best, Harold

  Blackman, Liz

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clelland, David

  Borrow, David

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Cohen, Harry

  Brennan, Kevin

  Coleman, Iain

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Colman, Tony

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Connarty, Michael

  Cooper, Yvette

  Browne, Desmond

  Corston, Jean

  Bryant, Chris

  Cotter, Brian

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Cousins, Jim

  Burden, Richard

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Burgon, Colin

  Cruddas, Jon

  535

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  David, Wayne

  Hutton, rh John

  Davidson, Ian

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Illsley, Eric

  Dawson, Hilton

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Doughty, Sue

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Edwards, Huw

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Efford, Clive

  Keetch, Paul

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Etherington, Bill

  Farrelly, Paul

  Kidney, David

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Fisher, Mark

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Flint, Caroline

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Follett, Barbara

  Lamb, Norman

  Foster, rh Derek

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Lepper, David

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foulkes, rh George

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Gardiner, Barry

  Linton, Martin

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Love, Andrew

  Gidley, Sandra

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Gilroy, Linda

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Godsiff, Roger

  McCabe, Stephen

  Goggins, Paul

  McCafferty, Chris

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McDonnell, John

  Grogan, John

  MacDougall, John

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McKechin, Ann

  Hancock, Mike

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  McNamara, Kevin

  McNulty, Tony

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  McWalter, Tony

  McWilliam, John

  Heath, David

  Mallaber, Judy

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Heyes, David

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hodge, Margaret

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Merron, Gillian

  Holmes, Paul

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Milburn, rh Alan

  536

  Miller, Andrew

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Singh, Marsha

  Moore, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Moran, Margaret

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Morgan, Julie

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mullin, Chris

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

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

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Soley, Clive

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Southworth, Helen

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Spellar, rh John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Squire, Rachel

  Olner, Bill

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  O'Neill, Martin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Öpik, Lembit

  Stevenson, George

  Organ, Diana

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Owen, Albert

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Stringer, Graham

  Perham, Linda

  Stuart' Ms Gisela

  Picking, Anne

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pickthall, Colin

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Pollard Kerry

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pound, Stephen

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Prescott, rh John

  Timms, Stephen

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Purchase, Ken

  Trickett, Jon

  Purnell, James

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Raynsford rh Nick

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Vis Dr. Rudi

  Rendel, David

  Walley Ms Joan

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Ward Claire

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Watson, Tom (w Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Rooney, Terry

  White Brian

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Willis, Phil

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Wills, Michael

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Salter, Martin

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Sawford, Phil

  Wyatt, Derek

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sheridan, Jim

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mr. Phil Woolas

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Boswell, Tim

  Amess, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bacon, Richard

  Brady, Graham

  Baldry, Tony

  Brazier, Julian

  Barker, Gregory

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Burns, Simon

  Bercow, John

  Burnside, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Burt, Alistair

  Blunt, Crispin

  Cameron, David

  537

  Cash, William

  Maples, John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Maude, rh Francis

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Chope, Christopher

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Collins, Tim

  Moss, Malcolm

  Conway, Derek

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Norman, Archie

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Davis, rh David (Haftemprice & Howden)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Page, Richard

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Paice, James

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Paterson, Owen

  Evans, Nigel

  Pickles, Eric

  Fabricant, Michael

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Redwood, rh John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Flook, Adrian

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Francois, Mark

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  Ruffley, David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Goodman, Paul

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Grayling, Chris

  Simmonds, Mark

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Greenway, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Grieve, Dominic

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Hammond, Philip

  Spring, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Heald, Oliver

  Steen, Anthony

  Hendry, Charles

  Streeter, Gary

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Horam John (Orpington)

  Syms, Robert

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tredinnick, David

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Viggers, Peter

  Lansley, Andrew

  Walter, Robert

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Whittingdale, John

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Wiggin, Bill

  Lidington, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Loughton, Tim

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Young, rh Sir George

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Mr. Laurence Robertson and

  Malins, Humfrey

  Angela Watkinson

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Thursday 30th January, proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr lain Duncan Smith shall lapse, if not previously concluded, at Six o'clock or three hours after they have been entered upon, whichever is the later; proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 29th October 2002 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply to them.—[Mr. Heppell.]

  SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
  Ordered,
  That Sir Nicholas Winterton, Mr John McWilliam, Mr Frank Cook and Mr Edward O'Hara be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.— [Mr. Heppell.]

  NOTICES OF QUESTIONS, MOTIONS AND AMENDMENTS
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 22 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments) be amended, by inserting, after 'Wales' in line 40, the words 'and the Advocate General'. —[Mr. Heppell.]

  SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing rder No. 100 (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)),
  That the Scottish Grand Committee shall meet at Westminster on Wednesday 12th February at half-past Two o'clock to consider a substantive Motion for the adjournment of the Committee, the proceedings to be interrupted at Five o'clock. — [Mr. Heppell.]
  Question agreed to.

  NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 115(1) (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation)),
  That—

  (1) the draft Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;

  (2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Tuesday 4th February at half-past Two o'clock; and

  (3) at that sitting the Committee shall consider the instrument referred to it under paragraph (1) above. — [Mr. Heppell.

  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Sentences
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rosindell (Romford): It is with great sadness that I rise to present a petition to the House on behalf of no less than 41,000 constituents of mine and of constituencies neighbouring Romford.
  On 14 December 2001 a tragic event took place in London road in my constituency, Romford, where Scott Young was punched in the face, fell into the path of a passing car and was tragically killed. His parents, Kim and Ray, their daughter Clare, the entire family and friends from around Romford and Havering have spent the past six months collecting 41,000 signatures from the local community.
  The people of my constituency are outraged that the person who perpetrated that wicked crime received only three years in prison. It is said that within a year he will be released on parole. The Home Secretary today met the parents of Scott Young, and I am pleased that he agreed to take up the case and see what else can be done to bring justice.

  539
  The petition states:
  The petition of residents of Romford and the surrounding areas declares that the sentence given to Yannick Etutu for the manslaughter of Scott Young is entirely inappropriate and should have been much longer.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Home Affairs to review this sentence and introduce legislation that will ensure more appropriate sentences for this type of crime in the future.
  And the petitioners remain etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Garrett (Honeywell International)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppelli]
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: I am extremely grateful for having been given the opportunity to discuss this matter with the Minister this evening. For the sake of the record, I want to correct the Order Paper's spelling of the name of the firm, Garrett, which might otherwise alarm workers in another firm.
  Just before Christmas, the parent company of Garrett in my constituency, Honeywell International of New Jersey, announced the factory's closure later this year. That ends the jobs of 350 directly employed and highly skilled workers in Skelmersdale. In the time that is available to me, I want to make clear to the Minister the nature of this economic and social tragedy in my constituency. I also wish briefly to comment on a wider issue that it illustrates all too clearly—the bloodless way in which multinational companies can operate and the part that they seem to be playing in stripping Britain of sizeable chunks of its manufacturing industry.
  Garrett manufactures turbochargers for passenger car diesel engines and commercial vehicle diesel engines. The firm is the centre of excellence for the manufacture of commercial vehicle turbochargers in Europe. It has operated in Skelmersdale for almost 30 years. Garrett is profitable and efficient, and it has a market. Some 70 per cent. of its production for passenger car turbochargers supplies the Dagenham engine plant. That amounts to a total of 500,000 turbochargers in 2002.
  The high quality of the product and the work force are acknowledged even by Honeywell International. The work force at the factory total 470. All the direct manufacturing jobs are to go, leaving design, testing and development personnel in Skelmersdale. Of course, I am very glad for them, however temporary that arrangement might prove—we do not know yet—but the fact that those jobs will remain scarcely moderates the scale of the disaster.
  Skelmersdale is a smallish town of 42,000 people and small and medium-sized firms. Garrett is the largest private sector employer in the town. Indeed, I believe that it is second only to the local authority out of all the employers in the town. It is also one of the highest paying firms, if not the highest paying. It is the firm that most workers and young people in the town have, for as long as I can remember, always aspired to get into. Of course, its reputation for training and skills training only exaggerated that bias among the work force.
  While unemployment in Skelmersdale has diminished vastly since 1997, it is still a lot higher than the national average, and the majority of jobs in the town are low paid and low skill.
  The end of manufacturing at Garrett is therefore a substantial psychological as well as economic catastrophe for the town. Why has it happened? The simple answer appears to be that Honeywell has made the decision because it can. Its central reason is that work will be moved to Romania because wages there are a fraction—an eighth—of those in the United Kingdom.
  Honeywell International has three plants in Europe: Thaon-les-Vosges in France, Atessa in Italy and Garrett in Skelmersdale. Its plan is to move the car turbocharger

  541
  work from Skelmersdale to Atessa in the next six months. At the same time, a similar amount of work will move from the Atessa plant to the plant near Bucharest. The manufacture of commercial vehicle turbochargers from Skelmersdale will move straight to Romania later.
  The company has given other reasons apart from wages. It claims that there is overcapacity in Europe and that there is no sign of an upturn in demand for several years. It says that it therefore needs to reduce the number of plants. However, it is not doing that; it is simply moving the three around a little and opening another in Romania. It claims that the cost of closing the Skem plant is less than that of closing either the French or the Italian plants. Other multinational companies have presented such arguments and they have often been discussed in the Chamber.
  However, perhaps most chilling for us in government is the fact that Honeywell tells us that the customer and supply base is moving to eastern Europe. That means that car manufacturing and the manufacture of the appropriate components is moving slowly but surely towards eastern Europe.
  I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) is present. She lived in Skelmersdale for many years and was a distinguished representative on the county council and district council. She knows all the arguments from her many years in Skelmersdale.
  I have supplied the Minister's office with a copy of a paper that Amicus AEEU prepared. I am grateful to Harry Howard of AEEU and John Jones, the plant manager at Garrett, for the information that they prepared for me, and hence indirectly for the Minister. The company's documentation includes graphic illustration of the apparently inexorable move of car manufacturing and component supply eastwards to the low-pay areas of eastern Europe. I am sorry that I cannot read the map into Hansard, because it is so graphic.
  I have nothing against the development of Romania, and I wish that country well. After some years, Romanian wages and conditions of service may improve—I hope that they will—to match ours. Presumably car manufacturing and other branches of engineering will then start moving even further east. To some extent, that is already happening.
  In 2001, Ford at Dagenham applied pressure on the component manufacturers, including Garrett, that supplied its engine plant to relocate to the industrial park surrounding the Dagenham plant because of the express need to make the supply lines as short as possible. After the changes that I have described by Honeywell, the supply line will stretch 1,100 miles to Atessa or 1,500 miles to Bucharest.
  Garrett workers suspect—I put it no more strongly because they did not—that the apparently illogical move of the work to eastern Europe is part of what Honeywell describes as the migration of the car industry eastward.
  I have no knowledge of Ford's view of this development, but I would be very interested to hear it. I have alerted my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham
  542
  (Jon Cruddas) to the possible implications of Garrett's move for the Dagenham engine plant. Will Ford tolerate a 1,500-mile supply line for this component? Do not all passenger car manufacturers have a strategy of establishing industrial parks around their assembly plants, in which their component manufacturers will be concentrated? I concede that that makes both economic and environmental sense. I would not suggest for one moment that Ford would follow a component supplier to the other side of Europe. That would be a case of the tail wagging the dog. I suggest, however, that the eastward migration that I have described may eventually involve both.
  There may be many factors involved in such a migration of engineering and manufacturing, and this is the second engineering firm to move out from Skelmersdale to Romania in the last couple of years in almost precisely the same circumstances. Those factors include the level of the pound, the fact that we are outside the euro—a fact that Honeywell cited—and the comparative ease with which companies can close down plants in the UK, compared with the way in which obstacles are placed in the way of that in many of our European partner countries.
  I know that the scenario that I am describing is not uncommon in manufacturing industry across the north-west. Indeed, I am embarrassingly aware that the Minister and his colleagues in the DTI have rather more Adjournment debates, questions and deputations than they would like, and I am sorry to have to add to that number.
  In Skelmersdale, I represent a town with a long and painful history of unemployment and economic disadvantage, which crippled it during the Thatcher and Major years. Since 1997, thanks to its own strenuous efforts, substantial help from the Labour Government, and positive proaction from the county council and the district council, Skelmersdale's economy and, therefore, its community life have improved in a marvellous way. I am very proud of the part that the Labour Government and the Labour authorities have played in that.
  Through thick and thin—most of it thin, I have to say—Garrett has been a solid rock of skill and success in Skelmersdale. It is, therefore, bitterly ironic that in the generally auspicious circumstances that we now have, faceless men or women sitting in New Jersey should snuff out such a success story in a game of long-distance chess, by
  "seizing the opportunity to take cost out of our European operation",
  as the American representative of Honeywell who came to meet us said to me. I am desperately sorry for the Garrett work force and for those workers in the other firms—not only in my constituency—that supply Garrett, whose jobs will now also come under threat. I am also very angry that we, as a country and as a Government, seem so helpless in the face of these decisions. This is socio-economic crime, and attention must be paid to it.
  In summary, I want to put some questions to my hon. Friend the Minister. I am well aware of the restrictions on what he can do about them. First, what advice and help can the DTI offer to the work force and the management at Garrett in relation to combating the

  543
  closure and coping with its consequences, if and when it happens? Will he be able to find the time to meet workers and management from the firm, or possibly even to talk to Honeywell? Secondly, what, if any, leverage can the DTI bring to bear on an international company such as Honeywell to make it think again on this export of jobs? Thirdly, what is the scale of the exporting of engineering and manufacturing from the UK to eastern Europe and, indeed, to the EU? Would it be possible to break that figure down for the north-west? Fourthly, will the Minister examine the fact that Garrett's move to Romania could have serious implications for Dagenham?
  If my hon. Friend cannot reply to, in particular, my third and fourth questions, I hope he will write to me at some point.
  As I have said, Garrett is not a weak or a struggling firm; quite the reverse. It is a firm of the highest quality, producing high-quality products, with a first-class work force. Its closure is not just a tragedy for Skelmersdale. It strikes me as a frightening portent of things to come.
  6.30 pm
  The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) on securing this debate, and on describing so eloquently the effects that the closure of Garrett—the 90-day period has not ended yet, but the situation looks grim—is having in his constituency. I know how hard he has worked to try to find alternatives on behalf of his constituents.
  Garrett manufactures turbochargers for the automotive industry. Let me first say something about that industry, about Government support for it and about manufacturing more generally. I will then deal with the case raised by my hon. Friend. I hope to be able to answer most of the questions that he asked at the end of his speech.
  Following publication of the enterprise, innovation and skills White Paper in February 2001, the Department of Trade and Industry established the automotive innovation and growth team. It was chaired by Sir Ian Gibson, former chief executive of Nissan's UK and European operations. It consisted of a strategy team comprising trade unionists, industrialists and others who had been in the automotive industry almost all their lives, and several sub-groups. They would examine various issues such as design, development and manufacture, distribution, competition and the consumer, the environment, and technology.
  The team's report was published in May 2002. It contained seven recommendations relating to the future of our automotive industry over the next 20 years, all of which the Government accepted. We are committed to implementing the recommendations—many of which are relevant to the points raised by my hon. Friend—and we have allocated £45 million to the process. Following the report's publication, the DTI's automotive unit was restructured to focus on strong and effective relationships with key companies in the UK's automotive sector and on the team's recommendations. We are arranging to fund supply chain groups across the UK, as was announced at the Birmingham motor show on 22 October. Progress has also been made on
  544
  implementing the other recommendations: that includes setting up an automotive academy and two centres of excellence, a pilot mobility services project and a retail motor strategy working group. Those initiatives reaffirm the Government's commitment to the automotive sector.
  I think it highly unlikely that Ford is preparing to end diesel production in Dagenham, although I will do as my hon. Friend asks and look into the ramifications as set out in Amicus's detailed and comprehensive report. Ford has only just invested £340 million as part of a programme to establish the UK as Ford's European diesel centre of excellence. I visited the site recently, and observed enormous excitement about the amount that Ford is investing.
  Garrett is in an assisted area and a European funding area, so there is scope for financial assistance. When companies experiencing difficulties, as is the case with Garrett, contact their local Government office—they must want our assistance in the first place—or regional development agency, they can expect advice and assistance relating to all the issues confronting them. Regional selective assistance, which is administered by the RDAs and which Garrett has received at least four times over the last 20 years, can be used to safeguard as well as create jobs when companies are in assisted areas. In the past three years in West Lancashire there have been nine offers of grants totalling £1.3 million, against a capital expenditure of £14.5 million, creating 355 jobs and safeguarding 79.
  As a Government, we have helped more than 3,000 businesses across the country, supported £6 billion of investment and ensured that 135,000 jobs, most of them in manufacturing, which attracts 96 per cent. of all regional selective assistance grants, were created or safeguarded. It is clear that there are measures available to persuade Garrett to retain a presence in Skelmersdale but obviously the final decision rests with the company.
  The level of assistance available to support companies, and Skelmersdale in the wider economic context, is considerable, and time after time we have succeeded. We must remember in this debate that it is not Romania, Hungary, Poland or the Czech Republic that attracts the most inward investment in Europe; it is the United Kingdom. We are second only to the United States in attracting inward investment, which is one of the reasons why—I will come to the specific problems of manufacturing in a second—last week's figures showed that, even though there is a global recession in manufacturing, we have the lowest unemployment in this country and the highest employment for 30 years.
  In addition to having assisted area status, Skelmersdale is supported by objective 2 money, and under objective 2 priority 1, assistance is available to meet the specific needs of small and medium-sized companies. Operating under two action plans, the north and west Lancashire partnerships and the Northwest Development Agency plans have been awarded more than £40 million to date.
  Financial assistance is an important means of support but the full range of regional and national support is much wider. Representatives from the north-west automotive sector have met on a number of occasions to discuss the possibility of setting up a north-west

  545
  automotive group. The Northwest Development Agency has completed an automotive sector study seeking to take forward the findings.
  We have invested £15 million in a new manufacturing advisory service to spread best practice. The Northwest Development Agency appointed the Manufacturing Institute as the regional centre of manufacturing excellence, designed to provide a range of support measures to help companies to develop "lean" manufacturing processes and to act as a one-stop shop, providing advice particularly to companies in the supply chain.
  The Northwest Development Agency also delivers the supply chain programme, which helps and encourages north-west businesses to use north-west suppliers as well as assisting small businesses to devise recovery plans should their main customer reduce production or move from the area.
  I turn to the substantive issue. I was extremely sorry to hear the announcement by Garrett of its plans to close the plant in Skelmersdale. As my hon. Friend said, as many as 350 jobs are to be lost, with consequential negative effects, no doubt, both locally and further afield. The effects will be devastating for staff and their families.
  I understand that the company has given a guarantee that no one will be forced to leave before 1 May 2003 and is in consultation with staff representatives over the proposed move of production to Romania. West Lancashire district council has already liaised with Jobcentre Plus in order to find out what help could be offered to Honeywell if assistance is needed after the consultation period. On 16 January, an advisor from Jobcentre Plus met with the company to discuss the current situation.
  It is obviously essential that Government agencies provide help to the company and most especially to the employees in dealing with the traumatic effects of the closure.
  The question of skills, retraining and the redeployment experience of those who face redundancy is crucial both for those affected directly and for the country more generally. The Northwest Development Agency has published its framework for regional employment and skills action—FRESA—the purpose of which is to promote a healthy labour market in which employers and individuals get effective help to meet their employment and skills needs. We have a good record of getting people back into work quickly after plant closures and major redundancies. Ensuring that training is training is crucial to that effort.
  The Government are committed to manufacturing, not least because it comprises one fifth of our national output, employs in excess of 4 million workers, produces the majority of our exports and is a key driver of productivity and innovation in the economy. These are difficult times for UK manufacturers, and for manufacturers in Japan, the US and Germany. For the
  546
  first time since 1974, a synchronised global slowdown in manufacturing is affecting all the world's major industrial regions. We must see the sector through this recession and ensure that it is well placed to take advantage of the upturn, when it materialises.
  Here in Britain, traditional manufacturing industries such as car making have been transformed through new technologies and techniques. Computers, robotics, and innovative processes and design have been harnessed for greater efficiency and productivity. The zenith of car manufacturing in Britain was not, as some maintain, in the 1960s. It is now: we export more than 1 million cars a year—five times more than in 1986—and we have nine major car manufacturers in the UK, which is more than any other EU country. We also have the world's most successful motor sports industry, and both Ford and Nissan have established their design centres in London.
  I very much regret the Garrett announcement and the terrible consequences that it will have for employees. Representatives of the Northwest Development Agency and other agencies stand ready to talk to the company about options for retaining jobs and capacity at the site. Jobcentre Plus staff are ready to help Garrett employees if those discussions fail to bear fruit. I should be happy to meet trade unionists and managers from the company if my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire wants to set up arrangements with my office.
  I have tried to put the matter in the context of what is happening with manufacturing in this country. Manufacturing makes up 19 per cent. of the UK's gross domestic product, compared with 14 per cent. in France, 18 per cent. in the US, and 22 per cent. in Germany. It is therefore wrong to say that manufacturing in Britain is suffering adverse effects that do not hit other countries. Our manufacturing industry needs the skills and abilities to compete effectively. We cannot stop companies moving to countries with low-wage economies, but—like Japan, Germany and the US—Britain has never wanted to compete on low wages, and never will. We compete on high wages, high skill and high added value. We must continue to do so, even through these difficult times.
  To sum up: the Government will make advice and help available to the workers concerned in this matter. I will meet those workers, and look at the scale of exportation that could emerge from this, as set out by Amicus. In addition, I shall look at the validity and implications of the Garrett case, although that may be an academic exercise, as we do not live in a command and control economy and therefore cannot prevent companies from locating where they wish.
  It is important that we learn from situations such as that described by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire, and that we continue to help manufacturing businesses to raise their game so that we can develop and maintain a sound manufacturing sector in this country—one that is fit to face the challenges of the 21st century.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Seven o 'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Youth Policy
2.30 pm
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This being this first session of questions in Westminster Hall, I have a short statement about the procedure that I intend to follow. As happens in the House, I will call each hon. Member with a question in turn; as in the House the hon. Member should rise and respond "Question No. 1," and so on. I will then call a Minister to answer.
This session is different from questions in the House, in that we have four Ministers here, from four different Departments. The House has decided that questions in Westminster Hall should relate to an overall "cross-cutting" theme—on this occasion, youth policy.
After the Minister's initial answer, I will call the hon. Member in whose name the question was tabled to ask a supplementary question. It may be that one of the other Ministers present will want to come in to answer that supplementary question, either instead of, or in addition to, the Minister giving the original answer.
I will then call other hon. Members to ask supplementary questions, including, on some questions, Opposition Front Benchers. I may also call an hon. Member to ask a second supplementary question if I deem it appropriate.
Hon. Members should remember, however, that this is a question and answer session and not a series of mini-debates. I expect Ministers' answers and supplementary questions to be short and to the point. I hope to achieve a free-flowing exchange to allow us to make good progress through the Order Paper in the hour allotted to questions.
This is a novel procedure and I seek the co-operation of all hon. Members to help to make it a useful addition to our procedures for holding the Government to account. It is, inevitably, experimental at this stage. I do not intend any precedents to be set by my rulings today—except brevity—and I will be happy to receive, privately, any suggestions from colleagues for modifications.
I remind hon. Members too that sittings in Westminster Hall are governed by the same conventions concerning behaviour and mode of address as in the Chamber.
2.34 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
2.48 pm
On resuming
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I had better mention that all the microphones are live, so it would be helpful if
144WH
there were no background conversation to interrupt the main proceedings. I re-emphasise my point about brevity in case anyone has forgotten it in the past 18 minutes. Although it will become obvious later, for the convenience of hon. Members I shall tell them now that Question 5 will be answered with Question 3 and Question 10 will be answered with Question 9.

Oral Answers to Questions
Oral Answers to Questions

  Re-offending
  1.Simon Hughes: What assessment the Government have made of the impact on reducing re-offending by young people of participation in schemes promoted or supported by the Youth Justice Board. [91805]
  The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): The reconviction rates of offenders dealt with in July 2000, just after the national introduction of the main reform measures, were reduced by 14 per cent, compared with 1997.
  A range of YJB funded programmes are also being evaluated. The results include a 25 per cent, reduction in re-offending following education, training and employment programmes, a drop of 29.5 percentage points in children offending after their parents had been on parenting programmes, and on the nine-month intensive supervision and surveillance programme pilot a drop from 160 to 47 offences.
  Simon Hughes: It is a great pleasure to ask the first supplementary question. We all accept the success of the Youth Justice Board. Its programmes have been widely welcomed. Will the Minister guarantee that the funding will not only continue, but be extended for the splash programme, the youth inclusion programme, the intensive supervision and surveillance programme and, above all, the youth service, which has been badly cut back over the past decade? If funding is there, we know how to give youngsters positive alternatives to antisocial behaviour and boredom.
  Mr. Denham: The YJB programme has been successful, although I do not have the details regarding that. We intend to repeat last summer's very successful programme of youth activities, and to do that in a way that frees money and brings it together into a single pot for local authorities and agencies to use.
  We have already guaranteed the future of the youth inclusion programmes, which have been very successful in helping young people in high crime areas. I hope that we will shortly be able to give more details about the extension of the intensive supervision and surveillance programmes, which are effective in keeping young people out of custody and out of trouble.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills will talk about the youth service.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): One of the problems in taking an integrated approach to the needs of young people has been the underfunding and undervaluation of the youth service over many years. A new vision for youth services and an understanding of how those services and others—such as Connexions—connect together are fundamental to achieving many of our objectives in respect of education, performance, antisocial behaviour, street crime and so forth.
  Julie Morgan: Because of the devolution to Wales of many matters that affect young people who offend, it is important that there are close links between the different Government Departments and between the Government and the Assembly in Wales. What progress is being made on an all-Wales youth offending strategy involving the YJB, and what is the value of such a strategy?
  Mr. Denham: I will have to get back to my hon. Friend about our position on an all-Wales strategy, but it is important that people can see that the YJB has a strategy that ties in well with the other agencies that work with young people to reduce crime.
  We liaise well with the Assembly: for example, the equivalent of an English regional crime reduction director is based in, and works with, the Assembly and helps to link the work of the local community safety partnerships with the YJB and other organisations. There is value in having coherent policies. I will write to my hon. Friend about the matter.
  Mr. James Paice: Conservative Members welcome this opportunity to cross-question Ministers—in this case, on youth policy.
  Against a background of a huge increase in the number of persistent young offenders, the work of the YJB is essential; its great value has been mentioned. The Minister referred to intensive supervision and surveillance programmes, which are a step in the right direction. I understand that Oxford university is assessing those programmes and analysing their benefit. There is doubt about whether 25 hours over three months is adequate contact time, but we need to see the results. When does the Minister expect to hear from Oxford university? Will he be publishing that report?
  Mr. Denham: The intensive supervision and surveillance programme is aimed at the 3 per cent, of young people who are estimated to commit about 25 per cent, of all crime. It is not the case that we have necessarily had a rise in the number of persistent young offenders. According to the figures that we have, the reconviction rate has fallen. The Oxford university study must be long term if its full effects are to be seen. It will be available in 2004. The interim assessment has shown a drop in the number of offences from 160 to 47 among young people involved in the programme. This is not just a matter of contact time, which is rather more extensive than the hon. Gentleman suggests. Offenders are also tagged and subject to curfew, so there is a
  146WH
  mixture of intensive engagement and some limits on freedom, and the expense and problems that arise from young offenders institutions are avoided.
  Mr. Paice: May I turn the Minister's attention to the issue of funding, which was touched on by the Liberal Democrat spokesman? I visited a youth improvement programme this morning. One of the facts that came through loud and clear was that although those involved welcomed the decision to extend the programme for another three years—we, too, are pleased with that decision—there is such a disparate range of sources of funds and requirements that the bureaucracy being imposed on those involved, who are basically youth workers, is insufferable. One such worker told me that they had turned down £150,000 because the bureaucratic burden that went along with the job in question did not make it worth while.
  It is sensible to have a range of programmes. However, will the Minister consider whether he can bring together the various bodies—some charitable, some publicly funded—that are funding the programmes, whether they provide core funds or extra money? Could we put all the money together, so that those involved with programmes could concentrate on bidding in the first place and on dealing with youths, rather than constantly filling in forms and meeting different requirements for different forms of assessment?
  Mr. Denham: That is a good point. Last summer, we increased the number of young people involved in summer activities from 25,000 to more than 90,000, but that was done at a great pace and involved some 12 different streams of money. Much work has been done, led by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to bring that money together into a single pot—or as close as a single pot as we can get—so that it is much easier to administer next year. Much the same principles should apply to the youth inclusion programmes, for which there may be funding from the lottery, local authorities or the neighbourhood renewal fund. Bringing the sums together is a major exercise, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's point and we are working hard on it.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: Given the lamentable re-offending rates of those leaving young offenders institutions, would not the best idea to reduce youth offending be to ensure that the vast majority of young offenders did not go into custody? Given the recent decision of the High Court in relation to the application of the Children Act 1989 to young offenders institutions, what work is the Youth Justice Board doing to ensure that all young people who are locked up are supported by the provisions of the 1989 Act, and treated as children rather than criminals?
  Mr. Denham: On the first point, the vast majority of young offenders do not go into custody. For every 100 young offenders, no more than four will go into custody. One reason for expanding the intensive supervision and surveillance programme is that it is targeted at a group of young people who might otherwise go into custody. If current success rates are repeated, the programme will have the benefit of protecting the public and being a satisfactory way of dealing with young people who have been carrying out serious crimes. However, there always

  147WH
  will be some young people from whom the community needs to be protected. Every young offenders institution has a child protection co-ordinator and has established a child protection committee, and is in contact with the local area child protection committee structure, so there is a system for integrating what is happening in young offenders institutions with wider child protection arrangements.
  Jonathan Shaw: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) referred to the good work of the Youth Justice Board and mentioned some of its successes, one of which is its work with parents of young offenders. Is the Department for Education and Skills thinking about that work and considering working with the parents of young people who are truanting? Those young people often get involved in crime. Is there to be any debate on the lessons learned from the work of the Youth Justice Board?
  Mr. Denham: Yes. We are looking at that while we draw up a new Green Paper on young people at risk. One of the things that we discovered was that parents who are required to attend parenting classes often react, after a time, by asking why the support was not offered before their children were in serious trouble. We are examining ways in which we can extend parenting support at an earlier phase of a child's life and give support to parents earlier. Money for families is available in the spending review from the parenting fund, and the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has talked about facilities at school to develop parenting contracts as a way of agreeing with parents how they can support the work done with their children. There will be more to come in the area that my hon. Friend talked about.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not habitually the case that Ministers of the Crown are at a disadvantage, but I am advised that their microphones are dead. If they could use their own amplification, it would help those who are reporting our proceedings.

  Drug Education
  2. Jim Dobbin: What steps the Government are taking to improve drug education among young people. [91806]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): To protect young people from problematic drug use we must make sure that all young people, particularly the most vulnerable, have access to credible drug education and information.
  Almost all schools now have a drug education policy in place and Ofsted reports that the quality of drug education in the classroom is improving year on year. Investment in training programmes for teachers and Connexions advisers, and the national healthy school standard are all providing an important boost to drug education. To build on improvements already made, the Government are implementing a five-year evaluation and research programme called Blueprint.
  Jim Dobbin: Is the Minister aware of the excellent work that takes place in the voluntary sector on drug
  148WH
  awareness in schools? An example of an organisation that does such work is the North-West Life Education Trust, which is funded by Rotary International in Great Britain and Ireland. It has put together an interesting programme of visits that take place throughout my constituency and Rochdale's local education authority area.
  Jacqui Smith: Yes, my hon. Friend makes an important point. We recognise that the voluntary sector's contribution can be important in developing drug education. When young people are asked what they want from drug education, they often express an interest in using external visitors, for example. We welcome that contribution. We are aware of the work of Life Education Centres and its chief executive is represented on the advisory group for the Blueprint programme that I mentioned earlier. It is up to local schools to determine the extent to which their drug education policies use outside organisations and voluntary organisations. I certainly believe, and research suggests, that effective drug education is best provided by a partnership involving teachers, parents, voluntary organisations and pupils themselves in order to determine the programmes.
  Mr. John Redwood: Are the Government giving consideration to, or undertaking studies on, cannabis liberalisation and the liberalisation of other so-called "soft" drugs?
  Jacqui Smith: As I think the right hon. Gentleman is aware, research is being conducted on the health effects of using cannabis with regard to certain illnesses. The Government's position is now clear. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has proposed the reclassification of cannabis. The message for young people remains clear: cannabis is a harmful drug and taking cannabis is illegal—our drug education programmes are based on that message. We must also recognise that programmes should be credible and honest about relative health problems associated with different drugs. It is important that we continue to focus our attention and targets on ensuring that we reduce the use of class A drugs, which are clearly the most harmful drugs.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I wonder what role sports stars and sporting clubs could play in the fight for drug education. Could that role be further extended through schools in the future?
  The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): I think that my hon. Friend knows about the World Anti-Doping Agency. UK Sport signed off a memorandum of understanding supporting the agency in Moscow only a few weeks ago. UK Sport now has information available on its website or by other means. It is doing everything that it can to show the harmful effects of drugs and doping. We are trying to eradicate the use of drugs in competition, because it is cheating. We want to rid sport of cheating.
  Mr. David Rendel: The Minister will be aware that one drug kills more people than any other. That drug is tobacco, which kills roughly 300 people a

  149WH
  day. Is the Minister aware that one in four young people can become addicted to tobacco after sampling just two or three cigarettes? Would it not improve education in our schools if the message to young people were not so much "Do not smoke" as "Do not even start smoking because you may become addicted very quickly"?
  Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point that is being reflected in guidance and practice. We need to take a broad approach that covers illegal drugs as well as tobacco and alcohol. The Government are concerned about young people taking up smoking because of the problems that that can lead to in later life. That is why many of our education programmes deal with the harm that tobacco can do; it is also why we are taking action on banning tobacco advertising.

  Youth Services
  Phil Hope: What action is being taken to improve the statutory and voluntary youth service. [91807]
  Alan Simpson: What assessment the Government have made of the need for a statutory policy for youth services. [91809]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): On 18 December 2002, I published the Government's reform and investment plan for youth services and youth work over the next five years in a document entitled "Transforming Youth Work—Resourcing Excellent Youth Services". The document sets out, for the first time, the Government's vision for high quality, well managed and properly resourced services. It is an excellent document and I will circulate it to all hon. Members in the next fortnight.
  Additional investment over the next three years means that there is now no excuse for local authorities to cut youth service budgets. Indeed, we expect to see significant increases in spending year on year.
  The document also sets out, for the first time, a legislative basis to give the Secretary of State the power to intervene when a local authority is clearly failing to provide an acceptable level of service. He will not hesitate to use that power in circumstances where young people are being short-changed.
  Phil Hope: May I record my support for this unique parliamentary occasion? It demonstrates that the whole House is committed to young people.
  We would all agree that the youth service has been neglected for decades, under successive Governments. I very much welcome the document that was published in December. It was also welcomed by youth services and one leading practitioner described it as a "landmark document" and possibly the most important for 40 years. That is a tribute to the Government's proposals for the future. The document contains an excellent structure for better delivery of youth services, but when will we see a step-by-step implementation plan? Is the
  150WH
  Minister confident that local authorities that have failed to spend on youth services in the past will deliver the kind of expenditure called for in the document?
  Mr. Lewis: I would like to begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend. Over the years, even when it has not been fashionable, he has been among the most passionate advocates of youth services.
  For the first time, this framework allows us to tell local authorities what we expect of them. If local authorities are not delivering the high quality services that young people deserve, we will have the power to intervene. We will not hesitate to do that if we feel that local authorities are not providing an adequate or sufficient youth service. We believe that the resources that we are investing give local authorities no excuse.
  My hon. Friend asked about implementation. When we produce strategies, the main issue is to get the delivery right. People in communities up and down the country—especially young people—must start to see a tangible improvement in the quality of services to which they have access. Every local authority will be required to produce a pledge to young people, setting out what young people in their area can expect. That pledge should involve young people in the development of services. There should be an approach to community cohesion that brings together young people from different cultures and backgrounds, so that we can build positive relationships.
  We also want to see far more intergenerational work. One of the sadnesses in many communities is the breakdown in relationships between old and young. We are going to come forward with proposals on those issues—a new curriculum for youth work, the contribution of Connexions and, most important, the commitment to engaging with the voluntary and community sectors.
  We must make it clear that local authorities cannot do it on their own. They have to make best use of innovative and imaginative voluntary organisations, which are particularly good at getting to some of the hard-to-reach people who find it difficult to access statutory services. At a national level, our priority for next year is to develop a substantive work force development strategy. We know that we have major recruitment and retention problems, and it is vital that we have highly skilled, highly qualified, high quality people on the front line of youth services, both as youth workers and in management positions.
  Alan Simpson: I welcome the increased clarity of directions and resources that we are offering local authorities. However, we are ducking the central problem—the failure of Governments to place youth services on a statutory basis. It has always been one of the softer targets—one of the services that local authorities can cut. We would be better advised to grasp the nettle and place youth services on a statutory footing. Perhaps we should follow the lead of the French authorities, which have an audit duty; they have at least to define the range and condition of sports and leisure amenities available to the youth in their areas. Without such an audit, we do not even know the amenity base that we are working from.
  Mr. Lewis: A central part of our strategy is that, for the first time, we have defined adequate and sufficient

  151WH
  services in a range of areas. Now that we have done that, existing legislation gives the Secretary of State the power to intervene and direct local authorities that are not providing an adequate youth service either to provide those services themselves or to insist that another organisation better able to do so take over that responsibility. The proposals in the document effectively put youth services on a statutory footing for the first time. It gives us the power to intervene and direct; we hope that we do not have to use the power, but we shall not hesitate to use it if local authorities that are now being given significantly more resources for youth services fail to fulfil their responsibilities to young people.
  Bob Spink (Castle Point): Is the Minister aware of the youth service policy, and does he agree with it, of having an arbitrary age limit of 25 years old, which excludes people from some clubs? Some of those with severe learning difficulties who are excluded have come to rely on those clubs or social activities; indeed, they bring an awful lot to the clubs by their attendance. Does the Minister agree that their arbitrary exclusion should be avoided, so that they can continue to bring something to the clubs? Is that not an area where common sense rather than prescription would be the best policy?
  Mr. Lewis: I empathise with the point made by the hon. Gentleman. Before being elected to Parliament, I spent many years working with people who had learning disabilities. The point is particularly relevant, although I have to say that the idea of 25-year-old adults attending youth activities is entirely inappropriate and unacceptable. We must have leisure activities that are appropriate for their age.
  I understand how people can feel if a service is withdrawn or if, as they get older, they no longer have access to the same quality of life support that they previously enjoyed. I understand carers' concerns about that, but the challenge is to create age-appropriate services that give those with learning disabilities the opportunity to fulfil their potential and to participate in a mainstream way in the life of their local community.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have a short administrative announcement. Would Ministers please move two places to their right?

  Citizenship
  Mr Andrew Miller: What plans the Government have to promote active citizenship among young people. [91808]
  The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): The Government are committed to enabling our young people to voice their views and to take a full and active part in society. We are already encouraging young people to become more involved in the life of their schools and communities through a number of measures. Statutory citizenship education, which was introduced into the national curriculum last September, encourages young people to consider social and moral responsibility, community involvement and political literacy. The millennium volunteers programme offers young people a practical opportunity to get involved in
  152WH
  their communities. Government Departments have made a commitment to involve young people in the development and design of their services and policies.
  The UK Youth Parliament is also an excellent means of encouraging young people to be more aware of democracy and citizenship. I know that some members of the UKYP are here with us today. I am pleased to be able to announce that the Government will provide continued funding for UKYP next year at an enhanced level—tangible evidence of our commitment to encouraging active citizenship among young people.
  We have done substantial work on getting young people involved and that is linked directly to new initiatives by the Electoral Commission to encourage young people to vote and to ensure that they are on the voting lists.
  Mr. Miller: I welcome my hon. Friend's response. However, there are different problems in different parts of the country, reflecting the varying sizes and structures of local authorities. In my own local authority, which is a small district council, a great deal of positive work is being done to promote youth council work. It has been a tremendous success. Sadly, I have yet to find a little pot of gold that I can tap into—and I am looking at four here—to assist in the development of that programme. It is working. Those of us who represent constituencies that are a considerable distance from London find it very difficult to bring parties of young people down here. The Government should consider that problem. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills said, local authorities cannot do those things on their own; they need help. I hope that the Government will consider that very carefully.
  Mr. Denham: We need to be clear about what can be funded. Some activities are the responsibility of the Government to fund. For example, we will be funding the UK Youth Parliament with £110,000 of core funding. We will be providing £55,000 to support regional development, as we recognise that not everybody can partake in national activities.
  I am strongly of the view that local youth councils and local youth forums should not be merely an add-on to local authority activity. Local authorities deliver services that will affect young people, and those services will be better if they consult the young people at whom they are aimed. It is unreasonable to expect central Government to pay for the development of local plans; we expect local authorities to do that as part of their business. Local authorities should build in support for youth participation and consultation during every working day rather than do it when there is an extra pot of money available.
  Matthew Green: May I, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, welcome these cross-cutting youth questions? It is a very positive way of re-engaging young people with the political process. The Minister wishes to promote active citizenship, but what would he say to a 16 or 17-year-old who is in work and paying income tax, national insurance and council tax but who cannot vote for the politicians who set those taxes?
  Mr. Denham: I would say to the hon. Gentleman and to the representatives of the Conservative party that

  153WH
  there has been consultation with young people on the voting age. It should be for the Electoral Commission to decide whether it wants to review independently the arguments for and against a change in the voting age. Several issues must be considered. One is rights, which affect how the question is framed, but we must also consider whether a change in voting age would make a significant difference to the declining participation of young people in the electoral process. We will consider all these matters when the Electoral Commission launches its consultation next month. I know that many young people will take an interest.
  Claire Ward: Voting is just one of the responsibilities involved in active citizenship. Will the Minister review the ages al which children acquire rights to a range of things in Britain? On the national Youth Parliament and the Government's support for it, will the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills ensure that all schools actively promote the opportunity for their pupils to vote in the elections for members of the Youth Parliament?
  Mr. Denham: We would strongly encourage all schools and all local education authorities to do that—the level of involvement and commitment across the country is varied—and to do so in a way that represents a form of a democratic election. Within the last year, we have taken the powers to give statutory guidance to schools and school governors on how they should involve and listen to young people in the management of schools, sometimes by schools councils, sometimes in other ways. I would pushing the boundaries of this Question Time if I were to answer the wider question of whether there should be a total review of everything, from when somebody can drive to when they can pay tax, or own a firearm.
  Mr. Charles Hendry: Does the Minister agree that the Connexions service, which the Government set up to give young people advice, can play an important role in helping young people to become active citizens, by giving them information on volunteering opportunities? If so, does he share the concerns of many voluntary organisations that are increasingly frustrated by the fact that Connexions makes it harder to give such advice, because it acts as a block on their work? Can he confirm that, although the two are expected to work in partnership, this year Connexions has a budget of £334 million, yet it spent only £2 million with voluntary organisations? How do the Government think that they can encourage young people to get involved in more voluntary activity, when they are so evidently failing to develop a partnership with the voluntary sector?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the benefits of getting young people involved in active citizenship through voluntary work, and there is a consensus on that in the House. He did not refer to the millennium volunteers project, which the Government introduced, and which has been an incredible success in getting young people under 16 involved in voluntary work, and continuing with that voluntary work in later life.
  154WH
  I agree that the Connexions service is a vital new youth service that, through work with other youth services, has the potential to transform the opportunities available to young people. It can provide universal high quality advice, information and guidance to young people, work in a more intense way with young people with serious problems who need a lot of support and mentoring assistance, and ensure that such young people have access to the right specialist services.
  I share the hon. Gentleman's view on the Connexions service's engagement with the voluntary sector. There were difficulties in the early days, although Connexions has not been going very long. That is why we recently issued clear guidance to all the Connexions partnerships about how they are expected to work and engage with voluntary and community-based organisations. I shall monitor those partnership relationships and expect to see tangible improvement in the engagement between the partnerships and the voluntary organisations.
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: One aspect of active citizenship, as the Minister said, is having one's voice heard in the services that affect one. Will the Health Minister say what steps are being taken to ensure that young people's voices as patients and carers are heard through the forums?
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): My hon. Friend makes an important point that is linked to the point made earlier that we should engage young people in the mainstream of public service development. She rightly referred to developments in the health service, such as the setting up of the commission for patient involvement and the patient forum, which are to be set up in every trust. We have already ensured that the consideration of how young people can be engaged in that work is an important priority for that commission. I expect to see efforts made in those patient forums to ensure that young people get a direct voice. We are now considering what we need to do nationally to ensure that there is a young people's voice in that commission for patient involvement. That will ensure that their voice can be heard.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned young carers. Some important work is being supported by both the Government's carers initiative and local schemes to ensure that young carers benefit from the increased investment, and that their voices are heard alongside those of other carers. That work also includes giving advice to schools on identifying and supporting young carers in their important role.

  Sport Action Zone (Stoke-on-Trent)
  6. Ms Joan Walley: What progress has been made in involving young people in a sport action zone in Stoke-on-Trent. [91810]
  The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): I had the opportunity to visit my hon. Friend's constituency to discuss the sport action zone. As she knows, Sport England, which is the Government's agent, is working on 18 further schemes. Twelve schemes are already operational, and a further 18 will be rolled out in the not-too-distant future.

  155WH
  Sport England has been working closely with Stoke-on-Trent city council and the strategic partnership to develop a bid for the whole of Stoke. As my hon. Friend knows, there are two contenders for the region, and I understand that Stoke is making a strong case.
  Ms Walley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and I hope that our bid will be even stronger as a result of this debate. We are desperately in need of extra support in meeting the city's health needs, although extra work is being done on employment and skills. We feel that the power of sport could transform the aspirations of the people of Stoke-on-Trent.
  Will the Government look urgently at the merits of our case? We must encourage people to aim high, and sport can bring about a transformation. However, I am concerned because there has been a moratorium on decisions by Sport England since we submitted our bid last November. We had expected a result in January, but we understand that no further decisions will be made until April, because of the regional bodies that have been set up. Please can we have a decision—and the right one as soon as possible?
  Mr. Caborn: The new chairman of Sport England, Patrick Carter, has asked that there be no further expenditure for the next three months so that the organisation can take a total view. However, I do not believe that the sport action zones are under threat, and I hope that answers will be made available around April.
  The involvement of young people in the Stoke-on-Trent scheme is important, and I commend the consultation. Young people have developed the scheme through a young people's local strategic partnership. Two of those young people will be on the main local strategic partnership, which is making the bid to Sport England.
  There have been wide consultations with young people, which have been extremely well received. One of the scheme's dimensions therefore relates very much to young people. Indeed, in the real world, and in a practical way, the scheme is very much aimed at the young people of Stoke-on-Trent.
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: Whether or not Stoke-on-Trent's bid is successful, sport action zones are a potential success. There are also encouraging early results from the Youth Justice Board's splash scheme, which shows a 5.2 per cent. reduction in youth crime in the participating areas. Has the Department factored those things into the cost-benefit analysis of bringing the Olympics to this country?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the Minister that we are talking about Stoke-on-Trent.

  Young Prisoners
  Mr. Paul Burstow: What the Government's policy is on children in prisons. [91811]
  The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): With the support of the Youth Justice Board, the Government have provided a wide range of alternative sentences for
  156WH
  juveniles and young offenders, including community sentences. However, the most serious or persistent young offenders should receive a custodial sentence.
  The Prison Service has created discrete juvenile institutions, which are for juveniles only. There are also juvenile units in young offenders institutions. As a matter of policy, juveniles and adults are separated in Prison Service establishments. A small number of juveniles may, on occasion, be held outside juvenile institutions for security or medical reasons, or to be close to court. Where possible, they will be held separately from adults.
  Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the Minister. He will know that over the past 10 years the number of children in custody in adult prisons has doubled. The figure today stands at 2,609. He will also be aware of the report "Safeguarding Children" by the joint inspectors, which expressed many concerns about young offenders institutions. Can he and his colleague from the Department of Health comment on the situation since the judgment by the court in respect of the judicial review called by the Howard League? What extra steps are the Government taking to tackle what Mr. Justice Mumby described as
  "degrading, offensive and totally unacceptable treatment"
  of children, to ensure that all children enjoy their United Nations convention rights? The judge in that case predicted that it was only a matter of time before there was a successful challenge under the human rights legislation. Can he comment on those matters, particularly in the light of the fact that it appears that the Home Office and the Department of Health do not have the same view about whether the Children Act 1989 applies within prisons?
  Mr. Denham: There are two points there. It is misleading to talk about the number of young people in adult prisons without allowing for the segregation of those young people from adults. The number of young people who may mix with adults—meaning 18-year#olds and 19-year-olds—is much smaller than the figure that he gave. There is a small number of cases, for example, in the mother and baby unit at Holloway, in which young women may mix with older women. It is wrong to give the impression that there is a routine mixing of juveniles with ordinary adult offenders in our prisons. That is not the case.
  Mr. Justice Mumby made it clear that one phrase in the guidance said that the Children Act did not apply. He was right to say that that was wrong in law. He also recognised that the philosophy of the guidance concerning young people in the prison system was in line with the aims of the Children Act. Child protection committees are in place, and we are training our staff. We are linking into social services work with young offenders. Some practical issues have to be tackled. If somebody is, say, 200 miles away from his home area—he might be there particularly to ensure that he is in a juvenile institution and not in an adult prison—it is difficult for there to be the necessary practical working links with the social services. We know that improvements are needed, but a substantial commitment has already been made and we shall build on that, following the judgment.
  Vernon Coaker: As co-Chair of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament, some of the members of which are here, I welcome this session and the Minister's comment about funding—it is very good news. Can I ask the Minister about young people and children in prison? We are locking more and more young people up, for longer and from an earlier age. While that makes us appear tough, the re-offending rate is something that we are all concerned about. Can the Minister describe further what happens in prison to encourage those young people to turn away from crime and to reduce their re-offending? What structures are in place to support those young people and their families when they leave prison after three or four months and to stop them from going straight back into a life of crime?
  Mr. Denham: We are aiming to improve the quality of the education and training that is provided in young offenders institutions. There is a new senior post of head of learning and skills in each establishment, and special educational needs co-ordinators and learning support assistants have been appointed on a ratio of one assistant for every ten prisoners. Each young person has an entitlement of 30 hours' education, training and personal development activity per week, as recommended by the social exclusion unit in its report "Bridging the Gap".
  We have concentrated on basic skills. Many of those in young offenders institutions lack the most basic literacy and numeracy skills, and people in those institutions should receive recognition for their achievements—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Could the Minister speak up? He is not being heard at the back.
  Mr. Denham: Some 2,000 young offenders achieved successes in basic literacy and numeracy skills last year. Those improvements in education within the service are enormously important. Equally important is the target that we have set to ensure that 90 per cent, of all young people coming out of custody are engaged in education, training or employment by April 2004. We expect not just those in the young offenders institutions but the youth offending team and the Connexions service to work with those young offenders to ensure that we have a high rate of successful placements when people come out of institutions.
  Tim Loughton: We have heard that the number of children in prison has increased in 10 years from 1,328 to more than 2,600. Why does the Minister think that that has happened? Is it because we are better at apprehending young offenders? Is it because they are committing more serious offences—or is it because we are becoming worse at providing other and more appropriate forms of care and custody?
  Mr. Denham: There are several reasons why the number of young people receiving custodial sentences is increasing. There has undoubtedly been an upward trend over a long period in the more serious forms of offending by young people. There are two ways in which to reduce the trend, the first of which is the development of successful alternatives to custodial sentences. We
  158WH
  spoke earlier about intensive supervision and surveillance programmes targeted on those who would otherwise receive custodial sentences.
  However, more preventive work must be done. In the majority of cases in which 15-year-olds were sent to young offender institutions there were signs much earlier in their lives—sometimes as early as five, six or seven years old—when they fell behind with literacy at school. No Government have succeeded in such early prevention, but I hope that the Green Paper on children at risk to be published in the spring will show the way forward.

  New Deal
  Mr Graham Brady: If the Government will make a statement on the new deal for young people. [91812]
  The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): The new deal is providing individual young people with support to help them back into the world of work, such as education and so on. By the end of last September, 400,000 young people had moved into work since 1997.
  Mr. Brady: I am sure that the Minister knows that one in four of the jobs provided to young people from the new deal has finished before its 13th week. One of the new deal's problems has been the failure to provide lasting long-term employment. He will also know that, in the second year of the new deal—in April 2000–45,930 young people had been through the new deal, and not just once—they had gone back into it. A revolving door had been established that was keeping people out of the unemployment figures, but they were not being provided with long-term work. Can he give me the up-to-date figure of how many young people have been through the new deal for young people twice, three times or more? How many of them have been through the new deal for young people and subsequently through the new deal 25-plus?
  Mr. Caborn: The question shows a weakness in the arrangements, because such matters are not a departmental responsibility of the Ministers present today. I will write to the hon. Gentleman when I receive such information.
  The new deal has been a great success. I represent an inner-city constituency, and the rate of unemployment of its young people has been reduced considerably. Furthermore, 79 per cent, of young people who have entered the new deal for a second time face long-term employment prospects. It has reduced the unemployment level of young people to the lowest level since the 1970s. By any standards, that must be successful. There can be argument about the statistics, but the hon. Gentleman is denigrating a highly successful scheme. Many young people have been given an opportunity in life that they would not have received, had it not been for the new deal.
  3.39 pm
  Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
  3.51 pm
  On resuming
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members may note that a unique power has been established by the Chair in pushing four Ministers of the Crown to the Back Benches, but I hope that it will be for the convenience of hon. Members.

  Victims of Crime
  Mr. Martin Salter: What action the Government are taking to strengthen support for young people who are victims of criminal assaults by other young people. [91813]
  Mrs. Helen Clark: What action the Government are taking to reduce the number of young people who are victims of crime. [91814]
  The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): Young people are often the victims of youth crime. Actions such as the street crime initiative have not only reduced street crime overall; they have reduced the extent to which young people have been the victims of crime. In July last year, we introduced new support in the court system for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, many of whom are young people required to give evidence. In addition, £2 million of the £28 million that we give to Victim Support is designed to support vulnerable and intimidated witnesses.
  Mr. Salter: Considering that one in four permanently excluded school children admitted, in the 2002 MORI youth survey, to stealing a mobile phone, mainly from other young people, does the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills agree that further work is needed to deal with the problem of permanent exclusions to counter the traumatic effect of youth-on-youth crime?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point. There is a direct link between permanent exclusion and street crime which we must address. We cannot duck the issue; behaviour and discipline have become a major issue in our schools. Teachers have difficulty with that, and it undermines the ability of young people to learn. There must be support for teachers and head teachers because, in some circumstances, the only option available to them is permanent exclusion.
  What is different now is that from September we have insisted that any child who is permanently excluded must have access to full-time education and objective advice to get them reintegrated into mainstream education as soon as possible. In addition, we are putting a tremendous amount of resources into preventive work, so that young people's behaviour does not deteriorate to such an extent that permanent exclusion is the only option. In excellence in cities areas, learning mentors in units in schools allow teachers to withdraw young people for a short time to work on a one-to-one basis and get the behaviour sorted out before they return to class.
  160WH
  We must also focus on teacher training. We must give teachers the skills and confidence to manage some of the behaviour and discipline problems that they have to face. In some circumstances, permanent exclusion is the only option, but we must make resources available for preventive work so that young people do not drift into criminal activities.
  Mrs. Clark: I am grateful for that reply from the Under-Secretary, as well as for the reply by the Home Office Minister. Will they join me and, I am sure, hon. Members on all sides of the Chamber, in sending condolences to the family in Peterborough of Ross Parker, a 17-year-old killed about a year ago in an unprovoked attack by three young men older than him, who have now been convicted and sent to prison?
  Will Ministers also join me in congratulating the Peterborough community in general, the police and the Jack Hunt school led by Chris Hilliard, where Ross was a student, on the tremendous way in which they have worked together to overcome the divisive effects of that tragic incident? Will Ministers visit Peterborough and the school, and perhaps meet Ross's family?
  Mr. Denham: I certainly join my hon. Friend in sending condolences to Ross Parker's family. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke to them at the time of the murder. I pay tribute to Ross's parents for their clear commitment to ensuring that that tragic event should not prove to be a divisive event in Peterborough. My hon. Friend has said what needs to be said about the work that people have done locally. A huge effort has been made in Peterborough to prevent that event from being even more damaging. If my hon. Friend thinks that it would be of value to the community, I will certainly consider visiting her constituency.
  Richard Younger-Ross: Does the Minister accept that one of the best ways to help a young victim of crime may be to ensure that the period between the incident and the trial is as short as possible? Cases in my constituency have taken over a year to come to trial, and schools that have approached me on the matter are concerned about the impact of that on the victim's education, as well as the damage that the long-drawn-out period does to the perpetrator of the crime.
  Mr. Denham: That is an important point. Members will be aware that when this Government were elected in 1997, it took 142 days on average for a case involving a young offender to come to court. We made that a priority, and for a number of months the average has been less than half that. Some cases will take less time to come to court, just as some will take more.
  It is also important that we provide good support to young people who are required to appear at those trials, whether they have been victims of crime or are witnesses. Among other initiatives, including Victim Support, which we have discussed, I have talked to the Department for Education and Skills about ways in which the Connexions service could provide additional support to young witnesses who are about to go through

  161WH
  the trauma of reliving their experience in court. It is important that we support young victims of crime through a very difficult time in their lives.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: What consideration are the Government giving in the development of their child protection strategy to assaults on children by their parents? Are the Government considering removing the "reasonable chastisement" defence in respect of physical punishment?
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): As my hon. Friend knows, the Government carried out a consultation on the issue. Although I know that my hon. Friend and other colleagues disagreed with it, many people felt that the law should not be changed to achieve what people see effectively as a ban on parents smacking their children.
  My hon. Friend referred to the defence of reasonable chastisement. After the changes to human rights legislation, it is necessary for any court in this country which is considering a case of assault against a young person in which the defence of reasonable chastisement is being used, to consider the age and, if necessary, gender of the child and the kind of assault that was undertaken. The court must seriously consider whether the case constituted assault.
  With the exception of reasonable chastisement, exactly the same law applies to adults and children. My hon. Friend and others believe that we should make it impossible for parents to smack their children. As I have said previously, that would not help us in the important job, to which my hon. Friend rightly draws attention, of preventing serious abuse against children. There is a clear distinction between a parent smacking their child—something that many of us may deplore—and violence against a child. It does not help us to make that distinction by changing the law as he suggests. We have asked the Attorney-General to keep the defence of reasonable chastisement under review, and assure him that we continue to monitor the situation. I share his concern that we need to tackle abuse against children. That should be our top priority.

  School Governing Bodies
  Paul Holmes: What plans the Government have to require schools to include pupil representatives as associate members of school governing bodies. [91815]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): From 1 September it will be possible for pupils and others to be appointed as associate members of school governing bodies, enabling them to attend full governing body
  162WH
  meetings and to be members of governing body committees. We have no plans to make it compulsory for governing bodies to make such appointments.
  Paul Holmes: I thank the Minister for his reply. I welcome it, at least in part. When I was teaching at my second school in the 1980s, we had an effective series of pupil school governors. Unfortunately, Lady Thatcher's Government did away with them.
  Many schools today have effective school councils; they use pupils to interview candidates for middle management and even for headship posts, as my last school did. Ofsted is now proposing to take evidence from pupils when doing school inspections. In the light of all that, and if promoting active citizenship is to mean anything, will the Minister assure us that the Government will reconsider the lack of urgency in, or commitment to, the matter of requiring all schools to allow pupils to become full, active school governors?
  Mr. Lewis: If the hon. Gentleman was teaching in the 1980s, I could have had the privilege of being one of his pupils. The substantive point is that the Government are not neutral on that issue. We believe that it is part of the school standards agenda actively to involve young people in making key decisions about schools. How the schools do that must be left to them. It would be entirely inappropriate for us to prescribe the models that should be deployed in those circumstances.
  If young people are to be motivated, the school environment should reflect their needs; young people should be turned on to learning, not turned off. Their active engagement and involvement in key roles and in the decision-making process is vital for the school community and for the skills that we want young people to develop for later life.
  Another point is that the Connexions service actively involves young people in the recruitment policy; they recruit personal advisers and, in some circumstances, are involved in selecting chief executives. We are making significant progress. It is important to raise educational standards—the matter should not be treated as a sideshow—and to ensure that young people feel positively about their educational experience.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thank hon. Members for enduring this afternoon's technical vicissitudes. I repeat that I would be delighted to hear privately from hon. Members about today's proceedings. It has been difficult to balance the need to achieve breadth with the need to ensure that penetrating serial questions are asked. We shall have to think about that and decide whether we should attempt to take fewer questions. I am sure that all those matters will be reviewed.
  I also announce that there is to be a special meeting of the all-party children group with members of the Youth Parliament, now that the question session has ended. It will take place in Committee Room 21, and I understand that any colleagues who would like to go along for a discussion about what has taken place will be extremely welcome.
  I propose suspending the sitting for two minutes to allow people who are not staying for the debate to leave.
  Sitting suspended.

Pathways to Work
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned. —[Charlotte Atkins.]
4.2 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): May I say how pleased I am to open the debate on the Green Paper "Pathways to work: Helping people into employment", which we published by way of a statement in the House on 18 November 2002? I take this opportunity to remind hon. Members that the consultation closes on 10 February 2003, so there is still plenty of time for hon. Members and others who have an interest in these matters to send us their comments and suggestions.
It is appropriate that we are considering the issues that are raised by the Green Paper during the European year of people with disabilities—I was pleased to attend the celebration launch yesterday. Work, and access to work, is one of the biggest and most important issues facing disabled people. One of the key goals of the Department for Work and Pensions is the improvement of the employment rate for disabled people. That is also a crucial part of the wider Government strategy for the full inclusion of disabled people in our society. We have a twin-track strategy to make progress, which is both facilitating pathways into work—that is what the Green Paper and this debate are about—and improving the civil rights of disabled people while seeking to end discrimination against them, whether in the workplace or anywhere else.
Hon. Members who are assiduous in respect of their duties—I have only to look around to see how assiduous they are—will have seen that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made a written ministerial statement yesterday announcing our intention to publish, for pre-legislative scrutiny, a disability Bill in draft later this year. That will enable us to deal with the gaps and omissions that remain in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. That, taken together with the changes that we are making in order to comply with article 13 of the employment directive, and with the full implementation of the remaining provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act by October 2004, will represent the biggest expansion of civil rights for disabled people ever seen in this country.
We have an environment that is conducive to change and which will enable disabled people to take their rightful place in the workplace. We need, however, to take practical steps to help disabled people overcome the barriers to work that they face. That is what "Pathways to Work" is all about.
I will briefly set out the scale of the problem. The good news is that, because we have record levels of employment in a strong and stable economy, the environment in this country is conducive to progress. Almost 1.5 million new jobs have been created since 1997. Some 74.3 per cent, of people of working age are in work—that is the highest percentage ever in the UK and it is the second best of all the G7 countries. We also have the lowest unemployment level in the G7 for the first time in nearly 50 years. Some of the most disadvantaged in the labour market have benefited most from the developments. For example, long-term unemployment has fallen by 75 per cent., which is
164WH
greater than the fall in the general level of unemployment. There has been a 500,000 fall in the level of unemployment.
We can realistically hope to make progress in respect of the employment levels of disabled people, and we have, but the obstacles are formidable. A trend is emerging throughout the developed world of increasing numbers of working-age people being in receipt of sickness or incapacity benefits with no evidence of a commensurate increase in ill health in the population as a whole.
That trend is apparent in Britain. There are currently 2.7 million people on incapacity benefits, which includes severe disablement allowance. There was a 6 per cent, increase between 1997 and 2002. Before the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) suggests that that does not represent progress, I gently remind him that the last Conservative Government presided over a 26 per cent, increase in those numbers between 1992 and 1997.
Mr. Tim Boswell rose—
Maria Eagle: I will give way in a moment.
In case the hon. Gentleman thinks that I am being selective with the years that I have mentioned, the number of people on sickness and incapacity benefits tripled between 1979 and 1997.
Mr. Boswell: The Minister does me a slight disservice, because I rose on a different point. My wife comes from industrial south Wales. We should recognise that geographic areas that have a history of high unemployment, deprivation and relatively low health tend to express the trend mentioned by the Minister. Perhaps there is evidence of a slight cultural and local factor as well as a purely objective derivation.
Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is right. I apologise for giving way to him on a point to which he was not intending to reply. There are geographical variations and other types of variation as well, all of which require careful study before deciding what can be done about the problems. As well as the rate of increase of those on incapacity benefits slowing there are other good signs—a narrowing in the gap between the unemployment rate of the working-age population as a whole and that of disabled people, for example. Between 1998–2002, the employment rate of working-age disabled people rose by about 4.5 per cent. It is still below the average for working-age people who are not disabled, but there is evidence of a narrowing, which should be welcomed.
We must remember that disabled people are still five times as likely to be unemployed as non-disabled people. In order to ensure that disabled people benefit from the increasing economic prosperity that I have outlined, we must close that gap.
What are the relevant facts about the benefit that will help us to come up with solutions? Almost half of all those on incapacity benefit are on the benefit for more than five years. Those on incapacity benefit for more than one year remain on that benefit for eight years, on average. However, we know that 90 per cent, of those coming on to incapacity benefit expect to return to work

165WH
when they first make their claim, so the trend is not evidence of malingering, scrounging or deliberately trying to play the system.
The people concerned want to work and expect to return to work. We know that 1 million disabled people on benefit say that they would like to work, but we are not as good at helping them to meet their aspirations as we are at helping those who are more traditionally unemployed. We must try to improve.
We have made some helpful changes—increasing flexibility in the benefit system, for example, making work pay and offering specialist help by way of disability employment programmes. The incapacity benefit linking rules, which were extended in 1998 to 52 weeks, enable people on that benefit to try out work. If, because of their health condition or for any other reason, they are not able to remain in employment, they can go back on benefit at the level at which they were before. To somebody with a health condition, the insecurity of worrying about taking a job and then losing it, and where that puts that person in relation to their benefit was a big disincentive to disabled people to try out work. The linking rules should remove that disincentive. We should remember that if a disabled person is in receipt of disabled person's tax credit, the linking rules extend to two years.
There is also a change in the therapeutic earnings rules, as they used to be known, in respect of permitted work. It allows people on incapacity benefit to work for an unlimited time earning up to £20 a week. If they work for less than 16 hours a week, they can retain their benefit while earning up to £67.50 a week for 26 weeks, and for a further 26 weeks if that will assist them. The therapeutic earnings rules used to require a doctor's certificate stating that work would be of benefit to somebody's health condition. That is no longer necessary. We have also uprated the earnings limit in incapacity benefit, which enables people to keep some of their benefit in line with the national minimum wage. Such changes help to make work pay and ease the difficult transition from being on benefit to being in work.
In addition to doing what we can to increase the flexibilities in the benefit rules, we have also, as a Department, improved our advisory services. We have developed some of our specialist disability employment programmes. For example, the creation of Jobcentre Plus is designed to provide a personalised service to those who require our assistance with getting back into work. That sort of more customer-focused, individualised service can assist only when helping people who are facing multiple barriers to work.
We have some long-standing programmes, such as workstep, although it has been reformed from the old support and employment programme to emphasise progression into non-supported work environments. Programmes such as access to work assist individuals in dealing with the costs of their disability to the extent that it is a barrier to work. New programmes, such as the new deal for disabled people, are trying innovative ways of helping disabled people into the workplace.
For many years, our services have attempted to provide additional assistance and, as I go round the country, I value the work of the disability employment
166WH
advisers and the network of often very dedicated people who are skilled at assisting local disabled people into work. That work is ongoing and we are learning from it, but we need to do more.
The Green Paper outlines the next steps, which are concerned with how we can learn from what we have done already to improve the service that we can offer to people on sickness and incapacity benefits who want to work. I will briefly outline some of our ideas. We believe that a more tailored and intensive support system should be delivered at the point at which people start to receive incapacity benefits. I am referring to the flow on to the benefit, the point at which people are most job-ready. Having just come out of work, people are often at their most ambitious to get back to it and have expectations that they will. We believe that an intervention at that point could be effective, so we intend to deliver more intensive support in a new package of help.
As hon. Members will recall, having read the document, we intend to pilot the approach in six different areas—three pilots starting in October and three further pilots starting next April, with almost £97 million worth of new resources to establish whether we can devise a system that will work. The basis of it is that early, frequent support from skilled personal advisers, direct access to a range of specialist programmes and clear financial incentives to work will make a real difference to people as they start to receive incapacity benefits.
As for the better framework of support, those who are eligible for it in the pilot areas will receive an intensive series of work-focused interviews. They will not be compulsory for everybody with every condition. There will be exemptions because the package is devised to help those who are able to, and want to, get back to work, not to put disabled people and people with severe conditions through some kind of hoop in order to prove that they deserve their benefits. The approach is not coercive but supportive.
The personal adviser and the disabled person will produce action plans to set out a way of going forward and meeting aspirations to return to work. We recognise that our personal advisers will need new and better skills to deal with the client group because interventions will be more difficult. The advice will not be as straightforward as some personal advice that we can give now in Jobcentre Plus.
There will be direct access to a wider range of help including joint programmes that will join job-focused support with rehabilitation in conjunction with local NHS providers. That has great potential to be very effective.
Many of those on incapacity benefit—about 35 per cent., from memory—have a mental impairment of one kind or another, whether that is a learning disability or a mental illness such as depression. About 22 per cent, of people on incapacity benefit have back pain or musculoskeletal difficulties. If there were interventions and rehabilitations at that level, many of those people would be able to return to work, and many aspire to do that.
We had excellent results when we piloted such an approach in Salford and Bristol, and I shall briefly outline some of them because they are encouraging. The pilot involved 91 volunteers who were on a range of

167WH
benefits. Fifty were on incapacity benefit, 27 were on jobseeker's allowance, and the rest were inactive or on no benefits. About two thirds of the people had been sacked or had resigned from work because of back pain. They had been out of work for an average of three years and had suffered from back pain for an average of eight and a half years. The volunteers undertook courses in groups ranging in size from eight to 12 people. The programme was quite short because it lasted for four to six weeks. More than 95 per cent, of the people who started the course completed it.
Six months after the programme had ceased, 40 per cent. of the participants were in paid employment, which was full-time employment in almost all cases, and 25 per cent. were in job training education or voluntary work, and were thus edging closer toward the labour market. The results from the intervention are interesting and promising. We aim to pilot the scheme in a more widely more scientific manner in order to determine whether it can help.
We will also offer an improved visible financial incentive: the return to work credit. It is tremendously important to offer unambiguously a better-off calculation that works for people if we expect them to go back to work. None of us would choose to work for nothing. We like our work for many reasons, but pay is certainly one of those. It is not reasonable for us to expect people who have been out of the labour market for some time to go back to work for the love of it, although work can have other beneficial effects. People, especially those with health conditions such as depression, find that going back to work is a healthy thing to do. However, that does not remove the requirement to ensure unambiguously that those who make the effort receive a financial reward.
The return to work credit would operate through Jobcentre Plus. It would be £40 a week for 52 weeks for those who return to work but earn less than £15,000 a year. That will send a strong signal and it will be a popular measure that will have an impact on those who wish to return to work. We are also considering extending the advisers discretionary fund of up to £300 for any individual case.
I often go around the country meeting people who work for Jobcentre Plus and the Department, and I am often struck by the imagination, hard work and dedication of many of our staff. The advisers discretionary fund is an active tool that is entirely based on the discretion of the adviser, and it can remove those last difficult barriers to returning to work. Increasing the payment to up to £300 could have a major impact in tackling the last barriers in a flexible way, and will be great value for money.
We also want to make sure that there is better support for people with health problems who are on jobseeker's allowance. According to the Green Paper, some people fail their medical assessment—the personal capability assessment—and end up having to come off incapacity benefit. Many go back on to jobseeker's allowance. Such people do not necessarily receive the help getting back to work that they might reasonably expect.
We want to ensure that we do not clock up the fact that someone is no longer eligible for incapacity benefit as a success, rather that we help that person into work. We intend to make sure that such people receive
168WH
specialist help, including personal advice, and straight away have new deal opportunities and a proper jobseeker's agreement. We also want to ensure that we recognise their health needs. Just because someone does not pass the personal capability assessment, it does not necessarily mean that they do not have a health condition. We also intend to focus on those who go back on to jobseeker's allowance, and are therefore technically not on sickness or incapacity benefit.
As I say, the Green Paper is out for consultation at the moment, and that is another reason why I welcome the opportunity to set out our plans. Once the consultation is over and we have considered the responses, we will come forward with suggestions on which of its ideas we will take forward. Before the pilots are extended nationally, we will evaluate them fully. The policy issue of the increasing numbers of our fellow citizens claiming sickness and incapacity benefit and not fully receiving the help that we give to jobseekers is a major problem that needs to be dealt with. If we came up with interventions that allowed us to deal with the issue, it would be a major success in social policy terms, and would be a great boost to our commitment and determination to ensure the full inclusion of disabled people in our society.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): It might be helpful for Members to know that the debate will conclude at one minute to 6 o'clock. I call Mr. Boswell.
4.27 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell: I welcome the opportunity to debate the issue of pathways to work, and I welcome the tone in which the Minister introduced the debate. Those of us who are interested in vocational rehabilitation and the employment of disabled people are, sadly, too few—although some hon. Members have duties elsewhere at the moment—so we can probably treat each other as hon. Friends in terms of our commitment to the subject, even if some of our approaches vary.
As we are giving proper plaudits—or credit where it is due—I am grateful to the Government for announcing the draft disability Bill, which will repair the omissions in civil rights in this subject. However, I should warn the Minister that I came to the debate straight from participating in the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation's annual general meeting. I asked a distinguished and active campaigner in the disability rights movement her opinion of the new Bill, and she replied rather firmly, "When I've seen it, I'll comment on it." We need that caveat; however, the sooner we see it, the better. On balance, it is probably better that the Bill has a period in draft, because it is important that we get it right. The Minister need not necessarily assume that we wish to diminish its provisions, because we may well want to beef it up in some parts. That will depend.
David Cairns: Is it not good that the reason why the Bill is still a considerable way off is to allow for pre-legislative scrutiny? That has not always happened in the past. It will allow people from RADAR and all the other organisations that the

169WH
hon. Gentleman and I know well from this field to make a contribution that is more likely to have an effect before the Bill is drafted.
Mr. Boswell: There is always an argument about whether to do such things before or after, and some of us are critical of the way in which the Government have, to some extent, compressed scrutiny during the passage of Bills, because I like discussing Bills in detail. If the pre-legislative scrutiny has that effect, and if RADAR and the other organisations can get at the Bill before things are set in stone, I will support it. Time will tell whether that is the case, but I do not wish to start on an ungracious note.
As the Minister said, this subject is very important. Currently, 2.7 million of our people—a very significant proportion of the labour force—are on one incapacity benefit or another. Last year, the Prime Minister rather briskly described that as a scandal; on that, I agree with him.
To make a point that the Minister tried to elicit from me earlier, the number of claimants declined after changes were made in 1995 but is now beginning to creep up again. The Government's introduction to their Green Paper rather archly referred to people on incapacity benefit as not yet fully sharing in the success of the Government's welfare to work strategy. That is a bit of spin, but it makes a genuine point; they must do better, and the Minister concedes that that is the case. My party would back any action that encourages people to stay attached to the labour market, provided that it is not coercive, to borrow a word that she used.
Maria Eagle: When I was preparing for the debate, I noticed a parliamentary question that had been put down by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), who is well known for looking for public expenditure savings. He asked whether it was the Government's policy to pay incapacity benefit for a fixed term. Is that Conservative party policy?
Mr. Boswell: The Minister needs to sort out her grammar. An interrogative is not a statement, and she should not confuse them.
We have a common objective; we want the same thing, so there is no point in messing about. I remember the Minister for Work disarming me once at Question Time by saying, "I think that we all want the same thing, even if we have to dress things up in politically charged language." We will not debate this matter further, because we accept that that is the case.
I welcome an announcement in a reply from the Minister for Work—and therefore from the Minister's Department—to a letter that I wrote on behalf of Rehab UK, which had expressed concerns about its financing of its specialist centres. The announcement put on the record on behalf of the Department that there was an economic benefit in vocational rehabilitation. We know that there is a personal benefit in that, but there is also—if I may put my gloss on it—a good business case for it. I am pleased that the Minister agrees with that.
It is a little chilling—but not very surprising—that the letter went on to say that that is to be judged against other priorities; 'twas ever thus, perhaps. The key is to
170WH
get the right balance in our judgments, and we need to stimulate interest in achieving a much better understanding of the statistics and the case for these kinds of intervention. I will return to that point.
In this Room a couple of days ago, there was a very absorbing and rather good Adjournment debate on rehabilitation after brain injury. Figures from Rehab UK were quoted that suggested that the number of persons who had been through programmes and were then unable to find work was discouraging; some 60 per cent, of its throughput were unable to find work. There are also indications that the number of people returning to work in this country after a serious brain injury is lower than in the United States of America, for example. I hope that when the Minister looks at good practice in this country, she will also look at lessons that can be learned from other countries.
I will make two further points, neither of which is intended to be contentious. Indeed, to some extent the Minister is beginning to pick them up in the new Green Paper. The first is that there should be a seamless web—not a chasm, as there has often been—in respect of the health end of rehabilitation after such injuries. That does not mean only brain injuries, although those in the field often say that the quality of rehabilitation services for those is a proxy for the quality of rehabilitation services generally.
We understand that treatments start in hospital and may have to go through other primary medical phases but they cannot simply stop there, with the chain being broken. We need a continuous pathway, as the Health Committee's report on brain injury nearly three years ago made clear. Nor can the services be divorced from all the social agencies. It is not only a matter of the Employment Service but of supported or adapted housing, for example. The more we can bring such services together and, to borrow some Government jargon, join them up, the better.
It is in that context that I welcome the Minister's readiness to consider local NHS providers as part of job preparation and preparing people for returning to work. If she wants to examine a case after brain trauma, one of the most interesting that I can offer is the experience of the admirable community brain injury service at Aylesbury under Dr. Andy Tyerman, which has an excellent record. It has won awards, is practically focused and involves all the agencies. Even at the more intense, medical end, the more one is prepared to bring in psychologists to intervene early, the better. There is a common objective: bringing people back to work.
My second general point is implicit in the Green Paper. Maintaining people's position of employment is often at least as important as opening up opportunities for those who are already disabled and may never have participated in employment. We are conducting a double-headed operation, and properly so.
Chronic degeneration that is not remediated by reasonable adjustments can eventually drive people to retire from the work force and on to incapacity benefit. I have been given a figure for weekly entry into 113 of 3,300. It is not the figure that is chilling so much as the number of people who go on to IB and stay there for six months or more. The number returning to work after that is disappointingly low.

171WH
There are several points to be made about that. The first—I concede to the Minister—is the need for an emphasis on early, though not premature, intervention. Intense therapy and focus are welcome and we will want to monitor how the pilots work. We have come light years from discussions about malingering and other negative phrases, but there is a sense in which these problems compound themselves. If people have an accident or injury or develop a condition and are unable to work comfortably, they may leave the work force. That can become a progressive problem, with people becoming dispirited so that they do not get involved. We are at one in our general approach. We do not want entry to IB to become a one-way ticket to permanent exclusion from the labour force.
It is good sense to set up arrangements to encourage the retention in employment of people with impairments or chronic or growing disabilities. That should be done in parallel with action to create opportunities for people who are being employed for the first time. The two go together. I am always struck by the quite low cost of the adjustments and adaptations that may have to be provided. They can be complicated, as with the brain trauma cases that I mentioned, but it may just be a matter of a better seat or lighting or a different posture. The changes may be almost cost-free. The Minister may like to remind us that the average cost of adjustment is about £175, not the thousands of pounds that many employers fear.
I, too, would like to praise the work of disability employment advisers, although they are sometimes constrained by targets. For example, with learning disabilities and mental health, there is a suggestion that people will not be taken on unless it is felt that they will have returned to employment within six months. That may not always be possible and it may act as a deterrent. DEAs still have too low a profile in the Employment Service and it is not self-evident that that will change automatically with Jobcentre Plus or the new pathways to work.
We should also pay tribute to the specialist agencies in the voluntary sector that give advice, such as the Royal National Institute of the Blind and Mencap, which do immensely valuable work. I shall further discuss that relationship shortly.
The Government need to sort themselves out in respect of some formal problems relating to arrangements for people at work. I have been banging on about that for some time and making some interesting revelations. For example, at one point, the Health and Safety Executive was parked with the Department for Transport, but I am pleased that we managed to get it back to the Department for Work and Pensions.
There is a split—with reason, as there always is in government—in that occupational health is under the Department of Health, including its consultancy arm, NHS Plus, while vocational rehabilitation is under the Department for Work and Pensions. I mention that not to suggest that that cannot work, but to point out that Ministers in both Departments must actively ensure that the interface is successful, especially given some of the schemes that the Minister is introducing today. Ministers must offer a common front or pathway on
172WH
disability issues. That is sometimes called joined-up government, and the Minister might like to comment on that.
I shall discuss points that arise from, or have been made to me about, the pathways document. Specialist return to work services, protection in work services or adaptation in work services require a heavy input in terms of personnel, time and, to some extent, depending on the case involved, physical resources. We need to concede that they will not always have an immediate or easy outcome. Ministers are fond of adopting targets, and Oppositions of crowing when they are not met. Sometimes the targets change or are reinterpreted. We need not go into that now, but it is an area where we are trying to get the glass half-full, not half-empty. I shall try to reflect that in my comments now and subsequently.
The Government's paper talks of 700,000 people a year coming on to benefits for the first time, and mentions a similar figure—although one is a stock while the other is a flow—for the number of disabled people for whom work would be appropriate but who are not working. The Minister was frank in saying that that is not good enough and that we must do better.
The Minister did not say much about the new deal for disabled people, however, and I have found it hard to get a clear evaluation from the Government of how it is going. She will no doubt say, in part, that it is early days. I accept that, and I make my remarks in the context of realising that it is perhaps better to try than not to be successful at all, but the idea that 94,000 people are involved through all the job brokers and the scheme's agents while it leads to only about 1,400 or 1,600 long-term, secure, continuing placements is depressing. We need to reflect on why that should be and Ministers should ask more questions.
It is no wonder that Ministers have been coy and have not set targets for the pathways to work. Of course, if there are no targets, they cannot be missed. I say that not just for the sake of political debate. There is a real point about how much we should measure and how much should take place experimentally.
Miss Anne Begg: Setting targets in this area could be dangerous. If the Government were to set them and then fall short, they might be tempted to pursue them in a way that would lead to coercion. For this to work, it is crucial that disabled people and those on incapacity benefit do not believe that they are being forced into jobs and that their benefits will be at risk if they do not take them. We must put the message out loud and clear, but setting targets will make it harder to hear.
Mr. Boswell: I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Lady for her comment. In support of her general point, I feel strongly that we should not give people the impression that they are being dragooned into work regardless of how they feel or of how they can perform, and if targets work—I cited a complaint that was put to me—we should resist that firmly.
My point is that Ministers like to set targets in most areas, yet they have been very coy in this one. There might be reasons for that, but it is incumbent on them to look carefully at how the pilots work. They have not always done that; the pilots of the new deal for disabled

173WH
people were quickly rolled into the main scheme. Ministers should satisfy themselves, critically and objectively, that interventions are suitable and that any additional moneys are appropriately used.
I come now, on this tour of particular issues, to access to work. The Minister hardly mentioned it, which might be revealing. The scheme is important, not merely because it was introduced by a Conservative Government—extra money has been made available by the present Government—but because if it is that good, I am surprised that only some 25 per cent, of employers surveyed had heard of it. It is not well understood. For quite small costs of adjustment, it could make a huge difference—it needs to be publicised vigorously. While the Minister is looking at pilot schemes in some areas, she should address the national picture too.
May I give a small warning? I am concerned about any suggestion of using the disability rights lever as an alternative driver on employers. We all know that employers are recalcitrant, do not want to know and will not change their attitudes, so it might be necessary to get tough with them. However, it is important to emphasise the business case, the relatively low cost of most reasonable adjustments and the fact that access to work is available where there are significant additional costs.
I shall touch briefly on supported employment. There was a concern, which has not been much replayed since the introduction of workstep, that some targets set by Ministers would cause people who were comfortably established in supported employment, and often preferred it, to be pushed on as part of a churning exercise to meet targets. I have not heard much about that lately, but I invite the Minister to comment on the potential danger.
It is not surprising, in view of the Minister's figure of one third of the case load being on incapacity benefits, that representations that I have received on the pathways document have tended to concentrate on learning disabilities and mental health. That is appropriate, because they present some of the most intractable problems when it comes to gaining employment. For example, Mencap points out that only 10 per cent, of learning disabled people are employed. That is even more depressing than the overall figure for disabled people. One is looking at substantially less activity than one would expect in the fully able work force. I think that those people matter, even if some costs are greater and the economic return is relatively low. Many of them, some of whom are put into work by their own employment agencies, give excellent service. They are loyal employees, and they get great satisfaction from their participation in the labour market.
In that context, there is still concern about the 16-hour rule and its interaction with the tax credits. For example, Mencap has pointed out to me that it is possible to work for up to four hours under the minimum wage—£20 a week under income support—without losing incapacity benefit. People who do more than 16 hours of work could receive support from tax credit, although there is an awkward transition zone between five and 15 in which neither might be possible. I do not ask the Minister to find an instant answer to that, but I mention it as a continuing concern.
174WH
The learning disability charities and the mental health charities have concerns over whether the new arrangements will carry enough specialist firepower—if I may put it that way—to deal with the problems of the individuals involved. The answer is not to expect a disability adviser to cover the whole lot, like a paragon who understands everything. They have huge and broad expertise, however, and the new arrangements might stimulate that, thereby allowing for greater specialisation in the cadre of advisers. However, the problem can be overcome if one of the adviser's skills is the referral on and if they can use, for example, the voluntary sector in which they have expertise to handle a case and to make progress. Ministers have made progress on that with the outsourcing of part of the new deal for disabled people, and I hope that they consider the same approach on pathways, because not everything can be covered.
Two matters from my constituency experience bear on the issue. I have a constituent who wishes to be a disc jockey, but who happens to be totally blind. His case came to my attention because I read about it in the local paper. He needs some support for that ambition. One of the arguments about access to work—official arguments on principle are often
maddeningly consistent, if I may put it that way—was that all disc jockeys need a certain way of stacking their CDs and that there was nothing distinctive about my constituent's needs. Therefore, there was no need for access to work, unless there was an incremental benefit. I can just about understand that argument.
However, an especial difficulty—I have gone back to the local branch of the Employment Service and I do not need to seek an Adjournment debate on the case—was that it offered him driver support, but at the national minimum wage. In Daventry, there is no chance of his picking up such support for less than about £7 an hour, so he must either subsidise the cost out of his earnings or not take the driver.
A case that bears more on the issue of specialist expertise is that of a lady with a severe latex allergy, and I became one of the joint parliamentary presidents of the Latex Allergy Support Group partly on the basis of it. The condition is quite uncommon, but more common than it should be, and that lady has had great difficulties in getting the right mix of support. That is not because anyone seeks to be unhelpful, but because the condition is not fully understood and aspects of it cannot be remedied easily. To be fair, the matter is difficult and I do not criticise the officers, but I must use the case as an example of some of the problems.
In closing my remarks, I refer to some long-term issues. The Minister opened in the spirit of inquiry and will, I hope, be amenable to listening to, and reflecting on, some of our concerns, although no instant answer is required. I have listed five of those on which the Government have not gone far enough in the Green Paper. The first is the question of adequate flexibility in the interaction between benefits and work.
I readily accept—as does Mencap, which stressed the point in its briefing to me—the highly beneficial changes that have been made in the linking rules, which are much better. A psychology is developing that has moved away from the idea that people are either in work or out of work and on benefit, and never the twain shall meet. There is now a much more flexible and nuanced

175WH
arrangement. I may have mentioned to the Minister previously that, although I know of people with a physical injury who have felt well enough to work, until people go out and try, they do not know whether they can do it or not. People might run close to the law if they work, and a more flexible approach is required in such cases. One has been pioneered, but it needs further development.
Secondly, we all want to help, but good will is not always the best counsellor. We need a proper and rigorous evaluation of pilot studies, when they take place, and of the various activities that are taking place elsewhere in support of pathways to work. There is no point in shutting our eyes if remedies do not work; we need to concentrate on ones that do, while accepting that conditions differ throughout the country and that local discretion is important.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) would, I am sure, wish me to voice my support for his plea that one of the pilots should go to his constituency. I understand his views, although I hope that he will still make a speech. To be more objective, however, I hope that pilots will be spread around the country and reflect the differences that exist. Dare I put in a plea for some rural areas to be considered? There are disabled people who live in rural areas, and not everything goes well for them.
My third point is perhaps more unusual than the others, but I hope that it is proper to make it in this context. In future, our understanding of the Human Rights Act 1998 and of equality legislation may change. It may be that a single oversight body will be in place, and the Minister referred to changes that the draft disability Bill will introduce. She knows that I have just been chairing a meeting of RADAR at which we discussed some of those issues. It has become clear to me that, when we consider discrimination, attitude is critical. I see the Minister nodding. That is not a legal issue, but it relates closely to human rights. We should have the right attitude to people who are disabled or who have impairments or conditions that could give rise to discrimination.
It is important that measures are acceptable to people in the work place, and the Employers Forum on Disability, which I know reasonably well, is considering that issue. It is terribly important that trade unions—the other part of the social partnership—are seen to be involved and that measures are acceptable to them. Otherwise, difficult issues may arise, such as some people saying that there is a health and safety issue when there is not or when it could be overcome. Such disagreements can foul our best intentions.
I want to make two other more general points. We need better pathways. We would all agree with that and it is explicit in the title of the consultation paper, but, for the pilot schemes, Ministers should consider the possibility of having a single budget holder who can cut through bureaucratic tangles. The Minister referred to the advisers discretionary fund of £300. However, we should consider the whole range of provision—in health, housing, social care, transport, work place adaptions, physiotherapy and elsewhere—as it may be necessary for someone to go out, as would happen with an insured work force, and provide the missing component that may not otherwise be available. That
176WH
may cross departmental boundaries. We must consider the possibility of putting budgets together so that there can be a single pathway.
Advocacy is a related issue. Most disabled people, if they return to employment, will be mentally capable, but, as the paper suggests, they may not always he strong advocates of their own cases. There should be advocacy for them, however, perhaps outside the system when appropriate, and proper case management that can take them through that pathway. That is all for the future.
I concede that Ministers have not claimed arrogantly to have solved the problems. In so far as they approach the matter with a degree of humility, they will have our sympathy and support. I suggest that a mixture is required—the right blend of humility and persistence—because the problems are deep seated and terribly important to the individual. Incidentally, they are also significant to the economy. They did not start today, they will not go away tomorrow and it is extremely important that we start on the path that leads to their being resolved to a much greater extent than has been so far achieved.
5 pm
Ann McKechin: I welcome the Government's paper on issues surrounding incapacity benefit, and I congratulate the Department on the imaginative solutions that it proposes to encourage and support substantially more claimants back into the labour market. Sadly, it is in my home city of Glasgow that the worst problems exist.
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
5.24 pm
On resuming
Sir Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I hope that the House agrees that we should restart our debate.
Ann McKechin: Thank you very much, Sir Nicholas.
Sadly, it is in Glasgow that the worst incapacity benefit problems exist. I believe that Glasgow needs special attention, and I hope that I can establish a case for that today. Glasgow, by a very long way, has the highest number of claimants—39,000, which is more than any other city outside London. Incredibly, although our population is only 609,000, about 25 per cent, of them claim incapacity benefit.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I have to say to the hon. Lady that I sympathise with her and all in Westminster Hall, but I am obliged by Standing Orders to suspend the sitting. As soon as Members can get back, we will begin yet again.
5.25 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
5.36 pm
On resuming
Sir Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Once again, I apologise to hon. Members who are taking part in the

177WH
debate in Westminster Hall this afternoon for what I can only describe as the eccentricities of the House of Commons. I apologise in particular to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin), who has already started her speech twice. This will be the third time. I know that other Members wish to speak who need to leave promptly because of trains and other things.
Ann McKechin: Thank you again, Sir Nicholas. Third time lucky, I hope.
Although the city population of Glasgow is only 609,000, we have more than 25 per cent, more incapacity benefit claimants than Birmingham and almost double the number in Manchester—both are cities which, like Glasgow, have experience of heavy industry in their recent past.
According to the latest statistics, seven of Glasgow's constituencies are in the top 100 United Kingdom employment blackspots. Last year, the Child Poverty Action Group rated three Glasgow seats, including my own, as the worst constituencies for child poverty in the UK. Glasgow also has the highest concentration of heroin injectors in Europe, and the Greater Glasgow health board estimates that we have 15,000 drug addicts, four times the national average. Glasgow also has rising suicide rates among the young, continuing alcohol misuse and chronic ill health statistics that are among the worst in Europe.
Problems of that nature are not unique to my city, but the sheer scale and concentration of deprivation mark Glasgow out as a place that deserves special treatment. I commend the Government on the programmes introduced in the past five or six years, which have already made a significant contribution towards Glasgow's renewal. During that period, the total unemployed count in Glasgow has fallen by more than 15,000. Glasgow is enjoying substantial expansion for the first time in many years: last year, the job growth rate was more than 7 per cent., the highest in any UK city. The consequent new build of office space in the city centre, together with substantial capital investment in our schools, housing and hospitals, has led to many additional jobs, for example, in the construction industry. In fact, there are already skills shortages in that sector.
The proposed transfer of the city council's rented housing stock—the largest in western Europe—to the new Glasgow housing association this year will offer the basis for substantial new capital investment and rebuilding, which will create even further demand for jobs in the construction sector. Our commitment to quality public services in schools, child care, community care and hospitals, as well as considerable expansion in our private sector, particularly in the financial sector, will inevitably lead to further job opportunities.
The challenges that we now face are to harness those opportunities for the benefit of Glasgow's citizens and to tackle the social problems that afflict so many of them. The opportunities have never been better and the rewards to our society for overcoming long-term non-employment would be enormous. The social justice argument is overwhelming and there is an equally strong economic argument.
178WH
According to the evidence given by Scottish Enterprise to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee at the end of last year, Scotland is the only country in Europe that is currently depopulating. It is estimated that by 2016 there will be 300,000 more people over 50 and 220,000 fewer people under 50 in the job market. If we do not improve the employment rate in Scotland's largest city, which has only 55 per cent, of its former population compared to the Scottish average of 71 per cent., the economy of the whole country—not just Glasgow—will suffer substantially.
Currently, only one in every two new jobs in Glasgow goes to a person who actually resides there. In substantial areas of the city, including my constituency, the majority of the adult population is not in work: people are either on the unemployment register, or they are on some other form of benefit such as incapacity benefit. In some areas, that group comprises as much as 70 per cent, of the total adult population. The Government's paper correctly states that many IB claimants have been out of the labour market for a substantial period, and many lack basic skills. Many in my city suffer from chaotic lifestyles and the majority lack confidence or have no knowledge of the current job market.
Many of those people were encouraged in past years, when employment was dropping sharply, to enter the IB system. In fact, a network of welfare officers was established with the principle of maximising income for those who were considered to have little prospect of reentering the job market. We need to do the opposite, by taking more deliberate and structured action to convince and encourage those claimants who do not suffer from serious and permanent disablement or incapacity—it was said earlier that such people are clearly in a different category—to rejoin the labour market within a relatively short time. Longer-term support and training are vital if we really want to get substantial numbers back to work. I fully support the Government's proposals to merge the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency into Jobcentre Plus in order to offer an increasingly personalised service and to target the hidden unemployed in such areas.
Many applicants still have a poor view of their local social security office. Unfortunately, the local drug dealers in my constituency often hang around outside the benefits office, and many people find the place intimidating. In addition, the agency is perceived—rightly or wrongly—to be more interested in investigating abuses than in positively assisting applicants into the most appropriate programme. That is why I encourage the Minister to ensure that any new proposals incorporate a close partnership with other agencies that do not suffer the stigma of being an enforcement organisation, as social security offices do.
Jobseekers are likely to be more relaxed when talking about an application or any problems with agencies such as the local enterprise network than they are when dealing with the social security office. I know that my local enterprise company has had considerable successes in getting people who have been non-employed or unemployed in the long-term back into work. It has supported them in their application, their job interview and, most important, during their first months of work, when their confidence can still be very fragile.

179WH
We must be sensitive to what is the appropriate support for those who suffer from addiction problems. I know that the Government have already made proposals for special money to be set aside for those suffering from drug abuse, but they must also consider the fact that a large number of people who claim I B also suffer from addiction problems.
The Green Paper examines the current monetary barriers to making work pay. The so-called housing benefit trap is often viewed as afflicting only London and the south of England, but hon. Members might be surprised to know that we in Glasgow suffer from exactly the same problem. We have the highest council tax rates in the United Kingdom—£1,140 for a band D property—and historically high social rents. At the same time, the largest group of workers in the city are in the £10,000 to £14,000 per annum wage bracket. The steep withdrawal of housing and council tax benefit that occurs when applicants move from unemployment to work continues to act as a significant barrier to seeking work. Most of those moving from incapacity benefit back into the workplace are likely to start in low-paid, often part-time jobs—the very jobs that are affected by the housing benefit trap.
That is why I commend the proposal for a substantial and distinct financial incentive for a good length of time to encourage the move back into work. We can encourage people, once they have got back into work, to seek further training so that they get out of very low-paid jobs into better-paid employment as their career progresses. To be frank, without such an incentive, there is little prospect of persuading many incapacity benefit claimants to make the move to work.
Finally, the Minister may be aware that throughout 2002, the Glasgow group of MPs engaged in a dialogue with the Department about the need for action and greater resources to tackle our city's employment problems. Unfortunately, after a promising start, we have yet to make any progress. None the less, I trust that the group's discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions will be much more productive in 2003. I also encourage her and her colleagues to visit the city and to support the efforts of our civic agencies, which are very keen to assist the Government's efforts to eliminate long-term non-employment and to end this blight on our city once and for all.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her perseverance in the face of the hurdles that were placed in her way.
5.46 pm
Miss Anne Begg: I realise that time is moving on, so I will try to be brief. I was keen to participate in the debate because a week after the Select Committee on Work and Pensions announced an inquiry into getting disabled people into work, the Government published a Green Paper on the same subject. I like to think that our Select Committee has its finger on the pulse and that we are abreast of the issues of the day.
The Green Paper signals the Government's recognition of the fact that although other new deals, such as those for the young unemployed and for lone parents, have been extremely successful, the new deal for
180WH
disabled people has been less so. That is certainly one of the reasons why the Work and Pensions Committee thought the subject worth a more thorough investigation. It is a thorny issue, and a difficult one, and the Government must handle it very sensitively if they are to get it right.
The Government are absolutely right to stress the importance of work, and it is dreadful that I still have to say that in this forum. Work is important to people for many different reasons, not just because we need money to live. Some people work even though they actually earn less by doing so. There is also an issue of social inclusion: people are defined by their work. It is important that people feel that they have a place in society. That is not to demean those who do not have work, but most people on incapacity benefit lose out in so many aspects of society by not working.
Work can be good for disabled people. It can be therapeutic of itself; there is nothing like long hours spent in front of the television to make someone feel ill. Work is important, and it is sad that I have to emphasise that because some people still take a paternalistic attitude towards those with disabilities. They claim that the Government are being unfair and unreasonable in wanting to help those with disabilities into work. Most incapacity benefit claimants say that they want to work. Of course, many of them do not think of themselves as disabled. For example, they might have suffered a heart problem some years ago, which qualifies them for incapacity benefit, but they have become progressively more ill the longer they remain workless. Such people often suffer psychological problems because unemployment can cause illness or incapacity.
Nevertheless, it is not easy for people who are leaving incapacity benefit to start work. There are all the usual discrimination issues—the physical and attitudinal barriers.
Mr. Huw Edwards: On the issue of discrimination, has my hon. Friend seen early-day motion 477, which relates to the discrimination suffered by my constituent, Karen Godfrey? She was sacked before Christmas for no other reason than that she was disabled—apparently, she did not fit in for insurance reasons. It emerged that she had worked for WHSmith for five years for nothing but gift vouchers—she got £5-worth a week for working four hours a day. Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is excellent that the Government have established the Disability Rights Commission to investigate such cases?
Miss Begg: I certainly hope that the DRC takes up such cases. I well remember a time when I was regarded as a fire hazard simply because I deigned to go to the cinema in a wheelchair. Such attitudes are becoming things of the past, and it is sad to hear that the same health and safety regulations are still being used to push people out of work. There are other examples of such blatant discrimination, and I hope that the creation of the DRC will allow us establish the case law necessary to ensure that it becomes a thing of the past.
Some barriers to work are external to the person who is on IB or who has a disability, but others are often internal—they originate in the person themselves. If people have been workless for years, they inevitably

181WH
have low self-esteem. They may not know what they are capable of, and they will be frightened of the unknown. The Government must be sensitive to such issues. They must realise that it will not necessarily be easy to get someone through the Jobcentre Plus door to see what is available. That is why it is important that letters inviting IB claimants to Jobcentre Plus are as non-threatening and as supportive as possible.
Jobcentre Plus has changed things. Aberdeen is a pathfinder area for the scheme, and the atmosphere in jobcentres is totally different from anything seen in the old benefits offices, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) described. Jobcentres are changing, but many people on IB do not know that, because they have not been over the threshold of a jobcentre for a long time. They need quite a bit of persuading that it is not like the old system and that their benefits are not under threat.
Let me give a good example of what is happening in Aberdeen. The local jobcentre manager, Bob Alexander, and I organised a business breakfast and a seminar for people working on disability issues at Jobcentre Plus. I also invited people from the voluntary sector who were trying to get disabled people into work. Ironically, the two sides had never met, but the morning was very informative. Although successful, it provided a salutary lesson: many of the people from the voluntary sector said that Jobcentre Plus was the last place they would advise their client group to visit. They, too, had not seen the changes, and they thought that jobcentres would be threatening and too difficult for their clients.
The radical aspect of the new deal for disabled people is the use of job brokers. I was glad to hear the Minister say that the advisers discretionary fund would be increased, but I know that job brokers are effective, because the new cleaner for MPs' offices in Aberdeen was recruited through that process. A job broker phoned my office manager, saying, "This woman is absolutely wonderful. You'd be daft not to employ her," and that is exactly what we found when she came for her interview. She is so happy to be back in work, having been out of work for more than five years. Her self-esteem has increased beyond measure, and she feels much better than she ever could have done had she remained on incapacity benefit. However, she put the letter back in the drawer three times before finally lifting the phone, and it took her something like two months to take up the original invitation.
The Government must use people such as Anne, our cleaner, to argue the case for their changes. The clients who had succeeded because of the new deal were undoubtedly the best speakers at the meeting that Bob Alexander and I arranged in Aberdeen to bring people from voluntary sector and Jobcentre Plus together. They brought a tear to our eyes, because they were superb at selling the importance of what they had achieved.
I realise that my time is up, although there is much more that I want to say. I hope that we will get another chance to debate helping people with disabilities and those on incapacity benefit into work. It is an important issue, and I commend the Government on making a really good start, but there is still a long way to go.
5.54 pm
David Cairns: I shall try to condense my remarks into the briefest possible time. I warmly congratulate the Government on introducing the Green Paper. It has become more necessary as unemployment has fallen and the issue has emerged from beneath the receding waters of unemployment. Unemployment in my constituency has fallen from more than 20 per cent, in the mid-1980s to about 4.5 per cent., but, at the same time, the number of economically inactive people has risen to a staggering and shameful 39 per cent. Two in five adults of working age are therefore neither in work nor looking for work. That is the scale of the challenge that we face.
I was heartened to see the Government outline the five barriers that stand in people's way in returning to work. Looking at the skills and training aspects of Jobcentre Plus, may I make a special plea? Advisers with specialist skills include those who are specially trained to deal with people with brain and head injuries. Often, such people do not show that very much is wrong with them, but the relapsing nature of the illness means that specialist knowledge is required. I hope that the Minister can give us some advice on that,
A small caveat about the Green Paper is that it could contain a little more on rehabilitation. Only two references are made to it: one in the context of solicitors and personal injury claims, and a small reference in an annexe. Yet certain types of rehabilitation are absolutely central if people in my constituency who come from an industrial heritage and have industrial injuries are to get certain types of work. When the disabilities Bill is introduced—I appreciate that this issue is largely the responsibility of the Department of Health in England and Wales, and the Scottish Executive north of the border—close working will be required between the Minister's Department, the Department of Health and Malcolm Chisholm, the Minister for Health and Community Care north of the border. I therefore repeat the plea that the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) kindly made.
Finally, if the Minister is planning to site one of the pilot areas in Scotland, I make the plea that it covers Inverclyde, given its 39 per cent. economic inactivity rate.
5.57 pm
Paul Holmes: The Liberal Democrats welcome the stated principles behind the consultation paper and many of the ideas that arise out of those principles. The 2.7 million people on incapacity benefit in this country represent a figure only slightly above the equivalent numbers in most of Europe, and 40 per cent, of such people already say in Government and disability organisation surveys that they want to return to work if the obstacles to doing so can be removed.
There are many measures proposed in the Green Paper that could do much to ease the path back into work, such as increased financial incentives to return to work, and a better support and referral framework. A more integrated approach to getting people back into work is needed. Use of the NHS, social services, and so forth to offer the greatest opportunity for work is vital.
We fully support the creation of an environment in which as many employers as possible are managing health at work actively and positively. I welcome the

183WH
comments of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in Disability Now that to exhort employers to do more and to deploy the necessary legislation are key elements of change.
Although there is much to welcome, many concerns remain. Compulsory, work-focused interviews backed by the threat of benefit loss for those who claim disability benefits are not the best way to help those who are able back into work. It seems strange that only months after the nationwide roll-out of the new deal for disabled people, the Government chose to introduce the compulsory interviews that are integral to the Green Paper. The Government have said that the aim of the new compulsory interviews is to help the 750,000 disabled people who want to find jobs. The new deal for disabled people appears to have the same objective, although it is still voluntary. If the Government are so convinced that the reason that those on incapacity benefit who want to get a job are being put off is lack of support, skills and knowledge, will the new deal for disabled people provide that service while not threatening people with withdrawal of benefits for missing interviews?
Initially, the Government proposals talk sensibly of focusing on new claimants only. Experience shows that, once people have become long-term sick and unemployed, it is much harder for them to get back into work for all sorts of reasons, such as loss of skills, loss of confidence, and so forth. The Trojan horse is on page 39 of the Green Paper, "Pathways to work: Helping people into employment". It states:
"In due course, the Government will consider whether … to extend a requirement to attend work-focused interviews to some existing recipients of incapacity benefits … as well."
I still do not understand the Government's reluctance to focus their initial efforts in respect of long-term benefit claimants on the 40 per cent, who, in Government and disability organisation surveys, repeatedly say that they positively want to work if help is provided and obstacles are removed.
The work-focused interview has not proven itself to be as successful as parts of the Green Paper suggest. A Department for Work and Pensions research report on the ONE service leads to some conclusions on that—
6 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
6.10 pm
On resuming—
Paul Holmes: A Department for Work and Pensions research report on the ONE service concluded that there was no evidence that participation in ONE had increased labour market activity among sick and disabled clients. A new study of the Government flagship disabled employment scheme showed that between July 2001 and September 2002, only 1,400 disabled people worked for longer than six months after getting help. Only 6,099 were helped into any kind of work at all, which is far short of the target of 90,000 people in jobs over a three-year period—in fact, just 5 per cent, of those involved. Regrettably, due to a
184WH
technical hitch, those embarrassing figures failed to appear on the Department for Work and Pensions website alongside other figures on new deal schemes, and they had to be reported later in Disability Now.
As happens with many of the Government's proposals and schemes to get people back to work, there is concern from groups such as UnumProvident, which has worked in the field for 30 years, about the focus on merely getting people into work because focus is needed on the long-term aspects of keeping disabled people in work. Retention in employment is a critical challenge.
Disability groups such as the Shaw Trust argue that the key lesson to be learned from the weakness of the current approach through Jobcentre Plus is that employment interviews and work placements cannot be provided for disabled people by the same people who are responsible for monitoring their benefits. Only this afternoon at a seminar on welfare to work that was held in this building, the Shaw Trust, Remploy and speakers from two private sector firms—WTCS and Work Directions—all disagreed strongly with the proposals in the Green Paper on that issue. The same groups questioned the need for six Government pilots on top of the five previous ones. Their schemes, which are based on intensive work with voluntary participants, seem to have higher success rates than the general figures quoted by the Government.
Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman has just criticised the new deal for disabled people for not achieving the high level of job sustainability that we had all hoped for. That is a voluntary project. Does he think that that might be one of the reasons why?
Paul Holmes: The groups that I mentioned—two private sector, one voluntary and one public—all detailed success rates this afternoon of between 30 and 40 per cent., which are higher than the low overall figures of Government projects. The groups argued specifically that the key reason for the success of their projects compared with the failures of the whole scheme was because they work with volunteers and provide intensive support.
If there are to be further pilots on top of the existing five schemes—three have reported, one is under way and one has not even started—the Minister could do worse than looking at the pilot in my constituency of Chesterfield. The chamber of commerce is running the Power project, which does excellent work by empowering those with disabilities who want to prepare to return to work.
A further concern is the Government's target-setting culture, although that does not mean public or headline targets in this case, unlike for education. Mencap reported that the ONE areas were given targets to move people off benefits and into work. That is a worry because target setting could result in personal advisers pressurising people into unsuitable work although circumstances dictate that that is not the best opinion, but the easiest option. A Mencap report said:
"Mencap is aware that the One service had targets to move people off benefits and into work. Mencap would caution against internal targets such as the number of interviews conducted in a week by a personal adviser or a target of a specified number of people entering work".

185WH
The same issues repeatedly arise with SchlumbergerSema, which admitted, when questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and me, that its financial contracts with the Government and its general practitioners could represent a financial incentive to push through the maximum number of client assessments in the shortest possible time in order to maximise profits and bonuses, although this was not necessarily in the interests of the people being assessed.
I have received many letters from constituents calling into question the quality of the personal capability assessments conducted by SchlumbergerSema GPs. Can we therefore expect the company to increase the speed of assessment, as the Government have stated it should? Would that result in better assessments? The Government may be premature in their reliance on the competency of SchlumbergerSema to meet its current contractual obligations without increasing the pressure even more.
Disability organisations have other concerns about the proposals to help disabled people into work—specifically the failure properly to address systematic discrimination in the labour market. It is highly unlikely that work-focused interviews will fully meet their potential in helping disabled people into employment while the obstacles of employer discrimination and inaccessibility remain in place.
In the Green Paper, the Government admit that financial incentives are a huge obstacle to people attempting to get back into the world of work. It says that many people on incapacity benefit will gain only a small amount by getting a job and some may end up worse off. If the Government know that employment can result in the disabled receiving less income than they would from the many confusing benefits that are available to them, how can they be expected to move off benefits and into employment? Although the Green Paper proposals may be successful in gaining employment for some, no contingency measures are proposed in case employees find that they cannot cope with the job or employers discover that they did not realise what they were taking on.
Although the Government's disabled persons tax credit allows a combination of work and benefit, the minimum requirement of 16 hours work a week means that people on IB who can work for fewer than 16 hours a week, or who can work one week but not the next—for example, a multiple sclerosis sufferer may need to work one week in two—are ignored. Mencap and UnumProvident made the same point in their responses to the Green Paper. The Liberal Democrat suggestion of a partial capacity benefit would better address the situation, as it would encourage disabled people to do varying amounts of paid work without fear of becoming ineligible for benefit.
The plethora of benefits can appear overly complex and provide strong disincentives for disabled people to look for work, and they are in need of radical reform. It is similar to the complexity of the minimum income guarantee and the replacement pension tax credits—a third of eligible pensioners do not claim, partly because of the sheer complexity of the provisions.
186WH
The Government admit that employers are reluctant to employ older workers. That will be addressed by the implementation of age discrimination legislation, but it will not happen until 2006. If the Government are serious about addressing the fact that just under half of those claiming the benefit are aged 50 or over, it is nonsensical to wait for so many years before beginning to remove one of the obstacles to getting people off incapacity benefit and back to work. The Liberal Democrats would introduce that as soon as possible, as part of a single unified equality Act.
The Government are again dragging their heels on the question of a disability Act, with their otherwise welcome announcement yesterday that they would introduce a draft Bill. The Liberal Democrats and nongovernmental organisations such as the Disability Rights Commission have campaigned for such a move as a matter of urgency for some time and it was widely expected that the Government would include the legislation in the last Queen's Speech, if not the previous one. The vague promise to legislate later in this Parliament means that the long-awaited disability Bill could be squeezed out once again as the next general election approaches. How much better it would be if that lengthy process had started last year or the year before.
It is essential that disabled people should have full and equal rights before the Government proceed with their aim of establishing a single equality commission. That is the only way to remove many of the obstacles to the employment of disabled people that the Government describe in the document.
I sum up by saying that Liberal Democrats support the stated principles in the consultation paper, in that barriers to work for those claiming IB should be removed. However, we have doubts about the value of compulsory work-focused interviews supported by the threat of benefit penalties. We oppose the target-setting culture that pressures those involved into making unsuitable and hasty decisions in order to meet Government targets or gain maximum financial bonuses. We believe that removing the remaining legal areas of discrimination against disabled people is a more urgent priority, and that the Government should utilise the expertise of disability groups more.
I hope that the Green Paper is a genuine consultation exercise, but I note the comments of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in the current issue of "Disability Now". He says:
"I would welcome the responses to the document. However, we have thought hard about the proposals and feel that this is the direction we should be moving in."
If the Government have already decided to discount the views of the voluntary and private sector organizations—not forgetting R employ, the experts in such matters—which all oppose compulsory interviews and benefit sanctions, that suggests that our deliberations could be a waste of time.
6.19 pm
Maria Eagle: I shall do my best to respond to the points that have been made in the debate as speedily as I can, so that we are not kept too long from our trains and so on. I commend most hon. Members today for the constructive way in which they have conducted the

187WH
debate and on how they have engaged with the issues set out in the Green Paper. All of us in the House are concerned about such matters and we want progress to be made. The Government's consultation processes are always genuine and we welcome all ideas, because we want to find out what works.
There has not been as much progress as we would have wished in the past few years because such steps are difficult to take, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) said, and because we do not know what works. Had previous Governments attempted to get those on incapacity benefit and sickness and disability benefits back into work, we would have a better idea of what policy will work. We are feeling our way. We should not be condemned and criticised for that. Some of the constructive criticism that we have received today from some hon. Members has been positive, but I do not believe that churlish negativity, which we have also heard, helps.
Paul Holmes: Will the Minister give way?
Maria Eagle: I shall give way because I was referring to the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate.
Paul Holmes: Will the Minister confirm that she has criticised my direct quotes from the Shaw Trust, Remploy and two private sector training organisations, all of which have a proven track record in such matters?
Maria Eagle: I am criticising the hon. Gentleman's tone and the content of his remarks, not anything that has been said by the providers or organisations to which he has referred. I have not heard what they said. He may not have represented their views in quite the way that they would have wanted. The Shaw Trust and other organisations that he described as experts in such matters operate the new deal for disabled people on our behalf. It is not sensible for him to commend them on the one hand, and criticise the new deal for disabled people on the other. Those organisations provide such services for us. It is more sensible to be constructive than to forget the way in which this Chamber tends to operate, which is more calm and sensible than other parliamentary debates.
The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) referred to the performance of the new deal for disabled people. Other hon. Members have also drawn attention to it, perhaps in a more negative way. At present, there have been almost 8,000 job entries, but a smaller number of sustained job entries. That is partly because the national roll-out is only 18 months old and many job brokers are still finding their way. It is not easy. Job brokers have different approaches throughout the country and some work better than others.
The Shaw Trust to which the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) referred has a good record in delivering job broker services, as do some of our in-house providers. There is not a monopoly of good sense and experience in the public, private or voluntary sector. We must learn and be constructive across the piece to find out what works. The Department has been taking steps to improve job broker performance and achieve a better spread of success throughout the different providers. One of the downsides of bringing in many
188WH
providers in different parts of the country is that we could start off with a variable performance. We are engaging constructively with the job brokers to improve the performance of those who have not done so well by spreading best practice from those who have. That is a good way forward.
The hon. Member for Daventry referred also to targets and expressed his worry that they would create problems. We do not have set targets of the number of people whom we want to take off incapacity benefit. That would be inappropriate. We have general targets to narrow the gap between the level of participation in the labour market of the working age population in general and disabled people, but those are positive targets. We are not providing incentives to local Jobcentre Plus staff to get so many people off benefits.
The hon. Gentleman said that he had five concerns. The first was adequate benefit flexibility, which he suggested required further development. Adequate benefit flexibility is easy to say, but it is difficult to achieve, partly because of the complex nature of our benefit system and also because many benefits are enshrined in legislation and are, therefore, not easy to change. Many of our benefits, including incapacity benefit and some working age benefits, must be sufficiently comprehensive to be applied in a wide range of circumstances. For example, a benefit might apply to everyone of working age. It can be difficult, therefore, to introduce the sort of flexibility that one would like to see for a particular group of individuals without creating all sorts of loopholes and potential for fraud. Those are the difficulties in promoting benefit flexibility, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are always considering what can he done. The fact that we have introduced some flexibilities, which are well regarded by those who know about them, is proof of the fact that we want to make progress in the area.
The hon. Gentleman also called for rigorous evaluation of the pilot activity, unlike the hon. Member for Chesterfield, who does not seem to believe in evaluation. There will be a comprehensive evaluation programme, combining both qualitative and quantitative elements, with the aim of detecting the impact of any package of changes that we pilot on improving rates of return to work among IB clientele. That has not often been tried in the past. The statistical significance of interventions can be difficult to calculate and the methodology for evaluation can be difficult. We are committed to rigorous evaluation of the pilot activity. We want to find out what works, and only when we have done that and are convinced that it will make a difference will we actually spread the practice more widely.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to attitudes among the business community and social partners. He is right about that. The reference by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) to his constituent, Karen Godfrey, illustrated just how far we still have to go in respect of attitudes in society. The idea of expecting someone to work for vouchers that can be spent only where the person works, instead of a wage, was outlawed by the Truck Act 1831 and the Wages Act 1986—although, apparently, not at WH Smith, if the worker is disabled. That sort of practice must be

189WH
stamped out. I very much hope that the Disability Rights Commission will do its utmost to take up such cases.
Mr. Boswell: I have not: looked at the details of that case since the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) referred to it earlier this evening, but I was under the impression, from a communication that I received some days ago from a colleague, that it had been sorted out. I do not condone the decisions that were taken and entirely agree that it should never have happened, but the important point is that a framework now exists for dealing with such a case, as well as a readiness on the part of management and that of the Disability Rights Commission, to ensure that such practice is stamped out.
Maria Eagle: I hope that that is the case.
Mr. Edwards: I have heard from the managing director of WH Smith, who has condemned the case. That is not company policy and was an isolated incident. Nevertheless, it constituted discrimination and is being investigated.
Maria Eagle: I need not say any more on that, except to add that it indicates why we need the law to back up whatever we try to do by exhortation.
The hon. Member for Daventry made some references to advocacy and better pathways, all of which I agree with. We need to work on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) made some interesting points about Glasgow, indicating that, like many cities, it has particular problems, but also illustrating powerfully that it seems to have more of a problem than some comparable cities. That illustrates how thorny, deep-seated and complicated the issue is; clearly, it has cultural aspects.
My hon. Friend was able to give us some hope that Glasgow is on its way back in terms of regeneration. She also gave us some good news about falling unemployment. I agree with her that if we got to where we are by way of a certain culture and welfare benefits advice that told people that they were incapable, we must reverse that. I welcome her comments about the Green Paper, because we are trying to make a cultural change. I was in Glasgow recently to visit the Royal Strathclyde Blindcraft factory. I would be happy to come back to visit that fine city at any time at my hon. Friend's invitation.
My hon. Friend also made some points about the culture of social security offices, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South stressed how different Jobcentre Plus offices are. The Glasgow Jobcentre Plus roll-out will start this April, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill, her constituents and colleagues will then see the massive difference between Jobcentre Plus and social security offices.
190WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South made an extremely valuable contribution, and clearly has a passionate approach to the issue. Who better than my hon. Friend to tell us the truth of the matter from the other side of the fence? She is passionately in favour of making sure that disabled people can work, and I agree with her. I also agree with her about targets; I have replied to what the hon. Member for Daventry said on the subject. We do not have targets for getting certain numbers of people off the benefit. That is not how we are dealing with the issue. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South that the new deal for disabled people works when people pluck up the courage to go along to the Jobcentre Plus.
I agree that people who have gone through the process and gained employment are by far the best advocates of the quality of the system. I often speak at conferences and events about the new deal for disabled people. Usually, my speech is irrelevant, because someone will have stood up and spoken about their personal experience, and that is much more powerful than anything that I, as a Whitehall Minister, might say. Instead of suggesting that I know the way forward, it is much better to get someone who has gone through the process and succeeded to stand up and say so—they are much better advocates that I am.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) clearly wants a pilot, and I have twigged that he would like one in his area. I shall see what I can do, as consideration of such matters is ongoing. However, I cannot promise him anything, so I hope that he will not take too much encouragement from what I say. It is absolutely true that we must consider and tackle the fact that almost 39 per cent, of his constituents are economically inactive.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, made a number of points that I shall take up briefly. I do not agree that compulsory work-focused interviews are not the way forward. One of the problems with voluntary schemes such as the new deal for disabled people is that getting people to come along to a Jobcentre Plus in the first place can be a big barrier. I agree that it would be a major concern if further participation beyond the first contact were compulsory; some of his points might then have some validity. However, I do not believe that it is negative to encourage those who are just coming on to the benefit to receive the intensive help by saying that there will be a sanction. That is one of the ways in which we can make sure that we offer help to those who most require it.
The hon. Gentleman also said that it would be sensible to focus on those claimants who want to go back to work. We have survey evidence on numbers, but we do not know who all the claimants are. We sent out letters about the new deal for disabled people in respect of the stock of IB claimants, and one reason why there have been only 8,000 "outputs" of sustained employment is that not everyone comes forward. One reason for that is the voluntary nature of the scheme. We need to try different approaches. I am very much in favour of the compulsory element if the support that is then offered is not coercive or backed up by targets to

191WH
get numbers of people off benefit. I believe that that is a perfectly defensible and sensible way of approaching the matter.
It seems that the hon. Member for Chesterfield is against pilots. I do not believe that it is possible, on this complex issue, to devise a system that will work for our diverse, different and complex set of clients without rigorous evaluation and pilots. It would be easy for us, with our prejudices, to sit down and discuss what we think would do the job, and then spread that across the country. In respect of what is a difficult problem, we should try out different approaches, do our best to find out what will work and spread that good practice around the country.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments on our alleged failure to address discrimination against disabled people. When the Government took office, the only thing that was unlawful was direct discrimination against disabled people in employment, in large firms and in service provision. Those were the only aspects of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to have been implemented. There were other provisions, but they had not then been commenced. If, by the end of this Parliament, we can meet the commitments that we have made, including the Bill that was announced yesterday, discrimination against disabled people in employment and in service provision will be completely outlawed. We shall have taken major steps to get rid of discrimination against disabled people in every part of society. If we can achieve that, it will be the biggest step forward in disability rights that the country has ever seen. Since the announcement yesterday, I have had a good reaction from many members of the disability lobby, who can be cynical sometimes, although one understands why. I am determined to make sure that we carry through that commitment, notwithstanding the general cynicism and negativity of the Liberal Democrats.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): From the Chair, I thank the Minister for her reply and congratulate hon. Members who have taken part for the physical and mental stamina necessitated by our experiences today.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Seven o'clock.

Question Not Answered Orally

  Obesity
  12. Mr. Hopkins: What plans the Government have to tackle obesity among young people through the promotion of sport. [91816]
  Jacqui Smith: We already have in place major cross-Government programmes of work to increase levels of physical activity among children and young people. The Departments for Culture, Media and Sport and for Education and Skills are investing £459 million to transform physical education, school sport and club links over the next three years. The funding will help deliver a joint DFES/DCMS public service agreement target to enhance sports opportunities for five to 16-year-olds by increasing the percentage of children who spend at least two hours a week on high quality PE and school sport—in and beyond the curriculum—to 75 per cent. by 2006.
  At a community level, the Department is setting up a new programme of local exercise action pilots led by primary care trusts to test out different approaches to increase access to physical activity among priority groups, including children and young people.

TREASURY

  New Taxes
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the annual cost to business of new taxes introduced since May 1997. [92747]

  John Healey
  The net effect of the Government's Corporation Tax changes introduced since 1997 is to reduce the corporate tax burden on business. We now have the lowest corporation tax rates in UK history. We have introduced a series of targeted measures, including tax credits for R&D to reward entrepreneurship.

  Tax Credits
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the costs of introducing tax credits. [92748]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Through the new tax credits the Government is investing £13 billion in supporting families of which £2.7 billion is additional to what is already available. No government has spent so much on children and families.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the recent effect of interest rates upon the balance of payments. [92749]

  Ruth Kelly
  It is difficult to isolate the specific effect of interest rate movements on the balance of payments. However, the Government's strong macroeconomic framework has delivered economic stability and historically low interest rates so that the UK economy is well placed to benefit as the pace of global recovery picks up.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate he has made of the annual cost to manufacturing businesses of taxes and regulations introduced since May 1997. [92751]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The net effect of the Government's Corporation Tax changes introduced since 1997 is to reduce the corporate tax burden on business. We now have the lowest corporation tax rates in UK history. We have introduced a series of targeted measures, including tax credits for R&D to reward entrepreneurship.

  The Government is committed to ensuring that regulations are fair and effective, so that they protect the vulnerable but do not stifle enterprise or productivity.
  422W
  In August 1998, the Government introduced Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) to develop a more open system of assessing the risks, costs and benefits of new legislative proposals. A thorough regulatory impact assessment is required for all new regulations that impact on business, charities or the voluntary sector.

  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the trends in manufacturing industry throughout the United Kingdom in the last year. [92753]

  John Healey
  After achieving its fastest rate of output growth for six years in 2000, the past two years have clearly been difficult for the manufacturing sector, not just in the UK but across the industrialised world. Nonetheless, the domestic macroeconomic stability that this Government's policies have put in place, together with our wide range of policies designed to improve productivity and enterprise, offer solid foundations for manufacturers to build on when the recovery in the world economy gathers pace.

  European Stability and Growth Pact
  Mike Gapes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy concerning reform of the European Stability and Growth Pact. [92754]

  Ruth Kelly
  This Government has consistently made clear that it supports a prudent interpretation of the Stability and Growth Pact, which takes into account the economic cycle, sustainability and the important role of public investment. A prudent interpretation of the Stability and Growth Pact will provide a long-term solution and strengthen fiscal discipline. We continue to discuss this with our EU colleagues.

  South America
  Brian White
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment the International Monetary Fund has made of the current economic situation in South America. [92755]

  Ruth Kelly
  The latest IMF assessment of economic developments and prospects in Latin America was in its 'World Economic Outlook', published in September 2002. That showed 2002 was a difficult year, with an estimated fall in GDP of 0.6 per cent. for the region, but a recovery is expected during 2003. Growth rates experienced in 2002 varied widely, but countries with sound policy frameworks were generally better able to withstand the period of uncertainty.

  Global Economy
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what recent discussions he has had on the participation of the poorest countries in the global economy; and if he will make a statement. [92752]

  John Healey
  Overcoming economic marginalisation and integrating the poorest countries into the global economy is vital to securing the economic growth required to meet our Millennium Development Goal of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015.
  423W
  We will continue to engage the international community on this issue as we have done over the past year through the G7 and G8, the EU, and the IMF and World Bank—supporting their proposals for high-level dialogue between potential investors and developing country governments. Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer addressed key corporate figures as well as NGO leaders and developing country representatives, when he spoke at a Chatham House conference on the role of the private sector in developing countries through increased levels of investment, improved accountability and strategic and consultative engagement in the wider development context.

  Today, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development are publishing their detailed proposals for an International Finance Facility to release $50 billion a year in additional aid flows for investment in developing countries. This additional support will help poor countries put in place the reforms required to attract increased private sector investment.

  Annuities
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to bring rules governing investment-linked annuities into line with those already in operation for pensioners in income drawdown. [91556]

  Ruth Kelly
  On 17 December the Government published, for consultation, simplification proposals for the pension tax rules. The consultation paper, "Simplifying the taxation of pensions: increasing choice and flexibility", is available in the House of Commons Library. The consultation is to allow people the opportunity to put forward their views before final decisions are taken.

  The consultation paper puts forward a proposed framework of general benefit rules within which new retirement products can be developed consistent with the requirement to annuities by age 75. These rules will apply to both annuities and drawdown products.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will take steps to enable new providers to take over the payment of conventional annuities; [91557]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to enable with-profits annuitants to transfer to other annuity providers. [91555]

  Ruth Kelly
  Tax legislation does not prevent the transfer of liability to pay an annuity to a different provider so long as the terms of the annuity are not altered. It is a matter of contract between the parties whether this can occur at the request of the annuitant.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the value of the Bank of England's land and buildings at(a) Threadneedle Street, London. (b) other London addresses and (c) other UK addresses, based on (i) the valuation for existing use and (ii) the highest valuation for alternative use; and if he will make a statement. [92515]
  424W
  Ruth Kelly
  As at 30 November 2002. the existing use value of the Bank of England's land and buildings (including fixed plant) in the respective locations is:

  (a) £172.4 million

  (b) £40 million

  (c) £17.2 million

  These figures reflect a professional valuation as at 28 February 2001 by Insignia Richard Ellis, plus the cost of subsequent additions, less depreciation.

  Valuations for alternative uses are not available. These figures are unaudited.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the value of the fixed assets of the Bank of England; and what date these estimates were made; and if he will make a statement. [92516]

  Ruth Kelly
  A valuation of the tangible fixed assets of the Bank of England, as at 28 February 2002, was included in the Bank's Annual Report, laid before Parliament on 23 May 2002.

  Census
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what margin of error is officially regarded as acceptable for the 2001 census in(a) inner city areas and (b) rural areas; and if he will make a statement. [92496]

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

  Letter from L. Cook to Mr. E. Pickles, dated 23 January 2003:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking what margin of error is officially regarded as acceptable for the 2001 Census in (a) inner city areas and (b) rural areas. (92496)
  I published the margins of error, also known as confidence intervals, when the first results from the 2001 Census were released on 30 September 2002 for England and Wales (and inner city and rural areas.)
  For England and Wales as a whole, the 95 per cent confidence interval (the range within which the true population would fall for 95 per cent of the times the sample was repeated) was plus or minus 0.2 per cent or 104,000 people. For local authority areas the percentage margins of error are larger, ranging from 6.1 per cent in Luton to 0.6 per cent in Dudley, East Dorset and Redcar and Cleveland.
  All Census population estimates have been subject to rigorous quality assurance which followed an agreed strategy which had been the subject of wide consultation with census users. The population of each local authority by age and sex was considered in a consistent and detailed manner—this involved comparison against diagnostic ranges derived from rolled-forward population estimates and aggregated administrative sources (such as Birth Registration and Pensions data).
  The quality assurance process means that the census figures are the best estimates we can provide for the population and they are all within acceptable confidence intervals.

  425W
  Of importance also to confidence in census results is that we can explain changes and unusual results. There is insufficient cohesion between the measures of the various contributors to intercensal change in the United Kingdom. This is not acceptable to many users.
  We are reviewing at present our methods of measuring external migration, and I have initiated a review to identify what we can do to estimate more effectively the population between censuses in areas of large change from sources we cannot measure well.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants have been employed by(a) his Department and (b) each of its agencies and non-departmental bodies in each year from 1994–95 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [92370]

  Ruth Kelly
  Figures for HM Treasury and its agencies at 1 April for the period 1994–2001 are published in Civil Service Statistics copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library. Figures for 2002 will be published in due course.

  Economic Inactivity
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many working-age people not in full-time education were economically inactive in each year since 1997. [91978]

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

  Letter from L. Cook to Mr. David Willetts, dated 23 January 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about economically inactive people not in full-time education. (91978)
  The attached table give the information requested. These estimates are from the Labour Force Survey (LFS).

  Economically inactive people of working age' who are not in full-

  time education United Kingdom: 1997–20022

  Thousands

  December to November

  1996–97

  6,316

  1997–98

  6,320

  1998–99

  6,215

  1999–2000

  6,271

  2000–01

  6,327

  2001–02

  6,342

  1Men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59.

  2Average for the twelve month period ending November of each year.

  Note:

  These Labour Force Survey (LFS) estimates are Not Seasonally Adjusted (NSA) and have not yet been adjusted to take account of the recent Census2001 results.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey (ONS)

  EMU
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to publish the 14 supporting studies on euro convergence before his Department's assessment of the five tests for entry to EMU. [92818]
  426W
  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 20 January 2003,Official Report, column 54W.

  Equity Release
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the regulatory regime applicable to equity release products and providers. [92567]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government is giving the Financial Services Authority responsibility for regulating mortgage business, including mortgage based equity release arrangements. In August last year, the FSA published its consultation paper, CP 146 setting out its approach to regulating mortgage sales including lifetime mortgages (the FSA's term for regulated equity release mortgages). It is expected that regulation of lifetime and other mortgages will come into force in October 2004.

  As for home reversions, the Government announced in its Green Paper on Pensions that it would be looking at options to create a level playing field for the regulation of equity release and home reversion plans to protect consumers and make the market work better. The Government is gathering evidence of consumer detriment to decide the appropriate level of regulation. If the Government decides to go ahead and regulate home reversions the likely timescale would be a consultation later in the year, and the Government would decide on the basis of legal advice whether secondary or primary legislation was necessary.

  EU (Economic Reform)
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Government's strategy is for economic reform in the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [91198]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's White Paper on European economic reform (Realising Europe's Potential; economic reform in Europe, February 2002) sets out the Government's strategy for economic reform in the European Union and describes the next steps in this process. These include:further reform of labour markets to meet EU employment targets and establish employment opportunity for all;
  less and better targeted state aid;
  continued improvement of the EU competition regime;
  work to deliver a genuine single market in services, including financial services, as well as in manufacturing; and
  the full opening up of gas, electricity and telecoms markets.

  Heritage and Antique Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sales of heritage assets and antique assets have been made by his Department since May 1997; if he will list such assets; and if he will estimate the total sales proceeds. [92372]

  Ruth Kelly
  HM Treasury did not hold or dispose of any heritage assets over this period.

  HM Treasury's Resource Accounts (1999–2000, Cm 5062 and 2000–01, HC 573) include a disclosure of all asset disposals including separate figures for

  427W
  antiques. Accounts for 2001–02 will be published shortly. Resource accounts were not compiled for years before 1999, and so data are not available in the form requested.

  Home Insurance
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 14 January 2003,Official Report, column 514W, on home insurance, if he will publish the guidelines set out for the Financial Services Authority for their consultation on home insurance. [93035]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have not issued guidelines to the Financial Services Authority (FSA) on the content of their consultation on mortgages and whether it should include requirements in relation to fees charged for switching home insurance.

  Investment Growth
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on whether the Pre-Budget Report predictions of fixed investment growth will be fulfilled. [92817]

  Ruth Kelly
  As normal, the Government will update its forecasts for the UK economy in the forthcoming Budget.

  Migration Statistics
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what level of net international migration of population of working age is assumed in his trend growth projections for 2002–03 to 2007–08; and if he will make a statement. [90983]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury's neutral trend growth projections for 2002–03 to 2007–08 assume net inward migration to the UK of 104,000 people of working age a year.

  Pension Contribution Tax Relief
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer after(a) five years, (b) 10 years and (c) 20 years, of the Government's proposals to give people a lifetime limit for pension contribution tax relief. [91091]

  Ruth Kelly
  The cost of the proposed regime will depend on behavioural effects and the final design of the new regime, which will be decided in light of the consultation process.

  Public Sector Workers (Retirement)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to allow all staff in his Department to retire at age 65; what proportion of staff retire at or before age 60; and if he will make a statement. [92553]

  Mr. Boateng
  Retirement policy is a matter for individual public sector employers and detailed numerical information is not held centrally. Government policy as set out in last year's pensions green paper, "Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement (Cm 5677)" is to encourage people to work up to the age of 65 and beyond if they 428W
  wish. Public service employers are reviewing their retirement policies to take account of that. In local government, the normal pension age is already 65 for new entrants. Longer serving staff may have rights to an earlier normal pension age, between 60 and 65, depending on their length of service.

  As set out in the Green Paper, the Government proposes to increase the normal pension age from 60 to 65 for new entrants to pension schemes such the NHS, teachers and civil service. Some 75 per cent. of civil servants already have the option to retire at age 65 and the numbers able to serve beyond age 60 are expected to increase. NHS staff are generally encouraged to continue to work beyond age 60 and those retiring on age grounds typically leave well after age 60. In the state education sector, teachers can normally work until age 65 if they wish and they can work beyond 65 by mutual agreement between the individual and the employer.

  In the armed forces, police and fire services the great majority of people leave before age 60 and pensions for those retiring are payable well before 60. There are a few posts in these services where individuals may be retained beyond age 60. There are a few posts in these services where individuals may be retained beyond age 60.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether the figure of 87 per cent. in Annex B of the Treasury Autumn Performance Report for the proportion of PSA performance targets met is based on the same calculation as the figure of 87 per cent. contained in Annex A2 of the Departmental Report; [87634]

  (2) if he will place in the Library the calculations on which he based the statement that 87 per cent. of PSA performance targets have been met or partly met by 2002, as stated in Annex A2 of HM Treasury Departmental Report 2002; [87635]

  (3) if he will place in the Library the calculations on which he based the statement that 87 per cent. of PSA performance targets have been met or partly met, as stated in Annex B of HM Treasury Autumn Performance Report, Cm 5665; [87636]

  (4) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) of 27 November 2002, Official Report, column 343, if he will place in the Library his calculations for his statement that 93 per cent. of PSA performance targets have been met. [87842]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: Both reports gave the latest position available at the time of publication, and are based on the same calculation: the number of targets met or partly met, divided by the total number of targets assessed. The Autumn Performance Report is therefore more up to date, and is based on 169 targets met or partly met out of 194 targets assessed. 11 targets have subsequently been met or nearly met, giving 180 targets out of 194, which is how the 93 per cent. figure is derived.

  Public Service Pension Schemes
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of further savings that will be made if the rules of public service pension schemes are changed so that new members receive an unreduced pension from age 65. [91084]

  Ruth Kelly
  As noted in Cm 5677, "Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement", the Government envisages that the higher pension age might be introduced in most schemes as part of a package of changes to pension arrangements. This would allow for improvements to benefits which employers and staff value and have a positive impact on staff recruitment and retention, including greater flexibility in the transition from work to retirement, and help the financial sustainability of public service pension schemes. Also, while it is envisaged that the new pension packages will be introduced for new employees, the Government will also be consulting on how and to what timescale the higher pension age and any associated enhancement to benefits could be extended to existing employees while protecting rights already accrued. Against that background there are too many uncertainties to give estimates of any likely net costs or savings and these will only become available as proposals are worked up for individual public services after full consultation with staff representatives. The effects of increasing pension ages would also vary considerably from scheme to scheme and build up gradually over time.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total amount of money that was spent on research and development by small and medium-sized companies in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01 and (d) 2001–02. [91020]

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

  Letter from C. Mowl to Mr. Howard Flight, dated 23 January 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning what estimate has been made of the total amount of money that was spent on research and development by small and medium sized companies in (a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01 and (d) 2001–02.1 am replying in his absence. (91020)
  The answer requires extensive new analysis, using historic information from ONS's interdepartmental business register (IDBR), in order to apply the current definition of small and medium sized businesses (SMEs) based on the Commission Recommendation (96/280/EC) of 3 April 1996. This analysis is in hand as a matter of urgency.
  An answer will be provided shortly.

  Royal Mint
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the recommendations made by Grant Thornton in its Action Plan on the Royal Mint had been addressed by 31 December 2002; if he will place a report on the actions in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [90952]
  430W
  Ruth Kelly
  Of the 70 recommendations contained in the above report, 67 have been completed. Of the remaining three, one is being addressed as part of a new Code of Practice for the Royal Mint and will be put in place by the end of March 2003 (Grant Thornton recommendation 14); one is on schedule to be completed by the agreed date of end March 2003 (Grant Thornton recommendation 32); and one has been found to be impracticable as there is no software available for our current systems (recommendation 62).

  Tax Rises
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate he has made of the annual cost to businesses of tax rises announced in the last Budget. [92750]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Budget 2002 introduced measures to modernise the corporate tax environment, providing longer-term stability and the best possible environment for investment. A series of targeted measures, such as tax credits for R&D and an exemption for capital gains on substantial shareholding, were introduced; as well as cutting the starting rate of corporation tax to zero and a reduction in the small companies rate to 19 per cent.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the annual cost to businesses of new tax rises announced in the last Budget. [92835]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Budget 2002 introduced measures to modernise the corporate tax environment, providing longer-term stability and the best possible environment for investment. A series of targeted measures, such as tax credits for R&D and an exemption for capital gains on substantial shareholding, were introduced, as well as cutting the starting rate of corporation tax to zero and a reduction in the small companies rate to 19 per cent.

  Taxation
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue yield of a 49 per cent. income tax rate on(a) taxable income and (b) gross incomes exceeding £100,000 per annum; if he will estimate in each case the (i) income tax and (ii) capital gains tax yield; and if he will make a statement. [92775]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The full-year yield in 2003–04 of making the changes are set out in the table.

  The full-year yield in 2003–04

  (i) Income Tax yield £billion

  (ii) Capital Gains Tax yield £million

  (a) 49 per cent. rate for taxable incomes

  over £100,000

  4.5

  100

  (b) 49 per cent. rate for gross incomes

  over £100,000

  4.6

  100

  The Income Tax estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the November 2002 Pre-Budget Report. These estimates exclude any behavioural response to the tax change.

  Capital Gains Tax estimates take into account the likely effect on yield of changes in the volume of disposals in a full year caused by taxpayers' behaviour.

  Underspending
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what procedures are in place to ensure that revenue underspend by other Government Departments are(a) recognised by HM Treasury and (b) factored into decision making in future spending reviews. [92980]

  Mr. Boateng
  Spending is monitored by the Treasury. The End Year Flexibility (EYF) system allows Departments to carry forward unspent budgets within departmental expenditure limits. Departments' EYF entitlements are published every year in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper. Departmental allocations in the Spending Review take account of all relevant factors.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost has been of installing CCTV cameras in North Belfast for security purposes. [90161]

  Jane Kennedy
  The PSNI commenced installation of CCTV cameras at various interface locations in North Belfast in early summer 2002. The installation costs associated with this project are £681,400.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost has been of damage to CCTV equipment in north Belfast installed for security purposes. [90162]

  Jane Kennedy
  It is wholly regrettable that cameras and associated equipment installed to protect the local community have been attacked. The cost to date of replacing damaged CCTV equipment is £23,800. This does not include the costs to the PSNI (and the army) of supervising the replacement of damaged equipment.

WALES

  Departmental Expenditure (Newsprint)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the total expenditure of his Department was on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002. [90540]

  Mr. Touhig
  The expenditure by the Wales Office in 2002 on newspapers, magazines and periodicals was £9,389.09.

  Mining
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ensure that the Welsh mining industry is provided with financial assistance on a basis similar to the English Partnerships National Coalfield Programme; and if he will make a statement. [84189]

  Mr. Touhig
  I understand that there are no plans to establish a Welsh equivalent to the English Partnerships National Coalfield Programme in Wales.

  However, the Coalfields Regeneration Trust in Wales was allocated £3.462 million over three years by the UK Government since its launch in late 1999.
  432W
  The next tranche of funding for the Coalfield Regeneration Trust in Wales, which will be funded by the National Assembly for Wales, has been agreed and will be spread over 2002 to 2005 as follows:

  £million

  2002–03

  1.157

  2003–04

  1.420

  2004–05

  1.420

  The funding for 2003–05 is conditional on the Coalfields Regeneration Trust reaching agreed operational targets.

  Public Spending
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his estimate is of public spending per head from all sources in Wales in the last year for which figures are available, originating from(a) local councils, (b) devolved Government and (c) central Government. [90008]

  Peter Hain
  The latest estimates of public expenditure for Wales were published in the annual Treasury publication "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2002–03". The next edition of this publication is expected in the spring of this year.

  Table 6.9 shows local authority expenditure in Wales for 2000–01 as £4,414 million, equivalent to £1,520 per head of Wales' population.

  Table 8.7 shows total identifiable expenditure by the National Assembly for Wales in 2000–01 as £7,980 million, equivalent to £2,748 per head of Wales' population.

  Table 8.7 also shows identifiable expenditure by other central Government Departments in 2000–01 of £7,642 million, equivalent to £2,632 per head of Wales' population.

  In addition there is £40,436 million of non-identifiable expenditure where it is not possible to allocate the expenditure to a specific country of the United Kingdom.

  Welsh Office Expenditure
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his estimate is of total spending by the Welsh Office in each year from 1999–2000 to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [89960]:

  Mr. Touhig
  Estimated Wales Office spending for the years in question:

  Year

  £000

  1999–2000

  1,485

  2001–01

  3,011

  2001–02

  3,526

  2002–03

  3,696

  2003–04

  4,196

  2004–05

  4,196

  The figure for 1999–2000 is for expenditure after the establishment of the Wales Office in its present form on

  433W
  1 July 1999. These figures are spending on the Wales Office and do not include the payments made to the National Assembly for Wales to fund its budget.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Annual Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much producing her Department's latest Annual Report cost; how many copies were printed; how many copies of it were sold at its cover price; to whom copies of the report have been provided free of charge; and how many copies were provided free of charge. [90881]

  Alun Michael
  The Defra Departmental Report 2002 cost Defra £17,512.00 plus VAT. This cost was for designing, typesetting and proofing the report.

  The printing of the document was handled by The Stationary Office Limited. They bore the full cost of printing and publishing of the document.

  Defra does not have information on how many copies were printed while the Stationary Office is not obliged to give us this information. I understand that the Stationary Office has sold 404 copies of Defra's Departmental Report.

  Defra has distributed 750 copies free of charge. The bulk of these have been made available to our staff, 25 sent to our International Relations and Export Division, 25 to the Forestry Commission and seven to the Office of Water Services.

  Bovine TB
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the incidence of bovine TB in cattle in Cornwall. [92826]

  Mr. Morley
  At the end of November 2002, the most recent date for which we have raw data, some 493 or 13 per cent. of the cattle herds in Cornwall were under TB movement restrictions. Of those around 380 were placed under restrictions in 2002; disease has been confirmed in 218 of these herds. This number will certainly rise as culture results come through over the next few months. Statisticians have advised that the backlog of overdue TB tests will have to reduce further before conclusions can be drawn about the changes in TB incidence between 2000 and 2003. This likely to be in summer of 2003.

  Health and Safety
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) 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; [89511]

  (2) what information she has collated on the application to her Department and its agencies of the checklist, circulated by letter by Sir Richard Mottram,
  434W
  referred to under Action Point 12 of the Revitalising Health and Safety strategy statement; and if she will make a statement; [89513]

  (3) 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. [89512]

  Alun Michael
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Nicholas Brown) on 20 January 2003,Official Report, column. 86W.

  Livestock Movements
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will abolish the 20 day rule. [92882]

  Mr. Morley
  I announced earlier today that we intend to reduce the whole farm standstill to six days from 4 March, subject to satisfactory further consultation with the livestock industry on a package of measures to improve biosecurity and disease surveillance.

  New Forest National Park
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the cost of the public inquiry into the creation of a New Forest National Park. [91695]

  Alun Michael
  Defra has allocated £1.2 million for the costs to the Countryside Agency and Planning Inspectorate of the New Forest National Park inquiry. We do not expect an overspend. Other parties at the inquiry are bearing their own costs.

  Organic Produce
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of(a) fruits and (b) vegetables sold in the UK were organic, in the last year for which figures are available. [91000]

  Mr. Meacher
  Figures published by the Soil Association1 estimate that the organic market accounted for 1 per cent. of the total food and drink market in the UK in 2001–02. Defra estimates that the organic market for fruit and vegetables accounted for approximately 2 per cent. of the total market for fruit and vegetables in the UK, in the same period. Detailed information on retail sales figures for organically produced fruit and vegetables is not currently available, however, to enable such a comparison to be made.

  The collection, collation and publication of information on the production, manufacture and wholesale and retail marketing of organic foods on a sector by sector basis is one of the many initiatives being further developed under the Organic Action Plan, published on 29 July 2002.
  1Soil Association organic food and farming report 2002

  Plastic Carrier Bags
  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government policy in relation to taxation of plastic carrier bags. [89830]
  435W
  Mr. Meacher
  Taxation is a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As was announced in the Pre-Budget Report on 27 November 2002, the Government currently does not have any plans to introduce a plastic bag tax, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is still considering the use of economic instruments for the better waste management of this and other items in the waste stream.

  Recycling
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she has taken to promote the recycling of plastic bottles. [89808]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 22 January 2003]:We have set all local authorities statutory performance standards to increase recycling and provided additional funding to deliver these standards. It is for local authorities to decide whether to focus on particular parts of waste stream such as plastic bottles. However, I would expect increasing numbers of local authorities to put in place a collection infrastructure for these as standards increase.

  The Producer Responsibility Regulations we have in place require relevant businesses to recover and recycle packaging waste including plastic. That framework also generates income that is used for collection capacity, end use markets and reprocessing capacity.
  436W
  The Government has also established the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) to create more stable and efficient markets for recycled materials and products, and to tackle the barriers to increased reuse and recycling. WRAP has identified plastics as a priority area in its business plan to 2003–04 and one of its aims is to achieve a 20,000 tonne increase in the mixed plastics processing for industrial products by 2003–04.

  WRAP has completed a research project on plastic bottle recycling, funded regional workshops on plastic recycling and has announced that it is considering whether to part fund an automated plastic bottle recycling plant.

  Stray Dogs
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on the obtaining of temporary kennels for stray dogs collected by local authority dog wardens from(a) local police forces and (b) other sources when temporary police kennels are not available. [92589]

  Alun Michael
  Section 149 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires every local authority to appoint an officer to deal with stray dogs. In addition, under section 3(8) of the Dogs Act 1906, the local authority officer, police, or any other person having charge of a stray dog, are required to feed and maintain a dog until the owner has been given a reasonable opportunity to claim it back. Also, under the Protection of Animals Act it is an offence to cause any unnecessary suffering to a captive or domestic animal. It is therefore for local authorities to decide how they will meet the statutory requirements placed upon them.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

  Departmental Expenditure (Newsprint)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General what the total expenditure of her Department was on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002. [90522]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland,Official Report, 23 January 2003, column 491W.

CABINET OFFICE

  Paper Supplies
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office who the suppliers are of his Department's(a) paper and (b) paper products. [91898]

  Mr. Alexander
  Cabinet Office operates framework agreements with the Stationery Office Ltd. and Hewlett-Packard Ltd. for the supply of all standard photocopier and printer paper. The Cabinet Office is also party to framework agreements with the James McNaughton Group, the Robert Home Group, the Howard Smith Paper Group and the Premier Paper Group for the provision of paper for printed publications. Self-adhesive message notes are provided under a framework agreement with Guilbert UK Ltd.

  Further information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the amount raised through the National Lottery for good causes in Northern Ireland; and if she will list those good causes. [92943]

  Mr. Caborn
  To date the National Lottery has raised over £13 billion for the good causes. Over £137 million of this has been raised for distribution by the Northern Ireland Arts and Sport Councils, and additional amounts have been made available to Northern Ireland through the six UK wide distributors. At 31 December 2002 over £371 million of Lottery funding had been awarded to projects in Northern Ireland.

  The National Lottery etc. Act 1993 established five good causes to benefit from the Lottery: these are sport; the arts; heritage; charities and projects to mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium. The National Lottery Act 1998 Act introduced a new good cause of health education and the environment.
  438W
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what the total value of National Lottery ticket sales in Northern Ireland has been since its inception; and what analysis has been undertaken as to the social class of those buying tickets. [92944]

  Mr. Caborn
  The total value of National Lottery ticket sales in Northern Ireland since 1994 to date is £991 million. Research carried out by the National Lottery operator in 2001–02 indicated the following breakdown, taking the adult population of the United Kingdom as a whole who play the National Lottery regularly.

  Percentage

  Saturday players

  Wednesday players

  AB

  17

  16

  C1

  29

  28

  C2

  26

  28

  DE

  27

  27

  Male

  45

  49

  Female

  54

  50

  Entertainment
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her estimate is of the total spending of his Department on entertainment in each year from 1994–95 to 2002–03; and if she will make a statement. [92395]

  Dr. Howells
  The following table shows expenditure on entertainment by my Department. The figures do not include the Department's agencies and NDPBs.

  All expenditure on official entertainment is made in accordance with published departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on principles set out in Government Accounting.

  £

  DCMS expenditure

  1994–95

  14,967

  1995–96

  25,563

  1996–97

  41,000

  1997–98

  17,230

  1998–99

  28,688

  1999–00

  32,533

  2000–01

  50,891

  2001–02

  28,657

  2002–03 spend todate

  35,990

  Focus Groups
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she has taken to implement the findings from the focus groups research run by her Department since June 2001; and what recent discussions and representations she has had with stakeholders and industry to deliver policies arising from those findings. [92719]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 22 January 2003]: Since June 2001, the Department has made use of focus group research in two cases.
  439W
  (1) Research into consumer attitudes to digital television

  The findings from the three focus groups conducted as part of this MORI research have been fed into the work of the Digital Action Plan task groups. The Technical and Equipment Group, which have consumer representation including the RNIB and RNID, has identified key areas in which blind/partially sighted viewers and deaf/hard of hearing viewers can benefit from digital television and made recommendations to increase universal user accessibility. The group is taking these findings forward, and will also work with the Independent Television Commission on the "Easy TV" project which is aimed at making the new interactive facilities offered by digital TV easy to use and accessible by all viewers. Ministers are in regular contact with stakeholders and industry through the steering board of the Digital Action Plan.

  (2) Regional Data Framework Project

  The findings of the focus groups, which were run during 2002, were incorporated into the report and user guide documents. The framework is now being tested by stakeholders so that comments on content and usability can be built into the final version of this guidance documentation on data sources and methodologies.

  Health and Safety Regulations
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what discussions she has had with local authorities on the effect of the proposed licensing bill on health and safety regulations; and if she will make a statement; [92333]

  (2) what discussions she has had with local authorities on the (a) implementation, (b) monitoring, (c) effect and (d) fee-setting of the proposed entertainment licences; and if she will make a statement. [92334]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 21 January 2003]: Ministers and officials have discussed all aspects of licensing reform with the local authority associations. We are continuing this discussion as the Bill undergoes Parliamentary scrutiny. The Local Government Association and the Association of London Government are represented on the Advisory Group on the Bill.

  Under the proposed reforms there will no longer be a separate entertainment licence. Instead a single premises licence for each place where licensable activities are to take place will set out the activities that are permitted there, including entertainment.

  Heritage Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what sales of heritage assets and antique assets have been made by her Department since May 1997; and if she will list such assets; and if she will estimate the total sales proceeds. [92396]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has made no sales of heritage assets or antique assets since May 1997.

  Sport (Community Access)
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to enable greater community access to school and local authority sports facilities and equipment; and if she will make a statement. [89994]

  Mr. Caborn
  As part of its £1 billion commitment to investment in sport and physical activity, the Government are allocating £750 million across the UK—including £581 million in England—from the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) to support projects designed to bring a step change in the provision of sporting facilities for young people and for the wider community. This funding has been provisionally allocated to local education authority areas, and each LEA was invited to be the lead organisation for its area and work with schools and other partners, including community organisations, to determine the priorities for spend in their areas and submit a balanced portfolio of projects. Initial revenue funding is being made available from the allocations to support the development and promotion of the facilities for wider community use. Space for Sport and Arts, a joint DCMS-DfES initiative providing £130 million towards creating new, and rebuilding existing, primary schools, is also paying particular attention to developing facilities that can also be used by the community out of school hours.

  Local authorities are key providers of sport and recreation and play a central role in the delivery of sport in and for the community. The majority of local authorities continue to recognise good value for money represented by spending on sport and recreation for people of all ages in the communities they serve, and they have made considerable progress in investing in quality sports facilities after so many years of neglect in that area. This Government have embarked on an unprecedented investment in sport and recreation across the board, and has to date, through the National Lottery, invested over £660 million into improving local authority sports facilities in England.

  Sports Clubs
  Mr. David Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what Government funds are available for modernisation of sports clubs; and by what means she channels modernisation funds to sports clubs. [91915]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government is making available £60 million over the next three years to enhance sports clubs' facilities. The programme will commence on 1 April this year. Its aims are to create a sustainable and viable sports club infrastructure in England that meets the needs of local communities particularly in deprived areas, to provide appropriate support and pathways for identifying and developing talented individuals and to increase club membership amongst young people, women, ethnic groups and people with disabilities.
  441W
  The Programme will be managed by Sport England and overseen by a Project Board comprising representatives of the Department, Sport England and the national governing bodies of sport. Funding will be distributed to the national governing bodies, against bids to Sport England, who will manage a portfolio of projects with individual clubs. The governing bodies for football, cricket, tennis and rugby union have been given indicative allocations of £9.3 million each over the three years and 11 other governing bodies will be able to submit bids for awards from a £20 million fund over the three years.

DEFENCE

  Amport House
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) infrastructure and (b) training costs of Amport House were in each of the last five financial years. [92678]

  Dr. Moonie
  The infrastructure and training costs of Amport House in the last five financial years are as follows:

  Amport House infrastructure and training costs

  £million

  Financial year

  Infrastructure

  1998–991

  1.847

  1999–20001

  0.857

  2000–01

  0.599

  2001–02

  0.633

  2002–032

  0.628

  Training

  1998–99

  0.515

  1999–2000

  0.547

  2000–01

  0.656

  2001–02

  0.673

  2002–032

  0.764

  1 Costs include capital works funding for new Chapel.

  2 Forecast of expenditure.

  Amport House Conferences
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many chaplains have attended each conference at Amport House in each of the last five financial years; [92674]

  (2) how many personnel were employed at Amport House in each of the last five financial years, broken down by (a) service personnel, (b) civilians and (c) rank and grade. [92677]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many conferences were held for chaplains at Amport House in each of the last five financial years. [92679]
  442W
  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  FY

  Number

  1997–98

  17

  1998–99

  18

  1999–2000

  20

  2000–01

  21

  2001–02

  18

  The Armed Forces Chaplaincy Centre (AFCC), based at Amport House supports all three services and all three of the major ecclesiastical groupings (Church of England (CofE), Roman Catholic (RC) and Church of Scotland and Free Churches (CSFC)) and other faith groups. The above figures include conferences, lectures, structured discussions and Continuing Ministerial Education (CME) as mandated by the sending church authorities, which areattended primarily by service chaplains. It does not include other courses or training activities held at the AFCC which service chaplains may also attend.

  British Army of the Rhine
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the size is of the British Army of the Rhine; what its size was in(a) 1997, (b) 1993 and (c) 1983; and what British forces remain in Germany. [91854]

  Mr. Ingram
  As a result of the drawdown of British troops in the early 1990s the British Army of the Rhine was disbanded on 1 April 1994. The present establishment of British Army (Germany) is 22,500.

  In the period between the years 1983 and the commencement of the drawdown of the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR) in 1992 there was little change in the establishment figure. In 1983 it would have been approximately 59,000.

  Following the commencement of the drawdown this figure had reduced to 35,000 by the end of 1993 and to 23,500 by 1997.

  In addition to the British Army (Germany) establishment, there are a small number of Royal Navy and Royal Air Force personnel currently stationed in Germany.

  Call-out Notices
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many call-out notices have been issued in 2003; what percentage of those fit for active duty this represents; and if he will make a statement. [92138]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 21 January 1,909 call-out notices had been issued. This represents 0.85 per cent. of the total number of volunteer and Regular Reserves available. At any one time it is not possible to state how many members of the Reserve Forces will be fit for active duty because their state of health will change from day to day. This will only become apparent either when the Reservists report for service or if they make an application for revocation, exemption or deferral of call-out based on their health. This is one reason why we
  443W
  issue a larger number of call-out notices so that we can ensure that we achieve the number of Reservists that we require.

  Challenger
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with the desertisation of Challenger II tanks; when he expects the work to be complete; and if he will make a statement. [91047]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Mercer) on 10 December 2002,Official Report, column 218W.

  Clansman
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what medical equipment is(a) possessed by his Department and (b) being shipped to the Gulf; and if he will make a statement. [92139]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence holds a vast range of medical equipment, ranging from pharmaceutical items through to mobile operating theatres. To list all the medical equipment held by the MOD, and that which is currently being moved to the Gulf, would be impracticable and could be done only at disproportionate cost. Sufficient medical equipment would be deployed to provide the level of medical support required in the event of military action against Iraq.

  Continuous Attitude Surveys
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the responses given by naval personnel to questions no. 30 and 31 of the most recent Royal Navy Continuous Attitude Survey; how many personnel responded to questions 30 and 31; and what percentage of respondents to the survey this represents. [92799]

  Dr. Moonie
  Details of the responses to questions 30 and 31 of the Royal Navy's most recently published Continuous Attitude Survey report are provided as follows.

  Q30—Please indicate your own morale in the service (morale in this context is a combination of contentment, motivation and a sense of well being)

  Number

  Very Good

  69

  Good

  328

  Average

  344

  Poor

  170

  Very Poor

  41

  Total

  952

  The number responding to this question, 952, represents over 99 per cent. of the 957 responses to the survey as a whole.

  Q31—Having now had the opportunity to give your views on various aspects of service life, please give your overall view of your conditions of service.
  444W

  Number

  Very satisfied

  40

  Satisfied

  417

  Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

  229

  Dissatisfied

  230

  Very dissatisfied

  33

  Total

  949

  The number responding to this question, 949, represents 99 per cent. of the responses to the survey as a whole.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the next continuous attitude surveys for the(a) Army, (b) Navy and (c) Air Force will be (i) conducted and (ii) published; whether the questions to be asked will differ in any way from those asked in the last survey; and if he will make a statement. [92800]

  Dr. Moonie
  The next continuous attitude survey for the Royal Navy will be issued at the end of January with a report expected at the end of May. For the Army the next survey is scheduled to be sent out in June with a report scheduled for publication in September. For the RAF the next questionnaire will be issued on 3 February and the report will be published in August.

  The questions in the Royal Navy and the RAF surveys are the same as those asked in the last surveys. For the Army some of the questions will be slightly different from last time. All of the Army surveys have common themes but, within each theme, the type and number of questions is re-examined on each occasion. For the forthcoming survey in June the existing diversity and discipline sections will be re-balanced against a different subject, yet to be decided.

  Defence Bodies
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) names and (b) employers of the members of the (i) National Defence Industries Council, (ii) National Defence Industries Council Research and Technology Group, (iii) National Defence and Aerospace Systems Panel, (iv) Research and Technology Task Force and (v) Defence Task Force. [91918]

  Mr. Ingram
  The membership details, both from industry and Government, are as follows:

  National Defence Industries Council (NDIC)

  Membership

  Industry

  Sir Richard Evans

  Chairman. Defence Industries

  Council and BAE Systems plc

  Mr. David Singleton

  Defence, Intellect

  Mr. Martin Jay

  Society of Maritime Industries

  Sir David Lees

  GKN plc

  Mr. Nick Prest

  Defence Manufacturers

  Association

  Mr. Gordon Page

  Society British Aerospace

  Companies

  Mr. David Marshall

  Defence Industries Council

  Mr. Simon Frost

  Claverham Group

  Mr. Alex Dorrian

  Thales Defence Ltd

  Government

  The right hon. Mr. Geoffrey

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Hoon MP

  445W

  National Defence Industries Council (NDIC)

  Membership

  Industry

  Lord Bach of Lutterworth

  Under-Secretary of State and Minister for Defence Procurement

  The right hon. Mr. Adam Ingram MP

  Minister of State for the Armed Forces

  Mr. Alan Johnson MP

  Minister of State for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions, DTI

  Sir Kevin Tebbit

  Permanent Under-Secretary

  Sir Robert Walmsley

  Ministry of Defence Chief Executive Defence Procurement Agency

  Air Chief Marshal Sir

  Ministry of Defence Chief

  Malcolm Pledger

  Defence Logistics

  Professor Sir Keith O'Nions

  Ministry of Defence Chief Scientific Adviser

  Mr. Alan Garwood

  Head of Defence Export Services

  Mr. David Gould—DTI Director TBC

  Defence Procurement Agency

  National Defence Industries Council Research and Technology

  Group (NDIC R&T)

  Membership

  Industry

  Mr. David Marshall

  Society of British Aerospace Companies Ltd

  Mr. Andrew Sleigh

  QinetiQ

  Dr. Andy Low

  Thales UK

  Mr. Derek Marshall

  Defence Industries Council

  Mr. Lambert Dopping Hepenstal

  BAE Systems

  Mrs. Linda Pike

  Defence Industries Council

  Brigadier Louis Wilkes (Ret'd)

  Defence Manufacturers Association

  Mr. Ken Maciver

  National Defence and Aerospace Systems Panel

  Mr. Mike Steeden

  Society of British Aerospace Companies Ltd

  Mr. Bill Bardo

  AMS

  Mr. Phillip Goddard

  Westland Helicopters Ltd

  Mr. Ric Parker

  Rolls-Royce

  Mr. Robert Limmergard

  Intellect

  Professor Terry Knibb

  BAE Systems

  Government

  Mr. Graham Jordan

  Chairman. Ministry of Defence

  Dr Dai Morris

  Ministry of Defence

  Mr. David Way

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Ms Fiona Strens

  Ministry of Defence

  Mr. Mike Markin

  Ministry of Defence

  Mr. Nick Helbren

  Defence Science and Technology Laboratories

  Cdre Nigel Raby RN

  Ministry of Defence

  Richard Westgarth

  Ministry of Defence (Seconded from QinetiQ

  Mr. Robert Beckham

  Ministry of Defence

  National Defence and Aerospace Systems Panel (NDASP)

  Membership

  Industry

  Mr. W. K. (Ken) Maciver, CBE

  Chairman

  Mr. Ric Parker

  Vice Chairman. Rolls-Royce plc

  Dr. David Clark, OBE

  EPSRC

  Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman, CBE, FRA

  Department of War Studies—Kings College London

  446W

  National Defence and Aerospace Systems Panel (NDASP)

  Membership

  Industry

  Mr. Phil Goddard

  Consultant to Westland Helicopters

  Mr. Iain Gray

  Airbus UK

  Professor Terry Knibb

  BAE Systems

  Professor Philip Lawrence

  Aerospace Research Centre

  Mr. Andrew Little

  Royal Aeronautical Society

  Mr. David Marshall

  Society of British Aerospace Companies Ltd

  Mr. Alan Sharman. CBE

  Defence Manufacturers Association

  Mr. Andrew Sleigh

  QinetiQ

  Mr. Adrian Smith

  SciSys

  Mr. Paul Wrobel

  Thales Naval Systems

  Government

  Mr. Mike Markin, OBE

  Ministry of Defence

  Professor Damien McDonnell, OBE

  Ministry of Defence

  Dr. Graham Coleman

  Defence Science and Technology Laboratories

  Mr. David Way

  Aerospace and Defence Technology, DTI

  National Defence and Aerospace Systems Panel (NDASP)

  Research and Technology Task Force

  Membership

  Industry

  Mr. Ric Parker

  Chairman. Rolls-Royce plc

  Mr. Geoff Byham, MBE

  Westland Helicopters Ltd

  Mr. Andrew Bourne

  EPSRC

  Mr. Ian Risk

  Airbus

  Professor Cyril Hilsum, CBE

  Professor Terry Knibb

  BAE Systems

  Mr. Andrew Little

  Royal Aeronautical Society

  Professor Jim McGuirk

  Department of Aeronautical and Automotive Engineering, Loughborough University

  Dr. John Tunnicliffe

  QinetiQ

  Mr. Paul Vangasse

  BAE Systems

  Government

  Mr. Nigel Chew

  Ministry of Defence

  Dr. Graham Coleman

  Defence Science and Technology Laboratories

  Dr. Ray Kingcombe

  Aerospace and Defence Technology Business Group, DTI

  National Defence and Aerospace Systems Panel (NDASP)

  Defence Task Force

  Membership

  Mr. Paul Wrobel

  Chairman. Thales

  Depleted Uranium
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of ammunition containing depleted uranium by British armed forces. [92711]

  Mr. Ingram
  United Kingdom forces have two types of depleted uranium (DU) ammunition; 120 mm antitank rounds (CHARM 3), fired by the Army's Challenger tanks, and 20 mm rounds used by the Royal Navy's Phalanx Close-in Weapon System (a missile defence system).
  447W
  DU rounds are the most effective kinetic energy penetrators against armour and the British Army will use them if the need arises.

  The Royal Navy's Close-In Weapon System does not require anti-armour properties and in recent years, a new tungsten round has been developed for it. Since 1996, all replacement ammunition for the Phalanx system has been of the tungsten variety. Some ships still carry the 20 mm DU round, however, and would fire it should the need arise.

  Discharges
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers subject to manning control in the last 10 years submitted a redress to the Army Board against being discharged; and how many were(a) discharged and (b) retained after the redress. [92699]

  Dr. Moonie
  Central records for those who have submitted a Redress of Complaint to the Army Board have only been maintained since 1997.

  Since then there have been two applications for Redress of Complaint relating to the Manning Control Point policy, which were resolved before submission to the Army Board. In these cases, manning control action was terminated and the individuals concerned continue to serve on their original engagement.

  Infantry Soldiers (Discharges)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many infantry soldiers who were subject to manning control in the last five years were discharged. [92698]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of infantry soldiers subject to manning control in the last five years who were discharged under Queen's Regulations 9.413 cNot required for a full Army career', is shown in the following table:

  Yearly totals

  1998

  46

  1999

  40

  2000

  55

  2001

  44

  2002

  2

  Total

  187

  Iraq
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the security of supply for armed forces equipment and munitions should forces be committed to military action in Iraq. [92035]

  Mr. Ingram
  Security of supply is one of the many factors taken into account in the procurement of equipment and munitions. We maintain a close dialogue with our key contractors and international partners to ensure the early identification of any difficulties that may arise so that we can address them accordingly.
  448W
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of munitions released over Iraq were precision guided in each of the last five years. [92534]

  Mr. Ingram
  All of them. RAF aircraft have employed only precision guided munitions when forced to defend themselves while monitoring the No Fly Zones.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 9 January 2002,Official Report, column 293W, on Iraq, when figures for ordnance released over Iraq for the whole of 2002 will be published. [92517]

  Mr. Ingram
  Between 5 and 31 December 2002 RAF aircraft released 11.8 tonnes of ordnance while responding in self defence to attacks from Iraqi air defences. The total released in 2002 was 67.6 tonnes.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent by the UK in enforcing the no-fly zone over Iraq in each year since its introduction. [91530]

  Mr. Ingram
  Our records do not separately identify expenditure incurred in maintaining the no fly zones. However, the following table sets out the overall additional expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Defence as a direct result of operations in the Gulf from 1992–93 onwards.

  Year

  £million

  1992–93

  551

  1993–94

  179

  1994–95

  58

  1995–96

  14

  1996–97

  6

  1997–98

  16

  1998–99

  35

  1999–2000

  28

  2000–01

  25

  2001–02 (estimate)

  122

  2002–03 (estimate)

  126

  1Denotes figure calculated on a resource basis; all previous figures are cash-based

  I will write to the hon. Member concerning expenditure in 2001–02 and 2002–03.

  Medical Reservists (NHS)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with Health Ministers about the removal of medical reservists from NHS hospitals for service in(a) RFA Argus and (b) other Royal Fleet Auxiliary or Royal Navy vessels in the next 12 months. [89879]

  Dr. Moonie
  Currently, there is no requirement for the employment of medical Reservists in Royal Fleet Auxiliary Argus or other Royal Fleet Auxiliary or Royal Navy vessels over the next 12 months. However, if such a requirement arose, the Ministry of Defence would liaise with the Department of Health and, together, we would work closely with the NHS Trusts concerned to minimise any disruption as far as possible.

  Operational Deployments
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the last three operational deployments and the length between each has been for(a) 1 Para, (b) 2 Para,(c) 3 Para, (d) 7th Armoured Brigade, (e) 1st Armoured Brigade and (f) 161 Ambulance Regiment RLC; and how many personnel have been medically downgraded in each. [92140]

  Dr. Moonie
  Details of the last three operational deployments of each of the units listed, and the length between each of those deployments, are shown in Table 1. 1st Armoured Brigade does not exist. The details for 161 Ambulance Regiment RLC have also been excluded as the unit was disbanded last year, and no longer exists. 161 Ambulance Regiment RLC was a specialist TA unit, and never deployed as a formed unit.

  Table 1

  Unit

  Date

  Location

  Interval (months)

  1 PARA

  June–August 1999

  Kosovo

  -

  May and August 2000 (two short deployments)

  Sierra Leone

  9

  January–June 2001

  Northern Ireland

  4

  2 PARA

  September–October 2001

  Macedonia

  -

  January–March 2002

  Afghanistan

  2

  September 2002–March 2003

  Northern Ireland

  6

  3 PARA

  September 1997–March 1998

  Northern Ireland

  -

  January–June 2000

  Northern Ireland

  21

  January–June 2002

  Northern Ireland

  18

  7 Armd

  April–October 1997

  Bosnia

  —

  Brigade

  May–November 2000

  Kosovo

  31

  May–November 2001

  Kosovo

  6

  The details of those personnel classed as Non-FE, as at 1 December 2002, are included in Table 2. Non-FE status signifies some form of temporary medical downgrading, although it should be noted that while an individual is considered to be medically downgraded, they may still be liable for deployment, depending on the reason for the downgrading, the nature and location of the deployment, and medical advice.

  Table 2

  Unit

  Non-FE total

  Establishment total

  Percentage of establishment

  1 Para

  30

  620

  4.8

  2 Para

  20

  687

  2.9

  3 Para

  30

  687

  4.3

  7 Armd

  Brigade

  350

  6,576

  5.3

  Overstretch
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Government's definition is of overstretch. [89277]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is no formal definition of overstretch. It has however been referred to in the past as that operational loading of military formations or individuals which is excessive.

  Royal Naval Vessels
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Royal Naval vessels which have entered service in each of the past five years. [92962]

  Mr. Ingram
  Details of Royal Navy vessels entering into service in each of the past five years are:

  1998

  HMS Raider

  HMS Tracker

  1999

  HMS Ocean

  HMS Pembroke

  HMS Penzance

  2000

  HMS Grimsby

  HMS Vengeance

  HMS Bangor

  HMS Kent

  2001

  HMS Ramsey

  HMS Portland

  HMS Blyth

  2002

  HMS Shoreham

  HMS St. Albans

  Royal Ordnance
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is supplied from each of the ROD sites in the UK. [92033]

  Mr. Ingram
  Royal Ordnance Defence (ROD), part of BAE Systems, supply a variety of munitions to the Ministry of Defence under the terms of the MOD/ROD Framework Partnering Agreement. This work is undertaken by ROD at five main sites: Radway Green, Cheshire (supplies Small Arms Ammunition and manufactures components for 20mm and 30mm ammunition for other RO sites); RO Birtley, Co Durham (manufactures metal components); RO Bridgwater, Somerset (produces explosives); RO Chorley, Lancashire (produces a variety of components such as Small Arms Primers, Tube Vent Electric L4 and other initiating devices); and RO Glascoed, Gwent (undertakes assembly, fill/ pack activities and supplies finished munitions to the Department, including 20mm and 30mm ammunition, tank ammunition, 4.5 inch Naval shells, 105mm and 155mm Artillery rounds).

  S-type Contracts
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 8 January 2003,Official

  451W
  Report, column 226W, on S-type contracts, what the rank is of those soldiers serving on S-type contracts. [92702]

  Dr. Moonie
  The breakdown by rank of those soldiers who are employed on an S-type engagement following termination of their notice or open engagement after a manning control review, is shown in the following table.

  Pte

  LCpl

  Cpl

  Sgt

  Army total

  Rank totals

  82

  76

  162

  31

  351

  SA80
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many modified SA80 rifles are(a) issued to personnel and (b) held in stock; and if he will make a statement. [92141]

  Mr. Ingram
  The modified SA80 is being issued to units at a rate of 4,000 weapons each month, in order of operational priority. 50,000 weapons have been issued to units to date. Weapons are issued to units as they become available following modification; consequently no modified weapons are currently held as stock.

  Sea Harriers
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision his Department has made to fill the capability gap which will result from the withdrawal of the sea harriers. [92899]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray) on 5 December 2002,Official Report, column 930W. This provided an update to the

  Royal Navy1

  Army2

  RAF3

  Uniformed

  Civilian4

  Uniformed

  Civilian

  Uniformed

  Civilian

  Church of England

  39

  10

  88

  98

  48

  19

  Roman Catholic

  11

  12

  24

  26

  10

  29

  Church of Scotland

  9

  3

  20

  23

  5

  5—

  Methodist

  6

  5

  11

  12

  7

  5—

  United Reform Church

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  5—

  Baptist

  4

  1

  —

  —

  2

  5—

  Presbyterian

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5—

  United Board

  —

  —

  6

  8

  —

  5—

  Total

  71

  32

  149

  167

  73

  76

  1As at 20 January 2003.

  2As at 1 December 2002.

  3As at 1 January 2003.

  4Figures include both officiating and honorary officiating chaplains.

  528 various denominations (breakdown of figures not readily available).

  The term civilian chaplain is misleading. Support to serving chaplains in the Royal Navy and RAF, and on many Army units, is provided by 'officiating chaplains'. These are not full-time ministers but local clergy who in addition to their parochial duties will provide part-time support to military units without a chaplain, cover when the serving chaplain is deployed, and help and advise members of other denominations when a suitable commissioned chaplain or representative of the appropriate denomination is not available.
  452W
  answers I gave on 26 September 2002, Official Report, column 328W, and on 21 May 2002, Official Report, column 164W, to the hon. Member for Portsmouth. South (Mr. Hancock).

  Service Chaplains
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the ratio is of(a) uniformed and (b) civilian chaplains to service personnel, broken down by service. [92675]

  Dr. Moonie
  The ratio of chaplains to service personnel is as follows:

  Ratio of service chaplains to service personnel

  Ratio of civilian chaplains to service personnell

  Royal Navy

  1:594

  1:1318

  Army

  1:746

  1:665

  RAF

  1:725

  1:697

  1The ratio of civilian chaplains to service personnel has been calculated on the basis that chaplains are in full time employment. However, there are no full time officiating chaplains in the Royal Navy and RAF. Officiating chaplains are local clergy employed on a part time basis (usually half day a week) to assist with duties in the absence of a service chaplain.

  Note:

  Ratios are based on January 2003 strengths, with the exception of the Army figures which are as at 1 December 2002

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) uniformed and (b) civilian chaplains there are in each of the three services, broken down by denomination. [92680]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are currently 293 service chaplains and 275 civilian 'officiating' chaplains serving with the armed forces. The table provides a breakdown by denomination.

  Service Discharges
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 27 November 2002,Official Report, column 324W, what was the breakdown by rank of those discharged under QR9.413 in the last 15 years. [92701]

  Dr. Moonie
  The breakdown by rank of those discharged under Queen's Regulations 1975 Paragraph 9.413 'Not required for a full Army career' in the last 15 years is shown in the following table.
  453W

  Year

  Rank

  CPL + above

  LCPL

  PTE

  Year total

  1988

  69

  174

  249

  492

  1989

  97

  130

  240

  467

  1990

  34

  49

  57

  140

  1991

  28

  25

  47

  100

  1992

  116

  128

  87

  331

  1993

  47

  45

  65

  157

  1994

  1

  0

  13

  14

  1995

  0

  0

  7

  7

  1996

  58

  83

  61

  202

  1997

  85

  93

  53

  231

  1998

  67

  57

  51

  175

  1999

  33

  35

  25

  93

  2000

  11

  24

  31

  66

  2001 and 2002

  5

  14

  31

  50

  Total

  651

  857

  1,017

  2,525

  Due to the low numbers involved, the figures for 2001 and 2002 have been combined and the information is not broken down by rank above Corporal (Cpl.), because this could identify individuals and breach disclosure and confidentiality policy.

  Service Personnel (Discharges)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers subject to manning control in the last 10 years then elected their right to discharge and were discharged under QR9.373. [92700]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of soldiers who were subject to manning control, then elected their right to discharge, and were subsequently discharged under Queen's Regulations, paragraph 9.373 'By right having given the appropriate notice' is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Storm Shadow
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Storm Shadow will enter service with the RAF. [91034]

  Mr. Ingram
  Due to technical problems experienced in the development of Storm Shadow we are reviewing the programme's timescales with MBDA.

  We are working hard with MBDA to ensure that the RAF gets this important capability into service as soon as possible, while not jeopardising the long-term performance of the system.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Affordable Housing (Infrastructure Provision)
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he is taking to ensure that planning of the siting of affordable housing takes into account infrastructure provision with special reference to(a) transport, (b) schooling (c) medical and (d) other local service needs of the residents. [93003]

  Mr. McNulty
  Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: "Housing" (paragraph 31) advises that in deciding which sites to allocate for housing, local planning authorities should assess their potential and suitability 454W
  for development having regard to a number of matters such as the capacity of existing and potential infrastructure, including public transport, and social infrastructure (such as schools and hospitals); and the ability to provide sufficient demand to sustain appropriate local services and facilities.

  Brent Cross Shopping Centre
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to make a decision on the planning issues concerning the proposed extension of Brent Cross shopping centre; and if he will make a statement. [93072]

  Mr. McNulty
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is currently considering the responses received to his reference back letter of 29 November 2002 and hopes to issue a decision shortly.

  Container Ports
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is on approving the development of non-brownfield sites for container port use. [91698]

  Mr. McNulty
  The general policy of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in respect of development for which planning permission is necessary is to encourage the use of previously developed land for development in preference to building on greenfield land. Each planning application has, however, to be considered on its merits and there may be circumstances in which the use of brownfield sites for container port use is not appropriate.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what reasons underlay the technical adjustment of £1,000,000 to correct the treatment of an Ordnance Survey interest payment in his departmental expenditure limit. [92510]

  Mr. McNulty
  This adjustment was to correct an inputting error in the budgeting treatment for Ordnance Survey in the Main Estimates 2002–03. It did not reflect any alteration to scheduled net interest transactions made by Ordnance Survey in 2002–03. These were in respect of:interest receivable from the National Loans Fund in respect of Ordnance Survey's cash deposits there;
  interest payable by Ordnance Survey to the National Loans Fund, on its deemed loans. These loans were in respect of 50 per cent. of net assets on the vesting of Ordnance Survey as a trading fund on 1 April 1999, repayable over the period 1999–2012.

  I refer the hon. Member to Notes 5 and 12 on pages 63 and 67 of Ordnance Survey's Annual Report and Accounts 2001–02, which refers to these transactions for the two previous years. The Ordnance Survey's Annual Report and Accounts 2001–02 have been placed in the Libraries of the House

  Empty Homes (Select Committee Report)
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to have completed his evaluation of the
  455W
  report in the previous session of Parliament of the Transport, Local Government and Regions Select Committee on Empty Homes. [92646]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister sets out our evaluation of the Select Committee's report on Empty Homes in our response which were presented to Parliament in May 2002 (Cm 5514), copies of which were placed in the Library.

  We are taking forward a number of recommendations made in the report as part of our programme of work.

  Environmentally Protected Sites (Planning Permission)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what criteria he applies in deciding to overrule public inquiry reports refusing permission for industrial development of environmentally protected sites. [91696]

  Mr. McNulty
  Decisions on every planning application are made on their merits, taking account of the facts of the application, national planning policy, development plans, the recommendations of a public inquiry inspector and any other material considerations.

  Fire Station Equipment
  Mr Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will take up the offer from Mike Bennett of Vantage Point, Mitcheldene, Gloucestershire, to make available fire station premises with two modern fully-equipped red fire engines. [85182]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is very grateful for all offers of assistance during the current fire dispute. We understand that in December officers from Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service and the Army examined Mr. Bennett's fire appliances but decided not to use them. Since then two members of the Fire Service College have examined the appliances, with a view to using them in training, to replace appliances from the college that are currently being used by those providing emergency fire cover.

  Geographic Information
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment the Intra Governmental Group on Geographic Information has made of the size of the geographic information market in the UK. [92511]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Intra Governmental group on Geographic Information (IGGI) has made no estimate of the size of the UK Geographic Information market.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he has taken to address the concerns about the protection of green belt land from speculative development expressed in Early Day Motion 1236 in the previous Session of Parliament. [92648]

  Mr. McNulty
  Government policy on the green belt is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 2, which states that protecting the countryside from encroachment is one of the main purposes of including land in the green belt. In addition to the usual strict controls on development in the countryside, in green 456W
  belts there is a "general presumption against inappropriate development", which is by definition harmful to the green belt and conflicts with the purposes of including land in it.

  The Government reaffirmed their commitment to the protection and enhancement of the green belt in my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister statement on sustainable communities, housing and planning in the House of Commons on 18 July 2002.

  Housing (Stock Transfer)
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which local authorities have taken forward large scale voluntary transfer, broken down by party control; and what assessment he has made of the benefits of Large Scale Voluntary Transfer. [192010]

  Mr. McNulty
  The list shows local authorities that have completed large scale voluntary transfers of their housing stock broken down by current party control. My right hon. Friend The Deputy Prime Minister will shortly announce the Government's comprehensive long term programme for sustainable communities. This will include an outline of how the Government sees stock transfer as contributing to the delivery of the decent homes target.

  Local Authorities That Have Completed LSVT Broken Down by Current Party Control

  Conservative

  Chiltern

  Sevenoaks

  Swale

  Broadland

  Mid Sussex

  East Dorset

  South Bucks

  Christchurch

  Suffolk Coastal

  Tunbridge Wells

  London Borough Bromley

  Surrey Heath

  Breckland

  Hambleton

  Havant

  Hart

  Hertsmere

  Wychavon

  Mid Beds

  Cherwell

  Malvern Hills

  Maldon

  Kennet

  Rushmoor

  Spelthorne

  East Hampshire

  Wyre

  Stratford

  South Staffs

  Lichfield

  West Somerset

  Rother

  South Hams

  London Borough Enfield

  Huntington

  457W

  Test Valley

  London Borough Richmond

  Horsham

  East Northamptonshire

  Torbay

  Chichester

  West Oxfordshire

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  Mid-Bedfordshire

  Derbyshire Dales

  East Hertfordshire

  Reigate and Banstead

  Carlisle

  Labour

  Thanet

  Hastings

  Manchester1

  London Borough Bexley

  London Borough Merton1

  London Borough Tower Hamlets1

  London Borough Hackney1

  London Borough Brent1

  Tameside 1

  London Borough Hammersmith and Fulham1

  Telford and Wrekin

  London Borough Greenwich1

  Allerdale

  Birmingham1

  Burnley

  Coventry

  East

  Staffordshire Sunderland

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Vale Royal

  St. Helens

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Knowsley

  Liberal Democrat

  Newbury2

  East Cambs

  Vale of Whitehorse

  Eastleigh

  West Wiltshire

  Liverpool1

  South Somerset

  Worthing

  London Borough Islington1

  North Devon

  No overall control

  Bedford

  Medina3

  Rochester4

  South Wight5

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  Ryedale

  West Dorset

  South Shropshire

  Leominster6

  South Ribble

  Penwith

  North Dorset

  Basingstoke and Deane

  458W

  Royal Borough Windsor and Maidenhead

  North Wiltshire

  Walsall

  Cotswold

  South Oxfordshire

  London Borough Lambeth1

  Congleton

  Oldham1

  Kerrier

  Basildon1

  Stoke-on-Trent1

  Tewkesbury

  Wirral1

  West Devon

  Bath and North East Somerset

  Preston Borough Council1

  West Lindsey

  Boston

  Tynedale

  Newcastle Under Lyme

  Restormel

  Weymouth and Portland

  Fylde

  Chester

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  Calderdale

  Mendip

  Chelmsford

  St. Edmundsbury

  London Borough Waltham Forest

  London Borough Harrow

  Herefordshire

  Independent

  Epsom and Ewell

  Eden

  East Lindsey

  Elmbridge

  Wyre Forest

  Notes:

  1Includes Estates Renewal Challenge Fund transfers

  2Now West Berks

  3Now Isle of Wight

  4Now Medway

  5Now Isle of Wight

  6Now Herefordshire

  Islington
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with Islington council on the disposal of the freehold of buildings which house Government-funded regeneration programmes; and if he will make a statement. [92326]

  Mr. McNulty
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has held no discussions with Islington council on the disposal of the freehold of buildings which house Government-funded regeneration programmes.

  London Ambulance Service
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many cycle response units are in service with the London
  459W
  Ambulance Service; in which London boroughs they are situated; how many are due to be introduced in 2003; and if he will make a statement. [91654]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The London Ambulance Service has one cycle response unit comprising three cycles staffed by a team of up to six technicians or paramedics.

  At this time the unit covers only the highly pedestrianised and congested area around Covent Garden and Leicester Square. There are no current plans to introduce cycle response units elsewhere in London.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many vacancies there are within the London Ambulance Service for frontline paramedics; and if he will make a statement. [91676]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The London Ambulance Service (LAS) has 2,181 staff in post, out of an establishment of 2,298. There are therefore 117 vacancies. The LAS is training staff to reach the establishment figure. The LAS is on target with its recruitment programme for 2002–03, made possible by an increase in funding from commissioners.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of frontline London ambulance staff have been issued with anti-stab vests; and if he will make a statement. [91677]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The London Ambulance Service (LAS) has taken the decision to equip all front line staff with stab vests, given the very real threat of violence towards staff. Extensive trials have taken place and a suitable vest has now been selected. The LAS anticipates that all front line staff will have been issued with a personal made to measure stab vest by June of this year.

  Planning Appeals
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to introduce the same rights of appeal for objectors and applicants within the planning system. [92710]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to introduce a right of appeal for objectors against the decision of a local planning authority in determining an application for planning permission. The views of interested parties are taken into account in drawing up development plan policies and when reaching decisions on individual planning applications. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill contains measures which will make the planning system more accessible and transparent, and give greater opportunities for local residents and third parties to participate more effectively in the planning process as a whole.

  Planning Guidance
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he will take to ensure that the PPG 3 sequentiality guidance is effectively applied to protect 460W
  greenfield sites in the light of the judgment in the Court of Appeal in Rowlinson v. Warrington Borough Council [93004]

  Mr. McNulty
  Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: "Housing" makes clear the Government's commitment to meet the country's future housing needs in the most sustainable way, by giving priority to re-using previously-developed land within urban areas, bringing empty homes back into use and converting existing buildings, in preference to the development of greenfield sites.

  It is normally for local planning authorities to determine planning applications made to them. In doing so they are required to take account of all considerations which may be material, including the guidance in PPG3.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is not convinced that it is necessary to take any further action in the light of the decision in Rowlinson v. Warrington, which was determined on the facts of the case.

  South East Region
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people are employed by(a) SEEDA, (b) SEERA, and (c) GOSE; and what has been the annual budget of each organisation since its inception. [91694]

  Mr. Leslie
  People currently employed (full and part-time):

  GOSE: 267

  SEEDA: 185

  South East Regional Assembly: 23

  Year

  GOSE

  SEEDA

  South East England Regional Assembly

  1995–96

  8.3

  1—

  1—

  1996–97

  8.4

  1—

  1—

  1997–98

  8.5

  1—

  1—

  1998–99

  8.6

  20

  1—

  1999–2000

  8.7

  5.2

  0.3

  2000–01

  9.0

  6.3

  0.4

  2001–02

  9.7

  7.1

  1.0

  2002–03

  10.8

  311 2

  1.3

  1Organisations not in existence

  2Set up costs were incurred by GOSE and therefore came out of GOSE budgets

  3Forecast spend from single capital pot allocation

  Thames Crossings
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the proposals for new Thames river crossings east of Tower Bridge; what their current status is; what the timetable is for consideration; and which public authorities will be responsible for promoting and determining each case. [92086]

  Mr. McNulty
  Proposals for new East Thames River Crossings within the London boundary are a matter for the Mayor of London and Transport for London. These are:Thames Gateway Bridge, at Galleons Reach linking Barking and Thamesmead—two lanes each way for general traffic and one lane each way dedicated for use by public transport

  461W
  vehicles; a business case is being prepared for the scheme; the Mayor of London and Transport for London are responsible for timetabling and promotion.
  Silvertown Link—a road bridge or tunnel between the Greenwich peninsula and Silvertown; Transport for London are continuing to develop the scheme as part of their river crossings package; the Mayor of London and Transport for London are responsible for timetabling and promotion.
  Docklands Light Railway extension to Woolwich; a draft Transport and Works Act Order for the DLR scheme has been deposited; the Mayor of London and Transport for London are responsible for timetabling and promotion.

  In addition, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) Thames Tunnel, a twin-bore railway tunnel between Swanscombe and West Thurrock, is currently under construction and is due to open with the rest of CTRL Section 2 in 2007.

  There are no other formal proposals for new crossings at this time.

  Transfer of Undertakings
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to extend TUPE regulations to local authorities who transfer staff to contractors following contractual agreements. [92546]

  Mr. Leslie
  Clauses 101 and 102 of the Local Government Bill will confer new powers on the Secretary of State and the National Assembly of Wales to require best value authorities in England and Wales, when engaged in contracting-out exercises, to deal with staff matters in accordance with directions. It is intended that the direction-making powers will be used to ensure that contracting exercises are conducted either on the basis that TUPE will apply or, in circumstances where TUPE does not apply, that staff involved should be treated no less favourably than had the regulations applied, unless there are exceptional circumstances. The clauses also ensure that TUPE transferees from local authorities will be offered either retention of the Local Government Pension Scheme or a broadly comparable scheme.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Education Staff (Herefordshire)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) secondary school teachers, (b) primary school teachers and (c) classroom assistants are employed in Herefordshire. [91735]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table provides full-time equivalent (FTE) January 2002 figures for maintained schools in Herefordshire.

  Full-time equivalent (FTE)January 2002 figures for maintained

  schools in Herefordshire

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  Regular teachers FTE

  690

  630

  Teaching assistants FTE1

  100

  50

  Other non-teaching staff FTE2

  250

  130

  Notes:

  Includes nursery assistants, special needs support staff, minority ethnic pupil support staff and non-teaching assistants.
  462W
  Includes administrative staff, technicians and other education support staff, and child care staff in boarding schools.

  All figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  Annual 618G Survey of Teachers in Service (teacher numbers) and Annual School's Census (non-teaching staff).

  Examination Papers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what actions he has taken to ensure that examination papers are marked and returned on time to schools and colleges. [92012]

  Mr. Miliband
  On 3 December, we announced to the House that we were making an additional £6 million available to QCA to support the public examination system in 2003. The money will be spent on ensuring that the 2003 examinations are delivered accurately and effectively and particular attention will be paid to ensuring that there are sufficient examiners. The Examinations Task Force, chaired by the QCA with representatives from the awarding bodies and the teaching profession, will oversee delivery of the examinations.

  Excluded Pupils
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of children excluded from mainstream schooling were in an alternative form of education in the last period for which figures are available. [90913]

  Mr. Miliband
  All local education authorities were committed to offering a full timetable to permanently excluded pupils from September 2002. In targeted schools in 34 local authorities, provision is also being made for those excluded on a temporary basis. These arrangements will be extended to a further 27 local authorities in the coming year.

  The most recent information on type of provision for permanently excluded pupils is for September 2001 and is shown in the table.

  Distribution of mode of provision of education for permanently

  excluded pupils—England, September 20011

  Key Stage of pupil

  Key Stages 1 and 22

  Key Stage 33

  Number of pupils excluded

  Percentage of the total number of exclusions4

  Number of pupils excluded

  Percentage of the total number of exclusions4

  PRU

  289

  44.7

  1,057

  51.0

  Home tuition

  199

  30.8

  421

  20.3

  Voluntary Sector

  0

  0.0

  17

  0.8

  FE college

  —

  —

  2

  0.1

  Work related

  —

  —

  2

  0.1

  Mixed provision

  33

  5.1

  99

  4.8

  other provision

  72

  11.1

  186

  9.0

  No provision

  53

  8.2

  288

  13.9

  Total

  646

  100.0

  2,072

  100.0

  463W

  Key Stage of pupil

  Key Stages 45

  Total

  Number of pupils excluded

  Percentage of the total number of exclusions4

  Number of pupils excluded

  Percentage of the total number of exclusions4

  PRU

  2,452

  46.6

  3,798

  47.6

  Home tuition

  504

  9.6

  1,124

  14.1

  Voluntary Sector

  78

  1.5

  95

  1.2

  FE college

  671

  12.8

  673

  8.4

  Work related

  268

  5.1

  270

  3.4

  Mixed provision

  393

  7.5

  525

  6.6

  Other provision

  402

  7.6

  660

  8.3

  No provision

  489

  9.3

  830

  10.4

  Total

  5,257

  100.0

  7,975

  100.0

  1Based on replies from 146 out of 150 local education authorities.

  2Generally ages 5–10 at the start of the school year.

  3Generally ages 11–13 at the start of the school year.

  4The number of exclusions expressed as a percentage of the total number of exclusions within that Key Stage.

  5Generally ages 14–15 at the start of the school year.

  Source:

  Education of Permanently Excluded Pupils 2001 survey

  Leadership Incentive Grant
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the number of new consultants needed to assess applications for the Leadership Incentive grants; and if he will make a statement. [91524]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]: We have offered each partnership formed for the purposes of the Leadership Incentive Grant the cost of 5 days of consultancy to facilitate collaborative working between groups of schools receiving the Leadership Incentive Grant. The number and composition of collaboratives of schools receiving the Leadership Incentive Grant will be determined according to local circumstances, but we estimate that there will be some 200 collaboratives. It will be possible for a Leadership Consultant to facilitate up to three collaboratives.

  There is no requirement for schools to complete an application for the Leadership Incentive Grant. Leadership Collaboratives will be required to produce a collaborative plan to be submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. Plans will be assessed within the Department, using existing resources.

  Literacy and Numeracy Strategies
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the development of the literacy and numeracy strategies.[R] [92988]

  Mr. Miliband
  The literacy and numeracy strategies, which have helped teachers to deliver the highest ever standards in English and maths, will remain at the heart of our continuing drive to raise achievement in primary schools within a broad and enriched curriculum. We will 464W
  continue to develop the strategies' approach to teaching and learning in the light of good practice and in consultation with schools.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to his answer of 26 November 2003,Official Report, column 189W, on non-governmental organisations, if he will list the voluntary and private organisations to which the Department makes grants directly. [89334]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department's current accounting system does not distinguish between payments made as grants and those made through contractual arrangements, nor does it identify the status of the organisation to which payments have been made. We have explored how this information could be held centrally and have taken action to include this type of information in the design of the Department's future accounting system, which is planned to be in place from April 2004.

  The information could, therefore, be provided in the form requested only at disproportionate cost. I have, however, placed in the Libraries a list of organisations that either received a grant or to whom the Department made a contract payment from programme funds during 2001–02. Specific details of what is covered by the list are set out in the material placed in the Libraries.

  Paper Supplies
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who the suppliers are of his Department's(a) paper and (b) paper products. [91901]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department has three suppliers of paper and paper products:

  Banner Business Supplies (via the Stationery contract)

  Alphagraphics (via the personalised printed business stationery contract) and

  Dixon and Roe (via the bulk paper contract).

  The Government's policy is that all public procurement of goods and services is to be based on value for money, having due regard to propriety and regularity. Each Department is responsible for its own procurements.

  School Spending
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money per(a) secondary and (b) primary school pupil is allocated in the local government education spending formula as a top-up to reflect additional costs for recruitment and retention of staff in (i) Staffordshire and (ii) other shire counties, for the year 2003–04. [91886]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 21 January 2003]: Staffordshire is not amongst those shire counties which will receive this top-up in 2003–04. The Area Cost Adjustment is given to those areas whose average wages are above a threshold. The average amount per pupil that shire counties will receive to reflect the additional

  465W
  costs of recruitment and retention through the Area Cost Adjustment is £57 for primary pupils and £72 for secondary pupils.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money per(a) secondary and (b) primary school pupil is allocated in the Local Government Education spending formula as basic entitlement in (i) Staffordshire and (ii) other shire counties, for the year 2003–04. [91887]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 21 January 2003]: The amount allocated for each secondary and primary pupil as the basic entitlement in 2003–04 is the same for all authorities. For a primary pupil it is £2,006 and for a secondary pupil it is £2,659.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money per(a) secondary and (b) primary school pupil is allocated in the Local Government Education spending formula as a top-up to reflect deprivation among pupils in (i) Staffordshire and (ii) other shire counties, for the year 2003–04. [91888]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding reply 21 January 2003]: The additional amount allocated for each secondary and primary school pupil in deprived circumstances is the same for all authorities—in 2003–04 it is –1,300 per pupil.

  Taken as an average over each category of pupil, whether they are deprived or not, the average additional amount for deprivation for each pupil in 2003–04 is as follows:

  £

  Primary

  Secondary

  Staffordshire

  40

  39

  Shire counties average

  43

  41

  The average for Staffordshire is lower than that for all shire counties because Staffordshire has a lower proportion of pupils in deprived circumstances than some other counties.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Access (Children)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has received from UK nationals who are being prevented from making contact with their children in Germany and in other EU nations following divorce settlement in the UK which gave them the entitlement to have regular contact with their children; and if he will make a statement. [93066]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are five UK nationals who have contacted the FCO because they are experiencing difficulties in getting access to their children in other EU nations, following divorce settlements in the UK which entitled them to regular access. Two of these cases are in Germany, two are in France and one case is in Finland. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) on 6466W
  November 2002, Official Report, columns 624–25W, which outlined cases we have dealt with in Germany in the last 5 years.

  All EU nations are signatories to the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, which the Lord Chancellor's Department (LCD) leads on. If a parent contacts us for advice on a child abduction case in a Hague Convention country we refer them to LCD. We can also offer practical help and support through our Posts overseas, such as providing lists of English speaking lawyers, attending court hearings etc.

  Afghanistan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the interim Government of Afghanistan on human rights. [92854]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last discussed human rights with the Afghan Transitional Administration when he met President Karzai at the Bonn talks on Afghanistan in December 2002. I raised human rights with Vice-President Khalili when we met in London today.

  Bangladesh
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Bangladesh concerning the violation of human rights and persecution of religious minorities in Bangladesh. [92658]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our High Commission in Dhaka monitors closely reports of human rights abuses in Bangladesh. We are concerned by reports of mistreatment of detainees, including deaths in custody, associated with "Operation Clean Heart". We have urged the Bangladesh Government to follow the due process of law in all cases. We have raised allegations of attacks against minorities on several occasions with the Bangladesh Government, both at a senior level in Dhaka and with regional government officials, encouraging them to investigate all allegations fully.

  Departmental Refurbishment
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many offices in his Department have been refurbished in the last three years, and what has been the cost to public funds. [86727]

  Mr. Rammell
  In the FCO home estate the only office building refurbished within the past three years is the Old Admiralty building. The cost was £63 million and the project was part of the FCO's strategy to concentrate its London staff into two buildings in order to reduce home estate running costs by 50 per cent.

  The FCO has committed approximately £300,000 per annum for the past three years (2000–01, 2001–02, 2002–03) to the refurbishment of its offices that form part of the UK estate. This refurbishment covers routine works to general office space, corridors and common parts together with fine rooms and conference rooms.
  467W
  In the overseas estate major office refurbishments were completed in Riga (£918,000) Tehran (£977,000), Tel Aviv (£384,000), Istanbul (£557,000), and Rangoon (£280,000).

  Other, smaller, projects will have been completed through funds devolved to overseas posts. We maintain no central record of these and it is not possible to obtain full details without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Dubai
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions in the past 12 months the Government has made an approach to the Government of Dubai in relation to specific cases of Britons imprisoned there who may be considered for amnesty. [90028]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In the last year our consular officers in Dubai have forwarded, but did not support, two pleas for clemency to the Dubai authorities on behalf of relatives and MPs of convicted British nationals.

  Health and Safety Strategy
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which senior officials within his Department and its agencies take responsibility for health and safety at board or equivalent level; and where their names are publicised. [89494]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As with all Departments, the Permanent Under-Secretary takes overall responsibility for health and safety. At departmental board level, the Director General for Corporate Affairs has been given particular responsibility and is designated the FCO's Health and Safety 'Champion'. New entrants to the FCO are notified of the DG Corporate Affairs' responsibility during their induction. His role is also identified in the new health and safety policy statement, soon to be issued.

  Special Advisers/Press Officers
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) special advisers and (b) press officers have been employed by his Department in each year from 1994–95 to 2002–03; and at what cost in each year. [92440]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office employs two special advisors at any one time, the full cost of which is listed in the tablet. All press officers employed are civil servants whose salary is appropriate to their grade.

  £

  1997–98

  76,762

  1998–99

  86,992

  1999–2000

  89,188

  2000–01

  94,697

  2001–02

  138,593

  2002–03

  131,062

  1It was not possible to ascertain the cost prior to 1997 without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries which intelligence indicates may be in possession of weapons of mass destruction. [93101]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Under exemption 1(a) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, it is not generally our policy to publish intelligence information.

  However, under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom are legally entitled to possess nuclear weapons.

  Additionally, India and Pakistan have tested nuclear devices. We continue to urge Israel to resolve international concerns about its nuclear status by acceding to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state. We also know that Iraq has significant biological and chemical weapons capabilities and, were UN sanctions to be lifted, we believe it could develop a nuclear weapon within five years. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea has admitted to US officials that it has been pursuing a programme for the enrichment of uranium. We believe that they have the capability to use this material to manufacture nuclear weapons. We also believe that they have previously diverted sufficient such material to manufacture at least one nuclear weapon.

  There are four States Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention (the US, Russia, India and one other State Party) that have declared possession of chemical weapons. They are currently in the process of destroying them in accordance with their obligations under the Treaty.

  In the past there have been public statements of concern about reports that Iran, Libya and Syria pursuing programmes to develop WMD and the means for their delivery.

  Zanzibar
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when his Department was first informed of the increased threat to visitors to Zanzibar; [92169]

  (2) when the British high commission in Dar es Salaam responded to the increased terrorist threat to visitors to Tanzania, especially Zanzibar; and what action was taken; [92170]

  (3) what reports his Department received from the (a) Russian and (b) US authorities concerning the increased terrorist threat to visitors to Zanzibar, and when. [92172]

  Mr. Straw
  We learnt that the US were changing their travel advice for Zanzibar on the evening of 10 January. Our existing advice already gave a robust warning to British travellers of the risks involved in going to Tanzania—including Zanzibar. Following discussions between missions locally and between FCO officials and the US State Department on why they had changed their travel advice and an assessment of the latest available intelligence, we amended our travel advice for Tanzania on 15 January. I cannot, of course, comment on the
  469W
  specifics of intelligence matters. However, the Agencies receive a large number of reports on a daily basis from a range of foreign liaison services. Relationships with these liaison services, which include the Americans and the Russians, are strong and positive.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department updated the FCO travel advice concerning the increased terrorist threat to visitors to Zanzibar; and if he will make a statement. [92171]

  Mr. Straw
  The FCO travel advice for Tanzania, which includes Zanzibar, was last up-dated on 15 January 2003.

  The Travel Advice notice already gave appropriate warnings to British travellers of the risks involved in going to Tanzania—including Zanzibar. The revised advice included additional information about the risks on Zanzibar but did not change the advice.

  Our advice throughout this period has been in line with that of both the Americans and the Australians—all of us warned that there were dangers in travelling to east Africa in general and to Zanzibar specifically; none of us advised against travel. Australia up-dated its advice on 16 January in line with changes in UK and US advice. The French amended their advice on 17 January.

HEALTH

  Acute Services
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made comparing the level of provision in services at acute hospitals and the recommendations of the Royal colleges about minimum volumes of service for different kinds of acute services to maintain professional standards. [88287]

  Mr. Hutton
  New evidence about safety and quality of services is emerging all the time. Levels of provision in different services are reviewed from time to time in the light of new evidence, including the recommendations of Royal colleges.

  Where evidence between volume and outcome is clear, appropriate action will be taken; for example, through the development of particular standards as part of a national service framework.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability through the NHS of drugs to combat Alzheimer's disease. [91415]

  Jacqui Smith
  The three main drugs available through the national health service for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease are donepezil (Aricept), rivastigmine (Exelon) and galantamine (Reminyl). They are available on the NHS to all who meet the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) criteria and NHS bodies are under a statutory obligation to provide funding.
  470W
  In addition, memantine (Ebixa) was launched in October 2002. While it is available for prescription on the NHS, NICE has yet to assess it for clinical and cost effectiveness, so for the moment, NHS bodies across the country have to access the publicly available evidence about this new drug and determine local policies for its use.

  Ambulance Station, Stacksteads
  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the future of the ambulance station in Stacksteads, Rossendale, Lancashire; when a decision was taken that it is surplus to NHS requirements; and who took that decision. [91860]

  Jacqui Smith
  According to our available records, there have been no representations on this issue. The approved estates strategy of Lancashire Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust have confirmed that the ambulance station at Stacksteads is functionally unsuitable and that options should be explored for its relocation to an alternative site in the locality. However the trust has not declared the existing site surplus to requirements.

  Cancer Waiting Times
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the audit of cancer waiting times recommended in the report of the working group on cancer waiting times was undertaken; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [89648]

  Ms Blears
  A cancer waiting times survey was undertaken by the health services management centre at the University of Birmingham in April/May 1998.

  The survey looked at cancer waiting times between general practitioner referral and first outpatient appointment and GP referral and first treatment of all cancers diagnosed in October 1997.

  The findings were reported in the British Medical Journal, 320: 838–839 25 March 2000.

  Child Protection
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given to health and social services professionals regarding the retention of unsubstantiated allegations on child protection issues. [92292]

  Jacqui Smith
  "Working Together to Safeguard Children" (1999), the Government's guide to interagency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, includes guidance to agencies and professionals in relation to record keeping.

  "Working Together to Safeguard Children" states that, in cases where child protection inquiries do not result in the substantiation of referral concerns, case notes should be retained in accordance with agency record retention policies. These policies should ensure that records are stored safely and can be retrieved promptly and efficiently.

  Children in Care
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham on 13 January 2003,Official Report, column 499W, on looked after children, how many of the 920 children who went missing from their usual place of residence are still missing; and what action has he taken to (a) reduce the numbers of runaways and (b) trace those runaways who have still not returned to local authority care. [92599]

  Jacqui Smith
  Of the 920 children who went missing from their usual place of residence at any time during the year 2000–01, 190 were absent from their agreed placement on 31 March 2001. Data on children missing from care during the year ending 31 March 2002 will be available at the end of March 2003.

  The Department issued guidance on 28 November 2002, "Children Missing from Care and Home—a guide to good practice", alongside the Social Exclusion Unit's report. "Young Runaways", which makes recommendations on:

  prevention of running away

  ensuring the safety of those that run away

  ensuring that there is appropriate help on return

  co-ordinating responsibilities at local and national level

  This guidance requires that where young people are missing from care, local authorities must demonstrate commitment to their safety and welfare and act to ensure that they are found as soon as possible:

  each children's home and foster carer should have written procedures that must be followed where a child is missing

  service managers must monitor patterns of absence from individual children's homes

  and foster carers

  reports about patterns of absence must be available to senior managers and to the National Care Standards Commission.

  Clozaril
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what date he expects the drug clozaril to be available across all PCTs in England and Wales for the treatment of schizophrenia. [92552]

  Jacqui Smith
  The technology appraisal of the use of atypical antipsychotics in schizophrenia was published by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) in June 2002 and included recommendations concerning clozapine (Clozaril).

  From 1 January 2002, the national health service has had three months from the date of publication of each technology appraisal guidance to provide funding, so that clinical decisions made by doctors involving NICE recommended treatments or drugs can be funded.

  Cot Deaths
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's strategy to prevent cot death. [92545]

  Jacqui Smith
  Our strategy is based on expert advice on the avoidance of factors associated with the tragedy of cot death. These are particularly related to position 472W
  and environment during sleep. This advice is promulgated through leaflets and literature on the care of babies. It is also the subject of discussion between families and the primary health care team.

  There is, however, need for further research relating to the precise sleeping environment of infants who die unexpectedly, and this is being undertaken.

  Data Protection Act
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to enforce compliance by individual health trusts in supplying information required under the Data Protection Act 1998. [92186]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 21 January 2003]: The responsibility for compliance with the Data Protection Act rests with individual national health service trusts. Enforcement is undertaken by the Information Commissioner.

  The Department supports the NHS in meeting data protection requirements through the provision of guidance and through performance management arrangements.

  Hospitals (Management)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether(a) the Secta Group Ltd., (b) Quo Health and (c) Sema Health have managed a hospital before. [89542]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: The independent panel set up by the National Health Service Appointments Commission assessed the general ability of each private sector organisation to run a hospital trust.

  The expertise and experience of every organisation which tenders for a national health service franchise and individuals leading any bid on behalf of that organisation will be thoroughly and rigorously assessed before any contract is awarded.

  Inventures
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis the Miller Group was selected as the preferred bidder for the property and trading arm at NHS Estates, Inventures. [92540]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 21 January]: A consortium of Miller Ventures and Bank of Scotland was selected as preferred bidder for the property and trading arm at NHS Estates because, following a comprehensive bid evaluation process, its bid was considered to offer best value.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what terms were offered by Miller Group and the William Pears Group in bidding for Inventures; and what assessment was made of the value of proposed clauses relating to claw-back profits on future land sales. [92541]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 21 January]: Both bidders offered a fixed price for Inventures, payable on completion. In relation to the property estate both bidders offered to make a substantial initial payment

  473W
  followed by"overage" or claw-back payments when the sites in the property portfolio obtain planning consent, or are sold.

  Overage payments were ascribed an estimated present value (on the same basis for each bid) by reference to risk factors including likelihood of obtaining planning permission, estimated value of the sites with or without planning permission, time at which overage payment is likely to be triggered, percentage overage offered and other relevant factors.

  In addition, both bidders also offered to explore ways of introducing a new element of claw back payment by entering into joint venture arrangements with house builders, the effect of which would be to include some development profit in the sums to be clawed back. Whilst this willingness to seek ways to include further sums into claw-back arrangements was assessed as being preferable to a refusal to contemplate such schemes, the degree of uncertainty surrounding this element of the proposals was such that hid evaluation was concentrated upon the standard contractual claw-back arrangements.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the chief executive of Inventures and other senior staff were told about incentive arrangements likely to be offered in the event of a successful bid from one or other of the final round bidders for Inventures. [92542]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 21 January 2003]: The management and staff of Inventures, which is being sold as part of the National Health Service Estates public-private partnership project, were not made aware of the contents of any bid in relation to incentives offered by the bidders.

  NHS Estates rules for bidders involved in the project also prohibits un-chaperoned meetings between the management team and bidders and, to the best of our knowledge and belief, no such meetings have taken place.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has launched an internal investigation into the bidding process for Inventures; and what discussions he has held with the National Audit Office over the bidding process for Inventures. [92543]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 21 January]: During the evaluation period, a review was undertaken in real time by an independent firm of consultants who concluded the process was satisfactory.

  A subsequent review by the private finance unit of the Department of health concluded that the bid evaluation process was properly conducted and the preferred bidder selection was correct.

  Following a complaint by an unsuccessful bidder, the National Audit Office is also reviewing the process, but this review has not yet been completed and so its conclusions are notavailable at the current time.

  Mental Health Bill
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to publish the responses to the draft Mental Health Bill consultation. [92579]

  Jacqui Smith
  The consultation responses received in respect of the draft Mental Health Bill will be made available to the public before introduction of the Bill, except where respondents have asked for confidentiality.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide a right to assessment of mental health needs for any individual making a reasonable request for such assessment in the new Mental Health Bill. [92580]

  Jacqui Smith
  The purpose of the Bill is to provide a legal framework for the treatment of someone with a mental disorder without their consent; it is not about rights to services. It does, however, create a duty to assess whether the conditions for compulsion are satisfied in individual cases, which may be triggered by any reasonable request where the conditions appear to be met. Once under compulsion, every patient must have a written care plan of treatment.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to adopt the Joint Committee on Human Rights recommendation that the Code of Practice in the draft Mental Health Bill be given statutory force. [92581]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are pleased that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has welcomed the major improvements to the safeguards for patients' human rights proposed in the draft Mental Health Bill.

  We are currently considering very carefully all the recommendations contained in their Report on the draft Bill.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that no person will be deemed as suffering from a mental disorder under the provisions of new mental health legislation solely for the purpose of preventing commission of illegal or disorderly acts. [92582]

  Jacqui Smith
  This already is the policy. The Bill will not allow the use of compulsory powers on any person solely to prevent them from offending. The powers of the Bill may only be used where the conditions are met. This means that there must be a diagnosis of mental disorder, and that there must be appropriate treatment available for the patient. Once under compulsion, every patient must have a written plan of treatment.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the proposals contained in the draft Mental Health Bill relate to the Government's strategy on alcohol. [92583]

  Jacqui Smith
  The proposals in the draft Mental Health Bill will remove the existing exclusion for alcohol dependency found in the Mental Health Act 1983. This will mean that there is no barrier to people being treated under compulsory powers when this is necessary because the conditions in the Bill are satisfied.
  475W
  The Bill will provide a legal framework for compulsory treatment, which will be compatible with developments in mental health services and other health implementation frameworks. This includes the Government's commitment to implementing the national alcohol harm reduction strategy by 2004. The recent consultation on the strategy included questions about the relationship between alcohol misuse and mental health problems and sought views on how services could be best provided. The consultation period ended on 15 January and an interim analysis will be published by the Cabinet Office strategy unit in the spring.

  Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what change there has been in the rate of death certificates showing methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus and related diseases as a cause of death since 29 March 2001. [92734]

  Ms Blears
  Information concerning methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) on death certificates is not currently available from routine mortality statistics and has to be obtained by special research studies. The latest available figures for England and Wales cover 1993 to 1998 and were published in the British Medical Journal in December 2002.

  April 2001 saw the introduction of national mandatory surveillance of MRSA blood stream infections. The results for the first year of this scheme for every NHS Acute Trust in England were published in the Communicable Disease Report (CDR) Weekly on 20 June 2002. These data are available on the Public Health Laboratory Service's website www.phls.co.uk/publications/cdr/PDFfiles/2002/cdr2502.pdf.

  Mexico
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to visit Mexico; and how

  Applications

  Accepted

  Rejected

  On-going

  Withdrawn

  Nurse

  183

  69

  76

  36

  2

  Other

  392

  137

  195

  58

  2

  Total

  575

  206

  271

  94

  4

  The number of nurse applications relating to muscular skeletal conditions decided in the period 1 January 2002 to 31 March 2002 was:

  Number

  Applications

  67

  Accepted

  25

  Rejected

  42

  NSF for Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the information about the progress in achieving NSF for Older People milestones. [89978]476W
  many Memoranda of Understanding have been signed between the UK Government and other governments since 1997. [83326]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: I visited Mexico between 4–6 December to participate in the Third Ministerial Meeting on Health Security and Bio-terrorism involving G7 nations and Mexico.

  The Department of Health has signed Memorandums of Understanding with the following countries:

  Indonesia, signed June 2002

  China, signed May 2000

  Mexico, signed November 2002.

  NHS Pensions Agency
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) nurses and (b) health care workers applied to the NHS Pensions Agency for permanent injury benefit for a disorder in the year from April 2001 to March 2002; and how many were successful at (i) their first application and (ii) subsequent appeal; [89108]

  (2) how many (a) nurses and (b) health care workers applied to the NHS Pensions Agency for permanent injury benefit relating to muscular skeletal disorders in the year from April 2001 to March 2002; and how many were successful at (i) their first application and (ii) subsequent appeal. [89109]

  Mr. Hutton
  [pursuant to his answer, 9 January 2003, Official Report, c. 330W]: Information in the format requested is not readily available. The number of nurse and "other" permanent injury benefit applications in the financial year 2001–02 was:

  Number

  Total applications

  575

  Nurse applications

  183

  Others

  392

  The number of applications accepted or rejected in the financial year 2001–02 was:

  Jacqui Smith
  We hope to publish the information shortly.

  Nursing Vacancies
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the vacancy rate for nurses in each quarter in(a) each English health authority and (b) each English health trust in each year from 1996 to 2003; and if he will make a statement. [92560]

  Mr. Hutton
  Annual three month vacancy rate information between 1999 and 2002 has been placed in the Library.
  477W
  The Department of Health's survey of vacancies lasting three months or more has been collected only since March 1999, and is available on an annual basis.

  The three month vacancy rate was 3.1 per cent. in March 2002, a fall from 3.4 per cent. in March 2001 and the second successive fall in vacancies for qualified nursing staff.

  Paediatric Pathology
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health's recommendation of a nationally accepted information and consent form for hospital post mortem examinations. [92547]

  Mr. Lammy
  Following a recommendation by the Chief Medical Officer in 2001, we have consulted on and piloted consent forms and information leaflets for use throughout the national health service.

  We intend to issue the forms shortly as part of a broader package of measures to improve the handling of issues relating to the removal, retention and use of human organs and tissue. This will include a code of practice on families and post mortems.

  Public Service Pensions
  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether, under the Government's proposals for public service pension reform, a male doctor over 60 years of age and with 40 years' service, who decides not to retire before 2005, would still be able to retire before the age of 65; what rewards would accrue to him for working beyond the age of 60; and whether his accrual rate would move from to per year after 2005. [91861]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Green Paper sets out, for consultation, wide-ranging proposals for pensions and saving for retirement. We will want to consider its implications for the national health service scheme carefully and consult fully on proposals for change. In doing so, we shall take account of the work recently published in the stock-take report, "Pension Scheme Modernisation: A Millennium Health Check for the NHS Pension Scheme".

  Clearly, it will take some time to review the current scheme in the light of the Green Paper and the associated tax consultation document. The pace of change will depend on introducing new regulations, and changes for new entrants are likely to be in place before amending arrangements for existing members. However, the Green Paper makes no reference to retrospective age-related restrictions for a member already at age 60.

  Redundancy Payments
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) total and (b) average cost to the NHS was, over the last 12 months for which figures are available, of redundancy payments to managers and administrators in (i) primary care trusts and (ii) strategic health authorities. [91554]
  478W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 January 2003]: Information on national health service redundancy payments is not collected centrally.

  Specialised Health Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the Department's survey on Arrangements for Commissioning Specialised Services in 2002–03. [82781]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: The survey on arrangements for commissioning specialised services in 2002–03 was an internal exercise designed to inform policy. However, a summary of the survey will be made public, and will be included in the forthcoming report on commissioning arrangements for specialised services consultation.

  Terrorism
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many protective suits are available to NHS staff and ambulance crews in the event of a terrorist attack using chemical and biological agents. [88385]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has funded the provision of 360 mobile decontamination units and 7,250 national specification personal protective equipment (PPE) suits, which allow the ambulance service and accident and emergency departments to treat people contaminated with chemical, biological, radio-active and nuclear material.

  Training Support Funds
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are being taken to ensure the take-up of increases in training support funds resourced from the Department of Health to local authorities; and how these funds are being targeted towards the voluntary sector. [92883]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are establishing two new ring-fenced grants linked to training for 2003–04—the National Training Strategy Grant and the Human Resources Development Strategy Grant. These were announced in the Local Authority Social Services Letter LASSL(2002)11. We will shortly consult with representatives of the statutory, private and voluntary sectors on the conditions and allocations for both grants.

  The National Training Strategy Grant is to be used to support the training of social care staff in all sectors, with the majority of the fund being spent on developing National Vocational Qualifications in social care.

  The Human Resources Development Strategy Grant will be used to support social care employers in all sectors as they develop the social care work force.

  Treatment Targets
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what methods are used to measure progress against the targets for increases in capacity of the equivalent of treatment for(a) 100,000 patients in

  479W
  2002–03 and (b) 200,000 in 2003–04; and what assessment he has made of progress towards these targets. [85343]

  Mr. Hutton
  The priorities and planning framework for 2002–03 required the national health service to make sure that plans were in place to achieve the major objectives of the NHS Plan. Data collection systems to monitor delivery are in place and in the first two quarters of 2002–03, elective activity increased by 4.9 per cent. compared to the same period the previous year. For future years Improvement, Expansion and Reform: The Next 3 Years for 2003–06, outlines the delivery programme and the planning requirement. Delivery of these programmes will be detailed in local delivery plans.

  West Midlands Hospitals (Military Treatment)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of armed forces personnel likely to be treated in hospitals in the West Midlands (South) Strategic Health Authority area in the event of conflict in Iraq; and what assessment he has made of the consequences for the continuing provision of health services to the resident population. [90346]

  Mr. Hutton
  No specific estimate of the possible impact on individual strategic health authorities has been made. The national health service has a responsibility to ensure that any military casualties are appropriately treated and cared for. If the need does arise, the service will meet this obligation in full while continuing to serve the local population.

  Table showing the number of self-inflicted deaths in prison establishments in England and Wales

  between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2002

  Calendar year

  Establishment

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Total

  Acklington

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Albany

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Altcourse

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  —

  —

  1

  6

  Ashwell

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Aylesbury

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  3

  2

  —

  1

  9

  Bedford

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  3

  8

  Belmarsh

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  4J

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  11

  Birmingham

  1

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1

  2

  2

  3

  3

  —

  16

  Blakenhurst

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  2

  8

  Blundeston

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  4

  Brinsford

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  3

  2

  —

  10

  Bristol

  1

  2

  —

  1

  1

  1

  3

  2

  1

  2

  2

  16

  Brixton

  1

  1

  3

  —

  1

  2

  1

  4

  2

  2

  2

  19

  Brockhill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  1

  —

  5

  Buckley

  Hall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Bullingdon

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  8

  Bullwood

  Hall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Canterbury

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  Cardiff

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  4

  1

  1

  3

  1

  13

  Castington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  3

  Chelmsford

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  9

  Dartmoor

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  8

  Deerbolt

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Doncaster

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1

  —

  5

  1

  5

  —

  2

  18

  Dorchester

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  6

  Dovegate

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  4

  Dover

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Downview

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Durham

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  2

  3

  1

  —

  6

  18

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Records Checks
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations his Department has received from(a) NGOs, (b) social services, (c) members of the public and (d) hon. Members regarding the financial implications for organisations of delays in Criminal Record Bureau checks. [91202]

  Hilary Benn
  The Criminal Records Bureau has received a number of communications from members of the public, employers, Registered Bodies and other organisations drawing attention to this matter, some of which have had the support of Members of Parliament. Some have sought compensation for individual applicants and others for employers.

  Prison Suicides
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what measures are being taken by his Department to ensure a decrease in the numbers of suicides by inmates of prisons in England and Wales; [90492]

  (2) how many suicides by inmates of prisons in England and Wales there were for the period January 1992 to December 2002 broken down by prison; and what estimate he has made of the numbers of suicides for the period January 2003 to December 2013. [90491]

  Hilary Benn
  The following table covers the 762 apparently self-inflicted deaths between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2002.
  481W

  Table showing the number of self-inflicted deaths in prison establishments in England and Wales

  between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2002

  Calendar year

  Establishment

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Total

  Eastwood

  Park

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  1

  5

  Elmley

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  5

  Erlestoke

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  4

  Everthorpe

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Exeter

  —

  4

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  —

  2

  2

  3

  17

  Featherstone

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  3

  Feltham

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  7

  Forest

  Bank

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Frankland

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Full

  Sutton

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  6

  Garth

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  3

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  9

  Gartree

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Glen

  Parva

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  —

  9

  Gloucester

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  3

  1

  8

  Grendon

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Haverigg

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  High

  Down

  —

  1

  —

  4

  2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  11

  Highpoint

  (Men)

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Highpoint

  (Women)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Hindley

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  7

  Holloway

  1

  1

  —

  2

  1

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  11

  Holme

  House

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  3

  1

  —

  5

  14

  Hull

  2

  1

  2

  1

  2

  2

  2

  —

  1

  1

  4

  18

  Kingston

  Portsmouth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  3

  Kirkham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Lancaster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Latchmere

  House

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Leeds

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  4

  5

  3

  1

  3

  24

  Leicester

  1

  3

  3

  1

  1

  —

  —

  3

  4

  2

  1

  19

  Lewes

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  2

  2

  3

  1

  3

  5

  20

  Lincoln

  —

  3

  1

  2

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  Lindholme

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Littlehey

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Liverpool

  1

  2

  5

  1

  3

  5

  1

  —

  2

  2

  2

  24

  Long

  Lartin

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  7

  Low

  Newton

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Maidstone

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  Manchester

  —

  2

  2

  —

  4

  —

  4

  8

  1

  1

  1

  23

  Moorland

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  5

  The

  Mount

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  New

  Hail

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  2

  6

  Northallerton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  Norwich

  2

  2

  —

  4

  1

  1

  5

  2

  1

  2

  1

  21

  Nottingham

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  3

  3

  2

  17

  Parc

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  1

  —

  2

  2

  9

  Parkhurst

  1

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  6

  Dentonville

  4

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  1

  14

  Portland

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  4

  Preston

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  3

  2

  3

  2

  1

  2

  17

  Prescoed/

  Usk

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Ranby

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Reading

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  Risley

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  6

  Rochester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Shepton

  Mallet

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Shrewsbury

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  4

  Stafford

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  5

  Stocken

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  482W 483W

  Table showing the number of self-inflicted deaths in prison establishments in England and Wales

  between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2002

  Calendar year

  Establishment

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Total

  Stoke

  Heath

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Styal

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  5

  Swaleside

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  4

  Swansea

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  Swiften

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  The

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Verne

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Wakefield

  1

  3

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  1

  10

  Wandsworth

  —

  2

  4

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  7

  1

  2

  19

  Wayland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Wealstun

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Wellingborough

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Wetherby

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  4

  Whatton

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Whitemoor

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Winchester

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  2

  5

  2

  4

  3

  1

  21

  Wolds

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  6

  Woodhill

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  —

  2

  3

  11

  Wormwood

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scrubs

  1

  —

  4

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  10

  Wymott

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Escort

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Custody

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  5

  —

  1

  —

  9

  Total

  41

  47

  61

  59

  64

  68

  83

  91

  81

  73

  94

  762

  There are no forward estimates of the number of prisoner self-inflicted deaths. The Government aim to reduce suicides in prisons as in the community generally. The Department of Health's National Suicide Prevention Strategy for England, which aims to support the 'Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation' target of reducing the death rate from suicide in the community by at least 20 per cent. by 2010, includes a target for the Prison Service of such a reduction (to 112.8 self-inflicted deaths per 100,000 prisoners) by April 2004.

  The Prison Service recognises that it has a duty of care for all prisoners. This is reflected in current policy and procedures in respect of identifying prisoners at risk of suicide and self-harm, and providing the subsequent care and support for such prisoners, and support for the staff who care for them. Prison Service Instructions make clear that it is the responsibility of all staff to initiate the self-harm at-risk procedures whenever they believe a prisoner is at such risk. These procedures ensure those caring for the at-risk prisoner consider the appropriate level of supervision, location and support for that prisoner. Each at-risk prisoner has an individual support plan drawn up by a multi-disciplinary review team, which will also involve the prisoner themselves.

  The general prison population contains a large number of prisoners with a combination of psychiatric disorders, alcohol and drug dependency, family background and relationship problems, histories of self-harm and previous abuse, all of which raise their risk of suicide. Good care and support from staff saves many lives but such instances go largely unreported.

  The Prison Service's approach, in close partnership with outside organisations such as the Samaritans, is to identify and better support those who seem at greatest risk and focus on staff/prisoner relationships and the physical environment. The Prison Service's suicide prevention and self-harm reduction programme
  484W
  includes a series of inter-related projects to improve pre-reception, reception and induction arrangements; interagency information exchange; prisoner care; detoxification; prisoner peer support, and the learning from investigations into deaths in custody.

  Piloting of these projects is focused on six establishments—Wandsworth, Feltham, Eastwood Park, Leeds, Winchester and Birmingham—although others are involved in aspects of the work. An investment of £21.69 million over the three year programme from April 2001 is allowing physical improvements to be made at these six sites, for example to reception and induction areas, and through the installation of more first night centres, safer cells, crisis suites and gated cells that enable staff to watch at-risk prisoners closely. The programme will be subject to an independent quantitative and qualitative evaluation.

  Wing staff will be increasingly supported in the work by in-reach mental health teams and by the establishment where possible of dedicated drug detoxification units. Between August 2001 and June 2002 new health care screening procedures have been piloted at six adult male remand prisons (Leeds, Wandsworth, Holme House, Liverpool, Manchester and Durham) two female remand prisons (Eastwood Park and New Hall) and two 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 commencing in April 2003.

  Prisoner Demographics
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many males and females were in prison serving sentences of over four years in(a) June 1991 and (b) June 2002. [89545]
  485W
  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]: On 30 June 1991, there were 14,616 males and 498 females serving sentences of four years and over in prisons in England and Wales.

  On 30 June 2002, there were 26,283 males and 1,335 females serving similar sentences.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were given life sentences in(a) June 2002, (b) in 1998 and (c) in 1992. [89546]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]: In June 2002, 35 prisoners were received into Prison Service Establishments, with life sentences. In the whole of 1998, 413 prisoners were received with a life sentence, and in the whole of 1992, 236 prisoners were received with life sentences.

  Youth Crime
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juveniles held in young offenders institutions in England and Wales have(a) been previously excluded from school and (b) have a level of educational attainment below level 1 basic skills. [90486]

  Hilary Benn
  We do not collect information centrally on how many juvenile offenders in custody have been excluded from school. Early in 2001 the Howard League for Penal Reform found from a sample of 84 15 year olds in custody that 83 per cent. had been excluded. More recently—as part of its audit of education and training provision within the youth justice system (published in November 2001)—the Youth Justice Board interviewed 160 offenders aged between 15 and 18 and found that 45 per cent. had been permanently excluded.

  Basic skills screening of juvenile offenders received into custody between April and November 2002 indicates that 42 per cent. are below level 1 in reading, 51 per cent. in spelling, 59 per cent. in writing and 43 per cent. in numeracy.

  Investment so far in staff and buildings in the juvenile estate—particularly the appointment of a Special Needs Co-ordinator to each establishment and one Learning Support Assistant for every 10 juveniles—is already having a positive impact on achievement, as is the piloting of innovative teaching strategies. In the first half of 2002–03, juveniles in custody gained around 2,000 basic skills qualifications, almost three quarters of which were at entry level or level 1. And we expect achievement to improve further as a result of our enhancements.

  The Youth Justice Board is investing £40 million over this year and next in education and training across the 13 juvenile facilities, including £10 million in new buildings. These resources will enable implementation of the new National Specification for Learning and Skills, introduction of the PLUS literacy programme, and enhanced staffing. They will also address the recommendation in the Social Exclusion Unit's report Bridging the Gap that 16 to19 year olds should receive 30 hours per week of education, training and personal development.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  European Documents
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission how many demand forms for European printed papers were issued in 2002; and how many documents or papers were included in them, broken down by types or category of the papers listed. [92925]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  Forty-eight demand forms for European printed papers were issued in 2002.

  The numbers of documents or papers included, broken down by types or category of papers listed are given in the table.

  Type or category

  Total number

  Official Journals

  1,195

  Tenders

  52

  Working Documents

  737

  Bulletins

  275

  Draft Legislation

  1,159

  Explanatory Memoranda

  901

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Biographical Details
  David Winnick
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee what progress is being made by the Library to bring out biographical details of hon. and right hon. Members in book form to replace Stanton and Lees publications; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the provision of(a) funding and (b) personnel for this purpose. [92994]

  Michael Fabricant
  The hon. Member will recall that I wrote to him on 24 January 2002, following consideration of this matter by the Information Committee. As subsequent progress is an operational question for the Library, I have asked the Librarian to write to the hon. Member.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Departmental Budget
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of her Department's budget remained unallocated at the end of the last financial year. [92659]

  Clare Short
  DFID's budget was fully allocated last year. Our initial budget for 2001–02 included a modest Contingency Reserve. This reserve was allocated to specific programmes during the course of the year.

  Global Fund
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what donations to the Global Fund(a) have been received and (b) are expected, broken down by donor country. [92657]
  487W
  Clare Short
  Total pledges to the fund to date (including disbursements already made) total US $2.157 billion. Donations received so far by the Global Fund (up to the end of 2002) amount to US $855.9 million and donations pledged specifically for 2003 amount to $605.5 million.

  The UK has pledged £138 million to the fund and has already paid in £50 million. A further £25 million will be contributed in calendar year 2003, depending on performance.

  A full breakdown of donor pledges is available at the Global Fund website and can be found at www.globalfundatm.org.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many civil servants have(a) been tested and (b) will be tested using psychometric testing in the last five years. [92602]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  All staff recruited on the Fast Stream Development Programme undergo some element of psychometric testing as part of the selection process. Records show a total of 39 new appointments under this programme since 1999. The table shows the breakdown on a year by year basis.

  Psychometric testing has also been used to help fill a number of senior and other civil service posts, both in external recruitment and internal selection campaigns. This statistical information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  My Department has also used, and continues to use, psychometric exercises in support of its leadership development programme. These exercises are not used to support selection, but are a development tool to assist managers at all levels in developing their leadership skills.

  HEODs appointed 1999 to current date

  Year

  Total

  1999

  4

  2000

  10

  2001

  16

  2002

  8

  2003

  1

  Total

  39

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what his estimate is of the total expenditure by his Department on mininsterial travel(a) in the UK and (b) abroad, in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (estimated); and if he will make a statement. [92430]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) on 22 January 2003.

PRIME MINISTER

  Carlyle Group
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions and correspondence(a) he and (b) his Office has had with representatives of the Carlyle Group since 1 May 1997. [91529]

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

  Iraq
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has for the development of a common European Union approach on the Iraq issue, in respect of(a) removing the threat of weapons of mass destruction, (b) regime change and (c) use of military force. [92927]

  The Prime Minister
  The European Union is united on this issue, as demonstrated most recently by the Declaration on Iraq agreed by the Copenhagen European Council on 13 December. This underlined the full and unequivocal support of the European Council for United Nations Security Council resolution 1441 and stated that the goal of the European Union remains the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in accordance with the relevant UN Resolutions. It also pledged the European Union's continuing full support to the efforts of the UN to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq with resolution 1441, and its full support for the inspection operations of UNMOVIC and the IAEA.

  I, my Ministers and officials continue to discuss Iraq frequently with all our EU partners.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Prime Minister what his estimate is of the total expenditure by his Department on mininsterial travel(a) in the UK and (b) abroad in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (estimated); and if he will make a statement. [92418]

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

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list each asset of the Scottish Office valued at £50,000 or more; and if she will make a statement. [90380]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The only asset of the Scotland Office with a value of more than £50,000 is the lease of Dover House in London.

  Departmental Expenditure (Newsprint)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the total expenditure of her Department was on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002. [90520]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Expenditure on newspapers, magazines and periodicals purchased centrally by the Department in 2001–02 was £12,968.

  Dover House
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, who owns the Scotland Office headquarters at Dover House in Whitehall, what her latest estimate is of the total value of this building; and what her estimate is of its annual rental cost. [90378]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Dover House is owned by the Crown Estate and leased to the Scotland Office. The value of the building is a matter for the Crown Estate. The rental cost in 2001–02 was £10,500.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when and by whom Dover House, Whitehall, was valued for the purposes of the National Asset Register; what the latest valuation is; and if she will make a statement. [91699]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Dover House was re-valued prior to transfer by the former Scottish Office. On 31 March 1999, it was independently re-valued at £2 million by GVA Grimley, International Property Advisors, on the basis of Existing Use Value in accordance with the Appraisal and Valuation Manual of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. Its current net book value (at 31 March 2002) is £1.675 million.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what part she will play in the co-ordination of financial assistance packages to the Scottish fishing industry between the Government and the Scottish Executive. [92294]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I am regularly involved in discussions with Government colleagues and the Scottish Executive on a range of subjects, and these have recently included issues concerning the Scottish fishing industry.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Solicitor-General when the Crown Prosecution Service's autumn performance report for 2002 will be published. [93157]

  The Solicitor-General
  I refer the hon. Member to my previous reply, 21 January 2003,Official Report, column 231 W.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases of suspected(a) housing benefit and (b) council tax benefit fraud have been discovered through a residency check, in each of the last five years. [91979]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not available. Information held centrally on cases of suspected housing benefit or council tax benefit fraud does not identify the means by which the suspected fraud was detected.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the new system of assessment by the CSA will become operable; whether those who have been waiting for assessment or reassessment by the CSA will be assessed as if they were new claimants; and what plans he has to clear the back-log. [92549]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Peter Duncan) on 27 November 2002,Official Report, column 317W. The next Commencement Order to implement relevant provisions of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 will set out the classes of case to which the new scheme will apply.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 16 December from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Avril Curry. [92285]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I wrote to the right hon. Member on 16 January 2003.

  Employers' Liability
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the employers' liability insurance review. [85271]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]: I refer my hon. Friend to the Written Ministerial Statement I gave on 12 December 2002, Official Report, columns 23–24WS.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list for each year since 1997 the percentage of children for each local authority eligible for free school meals. [91983]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I have been asked to reply.

  The available information is shown in the table.
  491W

  Maintained nursery, primary, secondary and all special schools1: school meal arrangements

  Position in January each year

  Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free meals2

  By local education authority, by Government office region

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  England

  20.2

  19.1

  18.4

  17.8

  17.1

  16.4

  North East

  25.8

  24.9

  24.1

  23.4

  23.1

  21.4

  Darlington3

  5—

  21.0

  19.7

  18.3

  17.2

  17.2

  Durham4

  21.3

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Durham3

  5—

  20.8

  20.2

  19.5

  19.5

  19.3

  Gateshead

  25.9

  24.5

  23.6

  24.4

  23.4

  22.6

  Hartlepool

  30.9

  28.6

  26.6

  26.8

  25.6

  24.7

  Middlesbrough

  35.2

  34.5

  32.1

  32.1

  32.0

  31.8

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  34.9

  33.4

  32.2

  31.1

  30.7

  28.9

  North Tyneside

  23.0

  22.8

  21.7

  21.5

  19.7

  20.1

  Northumberland

  15.6

  14.0

  14.2

  13.5

  13.3

  12.4

  Redcar and Cleveland

  28.2

  26.1

  26.6

  25.4

  23.5

  23.8

  South Tyneside

  32.7

  30.9

  29.6

  28.2

  27.4

  26.9

  Stockton-on-Tees

  25.1

  23.8

  22.4

  21.9

  20.7

  19.6

  Sunderland

  28.4

  29.3

  29.3

  28.4

  31.1

  20.7

  North West

  25.1

  21.6

  20.7

  22.5

  21.4

  20.6

  Blackburn with Darwen3

  5—

  5—

  27.6

  27.5

  25.8

  25.1

  Blackpool3

  5—

  5—

  26

  25.3

  24.6

  24.4

  Bolton

  20.7

  18.7

  18.0

  17.7

  17.1

  16.8

  Bury

  17.5

  16.2

  16.2

  15.8

  14.8

  14.0

  Cheshire4

  16.0

  15.5

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Cheshire3

  5—

  5—

  12.0

  12.4

  11.3

  10.9

  Cumbria

  15.9

  15.4

  14.3

  14.6

  13.7

  13.1

  Halton3

  5—

  5—

  27.8

  27.1

  25.9

  25.4

  Knowsley

  47.9

  46.3

  44.8

  42.9

  40.4

  38.0

  Lancashire4

  22.2

  21.5

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Lancashire3

  5—

  5—

  18.8

  16.9

  16.0

  15.5

  Liverpool

  41.7

  40.3

  38.7

  38.4

  37.1

  34.8

  Manchester

  46.7

  45.5

  44.5

  44.6

  43.4

  43.0

  Oldham

  26.0

  24.5

  23.5

  24.2

  23.0

  22.9

  Rochdale

  28.2

  26.9

  27.1

  25.8

  24.5

  24.4

  Salford

  33.2

  31.6

  30.2

  29.7

  28.7

  27.2

  Sefton

  24.7

  23.9

  22.4

  21.1

  19.7

  19.1

  St. Helens

  22.1

  22.0

  26.5

  20.8

  20.3

  20.1

  Stockport

  17.3

  16.5

  14.9

  14.3

  13.7

  13.3

  Tameside

  23.4

  21.6

  20.8

  20.1

  19.9

  18.8

  Trafford

  20.1

  18.1

  18.4

  18.0

  15.2

  12.6

  Warrington3

  5—

  5—

  12.7

  11.5

  11.0

  10.5

  Wigan

  18.8

  17.8

  17.4

  16.9

  16.1

  15.8

  Wirral

  28.7

  27.1

  28.5

  29.2

  28.9

  27.7

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  21.2

  20.3

  19.6

  19.1

  18.1

  17.5

  Barnsley

  25.8

  25.2

  24.7

  24.2

  23.0

  21.3

  Bradford

  28.0

  27.1

  26.4

  25.9

  24.1

  24.2

  Calderdale

  19.0

  18.2

  18.1

  17.3

  17.4

  16.4

  Doncaster

  25.2

  23.2

  22.4

  20.9

  19.7

  18.4

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  10.8

  9.6

  10.6

  10.6

  9.7

  9.3

  Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  28.5

  27.5

  27.5

  27.5

  26.5

  26.2

  Kirklees

  21.7

  20.5

  20.2

  19.5

  18.7

  18.2

  Leeds

  21.5

  20.9

  20.1

  19.9

  18.8

  18.5

  North East Lincolnshire

  23.0

  22.8

  21.6

  22.8

  22.6

  21.3

  North Lincolnshire

  17.8

  16.4

  15.7

  14.5

  14.7

  13.8

  North Yorkshire

  9.3

  8.9

  8.6

  8.5

  7.9

  7.3

  Rotherham

  22.0

  21.0

  20.1

  19.8

  18.4

  17.8

  Sheffield

  27.3

  26.6

  24.2

  22.5

  21.2

  20.6

  Wakefield

  19.5

  18.8

  18.3

  18.7

  17.6

  17.7

  York

  13.9

  12.8

  12.0

  11.0

  10.5

  9.8

  East Midlands

  16.0

  15.1

  14.3

  14.0

  13.4

  12.8

  Derby3

  5—

  22.9

  21.7

  20.8

  20.4

  20.1

  Derbyshire4

  16.2

  12.8

  12.3

  12.5

  12.1

  11.8

  Derbyshire3

  16.2

  12.8

  12.3

  12.5

  12.1

  11.8

  Leicester3

  5—

  24.9

  23.7

  23.5

  23.6

  23.7

  492W 493W

  Maintained nursery, primary, secondary and all special schools1: school meal arrangements

  Position in January each year

  Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free meals2

  By local education authority, by Government office region

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Leicestershire4

  15.0

  8.5

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Leicestershire3

  5—

  5—

  8.3

  7.9

  7.6

  7.0

  Lincolnshire

  9.8

  9.4

  8.1

  7.8

  7.7

  7.3

  Northamptonshire

  12.7

  11.9

  11.6

  11.4

  10.5

  10.2

  Nottingham3

  5—

  5—

  35.4

  34.8

  34.1

  32.3

  Nottinghamshire4

  22.5

  21.3

  15.0

  14.3

  13.2

  12.4

  Nottinghamshire3

  22.5

  21.3

  15.0

  14.3

  13.2

  12.4

  Rutland3

  5—

  6.4

  6.2

  5.4

  5.0

  4.5

  West Midlands

  21.0

  19.6

  19.1

  18.8

  18.6

  18.1

  Birmingham

  35.6

  34.3

  33.7

  33.1

  33.1

  32.7

  Coventry

  22.4

  21.0

  21.7

  19.6

  20.1

  19.2

  Dudley

  18.0

  16.9

  16.2

  15.9

  14.9

  14.6

  Hereford and Worcester4

  10.1

  8.1

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Herefordshire3

  5—

  5—

  8.1

  7.3

  8.1

  7.5

  Sandwell

  26.6

  24.9

  23.2

  24.4

  24.0

  22.9

  Shropshire4

  15.2

  14.5

  9.9

  9.7

  9.3

  9.1

  Shropshire3

  15.2

  14.5

  9.9

  9.7

  9.3

  9.1

  Solihull

  14.3

  13.7

  12.4

  12.6

  12.6

  11.3

  Staffordshire4

  16.8

  12.6

  12.0

  11.7

  11.1

  10.9

  Staffordshire3

  16.8

  12.6

  12.0

  11.7

  11.1

  10.9

  Stoke-on-Trent3

  5—

  26.9

  27.3

  27.7

  27.2

  25.8

  Telford and Wrekin3

  5—

  5—

  20.9

  21.3

  20.5

  20.2

  Walsall

  23.8

  21.3

  19.8

  19.1

  18.0

  17.6

  Warwickshire

  11.4

  10.9

  9.9

  9.6

  9.4

  8.9

  Wolverhampton

  24.7

  22.6

  22.0

  21.8

  22.7

  21.5

  Worcestershire3

  5—

  5—

  9.0

  9.8

  10.0

  9.8

  East of England

  14.9

  13.5

  12.9

  12.5

  11.7

  11.1

  Bedfordshire4

  19.4

  12.5

  11.7

  11.2

  10.8

  10.5

  Bedfordshire3

  19.4

  12.5

  11.7

  11.2

  10.8

  10.5

  Cambridgeshire3

  15.4

  13.8

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Cambridgeshire3

  5—

  5—

  10.1

  9.5

  8.9

  8.2

  Essex4

  15.4

  14.4

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Essex3

  5—

  5—

  12.7

  12.0

  11.1

  10.6

  Hertfordshire

  11.5

  10.0

  9.4

  9.1

  8.5

  8.0

  Luton3

  5—

  26.3

  23.9

  23.7

  23.5

  23.5

  Norfolk

  14.3

  13.7

  13.8

  13.8

  13.0

  12.3

  Peterborough3

  5—

  5—

  22.2

  21.4

  20.2

  18.6

  Southend-on-Sea3

  5—

  5—

  19.1

  18.3

  16.8

  16.0

  Suffolk

  14.8

  13.1

  12.3

  12.1

  11.3

  10.6

  Thurrock3

  5—

  5—

  17.7

  16.9

  15.4

  15.0

  London

  29.5

  28.3

  27.4

  27.0

  26.1

  25.3

  Inner London

  45.3

  43.3

  41.6

  41.2

  39.8

  38.4

  Camden

  37.2

  36.0

  35.6

  36.2

  35.9

  35.2

  City of London

  51.4

  37.7

  38.4

  35.9

  33.8

  6

  Hackney

  55.5

  50.1

  46.3

  44.1

  41.3

  42.1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  42.3

  41.3

  38.4

  39.6

  39.2

  38.2

  Haringey

  41.0

  40.0

  39.5

  39.4

  38.2

  36.1

  Islington

  52.3

  44.5

  45.4

  44.2

  42.8

  40.5

  Kensington and Chelsea

  44.0

  42.0

  38.5

  38.6

  35.8

  34.6

  Lambeth

  47.1

  45.0

  42.5

  41.1

  39.3

  37.9

  Lewisham

  38.5

  38.4

  35.2

  35.8

  35.3

  31.5

  Newham

  39.1

  38.7

  39.1

  39.6

  37.9

  37.7

  Southwark

  48.9

  44.8

  43.5

  43.2

  41.0

  39.8

  Tower Hamlets

  61.1

  60.8

  59.2

  60.0

  58.7

  55.7

  Wandsworth

  36.1

  34.9

  32.2

  29.7

  28.6

  28.0

  Westminster

  43.8

  42.3

  39.6

  36.8

  35.2

  34.9

  Outer London

  21.1

  20.4

  19.9

  19.5

  18.9

  18.4

  Barking and Dagenham

  26.5

  26.3

  25.3

  25.5

  24.3

  23.9

  Barnet

  17.1

  16.1

  16.2

  16.7

  16.6

  15.9

  Bexley

  15.6

  14.8

  14.9

  14.1

  13.6

  12.9

  494W 495W

  Maintained nursery, primary, secondary and all special schools1: school meal arrangements

  Position in January each year

  Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free meals2

  By local education authority, by Government office region

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Brent

  27.8

  27.5

  27.6

  27.2

  26.2

  25.7

  Bromley

  16.7

  15.7

  14.3

  13.6

  13.1

  12.7

  Croydon

  24.6

  23.4

  22.1

  21.8

  20.6

  20.8

  Baling

  27.3

  26.5

  26.1

  26.3

  26.7

  25.9

  Enfield

  21.8

  21.4

  21.5

  22.5

  21.5

  21.3

  Greenwich

  39.3

  38.2

  37.3

  36.4

  35.2

  34.2

  Harrow

  13.3

  13.3

  13.7

  13.9

  13.9

  14.4

  Havering

  13.8

  13.1

  12.9

  12.4

  11.7

  11.0

  Hillingdon

  13.6

  14.3

  14.0

  13.6

  14.7

  13.9

  Hounslow

  25.1

  24.8

  24.1

  22.4

  21.2

  20.9

  Kingston upon Thames

  8.6

  8.2

  8.3

  7.9

  8.1

  8.1

  Merton

  19.5

  18.5

  17.6

  16.8

  15.7

  15.7

  Redbridge

  19.0

  18.2

  17.7

  16.7

  15.7

  15.6

  Richmond upon Thames

  15.5

  14.5

  13.8

  13.0

  12.6

  12.2

  Sutton

  11.9

  11.6

  11.3

  10.9

  10.3

  9.9

  Waltham Forest

  32.7

  31.3

  29.8

  28.5

  28.2

  26.9

  South East

  13.3

  12.3

  11.6

  10.9

  10.3

  9.9

  Berkshire4

  11.3

  10.0

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Bracknell Forest3

  5—

  5—

  7.2

  6.8

  6.2

  5.8

  Brighton and Hove3

  5—

  22.4

  21.7

  20.7

  18.6

  17.8

  Buckinghamshire3

  9.4

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Buckinghamshire3

  5—

  6.4

  6.6

  6.6

  6.4

  6.4

  East Sussex4

  19.6

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  East Sussex3

  5—

  16.6

  15.2

  14.8

  14.3

  13.3

  Hampshire4

  13.5

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Hampshire3

  5—

  9.6

  8.9

  8.5

  8.2

  8.2

  Isle of Wight

  21.5

  20.6

  19.7

  19.2

  17.8

  17.2

  Kent4

  16.4

  15.4

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Kent3

  5—

  5—

  14.4

  12.7

  11.9

  11.3

  Medway3

  5—

  5—

  14.1

  12.9

  11.7

  11.2

  Milton Keynes3

  5—

  14.4

  13.7

  13.7

  13.2

  12.2

  Oxfordshire

  10.5

  9.6

  9.4

  9.5

  9.5

  8.9

  Portsmouth3

  5—

  20.0

  18.1

  17.6

  17.1

  16.8

  Reading3

  5—

  5—

  15.5

  14.2

  14.5

  14.3

  Slough3

  5—

  5—

  17.3

  16.6

  15.8

  15.5

  Southampton3

  5—

  22.5

  21.7

  21.8

  20.7

  19.9

  Surrey

  9.4

  8.6

  8.0

  7.8

  7.1

  6.9

  West Berkshire3

  5—

  5—

  5—

  6.2

  5.8

  5.8

  West Sussex

  11.4

  10.5

  9.8

  8.6

  7.6

  7.2

  Windsor and Maidenhead3

  5—

  5—

  6.7

  6.6

  6.4

  5.9

  Wokingham3

  5—

  5—

  4.8

  4.4

  4.6

  4.3

  South West

  14.5

  13.4

  12.6

  11.8

  11.2

  10.8

  Bath and North East Somerset

  13.3

  12.0

  11.1

  10.3

  9.4

  8.7

  Bournemouth3

  5—

  13.9

  13.0

  11.1

  10.5

  10.1

  Bristol, City of

  26.4

  25.5

  24.1

  22.5

  22.2

  22.4

  Cornwall

  17.8

  15.0

  14.3

  13.6

  12.8

  11.9

  Devon4

  16.7

  15.9

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Devon3

  5—

  5—

  12.3

  11.4

  11.6

  11.0

  Dorset4

  10.1

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Dorset3

  5—

  7.9

  7.5

  6.5

  5.6

  6.4

  Gloucestershire

  12.2

  11.0

  10.1

  9.5

  8.7

  8.8

  Isles of Stilly

  11.3

  6.4

  4.4

  5.1

  6.4

  3.4

  North Somerset

  12.5

  11.2

  10.3

  9.8

  9.2

  9.0

  Plymouth3

  5—

  5—

  19.6

  19.2

  18.0

  16.5

  Poole3

  5—

  10.0

  9.3

  8.4

  7.0

  6.3

  Somerset

  11.4

  11.6

  10.8

  10.6

  10.1

  9.5

  South Gloucestershire

  11.8

  10.5

  9.4

  8.4

  8.1

  7.7

  Swindon3

  5—

  14.5

  13.4

  12.5

  11.6

  11.4

  Torbay3

  5—

  5—

  20.2

  19.1

  17.1

  16.9

  Wiltshire4

  12.1

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Wiltshire3

  5—

  9.2

  8.7

  8.2

  7.9

  7.4

  1Includes Maintained and Non-Maintained special schools.

  2Day pupils, excludes boarding pupils.

  3After local government reorganisation.

  4Before local government reorganization

  5Not applicable.

  6Not available.

  Pensions
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on how his Department can protect employees' pension schemes if their employer goes into administration or bankruptcy. [92732]

  Mr. McCartney
  If a salary-related occupational pension scheme starts to wind up as a result of its sponsoring employer going into administration or-bankruptcy, the members of the scheme are protected by measures contained in legislation.

  The Statutory Priority Order sets out how the assets of the scheme are to be applied towards meeting the scheme's liabilities for pensions and other benefits. It aims to ensure that scheme assets are divided among scheme members as fairly as possible.

  The employer debt provisions place a debt on an insolvent company's estate to cover any deficiency in the pension fund. The calculation of the debt is based on an estimate of the costs of winding up the scheme, the notional costs of buying annuities for pensioners and cash equivalent transfer values for people who have not retired.

  The independent trustee provisions require insolvency practitioners to make sure that schemes that are winding up have one trustee who is independent. Trustees are required to report their progress regularly to Opra, which aims to ensure that schemes are wound up as quickly as possible.

  Additionally, a compensation scheme was established to provide compensation for losses caused by dishonesty where the employer is insolvent. The compensation scheme acts as a safety net for members if their scheme suffers from a reduction in assets through dishonesty and their employer is not around to make good the shortfall.

  Nonetheless, we are still concerned about instances when the sponsoring employer becomes insolvent and the pension scheme winds up under-funded. We are aware of the impact this has, and are determined to protect the long-term security of pensioners and other scheme members in occupational pension schemes.

  This is why the pensions Green Paper, "Simplicity, Security and Choice" (Cm 5677), published on 17 December 2002, includes proposals to further protect members' pensions, including proposals to share out scheme assets more fairly, introduce some form of insurance and strengthen protection for members whose solvent employer chooses to wind up its scheme.

  We are seeking views on our proposals and additional suggestions, and are therefore holding a wide ranging consultation on the Green Paper.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to simplify the overlap of stakeholder and additional voluntary contribution pension arrangements where a person's earnings are such to allow concurrent membership of an occupational and a stakeholder pension arrangement. [92315]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.
  498W
  On 17 December the Government published, for consultation, simplification proposals for the pension tax rules. The consultation paper, "Simplifying the taxation of pensions: increasing choice and flexibility", is available in the House of Commons Library. The consultation is to allow people the opportunity to put forward their views before final decisions are taken.

  The consultation paper puts forward a proposed framework of general benefit rules. It is proposed that these rules would apply to all qualifying pension arrangements.

  Post Office Card Account
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many personal invitation documents for post office card accounts have been issued; [92873]

  (2) how many applications have been received for a post office card account; [92874]

  (3) how many post office card accounts have been successfully processed. [92875]

  Malcolm Wicks
  As at 10 January, around 26,000 child benefit and veterans agency customers had requested a post office card account. The Government have decided to build up the number of benefit customers and pensioners that we pay through the post office card account gradually, starting from April 2003. This is to ensure that the systems supporting the post office card account are reliable and robust, and have proved themselves in live running, before we start to pay large numbers of customers through them.

  The Department's current plans for issuing personal invitation documents—PIDS—meet our intention that, subject to acceptance of the card account service, we can start to pay some people through the post office card account from April 2003.

  Accordingly, on current plans, the earliest date for PID issue will be 24 March 2003.

  The only personal invitation documents issued so far have been to around 1,000 customers taking part in the card account pilots that Post Office Ltd. are currently undertaking. Detailed questions on the pilot are matters which fall within the day-to-day responsibility of Post Office Ltd. I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply directly to the hon. Member on this issue.

  Public Sector Workers (Retirement)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the number of public sector workers who are obliged to retire at or before age 60; and if he will make a statement. [92554]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  Retirement policy is a matter for individual public sector employers and detailed numerical information is not held centrally. Government policy as set out in last year's pensions green paper, "Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement (Cm 5677)" is to encourage people to work up to the age of 65 and beyond if they wish. Public service employers are reviewing their retirement policies to take account of

  499W
  that. In local government, the normal pension age is already 65 for new entrants. Longer serving staff may have rights to an earlier normal pension age, between 60 and 65, depending on their length of service.

  As set out in the Green Paper, the Government proposes to increase the normal pension age from 60 to 65 for new entrants to pension schemes such the NHS, teachers and civil service. Some 75 per cent. of civil servants already have the option to retire at age 65 and the numbers able to serve beyond age 60 are expected to increase. NHS staff are generally encouraged to continue to work beyond age 60 and those retiring on age grounds typically leave well after age 60. In the state education sector, teachers can normally work until age 65 if they wish and they can work beyond 65 by mutual agreement between the individual and the employer.

  In the armed forces, police and fire services the great majority of people leave before age 60 and pensions for those retiring are payable well before 60. There are a few posts in these services where individuals may be retained beyond age 60. There are a few posts in these services where individuals may be retained beyond age 60.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [88033]

  Maria Eagle
  The details requested are in the table.

  Session

  Number of negative statutory instruments that came into force

  Number considered by delegated legislation committee

  1999–2000 (Department of Social Security)

  68

  2

  2000–01 (Department of Social Security)

  44

  0

  2001–02 (Department for Work and Pensions)

  101

  4

  A further 14 instruments subject to the negative procedure came into force in the period between the end of the 1999–2000 session and the start of the 2000–01 session and a further three instruments subject to the negative procedure came into force in the period between the end of the 2000–01 session and the start of the 2001–02 session.

  Where a Statutory Instrument has more than one commencement date, the first date has been used.

  Welfare to Work
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what benefits and subsidies may be lost by the unemployed upon starting employment. [83173]
  500W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We are taking a single approach to work and benefits to make work pay, make work possible and to support those who cannot work.

  The national minimum wage together with our reforms of the tax and benefit system are helping to ensure that work pays at all levels of the labour market, and particularly for people on low incomes. Building on the success of the working families tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit, we will introduce the working tax credit from April 2003, extending in-work support to workers without children or disabilities.

  We have also recently announced an improved package of financial measures to help people make the transition into work. From October 2004, we will be introducing a new job grant to help people moving into a job after at least six months on benefit. Single people and couples without children will receive £100. A higher rate grant of £250 will be paid to lone parents and to couples with children. This improved job grant will make a real difference in helping tide families over until their first wages are received.

  On starting full-time employment a person ceases to be entitled to jobseeker's allowance or income support. There are a number of other benefits and subsidies available to people claiming income-based jobseeker's allowance or income support. These may be affected by a person's increased income on starting work or the person may lose entitlement to them. They include: housing benefit, council tax benefit, certain social fund grants and loans, free NHS prescriptions, eye tests and dental treatment, free school meals, and milk tokens.

  Housing benefit and council tax benefit remain available to provide in-work support to help people meet their rent or council tax and are designed to guarantee that a person is better off in work than out of work. In addition, the NHS low income scheme ensures that working people on low incomes can continue to receive help towards the cost of most NHS services.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Aerospace Industry
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the(a) names and (b) employers of members of the (i) Aerospace Committee and (ii) Aerospace Innovation and Growth Team working groups. [91919]

  Alan Johnson
  The names of members of the Aerospace Committee and the Aerospace Innovation and Growth Team working groups and their respective employers have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Business Link
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses there are in(a) the north-east Region and (b) Surrey; and what estimates she has made of the total income of Business Links in (i) the north-east region and (ii) Surrey in 2002–03 [92834]
  501W
  Nigel Griffiths
  At the start of 2002, there was an estimated 41,865 VAT registered businesses in the North East of England, and 43,525 in Surrey County (Source: VAT registrations and deregistrations: Business Start-ups and closures, published by the SBS in October 2002).

  Projected total turnover (income) for the four Business Link Operators in the North East Region in 2002/03 is around £19.9 million.£6 million (30 per cent. of turnover) of this is in the form of a Core Services Grant from the SBS. Total turnover in the North East also includes £7 million (35 per cent. of turnover) of European funding.

  Projected total turnover for Business Link Surrey in 2002/03 is around 5.8 million. £3.45 million (59.5 per cent. of turnover) of this is in the form of a Core Services Grant from the SBS. Business Link Surrey do not access any European funding.

  Consumer Credit Act
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 16 January 2003,Official Report, column 79W, on the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which of the issues raised in the original question are covered by the consultations listed in her answer. [92716]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 22 January 2003]The question of how annual percentage rates are calculated as part of a consultation on the simplification of the regulations governing credit advertising. The consultation will then determine any reform of the statutory rules.

  In preparation for that, my Department is in regular discussion with the credit industry and consumer bodies on the scope for a common format for the calculation and advertising of APRs on credit cards, and the provision for other key information.

  Employment Rights (Information and Advice)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she is taking to improve information and advice for businesses on employment rights. [92030]

  Alan Johnson
  I firmly believe that there is a strong need for clear, straightforward and easily accessible information and guidance for businesses on employment rights.

  Businesses can obtain guidance on employment rights from a number of sources: I welcome Acas' planned expansion of their advisory work and the recent introduction of a national number for their helpline service. Information is also available on the Acas, DTI and Business Link websites. The Small Business Service (SBS) is developing a pack specifically for start up businesses to accompany its fact sheets and other services.

  Even with the variety and high quality of these services I am aware of the need for continuous improvement to ensure we meet the needs of business. As part of this process my department is working with Acas and SBS and an advisory group of user organisations to improve the way information and
  502W
  guidance on employment rights is made available to the different groups of users, including the e-delivery of information.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she is taking to promote and support UK manufacturing. [92031]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government's Manufacturing Strategy, published in May last year, identified seven key areas of activity for Government and industry that are crucial for manufacturing success. We are taking action in all of those areas to help British manufacturers cope with very difficult global conditions.

  For example, Regional Centres for Manufacturing Excellence were successfully launched in each of the nine English Regions and in Wales over the period April to November 2002 and are now proactively delivering the Manufacturing Advisory Service.

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to promote the use of the Post Office card prior to the introduction of direct payments of benefits in April. [92548]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon.Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire on 17 December 2002, column 738W.

  Redundancy Payments Scheme
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the reasons for the change in payments through the Redundancy Payments Scheme from 1999–2000 to 2002–03; and if she will make a statement. [91959]

  Alan Johnson
  The total amount paid out by the Redundancy Payments Service before any deductions for Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions in the financial year 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000 was £200.0 million. The corresponding figures for the financial years April 2000 to March 2001 and April 2001 to March 2002 were £229.7 millions and £278.7 million, respectively, an increase of just over 39 per cent. About three quarters of the increase is attributable to an increase in the numbers of claims over the period. The remainder is mainly due to successive increases in the statutory limits that apply to redundancy and other payments from the National Insurance Fund.

  Regional Assistance
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was spent on(a) regional selective assistance, (b) regional development grants, (c) regional innovation grants and (d) regional employment premiums for (i) Scotland, (ii) England, (iii) Wales in each year from 1974–75 to 2001–02, and what the estimated figures are for (A) 2002–03, (B) 2003–04, (C) 2004–05, and (D) 2005–06, (1) in cash terms, and (2) at constant 2001– [89824]

  Regional grants 1990–91 to 2000–01

  Cash terms

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  (a) Regional selective assistance

  Scotland

  66.8

  63.6

  59.2

  69

  77

  England

  88.9

  74.2

  71.1

  94.7

  113.1

  Wales

  30.2

  55.1

  58.7

  50.9

  57

  Total

  185.9

  192.9

  189

  214.6

  247.1

  (b) Regional development grants

  Scotland

  42.1

  12.2

  8.9

  2.7

  0.4

  England

  65.3

  33

  11.1

  2.9

  0.3

  Wales

  22.1

  14.8

  5.7

  4.7

  0

  Total

  129.5

  60

  25.7

  10.3

  0.7

  (c) Regional innovation grants

  Scotland

  1.2

  1.2

  1.5

  1.7

  1.4

  England

  2.3

  1.9

  2.1

  5.1

  8.7

  Wales

  0.5

  0.6

  0.5

  1.1

  1

  Total

  4

  3.7

  4.1

  7.9

  11.1

  Total

  319.4

  256.6

  218.8

  232.8

  258.9

  of which

  Scotland

  110.1

  77

  69.6

  73.4

  78.8

  England

  156.5

  109.1

  84.3

  102.7

  122.1

  Wales

  52.8

  70.5

  64.9

  56.7

  58

  Total

  319.4

  256.6

  218.8

  232.8

  258.9

  GDP Deflator (HM Treasury)

  72.956

  77.406

  79.91

  81.8

  82.972

  Constant 2001–02 prices

  Scotland

  150.9

  99.5

  87.1

  89.6

  95

  England

  214.5

  140.9

  105.5

  125.4

  147.2

  Wales

  72.4

  91.1

  81.2

  69.2

  69.9

  Total

  437.8

  331.5

  273.8

  284.3

  312.0

  Cash terms

  1995–96

  1995–96

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  (a) Regional selective assistance

  Scotland

  70.1

  72.3

  76.5

  74.2

  52

  69.8

  England

  112.7

  97.3

  115.2

  111.4

  88.7

  112.6

  Wales

  54.2

  47.8

  75.7

  79.9

  44.9

  37.2

  Total

  237

  217.4

  267.4

  265.5

  185.6

  219.6

  (b) Regional development grants

  Scotland

  0

  0.2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  England

  0.6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wales

  0

  0.1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  0.6

  0.3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (c) Regional development grants

  Scotland

  2.3

  1.83

  0

  0

  0

  0

  England

  11

  0.8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wales

  1.4

  11

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  14.7

  13.6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  252.3

  231.3

  267.4

  265.5

  185.6

  219.6

  of which:

  Scotland

  72.4

  74.3

  76.5

  74.2

  52

  69.8

  England

  124.3

  98.1

  115.2

  111.4

  88.7

  112.6

  Wales

  55.6

  58.9

  75.7

  79.9

  44.9

  37.2

  504W
  Alan Johnson
  The figures for expenditure on Regional Selective Assistance, Regional Development Grants and Regional Innovation Grants are published in the Annual Report of the Industrial Development Act 1982.

  The figures for the period 1990–91 to 2001–02 are summarised as follows and have been presented in cash terms and constant 2001–02 prices. Reference should be made to the Annual Reports for earlier information.
  505W

  Cash terms

  1995–96

  1995–96

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Total

  252.3

  231.3

  267.4

  265.5

  185.6

  219.6

  GDP Deflator (HM Treasury)

  85.336

  88.042

  90.759

  93.253

  95.51

  97.689

  Constant 2001–02 prices

  Scotland

  84.8

  84.4

  84.3

  79.6

  54.4

  71.5

  England

  145.7

  111.4

  126.9

  119.5

  92.9

  115.3

  Wales

  65.2

  66.9

  83.4

  85.7

  47

  38.1

  Total

  295.7

  262.7

  294.6

  284.7

  194.3

  224.8

  The estimated annual figure for 2002/03 for Regional Selective Assistance in England is 115 million (£112 million at 2001/02 prices). Figures for future years will be published in the Department's Expenditure Plans Reports.

  Information for Scotland and Wales for future years can be obtained from The Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales respectively.

  No information is available in relation to Regional Employment Premiums.

  Small Business (Regulatory Burden)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she is taking to reduce the burden of regulation on small businesses. [92029]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Independent reports from the OECD, Anderson growth plus and others show the UK in general to be a less regulated than most International Competitors. Since January 2000, the Government has put in place a number of measures to further reduce the burden of regulation on small businesses. The SmallBusiness Service now scrutinises newly proposed regulations for their likely impact on SMEs and encourages reform and rationalisation of wxisting regulation. It works closely with DTI's Better Regulation Team to help Departments develop alternatives to regulation.

  Examples of measures taken include 485,000 businesses had their corporation tax bill cut or abolished through measures announced in Budget 2002, and 700,000 benefited from the flat rate VAT scheme. Overall around 9000,000 SMEs have benefited.

TRANSPORT

  Aviation Fuel (Dumping)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many(a) incidents of dumping of aviation fuel there were and (b) tonnes of aviation fuel were dumped in UK airspace in the last year for which figures are available; [92264]

  (2) what regulations and guidelines there are on the amount of aviation fuel loaded onto aircraft at (a) UK airports and (b) military bases; and how this relates to the planned journey and flight time; [92261]

  (3) what regulations exist to control the dumping of aviation fuel into UK airspace; and whether the regulations differ for civil and military aircraft; [92262]
  506W
  (4) whether a pilot dumping aviation fuel is required to report the activity; and what records are maintained of incidents of the dumping of aviation fuel; [92263]

  (5) what offence the dumping of aircraft fuel into UK airspace constitutes. [92266]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Article 56(3)(b) of the Civil Aviation Air Navigation Order 2000 permits the jettisoning, in cases of emergency, of fuel from an aircraft over the UK. Other than in an emergency, jettisoning would constitute an offence liable on summary conviction to a fine of up to £2,500, as provided for in Article 122(5).

  As in any emergency, the pilot and the air traffic controller would normally report the circumstances under the Mandatory Occurrence Reporting Scheme. There were 19 such incidents in the UK in 2002. There were 1,666,000 air transport movements in the UK in 2001. Details of the amount of fuel jettisoned are not normally recorded as part of the Scheme, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  As regards fuel loaded onto an aircraft, Article 6 of the Order referred to effectively requires the operator to ensure that the pre-flight calculation of usable fuel for a flight covers taxying, trip (take-off to landing), contingency (normally 5 per cent. of trip fuel), diversion to alternative destination, final reserve fuel (30 minutes holding), additional fuel if required by the type of operation (e.g. extended range twin engined operation) and any extra at the commander's discretion.

  Questions about the regulations and procedures applicable to military aircraft are a matter for my right. hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Pensioners (Free Travel)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with pensioner groups on the extension of free travel passes to all parts of the United Kingdom. [91335]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Minister of State for Transport (John Spellar) has met representatives from the National Pensioners' Convention, and my Department has received many letters from pensioners (including some groups) on this topic.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to make funds available for free travel for all pensioners. [91336]

  Mr. Jamieson
  From 1 June 2001 we have ensured that all pensioners have been entitled to a free bus pass allowing half-fare travel on local buses, as a minimum. Local authorities may also run more generous schemes if they wish. From 1 April 2003 travel concessions will
  507W
  also be extended to men aged between 60 and 65. Expenditure on concessionary travel schemes is covered by the contribution that the Government makes to local authorities through the annual grant settlement. We have no plans to make funds available for free travel for all pensioners.

  UK-registered Vessels (Terrorism)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the threat of terrorist attack upon UK-registered vessels. [91236]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State receives advice from the Security Service who have responsibility for preparing and disseminating assessments on the terrorist threat to UK vessels. This process is ongoing and is the basis for the development of measures which provide an appropriate response.

  Air Transport Consultation
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to initiate a new round of public consultation before publishing the Government's White Paper on airports. [91871]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The consultation period, throughout the UK, is on-going and has been extended until we have consulted on Gatwick runway options. We intend to issue a revised South East consultation document next month. The consultation period will then run for four months after the date of publication of the new material. Those who have already responded to the consultation will be able to amend, add to, or replace their original response having considered the new material, if they wish to do so.

  Air Travel Organisers Licensing Regulations
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he intends to take to protect individual airline passengers who have bought accommodation from a listed supplier against scheduled airline failure. [91324]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government have no plans to take legislative action on this issue.

  Central Railway
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what relative weight the Government will give to representatives by(a) foreign governments and (b) elected representatives of UK communities in reaching its decision on whether or not to support the proposed Central Railway project; [92570]

  (2) when he expects to make an announcement on Government policy on the proposed Hybrid Bill to promote Central Railway. [92647]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have received the Strategic Rail Authority's advice on this proposal, as well as a number of representations from other parties. We are giving the proposals due and careful consideration and will respond to Central Railway in due course.
  508W
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the reports he has received on the Central Railway project from the Strategic Rail Authority. [92608]

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

  Coach Travel
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about help available to pensioners with long-distance coach travel. [92308]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are committed to the early introduction of a scheme under which the operators of scheduled long-distance coach services would offer those aged over 60, and disabled people, concessionary half-fares in return for the services becoming eligible for Bus Service Operators Grants from my Department. We are currently pursuing clearance of this proposal under European Union State Aid rules, and are in discussion with coach operators on the details of the scheme's introduction. We aim to introduce the scheme as soon as possible in 2003–04.

  Coaches (Passenger Seat Belts)
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the(a) desirability and (b) level of use of seat belts for passengers on coaches. [91761]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government have for many years encouraged the wide use of seat belts, as they can significantly reduce injuries in many types of accidents. Indeed, since 1 October 2001, seat belts have been required in all new minibuses, coaches and buses—apart from those specifically designed for urban use with standing passengers. However, no assessment has been made by observation of the use of seat belts by coach passengers.

  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from coach operators about the wearing of passenger seat belts; and if he will make a statement. [91762]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No such representations have been received from coach operators. However, the Confederation of Passenger Transport, which represents bus and coach operators, responded to an informal consultation by the Department in May 2001 for views on the proposals in the draft EU Directive on seat belt wearing.

  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to strengthen the regulations governing the use of seat belts for passengers in buses and coaches; and if he will make a statement [91765]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The terms of an EU Directive, presently under consideration, will require seat belts to be used in the rear of buses and coaches where they are provided. Seat belt wearing is already compulsory in the
  509W
  UK for the drivers and front seat passengers in all vehicles, and in the rear of mini-buses under 2.54 tonnes unladen weight (roughly 16 seats).

  Container Ports
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what estimate he has made of likely container port capacity at existing container ports over the next (a) five years, (b) 10 years, and (c) 15 years. [91697]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Southampton Test (Dr. Whitehead) on 3 December 2002,Official Report, columns 661–62W. The paper, "Recent Developments at UK Container Ports", mentioned in that answer, explains why the Department has not made national forecasts on container capacity. Likely capacity depends partly on future decisions on planning applications for port developments.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 2 December from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. G. Sherriff. [92286]

  Mr. Spellar
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 11 December 2002.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will reply to the question tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, Ref.83261. [92585]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have answered question ref. 83261 on 28 November 2002 and it was printed on 3 December 2002,Official Report, column 666W.

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 on the transport sector, with particular reference to the rail sector. [91757]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Before accessibility regulations were implemented for new trains, buses and coaches under the Disability Discrimination Act, we published full assessments of the costs to industry of compliance with the regulations. These assessments were made on the basis of extensive and detailed consultation with manufacturers and operators. Since implementation, we have continued to maintain a close dialogue with industry, as well as with disabled people, to ensure the regulations are working effectively.

  Heathrow
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Heathrow (Runway Alternations) 6 am to 7 am trial will conclude. [92125]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 9 January 2003,Official Report, column 2W. It is not possible at this stage to forecast when the trial will conclude.

  Illegal Minicabs
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham on 7 January,Official Report, column 102W, on illegal minicabs what funding has been allocated to local enforcement authorities to publicise the undesirability of using unlicensed minicabs. [92586]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My answer on 7 January made clear that the enforcement of illegal minicabs is a matter for local enforcement authorities and the police. It is for them to decide whether they wish to spend any of their budget on publicising the undesirability of using unlicensed minicabs.

  Liquefied Petroleum Gas Vehicles
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with interested organisations on how to encourage more LPG fuelled vehicles. [92061]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department has regular discussions with organisations representing the LPG industry. The DfT have met with: vehicles manufacturers; fuel suppliers; the Energy Saving Trust, who manage the PowerShift programme, and the LP Gas Association.

  These discussions centre on how to bring high quality LPG vehicles to market, looking at what measures can help to remove market barriers and ensuring that there is a nation-wide LPG refuelling infrastructure.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to increase the number of LPG outlets in and around London. [92062]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are now over 1,100 LPG refuelling outlets, giving good coverage across the UK, including the London area. The Government has supported the general development of the LPG market through fiscal measures including favourable duty rates, grants towards the premium cost of LPG vehicles and discounts for alternatively fuelled vehicles under the new Vehicle Excise Duty and company car tax regimes.

  In addition Planning Policy Guidance note 13, indicates that local authorities "should look favourably at proposals" to provide LPG and other alternative fuel infrastructure, "in order to deliver wider environmental objectives".

  London (Transport Access)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the proportion of the population of the United Kingdom living within an area which can access London SW1 by(a) public and (b) private transport by (i) 9.15 am and (ii) 11.30 am without starting their journey earlier than 6.00 am. [92642]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No such estimate has been made.

  London Underground
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many attributable delays of 15 minutes or more there were on each London underground line in each year since 2000. [91067]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London underground. However, they have provided the information in the table showing by line, for financial years since 2000–01, the number of attributable delays of at least fifteen minutes that were within London underground's control.

  London underground: Number of train delays of at least

  15 minutes by line

  Line

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–031

  Bakerloo

  249

  253

  205

  Central

  376

  378

  172

  District

  303

  431

  286

  Jubilee

  176

  227

  121

  East London

  93

  84

  64

  Northern

  136

  142

  116

  Piccadilly

  189

  248

  183

  Victoria

  68

  112

  77

  Metropolitan

  351

  444

  328

  Circle and Hammersmith

  239

  219

  157

  Waterloo and City

  20

  30

  40

  Total

  2,200

  2,568

  1,749

  1To 7 December 2002

  The increase in delays between 2000–01 and 2001–02 is primarily a consequence of problems with aging assets, especially signalling, including a major problem on the Metropolitan line during 2001. This emphasises the urgent need for the major investment and renewal which our tube modernisation plans will deliver.

  Marine Casualty Officers
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many marine casualty officers are employed to work within UK waters. [91768]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are 10 marine casualty officers in the United Kingdom under the employment of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

  Motorway Services (M65)
  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by whom the decision was made to name the services at junction 4 of the M65 motorway The Blackburn Services; and who was consulted before the decision was taken. [91934]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from T. Matthews to Ms Janet Anderson, dated 23 January 2003:
  I have been asked by David Jamieson to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the naming of the Motorway Services at Junction 4 of the M65 in Lancashire.
  The developer of this service area initiated the name "The Blackburn Services".
  The development was submitted to Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council for planning approval. When considering planning applications, the Council is required to undertake
  512W
  consultations with a standard list of consultees, which in the case of a proposed motorway service area includes the Highways Agency. When consulted, our considered view was that the proposed facility was in the interests of road users, and we therefore made no objection to the proposal. Once these consultations, required by the planning process, are complete, there is no requirement to consult further.
  The Highways Agency would only have intervened in the naming of these services if we considered that road safety could have been compromised by the provision of misleading or confusing information on our road signs.
  If you would like any further information about this matter, you may wish to contact the Agency's Route Manager for this section of the M65, Roy Wood, at Sunley Tower, Piccadilly Plaza, Manchester, Ml 4BE (Tel 0161 930 5686).

  Oil and Chemical Spills
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what specific funding is available to coastal local authorities for counter-pollution measures and clean-up operations for(a) oil, (b) diesel and (c) other spillages at sea; [91599]

  (2) what steps he has taken to train local authority staff and staff of other interested organisations, in the management, containment and clearance of oil, chemical and diesel spillages at sea. [91598]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [pursuant to his answer, 20 January 2003, Official Report, c. 36-37W]: In the last 24 months the MCA have trained over 150 people on the Oil Pollution, Contingency Planning and Response courses. The MCA will also run courses in Inverclyde, North East Scotland, North Devon, Humberside, the Isle of Wight and Dorset before April 2003.

  Paper Supplies
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who the suppliers are of his Department's(a) paper and (b) paper products. [91909]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department's printing paper is supplied by Robert Home Paper Company, James McNaughton Paper Company, Premier Paper and Howard Smith Paper. Copier paper and other paper products are supplied by Banner Business Supplies Ltd.

  Pollutant Spillage Courses
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the local authorities that have taken up pollutant spillage courses offered by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. [91767]
  513W
  Mr. Jamieson
  In the last 15 months the MCA have trained over 80 local authority delegates on six Oil Pollution, Contingency Planning and Response courses. These delegates have come from the following councils:

  Denbighshire Council

  Colchester Borough Council

  Norfolk County Council

  Swale Borough Council

  Southampton City Council

  West Somerset District Council

  Exeter City Council

  Torbay Council

  North Devon District Council

  Carrick District Council

  Portsmouth City Council

  West Dorset District Council

  Poole Borough Council

  Bournemouth Borough Council

  Kent County Council

  South Gloucester Council

  Hampshire County Council

  Neath and Port Talbot County Borough Council

  Argyll and Bute Council

  Aberdeenshire Council

  Angus Council

  South Ayrshire Council

  Western Isles Council

  The City and County of Cardiff

  Vale of Glamorgan County

  East Lindsey District Council

  Lincolnshire County Council

  Copeland Borough Council

  Environment and Heritage Service

  Hartlepool Borough Council

  Waveney District Council

  Havant Borough Council

  New Forest District Council

  Teignbridge District Council

  North Somerset Council

  Sedgewick District Council

  Medway Council

  Dorset County Council

  Adur District Council

  The MCA have also run two day hands-on training courses for county, unitary and district councils in the following areas since the summer of 1999: Suffolk, Lincolnshire, Merseyside, Hampshire, West Sussex, Cumbria, Somerset, Argyll and Bute, Fife, Kent, Pembrokeshire, Cornwall, Essex, Teeside, Highland, Humberside, Tyneside, Gwynedd and South Wales. Before April 2003 courses will also be run in Inverclyde, North East Scotland, North Devon, Humberside, the Isle of Wight and Dorset. When organising these courses the host council will always invite their neighbours. For example the Fife Council course was attended by all the councils surrounding the Forth and Tay estuaries.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many press releases have been issued by his Department in each(a) year and (b) quarter from 1995–96 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [92455]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) The number of press releases issued by each relevant Department excluding agencies, is set out in the table. Those on transport issues are included in overall totals for the former Departments of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) and Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR), as separate data is not held.

  Number of press releases issued

  Number

  Department of Transport

  1995–1996

  422

  1996–1997

  401

  April 1997–15 June 1997

  38

  Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (c)

  16 June 1997–1998

  817

  1998–1999

  1,217

  1999–2000

  1,153

  Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (c)/ Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (c)

  2000–2001

  768

  Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  2001–2002

  488

  April 2002–28 May 2002

  73

  Department for Transport

  29 May 2002–17 January 2003

  121

  (b) Quarterly information for Department for Transport, since its creation, is as follows:

  Press releases issued by the Department for Transport

  Quarter

  Number

  29 May to end of June 2002

  17

  July–September 2002

  57

  October–December 2002

  43

  1 January 2003–to date (17 January 2003)

  4

  Quarterly data for the former Departments is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the request of the Western franchise to receive a subsidy from the Strategic Rail Authority to run services on the Swindon-Cheltenham line in place of Virgin Trains. [92070]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority has agreed that, from May 2003, Virgin Cross Country will no longer run services on this route, but First Great Western will provide an enhanced service.
  515W
  The Authority has also invited proposals from Wessex Trains to run services on the route. It is currently considering these.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will carry out an investigation into the ability of train operating companies to cease fulfilling timetabled services. [92071]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]The minimum level of services which train operators are required to provide is prescribed in franchise agreements, primarily through the Passenger Service Requirement.

  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what remedial action has been taken by train operating companies with passengers in excess of capacity as required by the terms of their franchise; how much funding is committed to this by Central Government; and how the money is distributed; [92128]

  (2) how much has been spent on reducing overcrowding on trains in each of the last five years by (a) South West Trains, (b) Silverlink, (c) South Central, (d) Thameslink and (e) Railtrack; and if he will make a statement. [92127]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Investment by train operating companies and Network Rail (formerly Railtrack) is made for a variety of reasons including tackling overcrowding. It is not possible to ascribe particular amounts to a single objective. Nor is there a single amount committed by Central Government.

  Where train operators breach their 'Passengers In Excess of Capacity' limit the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) can require an action plan to be produced. The SRA now publish information on these in the June edition of 'On Track'. This is placed in the Library of the House.

  Road Deaths
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 15 January 2003,Official Report, column 627W, on road deaths, whether his Department has specifically requested from the Netherlands (a) figures on accident reductions and (b) details of the effects on traffic flows and the behaviour of road users generally, where traffic lights have been removed. [92609]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department is in touch with the official responsible for the work in the Netherlands. Accident figures and the effects on traffic flows have been discussed in general terms and we have asked for any formal figures that may be available. It is important to note that a great deal of work has been done to change the appearance of the roads concerned and reduce vehicle speeds as part of influencing drivers' behaviour. More than just the removal of traffic signals is involved and this needs to be considered when looking at accident and traffic flow figures.

  Roadworks (London)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many reports of hazards to pedestrians have been(a) reported and (b) investigated by the
  516W
  Health and Safety Executive as a result of Transport for London road works in Wandsworth between 2001–02. [92126]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is not readily available. Reports to the Health and Safety Executive regarding hazards to pedestrians are normally recorded as complaints concerning the contractor actually doing the work, not the ultimate client. During the period 2001–02 HSE recorded a total of 18 complaints concerning public safety in the London borough of Wandsworth: in 14 of these it proved possible for HSE to carry out investigations. From a further search of available data there is no record of any of these complaints having concerned Transport for London roadwork's.

  Rolling Stock
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when all Mark 1 rolling stock will be removed from service. [92622]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority is leading an industry wide Mark 1 Replacement Programme to ensure that all Mark 1 rolling stock is removed from the Network by 31 December 2004, as required in the 1999 Rail Safety Regulations. In the course of investigating this project, it has become clear that it may be necessary to provide for around 300 to 350 vehicles to operate on the network after December 2004, but the SRA expects these vehicles to be removed from the network in spring 2005.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many days were lost due to sickness absence in the Department in 2002. [90537]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport was established following machinery of Government changes in May 2002. The most recent 'Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service' published by the Cabinet Office and announced by Ministerial Statement on 19 December 2002 covered the calendar year 2001 for the predecessor Department, the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions and its executive agencies. Figures for 2002 will be announced in due course.

  The Department is committed to managing sick absence effectively and to meeting its Service Delivery Agreement (SDA) target reductions in sick absence by the end of 2003.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many working days were lost due to illness in his Department in 2002. [90973]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport was established following machinery of Government changes in May 2002. The most recent "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service", published by the Cabinet Office and announced by Ministerial Statement on 19 December 2002, covered the calendar year 2001 for the predecessor Department, the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and its executive agencies. Figures for 2002 will be announced in due course.
  517W
  The Department is committed to managing sick absence effectively and to meeting its Service Delivery Agreement (SDA) target reductions in sick absence by the end of 2003.

  St. Pancras Cemeteries
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 8 January 2003,Official Report, column 22W, on St. Pancras cemeteries, how many representations he received; what issues were raised in the representations; what response he made to each of the representations; what contacts he had with the contractors responsible for the work as a result of the representations he received; when the work of removing the graves will be completed; how many graves will be removed from the cemetery as a result of the work; how old the graves are which are being removed; what information he has collated regarding surviving relatives of those buried in the graves; and what action he has taken to ensure that the removal of graves is being carried out in conformity with the relevant regulations. [91328]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State has to date received nine written representations on this matter, which have raised concerns ranging from the retrieval and recording of archaeological information from the site to the method of working and removal of bodies. London & Continental Railways has continued to liaise closely with contractors and the ecclesiastical authorities, and the Secretary of State's advisers on the CTRL project have been closely involved as work has proceeded. The bulk of the exhumation work will be completed by the end of April. It is estimated that the remains of up to 8,000 bodies will be removed from the site, although not all of these are identifiable individuals. The cemetery closed in 1854 so all the burials pre-date that time. As the site had already been disturbed by 19th century railway construction, there is no identification on the surface of individual burials. Any information from the excavations is recorded by the specialist contractor carrying out the work, which is being done in accordance with legal requirements relevant to burial grounds from this period.

  Thames Estuary Airport
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what discussions he has had with the Thames Estuary Airport Company regarding their proposals for a new airport; [91356]

  (2) whether (a) he and (b) his departmental officials have had discussions regarding a proposal for a new airport situated in the Thames estuary on a site northeast of the Isle of Sheppey; [91349]

  (3) if he will set out the timetable for public consultation on UK air transport. [91693]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The only contact between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and the Thames Estuary Airport Company Limited (TEACO) has been to receive their written response to "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East)". This included proposals for a new airport on an artificial island in the Thames Estuary. Officials 518W
  have had a number of telephone conversations with representatives of TEACO, both before and after submission of their written response.

  The consultation period, throughout the UK, has been extended until we have consulted on Gatwick runway options. The consultation period will run for four months after the date of publication of the new material. Those who have already responded to the consultation will be able to amend, add to, or replace their response having considered the new material, if they wish to do so.

  Train Drivers (Sickness)
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the sickness rates were for train drivers in(a) 1991, (b) 1996 and (c) 2001. [92096]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information is not held centrally.

  Water Freight
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much freight was carried on water in the UK in(a) the year to May 1992, (b) the year to May 1997 and (c) the most recent year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [91759]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Statistics of freight traffic carried on UK waters are compiled on an annual basis only. Total waterborne freight traffic in years 1991, 1996 and 2001 (the latest available year), in terms of goods lifted (tonnage) and goods moved (tonne-kilometres), were as follows:

  Year

  Goods lifted (million tonnes)

  Goods moved(billion tonne-kilometres)

  1991

  144.2

  57.7

  1996

  142.1

  55.3

  2001

  131.7

  58.8

  Working Time Directive
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of the working time directive on services by(a) rail and (b) road. [91758]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department is consulting both sides of industry, on the likely impact of the adopted working time directive for mobile workers in the road transport sector (2002/15/EC). A regulatory impact assessment will be published later this year, alongside a consultation document on our proposals.

  Rail and road workers will be subject to the original Working Time Directive (93/104/EC), as amended by 2000/34/EC, by August 2003. The Department of Trade and Industry published a draft impact assessment on 31 October 2002, which covers all the sectors excluded from the original directive, including rail workers and non-mobile workers in the road transport sector. The draft RIA may be revised following comments received at the close of the public consultation on 31 January.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Council Art Exhibitions Overseas
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)
  The British Council, although not a Government Department, receives a substantial grant-in-aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Council regularly organises or sponsors exhibitions overseas of works of art loaned from national galleries and private collections in the United Kingdom. It provides certain assurances or guarantees in respect of loss or damage while these works are on loan.

  In the six month period ended 30 September 2002 the British Council provided such assurances to seven national lenders and undertakings to 156 private lenders. The value of the contingent liabilities that remained outstanding as at 30 September 2002 in respect of national lenders was £181, 233, 500 and £158, 734, 660 in respect of private lenders; these were, for the most part, attributable to the Constable exhibition which opened in Paris on 7 October. The exhibition closed on 13 January 2003.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  This report finds that, while having some significant challenges ahead, the council is well placed to develop its benefits administration and counter-fraud performance into that of a high achieving authority.

  The BFI was impressed by the clear focus shown by the benefit service management team. The council had or was addressing a range of significant problems.

  The report finds weaknesses in the council's claim forms and in the way the evidence to support claims is verified. Both these issues require urgent attention by the council.

  Some progress is being made in improving overpayments recovery but there are some problems in overpayment calculation and classification. Supervisory checks were found to be poor and management information flawed. A high number of old housing benefit and council tax benefit overpayments had not been recovered.
  18WS
  The report notes the good performance of the counter-fraud benefit investigation team. A large number of benefit fraud prosecutions had been undertaken, cautions issued and administrative penalties offered. A thorough case-review process had helped to ensure that the quality of investigations remained high.

  In 2000–01, the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham council paid out £86.8 million in housing benefits. This is approximately 32 per. cent of its gross revenue.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address the remaining weaknesses and to improve further the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  PSA Grants
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  Following a successful pilot exercise, I am pleased to announce that the Government has signed a further 49 Local Public Service Agreements (LPSAs) with individual councils, and that we hope to conclude Agreements with another 35 councils by the end of March.

  I am today laying before this House a special grant report which seeks approval for pump-priming grants totalling £93 million which will help these councils to deliver their challenging LPSA targets to further improve their local services.

  Electoral Pilots
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  The electoral pilot programme is a key part of the Government's efforts to modernise our electoral system. It will allow us to test the robustness of new voting methods, including e-voting, and build public confidence in them. In conjunction with the Electoral Commission and the Local Government Association, we have invited local authorities in England and Wales to take part in this programme by running pilots at local elections during 2003.

  Today I am able to announce that I have accepted 18 applications to hold e-voting pilots at the May 2003 local elections. In addition, I have accepted a further 2 applications to hold non e-voting pilots in addition to the 41 contained in my previous announcement on 18 December 2002. The names of these additional 20 successful local authorities and the type of pilot that they are planning to hold are listed at the end of this statement.

  In total, I have now accepted 61 applications. covering 6.5million electors. This is a significant increase over the 30 pilots (covering 2.5million electors) held at the May 2002 local elections. The next step will

  19WS
  be for us, working with authorities and in consultation with the Electoral Commission, to draw up the statutory orders authorising these pilots.

  We will shortly be concluding a competitive procurement, under the EC services directive, for a number of suppliers to be contracted as part of a framework agreement to support e-voting pilots over the next three years. A list of contracted suppliers will be placed in the Library of the House and on the Office's website. Local authorities conducting e-voting pilots will need to match up with suppliers on this framework agreement as soon as it is made public.

  This year's local elections will be the largest test of the Government's e-voting plans yet, confirming the UK's position as one of the pioneers of e-voting in Europe. The 18 local authorities that will trial the new technologies produced proposals that demonstrated they are ready, willing, and able to offer their electors the opportunity to trial 21st century voting techniques.

  We are building on the positive response to the relatively small-scale trials held by nine authorities last year, which demonstrated the huge potential that e-voting has for giving people wider opportunities to vote. This year's pilots which are being conducted on a much larger scale, will help us to gain a better knowledge and experience of e-voting with a much larger number of people.

  The pilots are an important step towards our aim of holding an e-enabled general election sometime after 2006. These innovations will help to make elections more relevant, straightforward and accessible for voters.

  Electoral Pilot Applications Accepted Today

  Name of Authority

  Channels to he Piloted

  Basingstoke & Deane Borough

  E-voting at polling stations & e-

  Council

  counting

  Chester City Council

  E-voting at polling stations

  Chorley Borough Council

  Touch-tone telephone. Internet &

  e-counting (combined with all-

  postal ballot)

  Copeland Borough Council

  All-postal ballot

  East Northamptonshire Council

  Postal ballot paper innovations

  Epping Forest District Council

  E-voting at polling stations & e-

  counting

  Ipswich Borough Council

  Digital TV, SMS text messaging,

  touch-tone telephone & Internet

  Kerrier District Council

  Digital TV, touch-tone telephone,

  Internet, e-voting at polling

  Malvern Hills District Council

  Internet

  Norwich City Council

  SMS text messaging, touch-tone

  Rushmoor Borough Council

  Internet

  Sheffield City Council

  SMS text messaging, touch-tone

  telephone, Internet, e-voting at

  polling stations & at sheffield

  public Data kiosks

  20WS

  Name of Authority

  Channels to he Piloted

  Shrewsbury & Atcham Borough

  Digital TV, touch-tone telephone,

  Council

  Internet, e-voting at polling

  stations & e-counting (combined

  with all-postal ballot)

  South Somerset District Council

  Digital TV, touch-tone telephone

  & Internet (combined with all-

  postal ballot)

  South Tyneside Metropolitan

  SMS text messaging, touch-tone

  Borough Council

  telephone & Internet (combined

  with all-postal ballot)

  St Albans City & District Council

  Touch-tone telephone, Internet, e-

  voting at polling stations & e-

  counting

  Stratford-on-Avon District

  Internet & e-voting at polling

  Council

  stations

  Stroud District Council

  Touch-tone telephone & Internet

  Swindon Borough Council

  Digital TV, touch-tone telephone

  & Internet

  Vale Royal Borough Council

  Touch-tone telephone, Internet &

  e-counting

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Animal Movements Regime
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)
  The Government propose—subject to satisfactory further consultations with the livestock industry—to make significant changes to the animal movements regime in England and Wales with effect from 4 March 2003:A reduction of the 20 day whole farm standstill to six days for cattle, sheep and goats but with far fewer exemptions;
  A joint commitment by government and the industry to a package of measures to improve the level of biosecurity and disease surveillance; and.
  A readiness to increase the length of the standstill back to 20 days if the disease threat increases.

  Scottish Ministers will be considering the Scottish position in the light of this announcement.

  THE STANDSTILL REGIME

  Since the end of the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak animal movement controls have been in place, underpinned by a 20-day standstill period for premises following the arrival of incoming animals. These controls were imposed on the basis of strong veterinary and scientific advice.

  There have been successive relaxations and exemptions from the 20-day regime in England and Wales and separately in Scotland, notably a system of isolation or separation for incoming animals, in order to meet industry concerns about the costs imposed by the standstill rule.
  21WS
  RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INDEPENDENT INQUIRIES

  The two independent inquiries into FMD—the Lessons Learned and Royal Society Inquiries—reporting in July 2002 endorsed the retention of the 20-day standstill on disease control grounds, until such time as the Government had carried out a detailed risk assessment and wide-ranging cost-benefit analysis of the impact of different standstill periods.

  As a result, Defra commissioned two interrelated assessments:

  A risk assessment of the impact of different standstills on the "Silent Spread" of the disease, before it is known to be in the country;

  A cost benefit analysis of the cost to the industry and disease control benefit to GB as a whole of different standstills;

  Separately Defra had already commissioned a risk assessment of the probability of disease reaching GB livestock either from illegal imports or from meat imported legally from third countries; emerging results from that risk assessment were also relevant to this work. In its response to the FMD inquiries the Government said they would draw on the emerging findings from these studies to inform a decision on the movement regime for Spring 2003, because of the significant numbers of animal movements that take place at that time of year.

  EMERGING FINDINGS FROM THE RISK ASSESSMENTS

  These risk assessment and cost benefit studies have been tackling novel and complex problems, in a relatively short time. The emerging findings do not provide unequivocal answers to the questions posed.

  None the less, on animal movements the risk assessment and cost benefit analysis provide evidence for four conclusions. First, they suggest that standstill rules can play a useful part in limiting the spread of foot and mouth disease during the period before its presence in the country has been identified. Secondly, however, initial disease spread is likely to be dominated by early animal movements over which standstills have limited impact, and by other spread mechanisms which they do not affect. Standstills therefore appear to have rather less effect than might have been anticipated in confining outbreaks to local areas. Third, in disease spread terms in the majority of scenarios the differential benefit between a six and a 20-day standstill is relatively small and in cost benefit terms a six day standstill is more effective in most (but not all) scenarios. Fourth, and perhaps most important, the model shows that the key factor affecting the ultimate scale of an outbreak is the time to detection of disease, not the length of standstill.

  THE GOVERNMENT'S CONCLUSIONS

  The Government's veterinary and scientific advisers do not consider that the currently emerging conclusions from the movements risk assessment are sufficiently robust definitively to determine the optimum length of standstill period. However, the balance of view of the experts in risk assessment is that, while the second phase of the risk assessment work should continue to the end
  22WS
  of May 2003 as planned, there is unlikely to be a significantly better basis on which to make a decision about the standstill then than is available now. The Government therefore is faced with making a decision now on the evidence available to it, balancing scientific, veterinary, economic and other factors.

  The Government consider in the light of the evidence that a standstill period provides a valuable long-term element in the movement regime. The emerging results from the cost-benefit analysis suggest a reasonably robust cost-benefit case for a six day standstill (compared with no standstill). But, bearing in mind the uncertainties on the movements risk assessment, the emerging results cannot at this stage provide a robust conclusion on whether or not the economic benefits of 20 day standstill (net of costs) are greater, or less, than for 6 days. The results do, however, strongly indicate that it is equally important to address factors such as disease surveillance, biosecurity standards on farms, in markets and in the transport of livestock, and above all efforts to raise awareness and commitment in the livestock community to reporting suspicion of disease.

  It is recognised that an early move to reduce the standstill from 20 to six days would carry some risks. However, the Government have concluded that the best approach is to put in place a standstill of 6 days for cattle sheep and goats, with effect from early March, provided that over the next couple of weeks the industry demonstrates a commitment to an effective programme of controls and further work to improve disease detection and biosecurity. If we are to go beyond the most precautionary approach, there must be a real gain to be had from doing so. The 20 day standstill will remain in place for pigs.

  MEASURES TO IMPROVE DISEASE DETECTION AND BIOSECURITY

  The change Ministers are announcing today is therefore dependent on the adoption of an accompanying package of measures by early March, the main points of which are:
  a responsibility will be placed on lorry drivers, farmers and others to ensure that they, and the exterior of their vehicles, are clean when entering livestock markets;
  livestock market operators will be required to sign a formal undertaking to comply with strict operating procedures;
  there will have to be complete separation in time and space between dedicated slaughter markets and other livestock markets.
  At the same time, most of the additional controls over the cleansing and disinfection of livestock vehicles introduced following the FMD outbreak will be maintained, and the current requirements for standards of biosecurity in markets will be maintained and kept under review. The Government are also introducing new rules for the individual identification of sheep and goats from 1 February.

  The Government will also:
  tackle non-compliance more systematically by removing farmers' right to move animals under general licence if they break the rules; put in place a joint campaign with the

  23WS
  industry to promote high levels of compliance and accepted tough treatment of those breaking the rules.

  The Government will consult on the following proposals for possible introduction later in the year:
  the introduction of revised FMD biosecurity guidance by 1 July 2003, as required under the Animal Health Act 2002;
  a ban on animals being kept on market premises overnight;
  a requirement for all vehicles to be cleansed and disinfected before leaving markets and abattoirs;
  a requirement for market operators to ensure that a vet attends every market;
  a requirement for farmers to consult a vet at least annually for advice about disease detection, biosecurity and farm health plans.

  The Government will commission further work into:
  the impact of dealers on the pattern of livestock movements, and the options for controls;
  the possibility of imposing a distance limit of (say) 150 kilometres on the movement of animals through markets, or of making such moves subject to special licences.

  In addition, Government will work with industry, the veterinary profession and farm assurance schemes on a package of education and best practice guidance, covering in particular the recognition and reporting of disease, and the encouragement of farm health plans covering disease surveillance, biosecurity and movement records.

  There would also need to be a commitment that the industry will engage constructively in consultations on the delivery of the animal health and welfare strategy and on future systems of risk sharing between government and the industry of the costs of animal disease.

  At the same time, the Government recognise the need to maintain and enhance its efforts to minimise the risk of an FMD outbreak posed by illegal imports of meat and animal products, building on the illegal imports action plan and the conclusions of the risk assessment on illegal imports. We intend to consult further with stakeholders on a revised and updated version of the action plan.

  RETURN TO THE 20 DAY STANDSTILL IF RISK INCREASES

  The Government will also put in place arrangements—along the lines recommended by the Royal Society Report—for triggering a 20-day standstill should the threat of disease increase or the evidence base otherwise change so as to justify a longer standstill, or if there is significant non compliance with the new or existing biosecurity provisions. The regulations setting out the move to a 6 day standstill will have an expiry date of 31 July 2003, so that the position can be reviewed at the end of May.

  The Government are publishing today a summary document describing the emerging findings from the risk assessments and cost benefit analysis and the advice we have received on them from peer reviewers and from our veterinary, scientific and economic advisers. We will also set out more fully the proposed new measures on detection and biosecurity. Detailed reports on the risk assessments from the external contractors will be published within the next couple of weeks when quality assurance is complete.

HEALTH

  Medical Careers
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton)
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is today announcing proposals for a new framework of measures to improve rewards for national health service consultants and modernise medical careers in England. Copies of the proposed new framework have been placed in the vote office.

  The new framework involves using the extra resources that the Department had previously set aside for implementation of a new consultants' contract (rising to some £250 million by 2005–06) to achieve the continued objective of giving greater rewards to consultants who do most for NHS patients and reforming the way the NHS delivers patient care.

  To ensure that this extra investment delivers improvements in NHS consultant capacity, productivity and value for money—and helps reform ways of working—there will be a national framework within which local health services will have a choice of investing in local implementation of the contract negotiated with the British Medical Association in June 2002, where there is a high level of local consultant support; investing in new annual incentives for consultants who make the biggest contribution to improving patient care; and investing extra resources in the new system of clinical excellence awards that is due to be introduced from April 2004.

  Within this framework, NHS trusts, primary care trusts and strategic health authorities will be asked to deploy the available resources in ways that most effectively support local priorities for improving the efficiency, quality and responsiveness of patient care.

  The new framework will be accompanied by new standards for consultant job planning to help provide more varied and flexible medical careers and a more productive, collaborative approach to planning and reviewing consultant's work for the NHS. There will also be new standards governing the relationship between private practice and NHS work to improve transparency and prevent any potential conflicts of interest. Consultants will need to meet these standards to be eligible for the new incentive payments and to demonstrate that they are meeting the standards expected under the new clinical excellence award scheme.

  In line with the objective of supporting medical careers, the Department will be introducing on a phased basis a new system of sabbaticals for consultants. Initially, by 2005–06, funding will be made available to enable around 800 consultants each year to have sabbaticals of around two to three months, with coverage extending as workforce capacity expands.

  The Department will also be working closely with the medical royal colleges to modernise medical training, recruitment and career structures. Reforming medical careers in this way will help deliver in a more effective way the treatment patients need most and enable doctors to develop their skills to the full.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Terrorism Act 2000
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  I am pleased to say that Lord Carlile of Berriew QC has completed the report on the operation of part VII of The Terrorism Act 2000, which will be laid before the House today.

  Detention Powers
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  I have today laid before Parliament a draft Order to continue the powers of detention in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 for a further 12 months. It will be debated. by both Houses of Parliament, early in March.

  Where terrorism is concerned, our paramount responsibility is to ensure public safety and national security. So long as the present public emergency subsists, where a person is suspected of terrorism of the sort which led to 11 September 2001 and is considered to be a threat to national security but cannot currently be removed—and for whom a criminal prosecution is not an option—we believe that it is necessary and proportionate to provide for extended detention, pending removal. The person would be free to leave the UK if he wished to do so.

  The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld our position on the need for these detention powers, last October. The Court agreed that the detention powers are not discriminatory and comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. The draft Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (Continuance in force of sections 21–23) Order 2003 provides for the continuation of the immigration powers under Part IV of the 2001 Act to certify, and to detain pending removal, suspected international terrorists, subject to safeguards. The continuation is from 14 March 2003 until 13 March 2004.

  Of the 15 foreign nationals who have so far been detained using the powers under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, two have voluntarily left the United Kingdom. The other 13 remain in detention.
  26WS
  My decisions to certify and detain these individuals were made on the basis of detailed and compelling evidence. That evidence will be examined by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission when the individuals' appeals are held, as provided for under the Act. The Commission is equivalent to the High Court. It has the power to overturn the certificates which I have issued in respect of those detained.

  The detention powers in Part IV of the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act are a cornerstone of the UK's anti-terrorism measures. It is essential that we are able to take firm, swift action against those who threaten the safety of this country.

DEFENCE

  Anti-Tank Guided Weapon
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  The Ministry of Defence has selected the JAVELIN weapon system, produced by a joint venture of Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, as the preferred solution to the requirement for a new Light Forces' Anti-Tank Guided Weapon (LF ATGW). This follows a rigorous and comprehensive assessment phase, which included comparative live-firing trials between JAVELIN and the SPIKE system (offered by Rafael and MBDA). Taking all of these factors into account, JAVELIN provides the best overall solution to our LF ATGW requirement in terms of risk, affordabilty, operational effectiveness and value for money.

  JAVELIN, which is already in service with the United States Army, will provide the British Army with a significantly improved capability when it replaces the existing MILAN system. The weapon system is highly manoeuvrable, man-portable and is capable of destroying the most advanced tanks and armoured vehicles at ranges up to 2.5 km.

  The contract, subject to satisfactory conclusion of negotiations, will be placed shortly. It will be worth over £300 million and is expected to create or sustain over 300 jobs across the United Kingdom in a diverse range of manufacturing companies.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.
Clause 1 [Enforcement notices]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
"(2B) No notice under subsection (2) or (2A) shall be served in respect of any pay reference period more than six years before that date of the service of the notice.""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I must confess that I am not surprised to find myself having to take up the time of the House by bringing back this extraordinarily simple, wholly constructive, nonpolitical and uncontroversial amendment. As your Lordships know, the Government have adopted a totally Pavlovian, rejectionist attitude to any amendment that I may propose. In the almost six years since that disastrous day when I moved from that side of the Dispatch Box to this, there has never, to the best of my recollection, been an occasion when the Government readily conceded that I had a valid point. That is not to say that I have not won amendments; nor is it to say that they have not finally conceded—at the tenth minute of the ninth hour, if you know what I mean. But the truth is that it has never been easy. The concession was never given quickly or smilingly. I am not saying that it is down to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. I am very hopeful that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, filling in for the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, will show a different attitude from today onwards.
When all else has failed and no logical argument could possibly be mustered, Ministers have always fallen back on the line that, "This amendment is not necessary". The National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Bill, an amending Bill, is necessary because of the way in which the original legislation has been interpreted in practice. As noble Lords will know, a tribunal decided that an employee who left his employment could not retrospectively gain his lost minimum wage. The Bill, and the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 itself, commit the,
"Officer acting for the purposes of the Act",
to make a retrospective order in relation to any underpayment of the national minimum wage for an unlimited period of time. That is not a fanciful interpretation of the legislation. It is the plain wording of the 1998 Act, which does not place any limitation on how far back the order can go.
Noble Lords who have sat through these debates will recall that, on Second Reading, I said that I would table an amendment to this effect because the retrospection allowed in relation to notices seemed unlimited. However, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said, "No, the notice can go back only three years, so you needn't worry", but I knew that he was wrong. Subsequently, after our debate on Second Reading, he wrote to me and said:
"There is no limit in the legislation on how far back enforcement notices may be taken".
That could not be clearer. However, when we discussed this amendment in Committee and I thought that the Government would immediately accept it, what was the Minister's argument? As usual, he began by saying:
"in practice, we believe that the amendment is not needed".
He went on to claim that the fact that employers are required to hold records for only three years would mean that,
"the Revenue would find it difficult to pursue cases that went back further than three years".—[Official Report, 9/1/03; cols. 1103–04.]
It may be difficult, but it is not impossible.
The Minister himself readily accepted my argument that there are means of proving underpayment other than the employer's records; for example, with payslips kept by the employee himself. He admitted to the Committee that two routes were open to the employee and the enforcement officer in respect of any alleged underpayment. The first is the ordinary civil courts, where any claim would be subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act 1980. The Minister told the Committee that he agreed that that legislation would apply. That limitation restricts claims for any simple civil debt to a period of just six years.
However, as the Minister admitted in his letter to me, and as he admitted to the Committee, under the tribunal procedure, claims could go back much longer. He said that,
"it seems likely that few cases … will go back further than six years".
A few cases? One case would be too many.
There is an unacceptable anomaly. It would be so easy just to accept it and allow the two procedures to operate side by side. Parliament should not, however, be creating a two-tier system of justice whereby people can get more in one court than in another.
I am sure that the Minister's obstinate refusal to accept my amendment, the principle of which he told your Lordships he agreed with, is due to a total misunderstanding of what it actually says. I say that with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, especially because he is not here. In Committee, he said:
"I … think it would be wrong to create a position in which officers using the tribunals route could not go back as far as the workers themselves could".—[Official Report, 9/1/03; cols. 1103–04.]
The amendment provides for absolute parity between the two routes. That is why I say that he must have misunderstood the amendment—which provides six years' retrospection regardless of the forum, court or tribunal, that the employee chooses.
There is currently a discrepancy whereby an applicant to a tribunal can in theory present a grievance dating back 10 or 20 years. In a court, however, the applicant would be bound by the statute of limitations which allows only six years. The situation is a nonsense. I am sure that, this time, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will agree. I beg to move.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, clearly feels aggrieved that as regards minimum wage and employment legislation it is very difficult for her to persuade the Government to accept her amendment. She seems to believe that some prejudice is held by the Government against her and that if someone else produced the amendment perhaps it would be accepted by them. I cannot speak for the Minister who, as we know, can speak most ably for himself.
On this occasion, as on so many others, we will not be supporting the noble Baroness, not because we have any prejudice against her—indeed, how could one possibly have that?—but simply because on this, as on many other matters, we disagree with her.
First, I am not sure that it is a sound thesis on which she bases the amendment. Why should an individual holding a number of payslips, and who has become aware for the first time that he or she has been underpaid, be artificially restricted in the remedies available to him or her? Why should they be so restricted?
Secondly, as a former lawyer I am always extremely dubious of legislation attempting arbitrarily to interfere with limitation periods. I do not wish to anticipate what the Minister has to say, but I believe that the Bill should remain as drafted on this point and that it should not artificially attempt to interfere with the limitation period.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, can the Minister say how the time period relates to claiming back payment for benefits? Obviously, a number of recipients of the national minimum wage may well be recipients of benefits or be entitled to benefits. I wonder what is the Government's obligation as regards people claiming past benefits and how that would appear in relation to parity with their ability to claim on employers.
11.15 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I remind the House of what the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, said in Committee about the practical effects of this amendment. He explained that there are two ways of pursuing a failure to comply with an enforcement notice. He said that the first is to pursue it through the county courts, but in such cases the Limitation Act 1980 already applies. It is only possible to recover arrears for a period of up to six years from the date of each underpayment.
Almost all cases brought by the Revenue have used that route and they are already subject to a six-year restriction. It is possible to proceed through the
842
employment tribunals. It does not happen very often because the claim has to be made within three months, which is a difficult limitation. It means in practical terms that that route has hardly ever been used by the Revenue. The vast majority of cases can only refer back six years before the date on which proceedings are brought. Although in theory some cases could be taken further back, in practice that is extremely unlikely. I remind the House that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, pointed out that employers are required only to keep wage records for three years. Therefore, if records are to be kept for a greater period, which is relevant to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, the employer would have to keep records going back further.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is right. There is a difference between very rarely and never. We have thought about the matter again. We believe that it would be right in practice to provide for something similar to what the noble Baroness wants. It cannot be the amendment before us because it has technical problems, but it will be one which says roughly what the noble Baroness wants. We hope to have it drafted in time for Third Reading.
I am sorry that that proposal disappoints the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. You cannot win them all. The very purity, if I may put it that way, of the argument put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that even if it hardly ever happens—and it could not for a number of years because the national minimum wage relates only as far back as April 1999—ultimately tips the balance.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, this really is a success! I began by saying that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would find a way around the problem. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, is on the wrong side again, but what can I do about that? We shall look very carefully at what the Government bring forward at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 18, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am speechless, really. As noble Lords know, the first amendment was designed to stop employers having to deal with someone who wants to refer to a matter which goes back over a long period.
This second amendment is very much for the benefit of the employee. I am totally even-handed on this side of the House. This amendment is intended to remove from the Bill the provision that postpones the operation of the Act until two months after it is passed. When I proposed this amendment in Committee the Minister argued that he accepted that it was intended to be helpful. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, said that he had the greatest sympathy with

843
me for wanting to ensure that the employee was entitled to receive his money immediately and not have to wait two months. But the noble Lord had checked with the Cabinet Office, which said it was the custom that the provision did not apply until after two months. Therefore, as a man of custom—he told me this outside the Chamber but indicated more or less the same inside the Chamber—he did not want to change the custom if it was not necessary to do so. What he actually said in the Chamber was that,
"Bills commence two months after Royal Assent, unless there are pressing reasons for bringing the Bill into force more rapidly".—[Official Report, 9/1/03; Col. 1105.]
At that time I described the amendment as "probing". I wanted to see what possible explanation there could be for making an employee wait two months. When I argued the case in Committee—strongly—I made the point that in any event there was a mistake in the original drafting and therefore it ought to be rectified and enacted immediately.
I took it upon myself to check this matter in the Library. Francis Bennion, in his Statutory Interpretation (4th edition, 2002)—it is therefore up to date—said,
"The commencement date may be the date of passing of the Act, or a date specified or indicated in the Act, or a date specified in a commencement order made by a Minister or other functionary".
So, although the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said that it was the custom, that interpretation says something a little different. It says that it could be the date of the passing of the Act; it could be a date specified or indicated in the Act; or it could be a date specified in the commencement order.
Interestingly enough, an investigation carried out in 1979 by a Statute Law Society working party looked at 105 public general Acts passed between 1st January 1978 and April 1979—a period of 14 months—to ascertain when Acts usually come into force. They found that 41 Acts came into effect on the exact date of the passing of the Act; 12 Acts came into force on a date specified in the Act; and 14 Acts came into force on the expiry of a period of one, two or three months after passing. I understand that the Minister may say that that investigation was carried out in 1978 and 1979 and that the custom now is that Acts commence two months after Royal Assent, as he said in Committee, but I asked the Library to check a little further.
The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, made the point in regard to my first amendment that employees should be able to claim their entitlement and to have it backdated, however far. Equally, I am sure that he would not want employees to have to wait for their money if it is not necessary.
The Education Act 2002 was enacted immediately; the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act was enacted immediately; the Armed Forces Act immediately; and the Freedom of Information Act immediately. Those Acts were enacted in 2000–01. The Access to Justice Act was enacted immediately, as was the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998. The Minister may say that there were pressing reasons for those Acts to be enacted immediately and that we can
844
forget custom in those circumstances, but I believe that an employee who is underpaid and wants to claim his money back now should be able to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I do not always disagree with the noble Baroness. On this occasion I agree with her.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, again, we cannot all win. Of course the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is right. It is possible for an Act to come into force on Royal Assent—and that often happens—but the established procedure is that unless there are vital reasons for bringing a Bill into force more rapidly, we give those concerned with the Bill—in this case it is both business and employees—a reasonable opportunity to see and understand the implications of a new Act before it comes into force. That is the only reason for delaying it for two months.
However, there is another reason for not worrying about this Bill being brought into force two months later—and that is that it allows enforcement officers to issue notices in respect of pay periods ending before it comes into force. There is therefore no disadvantage whatever in that two-month delay. Past money owed to workers can be recovered whether the Bill comes into force, say, in March or May of this year. Under those circumstances, and in light of the fact that it is true that this is a conservative kind of argument—the Cabinet Office advised us that this was the right thing to do and we have to go back to the Attorney-General and Legislative Programme Committee to effect a change—and particularly in view of the fact that nobody loses by this delay, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, after such a kind explanation, how could I be so ungracious? As long as I have the Minister's absolute reassurance that the delay will not interfere with an employee's rights—I am sure that is correct—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 2, at end insert—
"(3A) But, notwithstanding section 20(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30) (construction of references to other enactments), the reference in section 1 to section 19 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (c. 39) shall be taken not to include a reference to that section as applied by section 3A of the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949 (c. 30)."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I move Amendment No. 3 I should apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, for not responding to his point on benefits. In fact I cannot respond; I do not know the answer. However, I do not believe it to be relevant because the issue in this Bill concerns records of employment. That does not necessarily apply to benefits. However, I shall write to the noble Lord on that issue.
Amendment No. 3 is a technical amendment dealing with devolved powers which have been requested—too late for the Committee stage—by the Scottish Executive in order to exempt agriculture in Scotland from the provisions of the Bill. Employment is a reserved matter while agriculture is devolved for Scotland and Northern Ireland. In addition, the agricultural minimum wage has been in place throughout the United Kingdom for more than 50 years.
The way the present legislation works is that Schedule 2 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 made a number of amendments to the Agricultural Wages Act (Scotland) 1949, to incorporate some of the provisions of the national minimum wage into the agricultural minimum wage. It is clear that the operation of the agricultural minimum wage in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Executive.
It had two options. The first was to propose a Sewel Motion, which would have allowed Westminster to legislate on this matter even though it is devolved. Before Christmas the Scottish Office informed us on behalf of the Executive that that is what it planned to do. That is why, when we presented the Bill to the House, we covered the agricultural minimum wage in Scotland as well as the rest of the United Kingdom.
However, the Executive has now decided that it does not wish to propose a Sewel Motion and intends to lay parallel independent legislation covering Scottish agriculture in the Edinburgh Parliament. It has asked us to amend our Bill to exclude Scottish agriculture from its scope.
It is not a pretty amendment. I do not claim it is. Anything which has to rely on disregarding matters in the Interpretation Act will never be beautiful. But, in simple terms, it ensures that the provisions in the Bill will not be carried across into the Agricultural Wages Act (Scotland) 1949. It does not affect the existing structure of the national minimum wage or agricultural wages legislation. All it means is that the Scottish Executive will need to introduce parallel legislation to tackle the difficulties we have encountered and to carry across the provisions of this Bill into Scottish agriculture.
The situation is the same in Northern Ireland. But while the Stormont Assembly is temporarily suspended, the Department of Trade and Industry has confirmed with the Northern Ireland Office that it is content for the Bill to cover agriculture in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
11.30 a.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I want to thank the Minister for the courtesy of giving me advance notice of the amendment. We certainly do not object to it, but I want to ask him one question. We note the assurance in the letter, and in what he has now said to the House, that the Scottish Parliament will pass independent parallel legislation. However, can I take it that the word parallel means identical, so that
846
employees in Scotland have exactly the same provisions? That is all that I need to know. It might be parallel but offer them something different.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will inform the House what the agricultural minimum wage is in Scotland. My impression is that it is a good deal higher.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, it would be useful to have some clarification on the record, if not today perhaps in correspondence, about exactly where the line is drawn between the degree of devolvement and the compatibility with the original legislation, so that there is no difference. Intuitively, the answer is reasonably clear, but it would be useful to have some clarification on the record.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall deal first with the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. No, I cannot give an assurance that the legislation will be identical. That is a matter for the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament. If they want to do it in a different way, or even if they want to do something different, that is their privilege. That is the meaning of devolution.
I do not know the answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, as to whether agricultural minimum wages are higher. I am not sure that I should apologise for that, as it is a devolved matter on which I am not supposed to be informed, let alone responsible.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Lea that there should be the utmost clarity in what matters are covered, reserved and devolved. I do not believe that there is any lack of clarity. I think that the Scotland Act provision that employment matters be reserved and agriculture be devolved, combined with the provision for either separate legislation or a Sewell resolution, covers any conceivable confusion, but if I am wrong I shall write to my noble friend on that point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
11.32 a.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Consultation with Board]:
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass Lord Maginnis of Drumglass moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4.
I shall begin briefly by outlining my overall objection to this dishonourable Bill, an objection that colours my attitude to each and every element that we will consider today.
The Bill is devised in a form that is intended to hand over undue influence, if not control, to an element in our society that has sought to undermine the

847
democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. That is Sinn Fein/IRA, to which new Labour and the Prime Minister felt obliged to capitulate at Weston Park, at the same time as they pretended to give consideration to the overall interests of society in Northern Ireland.
Ordinary society in Northern Ireland feels that all the comprise that it made to accommodate everyone in the political process is worthless. It feels that promises made publicly again and again by the Prime Minister are worthless. Also, it feels that when we get to the stage of relegating the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to bit-player, as the clause does, that makes policing and the rule of law a charade.
Lessons have not been learned from the lack of substantive contributions made by Sinn Fein/IRA to the Mitchell principles. Have we by any chance forgotten the Mitchell principles? I have to ask the Minister what has changed or is about to change. Will he tell the House whether, and if so when, we will reach that defining moment when the paramilitary Sinn Fein/IRA disarms and disbands? If I have a satisfactory answer to that question, I and others may be able to view the Bill in a different light from that in which I presently do.
For those who may presume to tell me that Sinn Fein/IRA is not the only paramilitary grouping in Northern Ireland, I simply say that I am hardly unaware of that. However, the Bill is not intended to create inequitable privileges for loyalists, and neither am I. The Bill is intended to create inequitable privileges for Sinn Fein/IRA and it alone.
Did the Minister really mean what he said to me at Second Reading when we mentioned what would happen in comparable circumstances in Surrey? He drew attention to the fact that I had asked why criminals should be allowed on DPPs when they would not in Surrey. He told me:
"The answer is that Surrey has not had the agonising history of Northern Ireland".—[Official Report, 16/12/02; col. 508.]
In other words, there is not the pressure on policing anywhere else in the United Kingdom that necessitates, as in the clause, the relegation of the professional side of policing to something right at the bottom of the pile. I have been in this Parliament for 20 years. I know the value of the democratic process and I subscribe to it, but I also know that it will suffer if we relegate those responsible—the guardians of law and order, the enforcers of the law—to the bottom of the pile. That is why I suggest that we leave out subsections (1) and (2). I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I should point out that, if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 2 or 3.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I do not apologise in the slightest way for giving the obvious reminder to noble Lords that the history of Surrey has not been the same as the history of Northern Ireland.
848
The noble Lord said that the clause relegated the Chief Constable to the role of bit-player. That is an absurdity, if I may say so. The noble Lord knows that I am not criticising him personally, because we have the best of personal relationships, but it is simply not an accurate reflection of what the clause does. He says that the forces of law and order are being put at the bottom of the pile, which is simply not realistic.
I will repeat briefly what I said at length in Committee about what the clause does. It reflects a small but important change in the balance of the relationship over policing between the Secretary of State and the Policing Board. The clause does not give the board a veto over the Secretary of State's objectives. We may need to return to that point on Amendments Nos. 3 and 6. It requires the Secretary of State to try to ensure that he and the board work collectively and harmoniously to develop policing objectives.
We think it right to make those changes to Sections 24 and 27 of the 2000 Act. The Patten report was particularly critical of the previous arrangements The simple, single effect of Amendments Nos. 1 and 4, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Rogan, would be to maintain the status quo. For the reasons I have set out, that would be inappropriate. I am not in a position to, nor do I wish to, accept the amendments.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, there can be no doubt that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and I are opposed or this issue. None the less, it is not an appropriate time to discuss the matter. I do not promise that we shall not return to it at Third Reading, but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 12, after "Constable" insert "with a vim to obtaining his agreement to the proposed objectives or revision"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 2 and 5, which are grouped, would ensure that the Secretary of State would consult with the Chief Constable,
"with a view to obtaining his agreement",
before making changes to, or determining, long-term policing objectives or issuing or revising a code of practice.
It is appropriate that a working partnership be consolidated between the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State in addition to that between the board and the Secretary of State. These amendments would put consultation with the Chief Constable on an equal footing with consultation with the board. Two different relationships in this triangle must be developed. My amendment tries to balance them in a way that is probably correct.
I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for his explanation in Grand Committee. But these amendments are concerned entirely with long-term objectives as a long-term

849
proposal. The noble and learned Lord also stated that the police Bill had a different shade of nuance from the police Act 2000. What has changed since the 2000 Act was passed? What are the practical implications of such a change? What is the difference between consulting and consulting,
"with a view to obtaining … agreement"?
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, for sharing his interpretation of "long-term objectives". He said that they have more to do with political issues than operational ones, and that the Chief Constable then interprets such objectives in an operational manner. Although it is Northern Ireland we are discussing, that seems a little bogus. There is something wrong in that approach. I shall be interested to hear the interpretation of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal of "long-term objectives", which I understand to be the justification for the amendments to the police Act 2000, in Clause 1.
My key points are that the balance of relationships should be maintained, bearing in mind that for "Secretary of State" we could, I hope, soon be reading "First Minister and Deputy First Minister". There must be a balance in the relationships between the board, which is quasi-political, the Secretary of State, who is obviously political, and the Chief Constable, the operational person responsible for the security, safety and policing of the Province. A consensus on the long-term objectives should be reached between the three different groups. My amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State would consult the Chief Constable,
"with a view to obtaining his agreement",
on the "long-term objectives", to use the words of the noble and learned Lord in Grand Committee. I beg to move.
11.45 a.m
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, underpins, perhaps in less trenchant terms, exactly what I said earlier. His amendment gives the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal an opportunity at least to concede a provision that simply intimates that consultation with the Chief Constable will be given the same consideration as consultation with the board. It would alleviate my problem of the Chief Constable's relegation to a position of secondary importance in the consultation process. The qualification proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, would help to alleviate our difficulty.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Glentoran because the practical workability of the arrangements is important. Unless, agreement is reached between the three parties—the Secretary of State, the board and the Chief Constable—their relationship will be difficult. It is, after all, the Chief Constable who will have to work out the strategy to meet these objectives. I am sure that the last thing the noble and learned Lord wants is difficult relationships in this area of activity.
850
I see no reason why the words,
"with a view to obtaining his agreement to the proposed objectives or revision"
could be disagreed with. Amendment No. 2 does not say that the Secretary of State must obtain the Chief Constable's agreement. He must consult only,
"with a view to obtaining his agreement".
That gives a good deal of leeway for proper dialogue between the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable on the practical workability of the arrangements.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I, too, support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I wish to inject a long-term view. So far, the Policing Board is working very well. It seems to be learning and working as an admirable institution. But the political long-term intention is that Sinn Fein should also join the Policing Board. That would change the chemistry of the board, because Sinn Fein's views on policing are totally different from everyone else's. I will raise only one of the obvious problems with that. The Chief Constable will have to operate within the arrangements decided, and it will be more important than ever that his relationship with the Secretary of State should be as strong as possible. Otherwise, the arrangements will not work.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I declare an interest as a member of the Policing Board. However, I stress that my remarks, unless I say otherwise, are as an individual on the board.
I support the amendment because "consult" means very different things to different types and groups of people. All too often, when politicians talk about consulting, they mean dictating. In certain debates and dealings with the Government, at least in this Chamber, many believe that when they say they have explored every avenue of consultation and talked to everybody, they mean that they have informed people.
The Secretary of State is a political figure, therefore there is no handicap in including the word "agreement". The Government cannot simply circulate a sheet of paper or inform bodies verbally of a decision and then say that they have consulted. A two-way process is needed. On that basis, I cannot see what danger would be imposed on the Government by stressing that negotiations, the passing of information and consulting are part of a two-way process, not a diktat.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for so carefully explaining the amendments. I remind your Lordships of the present position.
Under Section 24 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000—the present statute in other words:
"The Secretary of State may determine, and from time to time, revise, long term objectives for the policing of Northern Ireland".

851
Section 24(2) states:
"Before determining or revising any objectives under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) the Board;

(b) the Chief Constable; and

(c) such other persons as he thinks appropriate".

That is the present requirement. If the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, is troubled about what consultation means, that is the present legal situation.
The noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Glentoran, asked about the nature of a long-term objective. Paragraph 6.16 of the Patten report refers to objectives in terms of a three to five-year span.
I sympathise with the thrust of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I should like to explain, briefly, how I see the distinction. I said on a number of occasions in Grand Committee and again today that the clause is designed to allow for a slight adjustment—the different nuance I mentioned—which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, cited to me. It is a slight adjustment of power towards the board. The critical point is this. There is a distinction in this tripartite policing relationship between the role of the Chief Constable on the one hand and the board and the Secretary of State on the other. The latter have the responsibility for setting the strategic direction of policing in Northern Ireland. That is their broad purpose.
The duty of the Chief Constable is importantly, even if only subtly, different. That duty is the operational management of the police. His duty and obligation is to implement the objectives set by the board and the Secretary of State. That is a qualitatively different job. I am happy to say as firmly as I can that it is not the intention of the Government that policing objectives should be foisted on the Chief Constable with no regard to his wishes or views. I was glad to hear the endorsement of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, that the board is settling well and working well with a very new Chief Constable. That is a common view.
The purpose of the consultation is to listen to the views of the Chief Constable, have regard to them and pay careful attention to them. But there are the distinctions to which I pointed. Whether your Lordships agree with that description of difference is a matter for your Lordships. In my mind, it is a different quality of purpose and role and that is why we have this slight readjustment. I do not pretend that it is not intended to be a readjustment. I have said so on many occasions.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that response. There is still some difference between us. I have a certain amount of sympathy with his explanation of the role of the police board and the Secretary of State in setting long-term objectives together, as allowed for in the legislation. I also accept that it is the role of the Chief Constable to devolve the strategy and operational plans for carrying out this long-term strategy. Looking ahead four or five years or even longer, what a difference there may be in personalities such as the First Minister, Deputy First
852
Minister, Secretary of State, certain members of the police board and the Chief Constable. We have had problems in the past. There were disagreements within that quorum of people during the 1980s and 1990s, which caused the government at the time considerable pain. I hope that by not accepting my amendment the Government do not store up trouble for the future in this vitally important area. I shall think further about the matter and take advice before Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass Lord Maginnis of Drumglass moved Amendlent No. 3:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
"(2B) Nothing in subsection (2) shall prevent the Secretary of State from determining or revising objectives under this section.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 6 is grouped with Amendment No. 3. I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. It is more by way of a probing amendment to seek an assurance from the noble and learned Lord. This Bill is designed to accommodate Sinn Fein/IRA on the Policing Board and on district policing partnerships. That is the primary objective of the Bill, based on what happened at Weston Park.
I have experienced the mercurial nature of Sinn Fein. Last year, on my own district council, we had a Sinn Fein chairman. He was an excellent chairman. Everything went absolutely tickety-boo, as he would say, in terms of council business. This year, we have an SDLP chairman. The former chairman now sits down the chamber. I have seen him rise with a fistful of papers to fling them in the face of the SDLP chairman. That is the mercurial nature of Sinn Fein. If this Bill goes through, that could be the behaviour of Sinn Fein on the board and on partnerships.
The Secretary of State has to consult with a view to obtaining agreement to the proposed objectives or revision in terms of codes of practice. If that is not possible, how do we ensure that the business of policing and the respective roles of the Secretary of State and Chief Constable are not hindered to the detriment of society? I believe that by adding our Amendments Nos. 3 and 6 there would be enshrined in legislation a means whereby we could overcome this difficulty. I shall listen with interest to what the noble and learned Lord has to say on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall respond in the same spirit as the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. I will be able to reassure the noble Lord. The approach encapsulated in the clause is that it is for the Secretary of State to consult the board with a view to obtaining its agreement. I am quite sure that the Secretary of State and his successors will make every effort to do so. However, I think the nub of the noble Lord's question was about what would happen if there was a disagreement. I can give an assurance; the situation is quite plain. In the unlikely event that no agreement is arrived at, the Secretary of State's powers remain intact. In other words, the board has no veto.

853
The noble Lord's amendments are not needed; they do not affect the position. I hope that I have given him the assurance as plainly as he would have wished.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that unequivocal assurance. Where there is an unequivocal assurance, it is not my intention—or the intention of those associated with me—to frustrate or hold up the Bill. The discussion has been useful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Noon
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 4, I must inform the House that, if it is agreed, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 6 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Board's policing objectives]:
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Public meetings of the Board]:
Lord Smith of Clifton Lord Smith of Clifton moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 16, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 stipulated that the board meet 10 times a year. The Bill reduces that to eight times a year. The reduction in the number of public meetings of the board each year is a departure from Patten.
In Committee, the Minister explained that those changes had been made at the specific request of the Policing Board, as it wanted greater flexibility over when it could hold meetings. However, that flexibility can be achieved under subsection (2), which removes the time limit on the holding of public meetings. The 2000 Act already compromised Patten on that point by reducing the minimum number of meetings from 12 to 10. To reduce it further—to eight—would be a retrograde step for transparency and public accountability. Flexibility is not a good enough reason for the change. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's concern, but all that we are doing here is setting a different minimum. It is important to recognise that that is all that is proposed. I return to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth: the board is settling in well and learning through experience. The board specifically asked us to put the minimum at eight.
As it happens, the public meetings are not well attended. I cannot think why. The board needs to have many private meetings, for obvious reasons that we all understand. Occasionally, with the pressure of private meeting business and the squalls that sometimes come up over Christmas or other holiday periods, the board finds it logistically difficult to comply with the statutory minimum.
854
The board, which is developing its own authority, has made the request. Its judgment should be trusted, and we want to accede to the request. I hope that it will help if I stress that it is not the board's intention—nor the Government's—to do anything to undermine its accountability or, in particular, its transparency, the aspect referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. I ask the noble Lord to bear in mind the reassurance that I have sought to give and not to press the amendment.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. I do not entirely accept that reasons of logistics and so on should prevent the board holding a minimum of public meetings a year. Thankfully, the apathy of the public, who do not attend, means that things are going well. When things are not going so well, people should have the opportunity to attend public meetings.
I shall not press the amendment at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Reports of Chief Constable]:
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 10:
Leave out Clause 8.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to the battle that was fought long and hard in Grand Committee about Clauses 8 and 9. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 do virtually the same thing. The nub of the argument comes later, with Amendment No. 35 to Clause 19, but there are more ways than one of discussing the matter.
I fail to see why it is necessary to interfere with the operational responsibility and independence of the Chief Constable. That is what the clause does. What has changed since the 2000 Act? Nothing has changed, other than the fact that there have been some off-the-record agreements at a place called Weston Park that have nothing to do with the Belfast agreement and nothing to do with Patten.
The clause will reduce the grounds on which the Chief Constable can refer a request for information to the Secretary of State. That is a particularly important matter in Northern Ireland where the maintenance of the operational independence of the chief officer of police is such a sensitive issue. Under the 2000 Act, the Chief Constable is not allowed a veto over the board on whether a report on a matter specified by the board should be made. The amendments to be made to that Act by the Bill will be damaging.
I fear that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal will say that he does not foresee a situation in which our fears would be relevant. I cannot agree. Friendly as we are most of the time, we disagreed about that in Committee, and I am concerned that we may fall out again today. Forcing a Chief Constable to report to a board in a way that was likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders must be wrong in any part of the kingdom.
In Committee, I asked the noble and learned Lord why the Government felt it necessary to make such an extraordinary change and what had changed so dramatically in Northern Ireland between 2000 and January 2003. I was not satisfied with his explanations then. He may be able to help me today, but I am not optimistic. I beg to move.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, nowadays, in serious fraud cases, the courts make provision to lighten the load of a jury by laying on electronic recall of complicated documents and projecting the results onto screens all around the court. That makes it easier for the jury to follow what is said to them, however complex. I wish that something of the same could have been made available while we discussed this amendment. It would make it easier for people who have not been initiated—"blooded" might be another word— by a discussion of at least an hour in Grand Committee to follow the way in which the Bill changes an important part of the law. Its importance was conceded by the noble and learned Lord in Grand Committee when he dealt with the grounds for the amendment with his customary care and accuracy. Because I have kept quiet so far this morning, perhaps I might be indulged in explaining what is done at a little length.
The matter can be put simply—it has to be without the kind of aid to the drafting changes that are involved—but nonetheless accurately. The context is the duty of the Chief Constable, as explained by my noble friend Lord Glentoran, to submit to the policing board reports whenever he is required by the board to do so. What kind of reports?—reports on any matter that the board may specify in its requirement. How soon must he comply?—within one month of any such requirement or—the noble and learned Lord placed great emphasis on this in his reply to me—any such longer period as may be agreed by the Chief Constable with the board. We will return to the significance of that provision.
I referred to the present law. How old is it? It is not as much as three years old. It comes from Section 59 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. It may even be less than two years old, because Section 59 did not come into force on the passing of the Act but on some later date ordered by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that I have not been able to determine.
This being about the policing of Northern Ireland and the history of Northern Ireland—not, as we have been reminded, of Surrey—some safeguards were included against the consequence of tensions between the policing board and the Chief Constable. We all are grateful for the fact that the board seems to be settling down and is working. It is greatly to our advantage that we have among us the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, as a member of that board, which adds enormously to our discussion of these matters.
It was anticipated by Parliament a short time ago that tensions could arise between the Chief Constable and the board. I do not believe that it would be realistic
856
to suppose that anticipation is entirely eliminated by the encouraging but early start that has been made. It was anticipated that those tensions could arise in such a way that the Chief Constable would be asked to report on a matter that he thought would be bound to contain information that ought not to be disclosed for one or more of four reasons. They are interests of national security; because the matter relates to an individual and is of a sensitive and personal character; it would or would be likely to prejudice proceedings which have been commenced in a court of law; or the critical reason for our discussion, in Section 59(3)(d) of the 2000 Act, which is that,
"it would, or would be likely, to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders".
The character of the safeguards are to be found in the same section. The Chief Constable can refer any such requirement to the Secretary of State, then it will be over to him. He can do what he likes. He can amend the requirement or override it. It is over to him and off the responsibility of the Chief Constable.
I believe that it is still necessary that all such grounds should be open to the Secretary of State. Unfortunately, the Bill removes paragraph (d). The prosecution of offenders, and more especially perhaps the apprehension of crime, fall absolutely fair and square within the operational discretion of the Chief Constable. They are for him and him alone. I leave aside the later stages of prosecution, which of course become the responsibility of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I invite the House to agree that it is terribly important that the Chief Constable's operational discretion—the noble and learned Lord confirmed a moment ago that the operational management of the police is for the Chief Constable—should not be trenched apart. If one takes away the ground contained in Section 59(3)(d), one opens the way—it may not be readily foreseen but could be taken—to covert prevention of crime being apprehended in one particular or other and to not being able to prosecute some individual because the trail has been muddied or for some other reason.
We fasten upon that because of its importance. In Grand Committee, the noble and learned Lord said:
"This is a topic of great seriousness. It may be the most important aspect of our discussions at this stage".—[Official Report, 9/1/03; col. GC68.]
When he first put forward the justification for what is being done, the noble and learned Lord drew attention to the point to which of have already alluded—that there can be postponement of the report if that is agreed between the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State. It has to be delivered in one month or such later time as may agreed. One hopes that there would be agreement, but the necessity for the safeguards that I have mentioned has been the anticipation that there may be such tensions between the Chief Constable and the policing board that a reasonable demand is not made or that reasonable agreement is not available. That in itself is not sufficient.

857
The noble and learned Lord relies upon the Patten report and the implementation plan. He had to concede, not surprisingly, that the Patten report came before the 2000 Act, which contains the law that I have explained and which is now sought to be changed. The noble and learned Lord reminded us that the implementation report published in July 2001 stated that the Government intended to remove Section 59(3)(d)—claiming that that had effectively been recommended by Patten. What has changed? If, notwithstanding Patten's recommendation, it was thought necessary to include the safeguard in paragraph (d) in the 2000 Act, why by 2001 was it thought necessary to remove it? Who asked for that to be done?
Even if the Government gave notice of their intention in the implementation plan of July 2001, surely there is some ground for reviewing that decision or at least for explaining the rationale. One should not regard the implementation plan in the way that the German general staff regarded the mobilisation plan in 1914—"Because it's in the plan, it can't be changed. The trains are moving and that's that". From time to time, there is just a little room for a slight accretion of wisdom as the years roll by—for example, after a manifesto has been published. We should not be bound hand and foot to the plan's implementation or otherwise.
Therefore I respectfully agree with the noble and learned Lord when he says that this is probably the most important feature of the Bill and a matter of great seriousness. Of course we agree that the necessity for relying on the safeguard is unlikely and we all pray that it will never arise. But it might. What is the justification for removing something which Parliament, in its wisdom, thought it necessary to include as recently as three years ago?
Lord Hylton: My Lords, it might be helpful to the House if the noble and learned Lord could tell us how often Section 59 reports have been called for by the board; and how often the Chief Constable has felt obliged to rely on the safeguards at present built into subsection (3)?
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I return to my usual premise. Both the implementation plan and the Patten recommendations rested on the idea that Sinn Fein would support the new police arrangements, would join the board and would work with everyone. Sinn Fein has given clear indications that it wishes to destroy the present police; it has told its own young people not to join. That is not what was planned. In view of that, it is vital that the wise provisions of the 2000 Act are retained and we ensure that it is not possible for anyone who wishes to be a wrecker to wreck.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I want to enlarge on a very sensible query posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in terms of how many times the necessity has arisen for the Chief Constable to invoke
858
Clause 8. In terms of this Bill, that is not relevant. We are looking at a situation where Sinn Fein is going to be given a leg up on to the Policing Board and where an entirely different set of circumstances will rule.
If the safeguard is removed and if at the same time the number of people on the Policing Board who are able either to demand a report from the Chief Constable or to seek an inquiry is reduced, we shall have a greater need for the safeguard that is sought today. I simply make that point. We cannot judge on what is happening now, but we must judge on what is likely to happen when Sinn Fein is brought on to the board, as clearly the Government intend.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 10. At the previous stage of the Bill, we asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, where the proposal had come from and who had asked for it. He said only that it had appeared in the Patten review and in a few other documents. Clearly, if that had been the sole reason for the proposal, the Government would have followed the Patten review in the first place. They did not do so then and have now introduced it for a different reason.
Who asked for the measure? The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, hit the nail on the head in saying that it was the SDLP and Sinn Fein. It is no secret within the Policing Board at present that the SDLP wishes to have the ability to inquire into everything. The SDLP is very much part of the working board, but there are one or two small issues that it likes to address from the point of view of its electorate. The SDLP wants to be able say to its electorate that it is part of a body which can investigate anything, anywhere, at any time, regardless of the consequences. Therefore nobody—for even good judicial and crime detection reasons—can intervene or put anything in the SDLP's way.
It has asked for and questioned the first provision,
"in the interests of national security".
When the late director of the Security Services appeared at the Policing Board, the question was asked: why should we not look at national security? That suggestion clearly came from the SDLP and Sinn Fein wants that too. They have asked for Clause 8 and the Government are prepared to give way.
Those to whom I have spoken, either in regard to policing or legal issues, have said that this can be only to the detriment of crime detection and prevention because the Chief Constable can refuse on the basis that the matter is already in court. The police may have a case which they have spent months investigating. Noble Lords will understand that cases cannot be investigated and reach court in less than a month, so this length of time is short enough. The Chief Constable can refer the matter to the Secretary of State and once it is under the jurisdiction of the court, it cannot be intervened with. However, before reaching court the whole case can be destroyed.
On speaking to someone who wants the measure, I put forward the point—it does not matter whether we are referring to the Stormont spy case or anything else, but that is a particularly long-running case—that if

859
information is required, it should be available. I asked what would happen if obtaining the information prejudiced the case. For all I know, a policeman or a spy at Stormont could be involved in the case. I asked what would happen if ultimately someone should be prosecuted but the case could not go ahead because the information obtained came from areas where the Chief Constable had no protection. I was told, "That that would not happen because we would not ask".
The clause is nothing but a safety net. It is perfectly straightforward. It is obviously being used to buy Sinn Fein and to allow it and the SDLP to go to their electorate and say that they are on the board. I believe that the SDLP is talking purely to its electorate. Sinn Fein is talking to its electorate. We know what may happen at the next election; people may move to the extremes. The SDLP is being reasonable within the board, but it has backed this proposal because it knows that the Government are ready to sell out. That is totally unreasonable and totally impractical. I believe that it simply would not occur in any other jurisdiction one could imagine as being sane, sensible and working for peace.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, is right. First, he said explicitly that this probably is the issue that concerns your Lordships more than any other in the Bill. Secondly, he said implicitly that we are unlikely to agree. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, helpfully developed the issue—to give it a proper and appropriate hearing—to encompass the whole of the Clause 19 issues. It is probably helpful for me to respond in the same manner because if there is to be a Division it might as well be at this stage rather than when we come to Clause 19. The structure of the Act means that it is impossible to discuss these amendments without the wider issues of Clause 19.
The answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is "none".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, is right in saying that the proposal derives from paragraph 6.22 in the Pattern report, which states:
"We recommend that the Policing Board should have the power to require the Chief Constable to report on any issue pertaining to the performance of his functions or those of the police service".
I stress the next sentence.
"The obligation to report should extend to explaining operational decisions. The grounds on which the Chief Constable might question this requirement should be strictly limited to issues such as those involving national security, sensitive personnel matters and cases before the courts".
That, in fact—
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. The report refers to the Chief Constable explaining decisions. I accept that that relates to decisions which the Chief Constable has made; decisions that have been taken. But he may be asked for information during an investigation and for the reasons why decisions may be
860
taken in the immediate future. In that respect, we are talking about two different things. Past decisions taken some time ago are different from decisions being taken at a particular moment during the conduct of an investigation.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I see the distinction, but I do not accept its validity. The Patten report is unambiguous on the matter:
"The obligation to report should extend to explaining operational decisions".
That does not state that the decisions have to belong to pre-history. Indeed, the Patten report puts the almost philosophical difference clearly, if not wholly to the satisfaction of everyone in this Chamber.
The report continues:
"One of the most difficult issues we have considered is the question of 'operational independence"'.
I remember that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, turned to this matter when we had our most illuminating discussion in Grand Committee. The report goes on:
"Long consideration has led us to the view that the term 'operational independence' is itself a large part of the problem. In a democratic society, all public officials must be fully accountable to the institutions of that society for the due performance of their functions, and a chief of police cannot be an exception. No public official, including a chief of police, can be said to be 'independent'. Indeed, given the extraordinary powers conferred on the police, it is essential that their exercise is subject to the closest and most effective scrutiny possible".
That is, perhaps, an almost philosophical difference of approach.
The noble and learned Lord is right in saying that the implementation plan is dated 2001—post the Act. The report further states that,
"the Policing Board should have the power, subject only to the same limitation set out in paragraph 6.22, to follow up any report from the Chief Constable by initiating an inquiry into any aspect of the police service or police conduct".
That is what is now being done in the Bill. We have altered the four grounds and there are now three. They are set out in Clause 19 as:
"(a) it is in the interests of national security;
(b) the information is sensitive personnel information or information the disclosure of which would be likely to put an individual in danger;
(c) the information would, or would be likely to, prejudice proceedings which have been commenced in a court of law".
Therefore, if there is information the disclosure of which is likely to put an individual in danger, that is—and I use the term generally—protected.
I do not believe that we are going to reach an agreement of minds here, partly because of the difference of fundamental approach. It is wrong to say that this is a Bill to benefit Sinn Fein; that it is a Sinn Fein benefit. In fact, the SDLP made representations during the passage of the first Bill stressing its discontent.
There are the safeguards here. Section 59(2)(b) of the 2000 Act states that the report shall be made,
"within the period of one month from the date on which that requirement is made or within such longer period as may be agreed between the Chief Constable and the Board".

861
It is useful to look at recent experience; there has been no requirement—which is the answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I am able to tell your Lordships that the current Chief Constable, when the matter has been discussed with him, finds it hard to see a situation arising in which it would be necessary for him to invoke the ground as it now stands in the Act. He would work with the board to reach an accommodation on issues of that nature.
I have spent a little time on the general theme of Clause 19. These are not amendments that the Government are prepared to accept. Nor will we accept—I must say plainly at this stage—any attack on the Question that Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill, if that were to be made. I hope that your Lordships do not think that discourteous, but I have to put the matter beyond doubt.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him for an explanation. He has carefully explained what he describes as a difference of philosophy on a matter of operational independence between the view I have expressed and the view expressed in the Patten report. If the view expressed in the Patten report is relied upon as justifying the amendment we are discussing, why was that view not taken in 2000 when the Act was passed? What has made it necessary now?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is a perfectly legitimate question. At that stage, it was thought that ground four ought to be included. Since then, at least two things have happened. First, there has been the experience of the Chief Constable working with the board. Secondly, the implementation report came to the conclusion that ground four was not required. As the noble and learned Lord said, when we made our response to the implementation plan, which was post the 2000 Act, the Government gave the commitment which they are now honouring in this Bill.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanations and I thank noble Lords for taking part in the debate. My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew made a reasoned argument and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, who has considerable experience working on the Policing Board, has explained his views and fears.
The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, made some political points which I do not necessarily accept or agree with. I agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal that this is not a Bill entirely for Sinn Fein. Many parts of it are practical, sensible and good and are well supported by the Policing Board and by the Chief Constable. I met the Chief Constable as recently as Monday, but on the understanding with him that I would not repeat anything we discussed. I shall say no more on the matter, if your Lordships will forgive me.
862
There is a slightly different philosophical approach. I am surprised that it is coming from Her Majesty's Government, particularly in the light of recent changes in the Kingdom in regard to security, policing and the management of crime and criminals and terrorism and terrorists. The Government's record on that has not so far been good, but they are taking serious steps to attempt more strongly to secure our nation—except in this Bill and in parts of Northern Ireland. The Province is already far less secure and has suffered from crime and terrorism far more than any other part of the United Kingdom.
My main point is that the Patten report was written on the understanding that the members of the commission did not expect it to be implemented immediately or to be implemented all at once. They did not expect parts of the report to be implemented until such time as society in Northern Ireland was living in a normal and peaceful way, as other people do in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Patently that has not yet happened. Perhaps we are near it, but I do not believe that. I think that we have a very long way to go. Even if we were to get Stormont operating again, if Sinn Fein were to take part on the Policing Board, or even if the IRA publicly and obviously stood down, I can say from the meetings that I have had in north and west Belfast over the weekend and which my honourable friend Quentin Davies, who serves in another place, has had with people in east Belfast, that what is happening in Northern Ireland is horrifying. There are vicious terror gangs, turf wars and gun-running, so it is not a normal part of the United Kingdom.
My key complaint about this part of the Bill is that it will do the things that the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said. It is too soon; it will put the community at risk. Her Majesty's Government do not have a right to put the community in any part of the United Kingdomat risk. I should love to support the Government in a Bill to normalise things. I cannot wait for the day, but as an inhabitant of that country, it not safe to do so yet.
I regret that I cannot withdraw the amendment. I shall seek the views of the House.
12.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 142.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Bowness, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bridgeman, V.[Teller]

Ampthill, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Astor, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Burnham, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Buscombe, B.

Blaker, L.

Byford, B.

Blatch, B.

Caithness, E.

863

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marsh, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Montrose, D.

Cox, B.

Moore of Wolvercote, L

Crathorne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Noakes, B.

Denham, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Palmer, L.

Elton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Freeman, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Geddes, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Glentoran, L.

Plumb, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Greenway, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hanham, B.

Reay, L.

Henley, L

Renton, L.

Higgins, L

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Rogan, L.

Howe, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Saatchi, L

Howell of Guildford, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Seccombe, B.

James of Holland Park, B.

Selsdon, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Jopling, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kimball, L.

Slim, V.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Stewartby, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Laird, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Tenby, V.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Trumpington, B.

Luke, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Weatherill, L.

[Teller]

Wilcox, B.

Marlesford, L.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Addington, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Ahmed, L.

David, B.

Amos, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Andrews, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Desai, L.

Avebury, L.

Dholakia, L.

Bach, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Barker, B.

Dubs, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Elder, L.

Berkeley, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Bhatia, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Billingham, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Blackstone, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Bragg, L.

Gale, B.

Brookman, L.

Gavron, L.

Burlison, L.

Geraint, L.

Carter, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Chandos, V.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Chester, Bp.

Goldsmith, L.

Chorley, L.

Goodhart, L.

Christopher, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Goudie, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Grabiner, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

864

Greaves, L.

Orme, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ouseley, L.

Grocott, L.[Teller]

Parekh, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Harrison, L.

Pendry, L.

Hayman, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Radice, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hoyle, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Rennard, L.

Hylton, L.

Richard, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.(Lord

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Chancellor)

Roper, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Jones, L.

Sandberg, L.

Jordan, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Sewel, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Sheldon, L.

Lipsey, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Simon, V.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

[Teller]

Strabolgi, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Tordoff, L.

McNally, L.

Uddin, B.

Maddock, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Whitaker, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Whitty, L.

Methuen, L.

Wilkins, B.

Mitchell, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L

Morris of Manchester, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Privy Seal)

Nicol, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.53 p.m.
Clause 9 [Inquiries by Board]:
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Approval of proposals relating to inquiries by Board]:
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass Lord Maginnis of Drumglass moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 7, line 4, leave out "subsections (2) and" and insert "subsection"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates again to the numbers game. It is difficult to understand why, with 19 board members, the cut-off is to be only eight. That is 40 per cent with regard to those who can demand an inquiry. During debate on the previous amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked the relevant question of how often the provision had been invoked to the extent that numbers mattered. At either Second Reading or in Committee, my noble friend Lord Rogan asked the same question. On both occasions, the Minister intimated that it had not been

865
invoked. One has to ask, therefore, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, why, in the short period of three years, we have to have this change.
On another matter, the Minister indicated that evidence relating to how the board had worked justified Government making the change. However, having told us on this issue that there is no evidence whatever, that argument does not stand up. One has to query, therefore, whether the provision relates to the Government's intention to bring Sinn Fein on to the board. I shall not fall out with my noble friend Lord Glentoran when he discovers some good in some parts of the Bill. Nonetheless, we are on dangerous ground when inferring the Chief Constable's support by virtue of a conversation with him which cannot be reported to this House.
In talking about democracy, I should have thought that we would apply some of those democratic rules to the Policing Board and would not be making special arrangements for only 40 per cent of the board to be able to invoke an inquiry. The mischievousness of Sinn Fein at the table when it is not in substantially powerful positions is a lesson which could be learned. I beg to move.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I support the amendment. During debate on removal of the clause, the Minister made a remark—I hope that he will not repeat it—on the Chief Constable's experience of the board. There is a brand new Chief Constable: I do not know how that remark came about. In terms of life in the Province, strategic points of view, and so on, six months does not warrant comments about experience of the board. I hope that eventually, under proper conditions, Sinn Fein comes on. The board will change; we have to wait far longer to see how it will work. However, I am grateful for the remarks about how well he thinks we are doing.
At the moment, the board consists of 19 members. We have got 10, which is fractionally over half. It is quite simple. The strength of the Policing Board is that it is community-based and has a collective responsibility in making its decisions; it is a cross-community body. Even though Sinn Fein is not represented, the composition of the board takes into account various community backgrounds. It correctly reflects the community of Northern Ireland and the basic religious divide. So let us not say that because Sinn Fein is not represented at the moment the board does not reflect those proportions—it does.
If and when Sinn Fein is represented on the independent members' side, I understand that, unless there is a change in the law to provide for a different number of people on the board, there will be a slight change in the number of independents. Because there would be two more speaking from the nationalist or the Roman Catholic point of view, a change will be made to the independent side so that the board continues to reflect a balance. So we are not talking about a lack of balance on the board.
866
At the moment, a decision needs to be taken by more than 50 per cent of the board. In public, a board decision will be a collective responsibility to run an inquiry, report, or whatever. The public see that the decision is made under collective responsibility by more than 50 per cent of the board. It is extremely important that no decision is made without 50 per cent of the board being present.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, slightly side-stepped the question of who had brought forward this issue, but when I spoke to someone in the SDLP about it, he accepted that his party was very much behind it. Whether or not it was put to him in words is neither here nor there, his party was very much behind it. I asked him why and he said it would enable a smaller number of people to cause an inquiry to take place.
I asked how it would work. He said, "If we want an inquiry, we need to get only eight people together for that to happen". I said, "But some on the other side might be against it"—although, for all I know, I could be in favour of an inquiry—and he said, "Well, under the circumstances, it could happen when no one else was available. We could call a meeting and, with eight of us, we could get it through".
I said, "Okay, let us put it the other way. I want an inquiry into something, how do I run it?" He said, "You find eight people, get agreement and you do it". I said, "But then it is a decision made by less than 50 per cent of the board". He said, "That's right". So I said, "If I wanted to do it and you didn't, what would be your response?" He said, "My response would be that, as soon as I could, I would find nine or 10 members. We would then get together and change the decision".
It is farcical to pose problems that will have to be solved in a totally irrational way. It is amazing that we are setting up a body that, under extreme conditions—we are not talking about something that will happen every day—would allow me to find eight people who will agree with me, get them into a huddle, and make a decision knowing very well that, because I had to struggle, the other 10 members will not agree. I know that, otherwise I would not bother; I would bring up the matter as normal before the board. So, again, there is a safety net.
Let us now assume that I get the decision I want and it is minuted that we will have an inquiry into such and such. One, two or three weeks later, the others, realising that I did this while they were at the opera or the theatre or whatever, get together and decide to revoke the decision because they are the board. It should be remembered that, out of eight members, it would need only five to force the issue. But it is a collective decision, and I believe that the board should, and does, work under the principle of collective decision. I know that certain people do not keep confidences but, on the whole, the board does work as a body.
This is the most amazing enabling clause. It is a farce, and it will be seen as a farce by everyone. The Minister's reply may be that this small group should be allowed to make such decisions because it is so

867
reasonable, but the independents are weighted slightly more towards one side at the moment. However, I remind the House that the divisions reflect the community. The Government tried to create a Policing Board that is fair, reflects the community and is accepted by the public. They have done so, but this undermines it.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, although my Amendment No. 17 is not in this group, perhaps I may speak to it now. It effectively deals with the same issues. I give notice that I do not intend to divide the House on Amendment No. 17 today.
I find it difficult to add to the persuasiveness of the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. We have rehearsed the arguments. I understand from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal that Clause 10 represents a lowering of the threshold—which it does—and that the important words are "present and voting". But, not for the first time in our discussions on the Bill, I fail to see any logic in the justification for this change.
Certain noble Lords to whom I have spoken have told me that in public bodies of this nature in England, more than 50 per cent of the representatives never turn up; that the figure is usually about 30 per cent or 20 per cent. That is not my experience, but it may be the experience in England. Even if it is, that is all the more reason for maintaining the higher number required to take decisions.
In something as sensitive as policing in Northern Ireland, why are the Government taking risks by reducing the level to below 50 per cent of those required on the Policing Board for the Police Service of Northern Ireland? After the debates in the Grand Commit tee and recent visits to the Police Service and other parts of Belfast, I cannot see any logic or reason for this. I cannot see the positive side. I cannot see what is so good about this that it is important to change the legislation which, as we have said, is only two years old. It is taking a risk with the security, policing and lives of the people of Northern Ireland. It is time that the Government stopped doing it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the genesis of this change is in the implementation plan of 2001. The Government intend, after the review, to provide that the number of members present and voting for a proposal for an inquiry should be eight so long as—let me stress these words—that is the majority of those present and voting.
It is fanciful to suggest that a gang of eight can bring this about while others are at the opera. First, an inquiry follows receipt of a report under Section 59 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. Paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 to the Act provides that at least three members have to have made a written request to the chairman asking him to call a meeting. Paragraph 18(2) states:
"The chairman shall, no later than three working days after the day on which he receives the request, call such a meeting".
868
Paragraph 18(3) states:
"The meeting shall be held no earlier than six, and no later than twenty-one, working days after that day".
Critically for the opera lovers, paragraph 18(4) states:
"The chairman shall notify each member of the Board of the date and purpose of the meeting".
Those are mandatory requirements.
The noble Viscount will know as well as I do that in 2002 an overall attendance of 90 per cent was achieved; three-quarters of all board members attended at least 12 of the 13 board meetings. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. The threshold will be lowered to eight although the board consists of 19 members, but there has to be a majority of those present and voting. With deep deference, I believe that the fears are overblown.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I beg to disagree with the noble and learned Lord on the latter point. Our fears are not overblown. The reality is that at the moment we live in a non-stable society. That lack of stability is brought about by the role of paramilitaries. I know that some have suggested that I am politicising what is a police matter. I am not politicising it; it is politicised by the nature of the Bill. It is politicised by this change that suggests that eight out of 19 is somehow a magical figure that can be attractive to the SDLP and to Sinn Fein.
For the past 20 years in public life I have worked with the SDLP. At times I find that it assumes certain attitudes because it is fighting in the community for the same votes as Sinn Fein. Matters are not always as they appear. If noble Lords had had experiences, as I have, in local government in Northern Ireland, they would find that in that context that is true.
In this unstable society of ours, Sinn Fein, for electoral reasons or for much more dubious and dangerous reasons, has the ability to intimidate. Anything that brings us down to that marginal area where intimidation, not just of politicians who are associated with the board but also of independent members who are on the board, may occur is dangerous in the extreme. For the reasons I have already enunciated and because there has never been any difficulty in regard to the previous figure of 10, I cannot understand why, without proven justification, the figure is now to be reduced to eight. I had intended to divide the House on this issue.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he would say whether he agrees with the reason given: that the Government feel there is simply no chance of such low numbers occurring. Just in case such a situation happened, does he agree that the reason for changing the figure is absolutely wrong and unfounded?
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I hope that that is the point I made. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for endorsing the matter. I had intended to seek the opinion of the House at this stage, but I shall

869
see whether the Government can bring forward a reasonable compromise. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 17 not moved.]
1.15 p.m.
Clause 11 (Investigations into current police practices and policies):
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass Lord Maginnis of Drumglass moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 7, line 30, at end insert—
"(2A) No investigation under this section shall extend to events or incidents that occurred before the coming into force of this section."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment. I hope that I can have an unequivocal reassurance from the Government. Previously, we dealt with the issue of whether an investigation could be retrospective; whether it could relate to matters that had occurred before the Bill became law. On that previous occasion the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, gave what I assumed was an unequivocal assurance. At a later stage he said something that suggested that that may not be the case. I apologise for not having the reference. My reason for moving this amendment is to try to understand the position on retrospection. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I hope that I can give a satisfactory assurance. At Second Reading I hoped I had made plain that it is not the Government's intention that the power to investigate police policies and practices will be retrospective. The amendment that I brought forward in Grand Committee made it clear that the ombudsman's power is limited to current policies and practices.
In investigating current police practices, it would be natural for the ombudsman to inform herself of the way in which officers conducted themselves in applying those policies and practices that are current. In other words, if we accepted this amendment—I understand that it is intended to be probing—the ombudsman, in applying current practices, would not be able to look at conduct if that conduct had occurred perhaps two weeks before Royal Assent. I hope that I have made the distinction clear. This power is not to be retrospective in respect of past policies and practices. If the policy is current, the ombudsman will have to use her discretion as to what practices she considers. I hope that that is satisfactory.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. That is clear. He has endeavoured to be helpful. Before Third Reading perhaps I can ask him to consider this matter to discover whether it could be interpreted in a way that differs from his present intention. I believe that if there were enough pressure to consider a matter that was retrospective, it might be possible to say that
870
something that applied to that retrospective issue is applicable today and so by using that as a starting point there would be justification for being retrospective.
I hope I have made myself clear and that the noble and learned Lord understands the point I have made. I shall be grateful if, at a later stage, he can make a statement that would secure matters in the terms I have enunciated. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 19:
Page 7, line 36, at end insert", and
() the reasons for his decision to conduct the investigation."
The noble Lord said: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, moves Amendment No. 19, I want to indicate support for the principle. The advice that I have received is that the amendment should be better drafted. I undertake to reflect further to see whether we can assist in drafting something that is acceptable.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord. I look forward to helping with the drafting, if that is required:
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Disqualification]:
[Amendments Nos. 20 to 22 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Core policing principles]:
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Chief Constable's functions]:
[Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Provisions of information to Board]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 10, line 14, leave out "reasonably"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is to leave out the word "reasonably". It is the Shutt amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord. We are delighted with the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass Lord Maginnis of Drumglass had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 27:
Leave out Clause 17.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to leave out Clause 17. It is another matter that has already been fully debated. The issue is the provision of information to the board, which I understand we shall be discussing in relation to Clause 19.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, for the benefit of the noble Lord, I think that he has

871
misunderstood. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, indicated, I believe, that he accepted that the debate on Clause 19 should be taken with the earlier amendment on which we divided.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, that is correct. I did not intend to move that Clause 19 should not stand part today.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I apologise. My point was that Amendment No. 27 is relevant to the debate on Clause 19. I hope that we shall return to the issue on Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Lord Rogan Lord Rogan moved Amendment No. 28:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause—
"REMOVAL OF DISCRIMINATION FROM RECRUITMENT
(1) In Part 6 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) for section 46 substitute—
"46 UNDER-REPRESENTATION
(1) In making appointments under section 39 the Chief Constable may take such steps as he determines appropriate to encourage applications by persons currently under-represented in the police service.
(2) In making appointments to the police support staff under section 4(3) the Chief Constable (acting by virtue of subsection (5) of that section) may take such steps as he determines appropriate to encourage applications by persons currently under-represented in the police support staff.
(3) For the purposes of this section "persons currently underrepresented" means persons forming part of a social group by virtue of their sex, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation who at the time of consideration by the Chief Constable are under-represented."
(2) In Part 6 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) leave out section 47."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to insert a new clause, on the removal of discrimination from recruitment, in Part 6 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. This is not a new issue. Many noble Lords will no doubt remember the highly contentious debate in this House on 15th November 2000 on the 50:50 recruitment arrangement. Noble Lords may also remember the result of the vote held on that day when 50:50 was narrowly carried by 185 to 175 votes.
The principle of equality of opportunity is central to the Belfast agreement. Policing, however, is apparently regarded as an exception. The fact is that 50:50 denies equality of opportunity. It is nothing short of discrimination. We have always been opposed to 50:50 on that basis. The new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, and myself clearly states our position.
The 50:50 principle requires that 50 per cent of those appointed from a pool of qualified applicants to the PSNI must be "persons who are treated as Roman Catholic" and 50 per cent must be "persons who are not so treated"—the "other" category. That clearly discriminates against the Protestant community, not to mention the substantial population in Northern Ireland who practise "other" or, indeed, no religion.
During passage of the Bill which became the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, many in this place agreed with this position. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said:
"I am sorry to see a Bill being passed which flies in the face of human rights legislation and which inevitably at some stage must cause problems".—[Official Report, 15/10/00; col. 286.]
In another place, Mr Lembit öpik, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, vigorously opposed the measure on the same grounds. He said that we should not "monkey around" with human rights.
Given that human rights are so central to liberal philosophy, we were rather surprised when the Liberal Democrats in this place acquiesced in relation to such discriminatory provisions. They may even have warranted the accusation made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that they were "in bed with Blair". As the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, put it in 2000, the Liberal Democrats,
"will be aware of the consequences of permitting the discrimination genie to escape from the bottle".—[Official Report, 15/11/00; col. 282.]
I hope that, today, they and others will join us in putting the cap back on the bottle.
I do not intend to retread old ground and repeat old arguments. However, the situation in Northern Ireland has evidently changed since 2000. Two years down the line, we are in a position to reflect on the decisions of that year, to learn from experience and indeed to correct any mistakes. I do not wish to adopt the churlish attitude of, "We told you so", but it is clear that the predictions made in 2000 by many opponents of 50:50 have been realised.
Since passage of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, and as a response to the Patten recommendations, the number of police officers has been dramatically reduced. The service has been virtually cut in half, to less than 6,902 officers—well below the figure recommended by Patten as the minimum level needed to police Northern Ireland. While 1,874 full-time reservists currently complement the police service, they, too, will be phased out after 2005.
Many in this House and in another place voiced concerns in 2000 about the effects that such a reduction in numbers would have on expertise, experience and effectiveness in the police service. Reports in the Observer newspaper, in March 2002, pointed to a severe shortage in the top echelons of the service—a shortage of chief superintendents, superintendents, chief inspectors and sergeants, not to mention a serious shortage of constables. It was also revealed that many policemen and women who lost their jobs in the RUC's fingerprint bureau under Patten's reforms were re-employed in the PSNI as civilian technicians due to critical shortages of manpower and expertise in this area.
Rather than increasing the applications and helping to build a first-rate police service, the 50:50 arrangements are clearly impeding recruitment and have resulted in a severe shortage of manpower. Last month, the chairman of the Police Federation, Mr Irwin Montgomery, said that the rigid enforcement of a policy requiring Catholics

873
and Protestants to be recruited in equal numbers was starving Northern Ireland's already overstretched police service of officer and civilian staff.
One recent training class had just 34 students—17 Roman Catholics and 17 others—when it should have had 48. The Chief Constable, Mr Hugh Orde, also reported recently that one of his priorities, to civilianise as many administrative posts as possible in order to get more officers out on patrol and doing front-line police work, was being frustrated by the policy of 50:50 recruitment.
A recent trawl for 200 administrative assistants produced 250 suitable applicants from the "other" category, but only 28 from the Roman Catholic category, meaning that only 48 people could be taken on. This is the central issue. It is a catch-22 situation: 50:50 has led to a reduction in the number of police officers. The most obvious solution is to free officers from administrative posts, yet administrative posts are also subject to 50:50 and these places, too, cannot be filled.
I do not wish to appear to exaggerate, but the situation is extremely grave. Your Lordships need only consider street violence, so prevalent in Belfast throughout the summer months, or the continuing loyalist feuds in the city. The reality is, as recent events have shown, that terrorism is still a force to be reckoned with in Northern Ireland. Whatever the rhetoric on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland, there is terrorism. Crime levels are rising at an unprecedented rate. It seems absurd that at such a time the police service should be under-staffed and overstretched. This is clearly a good time to be a criminal in Northern Ireland.
In Committee a few weeks ago the Lord Privy Seal, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, gave some encouraging figures about PSNI recruitment. We very much welcome the fact that the percentage of applicants from the catholic community has risen to 36 per cent. However, that does not address the crux of the matter. Such figures do not reflect the level of recruitment. In the year 2000 we said that solving the problem of Catholic under-representation in the police service lay not in their appointment, but indeed in their willingness to apply. If we can tackle the application process, quotas for recruitment would be entirely unnecessary.
The rise in the number of applications from Roman Catholics reflects the welcome endorsement of the PSNI by the SDLP, the Catholic Church and the decision by the SDLP to join the Police Board. Sinn Fein/IRA, however, still refuse to accept the new police service. Indeed, they continue actively to discourage young Catholics from joining the PSNI. Intimidation and attacks on Catholic recruits by the republican movement still continue. One recent recruit in Ballymena narrowly escaped injury last year from a booby trap placed underneath his car. Another recruit in Newry was forced to flee his home after threats.
The reality is that many of those who would like to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland are either forced to forego their policing ambition for fear of
874
intimidation or choose to move across the water rather than run the risk of endangering themselves or their families and being subjected to abuse within their own communities.
Nor do the Sinn Fein/IRA representatives encourage their constituents to co-operate with the Police Service of Northern Ireland or report criminal activity to the police. Recently, when a young girl was savagely raped in west Belfast last November, the Sinn Fein Assembly Member for the area was unwilling to advise her concerned constituents to speak to the police service. Rather she preferred that they spoke to
"those whom they could trust in the constituency and who have been looking after things in the constituency".
I repeat that 50:50 recruitment arrangements do nothing to tackle the problem of intimidation, the root of the problem of Catholic under-representation. As the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, said in November, 2000,
"Surely, encouraging applicants from under-represented sections of society—all under-represented sections of society—is the only effective means of addressing the problems and to achieve the prize of a police service that reflects the society that it polices".
Discrimination in any form is unacceptable; discrimination in the Police Service of Northern Ireland is especially unacceptable. Introduced for whatever good reasons, 50:50 recruitment arrangements do not solve the problem of Catholic under-representation. The new Police Service of Northern Ireland is entirely frustrated in its attempts to police the community, suffering as it does from a lack of recruits. With the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill before the House today, we have an opportunity to review the decisions of the year 2000. We have an opportunity to make the necessary changes that would allow the PSNI to develop into the effective, first-rate police service Northern Ireland deserves. We have the opportunity to remove discrimination. I beg to move.
1.30 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I have not played any part at all in the procedures and conduct of this Bill to date for extraneous reasons. Because it is always extremely hazardous to board a moving train, I have not tried to join in the amendments today, but I have one stand-alone question.
My noble kinsman the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, asked a question at col. GC55 of the Official Report on 9th January about the numbers recruited into civil servant jobs, which would enable police to be released for active duty on the streets. At col. GC56, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal gave the answer, which showed Catholic recruitment of 13.3 per cent as against 36 per cent which he had referred to at col. GC55 for Catholics joining the police itself. Given the consequences of this particular imbalance, which is of itself interesting, has any research been done by the PSNI as to why recruitment on the civil servant side has been so much lower than into the police?
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, the 50:50 issue is a problem which affects the number of police on the

875
ground. We must do everything we can to increase those numbers. Except for one particular training course, we are just managing to fill the quotas. I believe that we are marginally ahead in total on what was estimated at the beginning. There is still a problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, referred to a recent "trawl". I would not like that to be taken the wrong way. The noble Lord was referring to civilian support staff. It is not a trawl such as someone going out to find people, it is a straightforward public competition, as they are now called. It is a recruiting competition in exactly the same way as it is for policemen. It is not a trawl.
As regards the competition and the figures of 26 or 28 Roman Catholics being available, there 'were 238 Protestants available. The effect is that every job which could be civilianised and thereby release a policemen is extremely important under the present circumstances. I ask the noble and learned Lord one question. Whereas one cannot have a short contract policeman who joins policing for a few months, in administrative work with secretaries and administrative jobs in offices, surely it might be possible in the interim, while continuing to recruit, to have people on short-term contracts, medium-term temps, which would immediately release the police officers holding such posts. Because they would be on temporary contracts, when and if the 50:50 quota from those recruited into the police support staff as whole comes about, those people could be released from the contracts. That would at least release policemen to go out on the streets today.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, for reminding me of prophecies I uttered in your Lordships' House some three years ago. I remember on that occasion a vast number of noble Lords, mainly on my left, saying that I was sending out the wrong signals. I ask them to think about the validity of that allegation.
I do not want to rehearse what has been put forward effectively by colleagues. However, I should like some reassurance from the Government. It is clear that the situation in Northern Ireland is getting out of hand, whether through terrorism, so-called Real IRA activities or the activities of various other types of IRA. There can be no distinction. They must all be contained and, if possible, obliterated. That must be our objective.
On behalf of those who will be butchered in the months and years ahead, I seek assurance that, without any undue publicity, Her Majesty's Government are turning their mind to what will be done in practical terms to remedy a horrific situation. I know enough, having served in the forces in times of war and on other occasions, to be aware that no government ever contemplate the future without a contingency plan. I hope it is not too much to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal, not necessarily to reveal to us what that plan is, but to assure us that a plan does indeed exist, not only to contain terrorism, but also to arrest its development in Northern Ireland. We shall all sleep easier in our beds—some have good personal reasons for
876
including that qualification—if we know that Her Majesty's Government have a contingency plan and intend to implement it as soon as possible.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I intervene briefly on Amendment No. 28 to remind the House that, initially, I would have been deemed to be out of step with my party colleagues on the issue of 50:50 recruiting. But some noble Lords will have seen the recent census of Northern Ireland. There is not a huge imbalance between the two major traditions.
In conversations with Patten, I suggested that we could be in a situation where, if there was an avalanche of applicants and ultimately of recruits from both traditions, a short window of opportunity might be created when there could be an endeavour to recruit on a 50:50 basis. In that situation, confidence would be created which would draw both traditions into active and practical support of the police.
Unfortunately, a number of mistakes were made. One was that the window of opportunity was left open far too wide. There became no urgency for young men and women within the Roman Catholic tradition to make a decision. With the ongoing pressure that comes from paramilitaries like the Real and Continuity IRA, and still comes from the Provisional IRA, it is only natural that young Catholic men and women should hold back. The window of opportunity will still be open further down the road, but in the interim the process fails to work.
My noble friend Lord Brookebrough said that we were marginally holding on. "Marginally holding on" means that standards requirements in terms of recruitment are falling. For instance, at the initial stage recruits are not asked to demonstrate their academic attainment. That has gone almost unnoticed. But something noble Lords will find unbelievable is that physical fitness standards are no longer set or required for recruits to the PSNI. They have been wiped out. When before, in the western world, did there ever exist a police service when physical fitness standards were totally ignored? What sort of policemen and police women is that likely to put on our streets over the next months and years? It is a nonsense.
That shows the extent to which the bottom of the pot has been scraped in order to enable a process to survive which simply is not working. While no one wishes more than Ito see a large element of Roman Catholic members within the police—that is my party's policy—I do not believe that to achieve it we should denigrate every applicant by scraping the bottom of the barrel. I shall be grateful if the noble and learned Lord addresses that specific point when he responds.
1.45 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I shall not detain the House; it is long past lunch time. I cannot support Amendment No. 28.
Since Patten, and since my right honourable friend Andrew Mackay was shadow Secretary of State, until today, the Conservative Party has consistently supported the 50:50 principle. We now know, as a result of the

877
census, that we are talking about a population in the ratio of 45:55. On that principle I cannot support the amendment.
However, I accept that there is a problem to which the Government must attend. I attempted, rather hurriedly and not very satisfactorily, to table some thoughts in the form of a probing amendment, Amendment No. 29A, which I hope we shall have a chance to debate later today. I may well wish to test the opinion of the House at Third Reading on that point, having had a chance to refine and tune the amendment. However, I am not, in principle, able to support the amendment of my friends in the Ulster Unionist Party.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are debating Amendments Nos. 28 and 29. The two main criticisms appear to be, first, that there are not enough recruits, and, secondly, that civilianisation is being impeded. In fact 530 recruits were appointed in the first year of the policy. That is substantially in excess of the Patten model figure of 370. In any event, as your Lordships know, the Act of 2000 allows for the quota to be adjusted on any occasion if there is a shortage of recruits. But that has not been necessary.
I accept the point made that there was an exodus of experienced officers from the police service. But a variation of 50:50 for new recruits would not have affected that. I understand that the board agreed a revised timetable with the Chief Constable for the severance programme.
On civilianisation, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked a specific question about the disparity in figures. The short answer is that because the arrangements for the recruitment of civilians on a 50:50 basis were set up around 12 months after those for police officers, there has been a lag. And the contractor appointed to oversee civilian recruitment—Grafton—was only appointed last September. The Chief Constable's observations about the difficulties with respect to civilianisation preceded the appointment of Grafton. I understand that the police plan to launch a further campaign for administrative staff shortly.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, the Chief Constable's comments were made shortly before Christmas in the newspaper. That seems well after the appointment of Grafton.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the advice that I have is different, and I will check that. I would not want to have misled the House inadvertently on wrong advice.
On civilianisation, the competitions run so far by Grafton have been successful. Sufficient numbers of candidates from both community backgrounds have come forward to allow vacancies to be filled on a 50:50 basis where appropriate.
The noble Viscount asked a number of questions about short-term contracts. In some posts, there is scope for such contracts. Where the police service thinks it appropriate, it can follow that option. However, as he
878
would accept, in many posts there is a need for expertise and training, and long-term recruitment is the way forward for that.
Grafton is already running eight different competitions for the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
Amendment No. 29, of which not a lot was said, would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to make an order adjusting the ratio. As I pointed out a moment or two ago, the Secretary of State's power under the 2000 Act has never been used. It may be helpful to say that if the Policing Board wanted to agree to a limited change to get round a lack of experienced officers, obviously we would look at it very carefully. Noble Lords may agree, however, that that is essentially an issue for the board to consider in the first instance with the Chief Constable.
The Chief Constable's comments around and about Christmas referred to a competition that took place before Grafton's appointment, so I think that I was right to say that he was referring to the pre-Grafton situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, asked about the Government's plans and proposals. As I have told noble Lords more than once, the Government's hope is that the Assembly elections will be held in May. That is what the Secretary of State has said on a number of occasions. Plainly, any prudent government will have alternatives in mind depending on what develops.
The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, referred to physical competence. The test for that will not be applied to applicants in the current recruitment programme, but all trainees will be required to pass the test before they are attested.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I wish to thank all noble Lords who contributed to the debate. As I have said repeatedly, 50:50 is not a new issue. The removal of the discrimination in our police service is one of tremendous importance to the people of Northern Ireland and the future of policing. We in the Ulster Unionist Party have been consistent on the issue.
I listened carefully to the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal, and on this occasion I do not wish to test the opinion of the House. However, I hope to return to the matter on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned until after Starred Questions.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 1.54 to 3 p.m.]

Game Licences
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will abolish game licences.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, licences for taking and dealing in game are intended to discourage poaching, to encourage compliance with close seasons for the conservation of quarry species, and to protect food safety. Representations indicate that food retailers, among others, would welcome changes. We are sympathetic to that. However, we need to reflect carefully on the way forward, taking into account the wider implications of any decision to reform the current arrangements.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I declare an interest as one of the 8 per cent of holders of shotgun licences who has bought a game licence. As the Government know perfectly well—the Minister gave me a Written Answer two weeks ago—these licences cost more to collect than they produce. They collect an infinitesimally small amount—a quarter of a million pounds. Nobody is prosecuted for not having a game licence. Surely, unenforced laws are bad laws. Are the Government not keen, in these marginal circumstances, to lift the burden of this and other similarly nonsensical licences lurking in Whitehall? Will they not do something about it? We need act ion not words.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, 49,000 people have taken out a game licence. The regime has implications for conservation, the preservation of quality of the retail trade, and gun laws, with which it interfaces, so it would be complex to change it. In principle, I agree with the noble Lord. If the price of a game licence had kept pace with inflation, it would be about £2,000 rather than £6.
Further to the noble Lord's last remark, I hope that he does not blame this Government or their immediate predecessors. The blame rests entirely with the Liberal Democrats, as it was the late Lord Grey and the late Lord Palmerston who introduced the provisions.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I declare an interest as having paid £2 at Christmas for a game licence to allow me to participate in taking game for two weeks. I am interested to hear the Minister say that he regards licensing as a deterrent to poaching. Has he heard that the Durham police force will no longer take up poaching cases? How does that fit with the Government's promise to be tough on crime?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it ill behoves a Minister to comment on the operational priorities of any chief constable. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Durham police force is concentrating on other rural crime issues. The contribution of game licences to the prevention of
880
poaching may not be as great as it was when they cost substantially more, and when poaching was one of the biggest crimes in the countryside.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne DomerMy Lords, given the reasons the Minister gave in his first Answer and the changes that may be brought about if the Hunting Bill is passed, is his department reviewing the question of tagging deer carcasses? They are subject to particular problems and would benefit very much from tagging. When the House discussed the matter previously, some of the impediments were technological. They have 'peen overcome in the nine years since the House last discussed this in depth.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the regime covering the taking and marketing of deer could benefit from better traceability measures, including tagging. I understand that not all the technological and operational impediments have been overcome, but, when that happens, the Government will regard such measures as desirable.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, if the Government are not prepared to withdraw the licence to kill game, will they take steps to ensure that a larger proportion of those killing game have such licences, if they feel it necessary? If not, why not support my noble friend Lord Marlesford?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the implication of what I have said on behalf of the Government is that this is a complex area. If it were just a question of licensing the taking of game, and considering the implications for the discouragement of poaching, it would be easy to remove the regime. But there are also implications for conservation and the regulations on the use of game for food. If we removed the licensing regime, those complexities would need to be addressed and would possibly be replaced.

Drivers and Mobile Phones
3.5 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take following the publication by Direct Line of evidence of the dangers of using mobile phones while driving.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have noted the findings of the Direct Line research published last March. The Department for Transport issued a consultation document on 20th August last year seeking views on a proposal to prohibit the use of hand-held mobile phones when driving. The consultation period closed on 25th November. More than 1,000 responses have been received and these are now being considered. An announcement on the results of consultation will be made as soon as possible.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and the prospect of some action by the

881
Government. Is he aware that the Direct Line reports states that the use of hand-held mobile telephones is far more dangerous than driving at the alcohol limit? When drivers exceed the alcohol limit they incur penalties.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am aware of it. That is why my response on our knowledge of the Direct Line report was so neutral, and why I said only that we noted it. What the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, says is true, but it would be wrong to conclude that it is less damaging or illegal to drive while under the influence of drink or drugs. That is a message not just for Christmas but throughout the year. It must be reinforced on all possible occasions.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that health and safety legislation imposes on employers a duty to provide a safe working environment for their employees. But is it not the case that many firms not only fail to offer advice to their employees about using mobile phones when driving but that they regard the car as an extension of the office and encourage staff to make calls while on the move? Should it not be a priority to discourage that practice?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as one who previously employed salesmen to whom we issued mobile phones—hands-free sets, I hasten to add—I acknowledge the force of what the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, says. This is one of the issues that must be considered in the consultation process in which we have been involved and in the conclusions we draw from it.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the subject was raised in this House as long ago as 1997 when the Government's response was that it was for the police to decide whether the distraction materially reduced a driver's care and attention? Is that still the situation? Some telephone conversations can be very distracting.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, more recently, the police have advised us that they have adequate powers, under regulation 104 of the Construction and Use Regulations 1986, to prosecute anyone who is not in control of a vehicle. That could result in a prosecution for careless or dangerous driving. Things have moved on since then; not least, the enormous increase in the number of mobile phones in this country. We have undertaken consultation because of increasing pressure of that kind.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Mayor of London is encouraging payment for congestion charges by using text messages on mobile telephones? Does he think that this is a contribution to road safety?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I know no more about the matter than I have read in the press.
882
The report that I read said that the Mayor had accompanied his encouragement with the opinion that text messages should not be made while driving.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that evidence given by the police indicates that fines will not deter drivers from using mobile phones? However, points on the licence would deter them. Therefore, we should perhaps move straight to points on the licence for the use of mobile phones.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, may or may not know that the RAC published a report on this subject only this week. It comes to the conclusion, supported by 90 per cent of respondents, that there should be a ban on hand-held mobile phones and that it should be a comparable offence to speeding—in other words, a combination of fines and penalty points.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, what would be the position of the emergency services who may well have to use mobile phones or radios in the course of their duties while driving?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I would be astonished if the emergency services were reduced to using hand-held mobile phones.
Lord Monson: My Lords, while it is not only reasonable but highly desirable to ban the use of mobile phones while driving, would it not be going too far to ban their use when a driver is stuck at a traffic jam with his handbrake on?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is one of the issues which the Government are considering in the consultation process. If use was banned while a driver was stopped in a traffic jam, we would not be alone. Germany has such a ban. I do not believe we should anticipate the results of the consultation. We should not rule out a complete ban while in control of a vehicle.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, does the Minister agree that provincial taxi drivers are particularly bad offenders at using mobile phones while on the move?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not use provincial taxi drivers, so I do not have any direct experience. If taxi drivers use the phone as a work tool, it would be particularly irresponsible if it were a hand-held phone. In all this talk about the difference between handheld and hand-free phones, I should point out that the

883
Direct Line research did show that using a hand-free phone also reduced the response times of drivers significantly.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that if hand-free telephones are regarded as so dangerous, then so is any form of conversation. Will he not, therefore, prohibit talking while in a car?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, again this is a matter for consultation.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I cannot stand up and think al the same time.
My Lords, the evidence I have just given from the Direct Line research ought to be taken seriously.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, whatever the legislative framework—whether we adopt a new one or continue with the assurances I gave the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, when he asked the original Question—is it not true that reducing the use of mobile phones while people are driving will depend on enforcement which, in turn, depends on the resources that the police are able to devote to the enforcement of traffic offences?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, indeed it does. It is because of the lack of enforcement of the existing offence under the construction and use regulations that there has been this shift of emphasis towards a direct ban. The enforcement issue is particularly important for hand-free phones. How can someone outside a car tell whether a hand-free phone is being used?

North-East England: Economy
3.15 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to improve the economy of north-east England.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have undertaken to make sustainable improvements in the economic performance of all English regions. In addition, we have for the first time undertaken to reduce the persistent gap in growth rates between them over the long term. Our policies towards the north-east of England, both directly and through the regional development agency, ONE North East, are directed towards achieving this end.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the Government have done a great deal for the north-east of England, although am not quite so impressed by what my noble friend has said in relation to the actual position. Does he agree that there is a continuing
884
difficulty in the region in that it constantly has the highest rate of unemployment in the country? I understand that it has had the highest rate since such figures have been kept. What does my noble friend think is the cause of what I might describe as the inconsistency of the region? When a new factory opens with 500 jobs, it is frequently followed by the closure of a factory with a similar number of jobs. Could not the Government give more assistance to the regional development agency, ONE North East, which makes such a valuable contribution to the region's economy?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not at all happy about the performance of the north-east of England. The gap between that region and the rest of England has not only not fallen but has been increasing in recent years. The heavy dependence on manufacturing industry, which is still enormously important in the North East, is partly to do with that. As to the unemployment figures, for many years there has been a difference of about 2.5 per cent between the figures for the North East and the figures for the rest of the country—and the North East has been the worst. If it is any consolation, the unemployment figure for the North East is now 6.7 per cent, which is only 1.5 per cent greater than the national average. This must be, by a long way, the lowest unemployment figure in the region for a long time.
As to the regional development agency, I agree entirely with my noble friend. We are increasing our grant to ONE North East from £189 million this year to around £227 million next year. This is in recognition of the need for the excellent work that it does.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, given that there are many rural areas in the North East, what are the Government doing to promote the spread of broadband? It is particularly difficult for many rural areas in the North East because they do not qualify for European assistance in the promotion of broadband. Without government help, it will be difficult to meet the Government's target of bringing broadband not only to businesses but to doctors' surgeries.
Does the Minister believe that the particularly strong bid by Newcastle and Gateshead to become the European City of Culture will automatically help the north-east economy?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is very good news for the North East that Newcastle and Gateshead are on the shortlist for the European City of Culture. Without expressing any preference between the different British cities on that shortlist, clearly winning the title will bring very considerable economic advantages to the region in which the city is located.
As to broadband, there are problems in rural areas. But the Government's commitment to installing broadband in every school, for example, applies to the North East as well as to everywhere else.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, many of us can remember the unemployment rate being very much higher in the North East than that which the Minister

885
has rightly quoted today. Will he commend the North East for being the first of two regions of the country to introduce the venture capital fund? This fund releases capital to medium and small businesses in the region provided that they have good ideas. It allows them to expand, develop and create more employment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am well aware of the work which the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, has done over many years in this area for his native North East and I pay tribute to it. He is right about venture capital. I could also refer to the Regional Centre for Manufacturing Excellence, which, again, is one of only two and is already starting to do excellent work.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, manufacturing accounts for 60 per cent of this country's exports and employs 4 million people—about 20 per cent of the workforce. Does it remain the Government's policy that manufacturing is of critical importance to our economy? Will the Government encourage, in particular, investment in the sunrise industries that can harness and use new technologies to safeguard and expand the number of jobs in manufacturing?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can certainly give that assurance. We give heavy priority to manufacturing industry, which is particularly important for the North East, where 5,000 enterprises employ 150,000 people. It employs 21 per cent of the area's workforce and accounts for 28 per cent of its GDP.
There have been many recent successes in attracting sunrise enterprises to the North East. The trouble is that they have been accompanied by losses from the North East—as from other parts of the country—to manufacturing in eastern Europe and the Far East. It is a continuing battle.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Durham city, where I hail from, was one of the first cities—in fact, I think it was the first—to introduce a congestion charge, which seems to be working extremely well?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, so I gather. My understanding is that the system has reduced traffic in Durham city centre by 90 per cent, which is far more than is intended for central London.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware that the North East has many good universities. Is he also aware that many graduates travel to the hotspots in the South East and the South of England and do not remain behind to build up a broader base of industry in the North East? What can the Government do to assist?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the answer is that they should not travel to the South. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, is right: the universities in the North East can contribute a great deal and can be very attractive to undergraduates.
886
My noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville has been very active, as Science Minister, in encouraging collaboration between industry and academia through the science and industry councils in the North East. For example, there is the University Innovation Centre for Nanotechnology, which was set up in the North East and designed specifically for that purpose. I hope that that and other similar ventures will go a considerable way to answering the problem identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock.

Universities: Tuition Fees
3.23 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe Baroness Seccombe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What criteria will be used to determine whether universities will be allowed to charge top-up fees.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, before universities are given freedom to raise tuition fees, they must demonstrate that they will safeguard access. Universities will not be allowed to increase tuition fees until an access agreement has been agreed with the new access regulator, including targets that the universities will set for themselves. Universities will be able to vary fees downwards without conditions.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Yesterday, she said:
"it would be completely wrong for the regulator to be considering the detail".—[Official Report, 22/1/03; col. 717.]
If that is the case, how on earth can the regulator possibly do the job?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I stand by exactly what I said yesterday. We do not expect the regulator to be involved in the detail of individual admissions—for example, as I said yesterday, by sitting in on interviews or doing anything of that nature.
Access agreements might include details of how the university was helping—through link schemes, for example—to target people in schools who might not otherwise aspire to go to university. There might also be details of a university's bursary schemes or summer schools and of the admissions process. Those are exactly the things that the regulator will look for.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend recall the Answer that she gave to my Starred Question on 24th July, 2001? She twice paid tribute to the access policies of Oxford University and, in response to other noble Lords, of other universities too. Is her view of the Oxford admission scheme the same now as it was then? Does she remain committed to the principle that world-class research-based universities are essential in our country? In that context, academic excellence is of paramount importance.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I remember the Answer intimately. I pay tribute to all universities,

887
including Oxford, for their excellent work in broadening access. We hope and trust that the regulator will assist in that process, not least because it will provide an opportunity for an independent person working within the Higher Education Funding Council for England to point to the tremendous work that the universities do. The universities may find that of value, as they seek to demonstrate that they want the best students.
I hope that, as my noble friend and others consider the White Paper in more detail, they will see the emphasis that we put on world-class research and the way in which we strive to make sure that we have world-class research and to recognise the universities that are already at that level.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, can the Minister tell us why it is thought necessary to have a regulator for access, given that any self-respecting university already has an access policy and that such policies are monitored by the HEFCE? When KPMG examined the costs of the existing regulation of universities, they found that it was disproportionate to the benefits yielded. Is this not another case of over-regulation?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I have said and as is set out in the White Paper, the regulator will be based in HEFCE and will use its information and systems. There will not be another bureaucracy built around the regulator. The regulator will, of course, be independent, but we are keen to ensure that we work within a system that already exists.
The reasons should be evident to the noble Baroness. Many noble Lords will be aware that, as we move to a new situation, in which we allow differential fees in universities, there is great concern to ensure that, the impact of those differential fees is not felt by students who come from the poorest backgrounds. The combination of allowing people to pay off their loan and pay their fees at the end of their course and ensuring that universities work hard to maintain or improve their record on access is necessary if the policy is to be successful, as, I know, the universities wish it to be.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us the position with regard to fees in the major European universities? Do they have a method of financing comparable to top-up fees?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble and learned Lord's question at this stage. I shall write to him to give him the details.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, yesterday, the noble Baroness said:
"We are in discussion with our colleagues in Scotland to ensure that we have an appropriate system".—[Official Report, 22/1/03; col. 713.]
888
What does that mean? I have a second question. By definition, a regulator must regulate. What powers will the regulator have to regulate?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we have discussed with our colleagues in Scotland the implications of increasing the threshold from £10,000 to £15,000. It will apply in Scotland, as Inland Revenue rules are applicable. We have ensured that that has been discussed, understood and recognised by our colleagues in Scotland.
As we move forward, our colleagues in Scotland will be interested to see the impact on universities in Scotland or on Scottish students coming to universities in England. As noble Lords would expect, that dialogue continues. I hope that that clarifies the position for the noble Baroness.
As is set out in the White Paper, the regulator will have the power to impose fines on universities that do not follow their access agreement or do not have an access agreement. The regulator will also have the power to require universities to reduce their fees to the standard rate.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, has not the time come for the Government to loosen, not increase, their regulatory authority over universities? Does the Minister agree that one way would be for the Government to decide how much they can afford to pay for each university student—including extra payments for those from disadvantaged backgrounds—then allow universities to compete for students in the marketplace?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that in the course of the 18 months that the Government have deliberated on the matter, every possible avenue has been explored in determining how best to put together a system that does what we want. I will rehearse that we want a world-class university system properly funded, with contributions from those who benefit—including the Government on behalf of the nation. We believe that we have found the right balance.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
Further considered on Report after Clause 17
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 29A:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause—
"APPOINTMENTS TO THE POLICE SERVICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND
(1) The Secretary of State may, at the request of a majority of the Policing Board, and acting on the recommendation of the Chief Constable, by order—

(a) suspend the provisions of section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) for a maximum period of six months; and

889

(b) permit the Chief Constable to appoint to the Police Service of Northern Ireland persons from other constabularies within the United Kingdom as he deems appropriate.

(2) An order may not be made under this section unless a draft of that order has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, both Houses of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a continuation of our previous debate. My party supports Patten and, at this stage, the 50:50 recruitment regulations. I am optimistic about them in one way because essentially they are only temporary in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. But I disagree with the noble and learned Lord in his optimism about the way that recruitment is going.
I apologise for the late tabling of the amendment, which is the result of a political visit—as opposed to one of my normal weekend visits—to Northern Ireland at the beginning of this week. From my discussions with various people, there is clearly a recruitment problem within the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It is short of personnel in specific areas and there are gaps in knowledge, experience and numbers of people.
I confess that the amendment is not absolutely to my liking and could be improved but its purpose is to tease out some ideas for alleviating the recruitment problem. One could say that the root cause is 50:50 but I choose not to do so. I say that it is Sinn Fein/IRA. There are plenty of Roman Catholics and nationalists in Northern Ireland who are dying to join the police force—good, competent and honest people whom we and the Chief Constable, I am sure, would much like to have within the PSNI. However, intimidation is widespread. Although the Catholic Church and the SDLP have put their names to the PSNI and have joined, the others have not. While the others continue not to join and to intimidate, life is made extraordinarily difficult for the recruiters. The net result is that recruitment to the PSNI has been hijacked by Sinn Fein's threats, intimidation and refusal to play the game and join the team.
The amendment tackles the numbers head on, in terms of both clerical and uniformed personnel, so that the proportion of uniformed officers having to work in secretarial roles can be significantly reduced and the Chief Constable may be permitted to appoint persons from other constabularies within the UK as he deems appropriate.
I understand that a large number of men and women from Northern Ireland are serving in police forces elsewhere in the UK but cannot automatically be recruited and given places within the PSNI. Most would have to go through the training centre at Garnerville. If one has been on the beat for seven or 10 years and is experienced, one would not expect a return to basic training because of changing forces. That does not seem logical.
Anyone who has visited Garnerville will know that as a training centre for a brand-new, growing police force, it is awful. Ht is not dirty or rundown, but it is too small and inadequate. The accommodation for trainees is terrible—tiny rooms for two people in which at best one of them can sit and work but the other cannot. The
890
facilities are not exciting or attractive and would not make me feel good if Garnerville were my first impression of PSNI training. It may be a side issue but Garnerville seriously shocked me.
We must find a means as soon as possible of loosening the grip that Sinn Fein intimidation has on PSNI recruitment. I suggest that the provision of the 2000 Act initially be suspended for only six months so that a door can be opened when the Chief Constable and his team have their backs to the wall, with not enough officers on the streets. Because the force is overworked and overstretched, morale suffers, absenteeism increases and one starts on a wheel that we have all encountered at some stage in our lives, in one form of business or another.
Despite the politics, which I understand clearly, the Government must find a way to alleviate the problem. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support 50:50 entry to the police service, or at least some proportion close to it, which is necessary in view of northern Irish history and in particular of the disputes in the past over policing. It is also necessary to bridge the Protestant-Roman Catholic divide, which is still very real despite much valiant inter-Church and ecumenical work.
I am less happy about the way in which the principle has been put into practice. Section 46(1) of the 2000 Act was badly drafted. It states that half shall be persons who are deemed to be Roman Catholic and half shall be others. I cannot see why atheists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and members of other minority religions should be deemed to be Protestants. As many as 15 per cent of the whole population may be agnostic, non-believing or adherents to minority faiths. Surely such people can be trusted to act impartially as between Protestants and Catholics, since by definition they do not share their convictions.
I therefore suggest that there is much scope for new thinking on how the 50:50 principle should be applied. Will the Secretary of State vary the ratios in some helpful way? As I said at Second Reading, I am very concerned at the overall shortage of police officers, especially detectives and other ranks, and the shortage of officers to provide cover at night. The recruitment of civilians and the new police support staff may, and I hope will, do something to relieve the situation.
I was glad to hear of the campaigns that the recruitment consultants are now running. I should like to propose that police volunteers to serve in Northern Ireland, coming from Britain and the Commonwealth, should be treated as additional to 50:50 local recruitment. Their education, training and previous service make them fully aware of the need for total impartiality. They should be free from sectarian suspicion. The Chief Constable has told me that he advertises twice a year to attract British and Commonwealth applicants. Is that enough? I should like to see an appeal made to the heads of British and Commonwealth police services to second some of their best and most experienced officers.

891
In my view, on those grounds, Amendment No. 29A is not geographically, sufficiently widely drawn. Surely the United States of America should also be included in both advertisements and appeals. That country has been generous to Northern Ireland by providing the services of the former Senator Mitchell and by arranging sundry presidential visits. I should have thought that the USA could afford to spare a few police officers.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I said this morning that I was asking a stand-alone question. The question that I ask now is a stand-alone question also. It is tangential to my noble friend's amendment. I shall understand if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal says that he would like to write to me.
About a year ago, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I, under the auspices of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, had the opportunity of talking to the recruits at Garnerville in one of the earliest cohorts. One of the concerns that arose—I return to what my noble friend said about Sinn Fein pressure—was that recruits were being told specifically where they were going to go and where they were going to serve. They had some opportunity for consultation but, ultimately, it was going to be an order that they might have to go to an area which might not be ideal in terms of their own particular background.
We raised that same matter with the Policing Board in the afternoon and the Policing Board knew nothing of it and, initially, was disturbed. The nature of my question is whether, during the course of the past year, that problem has been solved.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I have some sympathy with Amendment No. 10 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and his noble friends. I see the danger as enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. What is being attempted in order to resolve a short-term problem will not, in effect, resolve the underlying problem that exists within Northern Ireland.
I may, be guilty of going back too far in history, but perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the situation in the early 1970s when the Army was brought into Northern Ireland to resolve a problem. The Army was welcomed with open arms right across the community. It appeared to be that dodging the issue at home and bringing in the Army from Great Britain was to be the answer at that time. That did not last. One cannot, and should not, discount the nature of terrorism when endeavouring to resolve a problem in the short-term.
In effect, it was a very short period before the Army—who were initially being given cups of tea and had been welcomed at doors throughout both areas of Belfast and elsewhere—were being shot at and were being seen as legitimate targets because they underpinned, and were seen to underpin, the Britishness of Northern Ireland.
I have some sympathy with the amendment, but I fear that, ultimately, the same situation would arise. Those who are brought in, for the best of reasons, would be seen as sustaining something that terrorist elements oppose. Hence, they would become targets.
892
I do not know the answer; I wish I could tell your Lordships what the alternative is. I do not know what it is. But I simply urge caution in terms of short-term measures that may not actually tackle the underlying problem that we must face.
3.45 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I, too, have sympathy with Amendment No. 10. For once, I am delighted to say that I am entirely in favour of what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, and thank him for his support.
We need help in recruiting policemen. I feel that the Government do not do everything in their power to help to resolve the situation in the short-term, although there are long-term aims. When we talk of lateral entry from other forces, there is no question but that certain issues could be eased. It is also true that a policeman from the Wild West of America cannot go into West Belfast and be a policeman there. One accepts that.
However, there must be a point at which a certain amount of police training is common to virtually all police forces. There would also be a certain amount of training that was simply either inappropriate or had to be re-run in the context of Northern Ireland. Although the Government may say that they could do something, I should like to see some action. We need measures that will provide properly qualified policemen.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, mentioned the training college at Garnerville, where new recruits may have to attend for a time. Lateral entry is perhaps for the more mature person who is a policeman already, as opposed to a raw recruit. Therefore, he may be married; he may be a family man; he may be 35 years-old; he may be even older. Garnerville is an absolute disgrace. On one occasion a mother of three had to go into one of these almost cell-like rooms in Garnerville, where she had to clean the floor and was given virtually no implements. Your Lordships may say that I am on the Policing Board and am therefore responsible for that. I shall turn to that point in a moment. The woman had to try to lift the dust with sellotape. "Degrading" is not the word for it.
It is not the Policing Board's fault. We are doing what we can. The Oversight Commissioner pointed out in his last report that the Government have done nothing about Garnerville in three and a half years. Proposals were put forward when the Policing Board was first set-up. The Government have side-stepped them in every way possible. The Maze prison site may be used for new facilities, and there are arguments for and against. But that has happened throughout. Perhaps the Maze site is inappropriate for this college.
However, the Government side-stepped the issue at first and said that the task had been given to the Executive. They said that they could do nothing. But as they have a responsibhlity for security, what would they do if, having given it to the Executive, they had then to get it back? That would be rather unusual.
However, as the Assembly is not operating at the moment the Government own the premises again. If they had wanted to, they could have done something

893
about it and brought a proposal before Parliament, if that were necessary. They did absolutely nothing. It is a disgrace, and the Oversight Commissioner is fully aware of it. So is everyone else. We have been badly let down.
The Minister will tell us that a committee is trying to resolve the issue. The Oversight Commissioner says that the college cannot be in place for another three and a half years. It was a major item in the Patten report and so far as the Oversight Commissioner was concerned. If Patten is always right, why have the Government not provided the facility?
Lord Monson: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Hylton about the possible merits of recruiting people from the British mainland. However, I would totally oppose recruiting anyone from the United States, given the widespread support for militant republicanism in that country until recently. Furthermore, there is an amazing ignorance of the Province among Americans, even the most highly educated.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in so far as I can, I shall try to confine myself to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. It is not correct that nothing has been done by the Government about Garnerville. I accept that there are significant considerable deficiencies there. We have made £2 million available for new works and the refurbishment of existing facilities and we remain committed to the Patten recommendations for a new police college.
As I see it, there are two elements in the noble Lord's amendments. He says candidly that he recognises that the drafting may not be perfect. The first element is suspension of the 50:50 recruitment provisions. That is not going to help in the context of what he described as gaps in skill and experience because 50:50 refers to new entrants.
I remind your Lordships that the Chief Constable already has the power to appoint officers of any rank, from sergeant to chief superintendent, from Great Britain constabularies. He already has that power. He does not have the power in regard to constables and I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. However, I understand that the Policing Board has already queried with the Chief Constable the scope for reducing the full period of training for experienced constables who join on a 50:50 basis. If the Chief Constable and the board want to put forward a proposal, certainly the Government would give it careful consideration and we can make a change through the regulations, not through the Act.
We have met the 50:50 target for police trainees—I gave the figures before lunch—and we have met the 50:50 target for police support staff appointments since September last year. As I say, we are always willing to be as flexible as possible within the parameters of the policy principles we have adopted.
894
As regards other secondments, it is possible under Section 98 of the Police Act 1996 to allow for secondment at all ranks from UK forces. I understand the concerns, but I do not believe that this is the mechanism to deal with them.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about atheists and others. At paragraph 15.10, the Patten report specifically recommended that recruitment be 50 per cent Catholic and 50 per cent Protestant or undetermined.
I agree with what the noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Glentoran, said about intimidation and the Patten report makes some strong comments on that. The Unionists and the SDLP have delivered in that regard and I repeat, as I have on so many other occasions, that it is for Sinn Fein also to join with the Roman Catholic hierarchy and encourage Roman Catholics generally to join the police force and serve the public in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, raised a particular question. I was aware at the time—it was about 12 months ago—of concerns but I have no information about current concerns. However, I shall research the matter and write to the noble Lord when I have material. I shall write to him even if there is no further material.
I shall not get involved in the question of whether someone from the Wild West ought to be stationed in west Belfast—nor shall I speculate on whether such law officers in the Wild West would wish to volunteer.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that response. Between now and Third Reading I shall carry out more research into the matter to ascertain where we are and what is required. If it seems appropriate, I shall table a more satisfactory amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Fixed-term appointments]:
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Lord Smith of Clifton Lord Smith of Clifton moved Amendment No. 31:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
"DISCRIMINATION IN APPOINTMENTS: EXPIRY, RENEWAL AND REPEAL OF TEMPORARY PROVISIONS
In section 47(3) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) (expiry, renewal and repeal of temporary provisions), for "three years" substitute "one year"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 31 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 32. The purpose of the first amendment resonates with what many noble Lords have said about the difficulties that the 50:50 recruitment process creates. We are all committed to it but we need to look at it fairly regularly in order to see whether and how it is operating. That is why we suggest an opportunity to monitor the situation and to discuss it annually instead of every three years, as provided in the original Act of 2000.
Amendment No. 32 is tabled in order to give a designated end date so that all parties—not only political parties but also the agencies which are

895
concerned with policing in Northern Ireland—have a fixed point beyond which, one hopes, it will not be necessary to extend the provision. The Patten report suggested that it should be for only eight years. Our amendment suggests 10 years, two more than envisaged by Patten. We are trying to reflect the report's original intention of ending the provision completely after 10 years because if, in the ninth year, it were extended by another three years it could roll on. We want to give a signal to all those people concerned with policing in Northern Ireland that it should definitely stop after 10 years. I beg to move.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I supported the first part of the amendment in Grand Committee. I see no reason to change my mind. It seems a sensible and useful amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I sympathise with the motives and thinking which lie behind the amendments. There is already a good deal of flexibility. I remind the House that the first review will occur in the earlier part of 2004, so we are not far away.
In Grand Committee, I said that an annual review would be cumbersome. I shall develop the reasons. The time it takes for applications to be made and recruitment to follow has been halved from the year or so it took pre-Patten to about six months. But that is only before recruits enter training. They spend 20 weeks at the foundation faculty obtaining an accredited qualification; they have another two months training in other policing skills; and they spend about 18 further months as probationer constables. Perhaps I put it clumsily, but in management terms a review every year could not work. Those figures underline the fact that having a review after not longer than three years—that is within the Secretary of State's power—is about right.
We have had success. In each of the first four campaigns the applicants—I round up the figures—numbered 7,500, 4,900, 4,700 and 4,300. The levels of Roman Catholic applications are 35 per cent, 39 per cent, 35 per cent and 35 per cent. I believe that it would be ill-advised to tinker too much at this stage. I stress that the review must take place in not more than three years but the Secretary of State can have a review sooner than that.
In paragraph 15.10 of the report, Patten states:
"We believe that the ratio of recruits should be kept to 50:50, at least for the ten years of the model".
Therefore, I repeat that I do sympathise with what the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, has said, but at this stage, we ought to leave things as they are.
I can say, however, that when it comes to the review, I shall ensure—it may be a false assumption that I will still be doing this job—that there is ample time to look at these issues, which are intricate and important.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Disclosure of information and holding of inquiries]:
[Amendments Nos. 33 to 35 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Police powers for designated police support staff]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 12, line 10, leave out "subsection (1)" and insert "this section"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 38 to 41, 43 to 50, 70 and 71, 73, 81 to 84 and 88 and 89. This is a substantial group of amendments, which have been designed to improve the wording of the Bill. The police have requested amendments to enable them to enter into contracts with the private sector for the provision of services relating to the detention or escort of persons who have been arrested or are otherwise in custody. The Chief Constable may then designate any person who is an employee of the contractor, either as a detention officer or an escort officer. Therefore, the amendments are in line with Section 39 of the Police Reform Act 2002.
I repeat that this provision comes at the request of the Chief Constable. It will allow him to take forward proposals for greater civilianisation in the police service. I hope that that chimes with what noble Lords have said earlier. Possibly, one of the better consequences may be the freeing of police officers for other police duties. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Shutt of Greetland Lord Shutt of Greetland moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 12, line 15, leave out "adequate" and insert "full"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are back to words again. Clause 20 suggests that there should be some training for people who are police support staff. Subsection (2)(c) states that,
"the person has received adequate training".
The amendment would delete the word "adequate" and insert the word "full". There is a sense in which the word "adequate" is inadequate. The word is often prefaced by the word "barely", and barely adequate is certainly not correct.
When we considered the matter in Committee, the noble and learned Lord suggested that the provision should be that the person had received the "appropriate" training, which would be a better word. My amendment would make it absolutely clear that those who are hired would have full training in the work that they are required to do. That would be far more appropriate and would give confidence that members of the police support staff are fully trained to do the work. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, said, this issue was raised in Committee. The Northern Ireland Office officials prudently anticipated that an amendment might be

897
tabled at this stage. The NIO has sought reassurance from the Chief Constable that all designated persons will receive appropriate training that is fit for the purpose. I hope that that meets the concerns expressed by the noble Lord. As he knows, adequate training is replicated in the Police Reform Act. I hope that the fact that such a step has been taken, together with my categoric assurance on behalf of the Chief Constable, will meet the concerns of the noble Lord.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 38 to 41:
Page 12, line 17, after "conferred" insert "or imposed"
Page 12, line 18, leave out "designated person" and insert "person designated under this section"
Page 12, line 21, after "designation" insert "under this section"
Page 12, line 23, leave out "designated person" and insert "person designated under this section"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 12, line 24, after "are" insert "any or all of"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 20(5) describes the powers and duties that are capable of being applied by designation. The amendment simply replicates the provisions in the Police Reform Act so that particular provisions of the schedule can be applied to the designated person. This is intended to give the Chief Constable flexibility in which provision should apply. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 43 to 49:
Page 12, line 26, after "designated" insert "under this section"
Page 12, line 27, after "designated" insert "under this section"
Page 12, line 28, after "designated" insert "under this section"
Page 12, line 29, leave out "designated person" and insert "person designated under this section"
Page 12, line 36, leave out "designated person" and insert "person designated under this section"
Page 13, line 1, leave out "designated person" and insert "person designated under this section"
Page 13, line 8, leave out subsections (11) and (12).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 50:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause—
"POLICE POWERS FOR DESIGNATED CONTRACTED-OUT STAFF
(1) This section applies if the Board has entered into a contract with a person ("the contractor") for the provision of services relating to the detention or escort of persons who have been arrested or are otherwise in custody.
(2) The Chief Constable may designate an employee of the contractor as an officer of either or both of these descriptions—

(a) detention officer;

(b) escort officer.

(3) The Chief Constable may designate a person under this section only if he is satisfied that these requirements are met—

(a) the person is a suitable person to carry out the functions for the purposes of which he is to be designated;

(b) the person is capable of effectively carrying out those functions;

(c) the person has received adequate training in the carrying out of those functions and in the exercise of the powers and performance of the duties to be conferred or imposed on him by his designation;

(d) the contractor is a fit and proper person to supervise the carrying out of the functions for the purposes of which the person is to be designated.

(4) A person designated under this section has—

(a) the powers conferred on him by his designation;

(b) the duties imposed on him by his designation.

(5) A designation under this section may confer powers or impose duties on a person only by applying the powers or duties to him.
(6) The powers and duties that may be applied to a person designated under this section by his designation are any or all of those specified in the applicable Part of Schedule 1.
(7) The applicable Part of Schedule I is—

(a) Part 2, in the case of a person designated under this section as a detention officer;

(b) Part 3, in the case of a person designated under this section as an escort officer.

(8) If a power is conferred or a duty imposed on a person designated under this section by his designation—

(a) the power or duty does not authorise or require him to engage in any conduct otherwise than in the course of his employment as an employee of the contractor;

(b) the power may be conferred or the duty imposed subject to restrictions or conditions specified in the designation.

(9) Subsection (10) applies in relation to the exercise of a power by a person designated under this section in reliance on his designation if the power is one which, if exercised by a police officer, includes or is supplemented by a power to use reasonable force.
(10) The designated person has the same entitlement to use reasonable force as a police officer would have if the power were exercised by him.
(11) A designation under this section, unless it is previously withdrawn or ceases to have effect under subsection (12), shall remain in force for such period as may be specified in the designation; but it may be renewed at any time with effect from the time when it would otherwise expire.
(12) A designation under this section shall cease to have effect—

(a) if the designated person ceases to be an employee of the contractor; or

(b) if the contract between the Board and the contractor is terminated or expires."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Powers exercisable by designated police support staff]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 51 to 53:
Page 16, line 10, leave out from "arrest)" to end of line.
Page 16, line 12, leave out "any such"
Page 16, line 20, leave out from second "person)" to "as" in line 21.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendments Nos. 51 to 53, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 56 and 57, 59 to 61, 63 and 64, 66 to 68 and 72.
These amendments will remove references to "relevant police area" in the Bill. Because of the Bill's limited extent, it is sufficient to restrict the exercise of the powers in question to Northern Ireland, despite the fact that the powers are conferred by statute with a United Kingdom extent. The "relevant police area" references replicate the Police Reform Act when it might be necessary to move a prisoner from one constabulary area to another within England and Wales. Because there is only one police area in Northern Ireland, that phrase is not appropriate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 54 and 55:
Page 20, line 7, at end insert—
"(2) Article 5 of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/1987 (N.I. 20)) (consequences of failure by arrested person to account for objects etc.) applies (without prejudice to the effect of any designation applying paragraph 8A) in the case of a person arrested in exercise of the power exercisable by virtue of this paragraph as it applies in the case of a person arrested by a constable."
Page 20, line 33, at end insert—
"Power to require arrested person to account for certain matters
8A Where a designation applies this paragraph to a person—

(a) he has the powers of a constable under Articles 5(1)(c) and 6(1)(c) of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/1987 (N.I. 20)) to request a person who has been arrested by a constable or by a person to whom paragraph 7 applies to account for the presence of an object, substance or mark or for the presence of the arrested person at a particular place; and

(b) the references to a constable in Articles 5(1)(b) and (c) and (4) and 6(1)(b) and (c) and (3) of that Order accordingly include references to the person to whom this paragraph is applied."

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendments is to apply Articles 5 and 6 of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 to designated investigating officers. Those powers replicate the powers given to designated officers in England and Wales under the Police Reform Act 2002. It was initially thought that there was no equivalent to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act in Northern Ireland legislation. However, we have subsequently discovered that this is not the case in that equivalent provisions are contained in
900
Articles 5 and 6, to which I referred. These amendments enable a designated investigating officer to question a convicted person under those articles about facts which may be attributable to the person's participation in the offence—for example, presence at a particular place at a relevant time or the presence of potentially incriminating objects such as a mark. They may also warn the suspect about the capacity of the court to draw adverse inferences.
The effect of Amendment No. 54 is that a court may draw similar inferences in the case of a person arrested by a designated person under paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 56 and 57:
Page 20, line 44, leave out "in the relevant police area"
Page 21, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 21, line 33, leave out paragraph 13.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 91 is also in this group.
Noble Lords will recall that in Committee I promised to look again at this matter to make it explicit that so far as concerns civilians, only doctors or nurses could be involved in this work. It was never our intention that civilians other than doctors or nurses would be involved in this work. To clarify this matter, I propose to amend Article 56 of the PACE order by means of this new clause.
I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, is unable to be present today. I pay tribute to the fact that she was alert enough to find this ambiguity. I hope that I have pleased noble Lords by putting it right. I beg to move.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, we are grateful for the amendment and will pass the Minister's kind words to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 59 to 61:
Page 22, line 14, leave out "in the relevant police area"
Page 22, line 41, leave out "in the relevant police area"
Page 23, line 10, leave out "in the relevant police area"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 24, line 5, leave out "in the relevant police area"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 64 to 68:
Page 24, line 7, leave out "in that or any other police area"
Page 24, line 8, leave out "or" and insert—
"(aa) from that police station to any other place that is specified by the custody officer;"
Page 24, line 11, leave out "in that area or in another police area"
Page 24, line 12, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
Page 24, line 20, leave out "or (2)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 70 to 72:
Page 25, line 4, leave out "20(1)" and insert "20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff)"
Page 25, line 5, leave out "20(1)" and insert "20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff)"
Page 25, leave out lines 8 and 9.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 21 [Designated police support staff amendments]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 13, line 13, leave out "section 20" and insert "sections 20 and (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 74:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
"DESIGNATIONS: SUPPLEMENTARY
(1) Subsection (2) applies if, in reliance on his designation under section 20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out stuff), a person exercises or performs a power or duty in relation to another or purports to do so.
(2) The designated person must produce his designation to the other if requested to do so.
(3) A failure to comply with subsection (2) does not make the exercise or performance of the power or duty invalid.
(4) The Chief Constable may at any time modify or withdraw a person's designation under section 20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff) by notice to him.
(5) If the Chief Constable modifies or withdraws a person's designation under section (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff), he must send a copy of the notice of the modification or withdrawal to the contractor responsible for supervising the designated person in the carrying out of the functions for the purposes of which the designation was granted.
(6) In subsection (5) "contractor" means a person who has entered into a contract with the Board such as is mentioned in section (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff) (1)."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 74 is to include the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. The purpose of this clause is to replicate supplementary provisions contained in Section 42 of the Police Reform Act 2002 which were not in the draft Bill.
The effect is to give the Chief Constable powers to modify or withdraw a designation at any time. If the Chief Constable withdraws the designation of a
902
contracted-out individual, he must notify the relevant contractor and, further, require the designated person to produce his designation on request.
It makes clear that a failure to comply with such a request does not make the exercise or performance of that power or duty invalid. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 75:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
"COMPLAINTS AND MISCONDUCT
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the handling of—

(a) complaints relating to the carrying out by a person designated under section 20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff) of any of the functions mentioned in subsection (2);

(b) instances of misconduct involving the carrying out by such a person of any of those functions.

(2) The functions are those for the purposes of which any power or duty is conferred or imposed on the person by his designation.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular provide that any provision of Part 7 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (c. 32) is to apply, with such modifications as may be prescribed by the regulations, with respect to persons designated under section 20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff).
(4) Before making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Ombudsman;

(b) the Board;

(c) the Chief Constable;

(d) the Police Association;

(e) any other person or body appearing to him to have an interest in the matter."

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, after Clause 21 I propose the insertion of this new clause. This is to give the ombudsman power to deal from commencement with complaints against designated civilians, including contracted-out staff, given that they will be exercising limited police powers as outlined in Schedule 1 to the Bill.
At present, in England and Wales complaints against police authority employed support staff are handled at the discretion of chief officers, but when the new complaints system comes into force on 1st April 2004 all police authority employees will have an extended complaints regime.
We do not at present see the case for further extending the ombudsman's remit for investigating complaints against civilians employed by the Chief Constable beyond those of designated powers, as to the reason I have given. They will be exercising limited police powers and, therefore, should fall appropriately within the ombudsman's remit. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 76:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
"LIABILITY FOR UNLAWFUL CONDUCT
(1) For the purposes of determining liability for the unlawful conduct of employees of the Board, conduct by an employee of the Board in reliance or purported reliance on a designation under section 20 must be taken to be conduct in the course of his employment by the Board; and, in the case of a tort, the Board accordingly falls to be treated as a joint tortfeasor.
(2) For the purposes of determining liability for the unlawful conduct of persons employed in the civil service, conduct by such a person in reliance or purported reliance on a designation under section 20 must be taken to be conduct in the course of his employment in the civil service; and, in the case of a tort, the Department of Finance and Personnel accordingly falls to be treated as a joint tortfeasor.
(3) For the purposes of determining liability for the unlawful conduct of employees of a contractor, conduct by such an employee in reliance or purported reliance on a designation under section (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff) must be taken to be conduct in the course of his employment by the contractor; and, in the case of a tort, the contractor accordingly falls to be treated as a joint tortfeasor.
(4) In subsection (3) "contractor" means a person who has entered into a contract with the Board such as is mentioned in section (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff) (1)."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates to liability for unlawful conduct. It is intended to replicate a supplementary provision contained in Section 42 of the Police Reform Act 2002; namely,
"for the purpose of determining liability for unlawful conduct in that conduct in reliance of a designation shall be taken as conduct in the course of employment by the designated person's employer—whether that be the Board, civil service or contractor".
I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 77:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
"NOTIFIABLE MEMBERSHIPS
(1) Section 51 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) (notifiable memberships of police officers) applies in relation to persons designated under section 20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff) as it applies in relation to police officers.
(2) As so applied, that section has effect as if the reference in subsection (1) to the duties of a police officer were to the functions for the purposes of which any power or duty is conferred or imposed on a person by his designation under section 20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff)."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to apply Section 51 of the 2000 Act, notifiable memberships, to designated police support staff, including contracted-out staff. These individuals are exercising limited police powers and it is right and proper that Section 51 should apply. I am able to say that the Chief Constable agrees with this view. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 78:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
"CODE OF ETHICS
(1) The Secretary of State may by order apply the code of ethics issued by the Board under section 52 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) to persons designated under section 20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff).
(2) An order under subsection (1) may apply the code with such modifications as are specified in the order.
(3) If an order is made under subsection (1) applying the code to a person designated under section 20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff) he must be guided by the code as it applies to him in carrying out the functions for the purposes of which any power or duty is conferred or imposed on him by his designation."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords., the amendment is designed to give the Secretary of State the power by order to extend the application of Section 52 of the 2000 Act, the Code of Ethics, to designated support staff, including contracted-out staff.
The code—I understand that the board intends to publish it in the near future—has provisions relating to integrity, behaviour and the care of those persons in detention. These have a direct read-across to duties undertaken by civilians. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Designated police support staff: Amendments]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 25, line 29, leave out "only"
The noble and learned Lord said.: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 80.
At present, paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 2 specify that the powers in question—taking fingerprints and non-intimate samples—are currently excisable only by a constable. The provisions of the PACE (Northern Ireland) Order to which these refer are silent as to who may exercise the powers. Having clarified the position under the order, paragraphs 14 and 17 of Schedule 1 to the Bill then enable those powers to be conferred on a designated person. The amendment is designed to remove ambiguity and introduce clarity. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 80 to 84:
Page 25, line 33, leave out "only"
Page 26, line 2, leave out "20(1)" and insert "20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff)"
Page 26, line 11, leave out "20(1)" and insert "20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff)"
Page 26, line 19, leave out "20(1)" and insert "20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff)"
Page 26, line 27, leave out "20(1)" and insert "20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 22 [Assaults on, and obstruction of designated police support staff]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 85 to 87:
Page 13, line 25, leave out "(4)" and insert "(3)"
Page 13, line 26, leave out "(5)" and insert "(3A)"
Page 13, line 30, leave out "(6)" and insert "(3B)"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendments put right drafting errors. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 13, line 31, leave out "20(1)" and insert "20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Impersonation etc. of designated police support staff]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 14, line 8, leave out "20(1)" and insert "20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 90:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—
"DESIGNATED PERSONS: INTERPRETATION
(1) This section applies for the interpretation of sections 20 to 23.
(2) "Conduct" includes omissions and statements.
(3) Expressions used in those sections and in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) have the same meanings in those sections as they have in that Act."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 90 is a drafting amendment to bring about a more effective interpretation. It provides for the definition of conduct which is taken from the Police Reform Act 2002. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 91:
Before Clause 24, insert the following new clause—
"INTIMATE SEARCHES
(1) In Article 56 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1341 (N.I. 12)) (intimate searches) after paragraph (5) insert—
"(5A) A person may use reasonable force, if necessary, in carrying out an intimate search as mentioned in paragraph (4) or (5)."
(2) Subsection (1) comes into force in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Persons authorised to take intimate samples]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 14, line 39, leave out subsections (7) and (8).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 92, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 93. The purpose of the amendment is to amend a drafting error to reflect that subordinate legislation relating to policing is made by statutory rule and not statutory instrument, an elementary error spotted by all of your Lordships. Amendment No. 93 clarifies the position. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 93:
Before Clause 26, insert the following new clause—
"ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
(1) Any power of the Secretary of State to make orders or regulations under this Act is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (1979 N.I. 12).
(2) Orders or regulations under this Act—

(a) may make different provision for different purposes;

(b) may include supplementary, incidental, saving or transitional provisions.

(3) A statutory rule made under this Act (other than one containing an order under section (Intimate searches)(2) or 24(6)) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament in like manner as a statutory instrument and section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (c. 36) applies accordingly."
On Question amendment agreed to.
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 94:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause—
"COMMENCEMENT
(1) This Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to this section or to sections 27 and 28.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for the late tabling of this amendment. Throughout the Grand Committee debates, I frequently referred to the appropriateness of the timing of various matters in the Bill. I know that the amendment's wording is not quite right. When we took it to the Clerks' Department, they told us that it was not acceptable in its present format and there was some rather hasty editing. I wanted the date of the commencement of the Bill to be debated.
Throughout our consideration of the Bill, I have made it clear that I disagree with the Government on timing. With the decommissioning process incomplete, we should like Section 3 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 satisfied and verified by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning before any of the provisions come into force. With half the executive still not behind the Policing Board, I am disinclined to push through more technical legislation on policing. The bottom line is that we are, as I have said earlier, putting the people of Northern Ireland at risk by taking

907
chances with their policing. If the Bill and other measures are implemented, we shall have in place a superb set of policing structures for a normal, quiet and peaceful, dare I say, Surrey-like society.
I give notice that I intend to withdraw the amendment today, but that I shall return to the matter at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, on the basis of what the noble Lord has helpfully said, it is probably
908
better if I respond to his detailed argument when he returns to the subject at Third Reading. I undertake to do that.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past four o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [H.L.]
(Second Day)
Thursday, 23rd January 2003.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [H.L.]

  The Committee met at a quarter before four of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale) in the Chair.]
  Clause 11 [Sending freezing orders]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 35:
  Page 7, line 14, after "State" insert "within 14 working days"
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment, which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is a probing amendment—the fact that we are in Grand Committee means that amendments can be nothing else. However, as was apparent in our previous sitting, if we had considered such amendments on the Floor of the House, they would still have remained only probing amendments. Most but not all of the amendments that we shall consider today will be probing amendments.
  The amendment would establish a timetable for the forwarding of freezing orders. The amendment is intended to probe the level of staffing at the Central Authority that the Government are putting in place to ensure that the authority will be able to respond with due expedition to requests made under the Bill.
  Can the noble and learned Lord the Minister give the Committee an idea of what the current level of staffing is at the Central Authority? In particular, how many qualified lawyers are there on the staff? Will he confirm that some, if not all, of the incoming requests involve the Home Office reaching a decision on law rather than on procedure? Will the Minister assist the Committee by giving us an idea of how many applications for judicial review over the past two years were dealt with by staff at the Central Authority? How much of their time was taken up in such work?
  We are trying to secure a picture of what the Central Authority staffing currently is and whether the Government are satisfied that that level of staffing is sufficient to do the extra work that will be involved as a result of the Bill; if not, what are their plans? I beg to move.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I am rather concerned that the amendment is not practical, because the system that we envisage is completely new. It is important that the Attorney-General, who I believe will respond to this amendment, should indicate within what time the
  GC 62
  department will be able to deal with the issue. Currently, as I understand it, the situation is completely open. That is not satisfactory from the point of view of the department or of those who invigilate the department. My noble and learned friend should consider a practical amendment; I am not sure whether a period of 14 days—which is seemingly plucked out of the air—is altogether right. There should be some time limit.
  Lord Renton: I agree that there must be a time limit of some kind. It is notorious that legal proceedings and more especially civil actions in this country, as in most other countries, can stretch on for months and years if we are not careful. These long and important proceedings, which should be brought to a head without much delay, should be subject to some kind of time limit. It could be said that 14 days is rather pressing the matter but I do not believe that to be unreasonable. If the Attorney-General says that he accepts the principle but would like to reconsider the length of time, one would have to consider that.
  Lord Goodhart: The amendment stands also in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dholakia. I obviously support it and have nothing to add to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
  The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): I shall respond as best I can to the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about the level of staffing at the Central Authority. I am grateful to those who provided this information. I do not complain that I did not have notice; I say that simply by way of explanation. If there is some detail that the noble Baroness requires that I cannot give now, she will no doubt let us know and we shall do our best to respond in writing.
  The Central Authority is currently staffed with one lawyer at its head, an SEO deputy, a higher executive officer and 10 operational staff. It also has the ability to call on the legal advisers branch at the Home Office, which would be a source of additional legal advice should that be necessary. The noble Baroness asked about the challenges by way of judicial review. They have been minimal—one last year and two the previous year.
  The Bill will result in some decrease in the work of the Central Authority because, as the Committee will have noted, in certain cases—this is an important point—it is intended that there will be direct transmission of the material or request so that they do not have to pass through the Central Authority; that will speed things up. However, there will also be some increases. If it is helpful to provide further detail, I hope that the noble Baroness will not hesitate to ask and we shall do the best that we can.
  The amendment proposes that a domestic freezing order must be sent to the Secretary of State in order to be transmitted abroad within 14 days of being made. All Members of the Committee who have spoken—the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis, Lord Renton and Lord Goodhart, and the noble Baroness—have invited consideration of whether some kind of time limit

  GC 63
  should be put on that obligation. I accede to that invitation to consider the issue. The Government agree that these are cases in which the order should be executed as quickly as possible after it has been made.
  Members of the Committee may know that there are time limits within which domestic search warrants must be executed. We cannot impose the same time limit in relation to the sending of the orders because we shall not have control over the overseas authority that will execute the orders. However, the idea that there should be some degree of urgency—a similar degree of urgency if not precisely the same—raises a very fair point. While I sympathise with the intention that lies behind the amendment, we should like to take the precise terms and the drafting away for further consideration. I hope that Members of the Committee find that a helpful response.
  Lord Renton: Will the noble and learned Lord also consider the length of the time limit? I hope that there will be one.
  Lord Goldsmith: Absolutely. We are sympathetic to the idea that there should be a time limit. We shall consider that point, and the drafting, and bring back a proposal.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Has the noble and learned Lord consulted the Lord Advocate on this matter? Would it be his intention to accede on behalf of the Lord Advocate? How will he proceed? If this approach is necessary south of the Border, it is probably also necessary in Scotland.
  Lord Goldsmith: As always, the noble Baroness is right to make these points. I shall take that issue away as well and, if it is necessary to consult the Lord Advocate, that will be done.
  Lord Dholakia: The noble Baroness asked about resources and the noble and learned Lord indicated the present staffing level of the unit. Bearing in mind the additional workload, has he given any consideration to the extent to which additional staffing may be required, and will be made available in dealing with such orders?
  Lord Goldsmith: I gave an indication of the current staffing level and said that the Bill will result in a decrease in work in some areas, but also in some increases. The resources are currently considered to be adequate. All targets are currently being met and the position will doubtless be kept under review.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who took part in this short debate and who supported the principle of including an indication of urgency. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Minister for agreeing to take the matter away for consideration as regards the drafting, and for the possibility, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, of introducing some kind of time limit.
  GC 64
  The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was absolutely right to say that the figure of 14 days had been plucked out of the air. It was merely a tool to enable a proper debate on these matters of urgency. If they are not properly dealt with, the system will not have the credibility that it deserves in the eyes of people in this country and overseas. It is with pleasure that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I am not sure whether I am the only Member of the Committee who experiences considerable confusion in following the various clauses involving the differences between requests for evidence freezing orders, as against responding to or receiving them.
  As I understand it, in this clause we are dealing with sending abroad a domestic freezing order made by a court in this country. Clause 10 suggests that the freezing order should be made by a judicial authority—in general terms, a court having satisfied itself that it is necessary for the protection of the required evidence which is in another country. However, before the freezing order can be sent to the other country, it must first go to the Secretary of State for forwarding, who will then decide whether he can forward it to a court exercising jurisdiction in the place where the evidence is situated.
  If we compare that provision with Clauses 7 and 8, we find that, if the request is not for a freezing order but for assistance in obtaining the evidence, there is no need for the interference of the Secretary of State, and, as I understand it, the court—the "judicial authority" referred to in Clause 7—can send the request directly to the court where he believes the evidence is situated.
  Are we not in a slightly strange situation? We are requiring applications for freezing orders—designed to freeze evidence to ensure that it is not destroyed—to go through the Secretary of State; but in the case of a request to have the evidence sent to this country so that it can be used, it goes directly from one court to the other. Why, in Clause 11, it is necessary to involve the Secretary of State?
  Lord Goldsmith: Clause 11, as the noble Lord correctly identifies, requires freezing orders made by the domestic courts in this country to be sent via the Secretary of State, or in Scotland via the Lord Advocate. That is in contrast to the provision for direct transmission for letters of request under Clause 7.
  The reason for that, about which the noble Lord properly asks, is that the freezing orders are a new procedure. There are no current procedures for dealing with them. Therefore, those dealing with them will be unfamiliar with the issuing, sending and receiving of them. The decision has been made that in those circumstances they should be sent via the Secretary of State. That will have the advantage of enabling the orders to be monitored and to be checked to ensure that they comply with the requirements of

  GC 65
  the framework directive and of the legislation, and it will ensure that they are responded to appropriately. The importance of being able to ensure that the orders are properly made and properly executed is of significant interest. It is that which justifies this different procedure.
  4. p.m.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I understand that a new procedure is being invoked. However, gradually, perhaps after two or three years or more, the situation will be ameliorated. People will become more aware of their responsibilities. Is there any procedure which the noble and learned Lord has in mind to ensure that in a reasonable period of time the whole situation will be considered?
  Lord Goldsmith: The noble Lord asks whether there is a procedure for ensuring that the whole situation will be considered within a reasonable time. Legislation of this kind and its operation is kept under review. If it does not work and does not produce benefits, that will become apparent to those who are operating it, to those who are trying to benefit from it and to Ministers. I cannot take the matter further at present. I have given the reasons for this different procedure being proposed in this specific area, which I understand, at least for the time being, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, sees as understandable and reasonable. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his opposition to the Question.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for that explanation. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, stated, it seems a perfectly acceptable explanation in the early days of the freezing order. However, I hope that it shall not be continued as an unnecessary bureaucratic intervention once the freezing orders are recognised in the same way as other requests for evidence. The noble Lord asked how often such matters are reviewed. I suppose that the last action in this area was 1990. Perhaps in about 14 years' time someone may be around to delete the need in Clause 11 to go to the Secretary of State.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: Before the noble Lord sits down, why is he so impatient? He mentioned 14 years. We could make it 25 years.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: As was mentioned in last night's debate in the House, it all depends on whether any of us will be here in 20 years.
  Clause 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12 agreed to.
  On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: The same point arises. Clause 13 deals with requests from overseas for assistance by the courts in this country. Such requests must be received by the territorial authority for that part of the United Kingdom which is, by definition in
  GC 66
  Clause 28(9), the Secretary of State. Yet, under Clauses 7 and 8, if it is the other way round and the request comes from this country to another asking for its assistance in obtaining evidence, it can come directly from the judicial authority to the court in the country from which assistance is requested. Clause 8 states:
  "A request for assistance under section 7 may be sent—
  (a) to a court exercising jurisdiction in the place where the evidence is situated, or
  (b) to any authority recognised by the government".
  Why must there be a system where a request from this country can go directly from the court to the court whereas a similar request from overseas cannot go directly to the court but to the Home Secretary who is required under Clause 15 to nominate a court to receive any such evidence? Perhaps I have misunderstood but it appears that in one way the court deals directly with the court yet an incoming request comes through the Secretary of State. I wondered why there is that difference.
  Lord Goldsmith: The answer to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, concerns the difference in the structure in the United Kingdom and that in other countries for how jurisdiction for prosecution is set out. At this end there are a number of different prosecuting authorities. The division between their jurisdiction is complex and based upon the type of crime involved. Therefore, it is much more difficult to identify who is necessarily the correct recipient for an incoming request. In that direction, it is appropriate that that should be assisted by coming through the territorial authority, and I shall return to what that means.
  The advantage is that that will speed up the provision of assistance. It will mean that requests are directed to the correct place. We would not want, nor would the Committee, situations in which important requests from another country were misdirected to some part of the Crown Prosecution Service or to an inappropriate court in some part of the country. That could lead to great delay.
  On the other hand, in many other countries the prosecution is based more on territorial division, and the investigation and prosecution stages may be more closely linked. That is why Clause 8 provides for the possibility of sending requests directly to the executing authority. However, notwithstanding that, there is an important speeding-up in the process.
  Territorial authority, a concept to which the noble Lord rightly draws attention, includes the devolved administrations. The territorial authority is the Secretary of State in England and Wales but is the Lord Advocate in Scotland. Enabling the request to be sent directly to the devolved administration will remove an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. That geographical division is straightforward and easy to explain. The other territorial and functional divisions between courts and prosecuting authorities are more difficult to explain. I hope that that answers the question raised by the noble Lord. If it does, or

  GC 67
  perhaps even if it does not, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his opposition to the Question whether the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I shall consider what has been said by the noble and learned Lord. The other matter I wish to raise concerns the happy phrase, "The administrative authority", which appears in Clause 1 but not in Clause 13. Clause 1 states that a request for an overseas process relates to,
  "any document issued or made by an administrative authority".
  Clause 13 states:
  "The request for assistance may be made only by—
  (a) a court exercising criminal jurisdiction…in a country outside the United Kingdom, [or]
  (b) any other authority in such a country which appears to the territorial authority to have the function of making such requests for assistance".
  Is that intended to include the administrative authority whose requests we can deal with in the service of overseas process? Why are the words different in the two clauses?
  Lord Goldsmith: Clause 1 deals with service of process, whereas Clause 13 deals with evidence, as does Clause 7. They are different concepts and different functions. I do not immediately follow why the noble Lord might think that the situation should be the same. It does not seem to me that it needs to be the same. In the different context of service of process as opposed to gathering of evidence, the provisions make sense.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I think that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is right about that. However, I still think the difference between Clause 13 and Clause 7 surprising so far as concerns the receipt for the request for evidence. It is difficult to see how adding in an extra stage—namely, having to go to the territorial authority—will save time. If we have enough confidence in the system in Clause 7 that requests to countries can go direct from our courts to their courts, we should enable them to be able to send requests directly to our courts rather than going through the Secretary of State.
  Lord Goldsmith: Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that Clause 8 provides a choice. The request can be sent via an authority as well as being sent directly. I have done my best to answer the question raised by the noble Lord. I do not share his confidence that if we require incoming requests to be sent to wherever the overseas authority thought appropriate that would not give rise to delay and to a risk of requests being lost in the post.
  In the United Kingdom there will be prosecutors who cannot execute requests. Therefore, it would be wrong for requests to be sent to them. It is much better, therefore, for requests to be sent to the Secretary of State who will obviously deal with them as expeditiously as possible and speed them on their way to the correct place.
  Clause 13 agreed to.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): Before calling Amendment No. 36 I must inform the Grand Committee that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 37, 38 or 39.
  Clause 14 [Powers to arrange for evidence to be obtained]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 36:
  Page 8, line 28, leave out paragraph (c).
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 36 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 37 and 127. Amendment No. 36 is a probing amendment which seeks to clarify the precise nature of the situation in which evidence may be obtained in the United Kingdom in connection with the proceedings in other countries specified in Clause 14(1)(c).
  Paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection refer to criminal proceedings and criminal investigations. Paragraph (c) is wider and refers to clemency proceedings, which I shall consider in a moment, and to proceedings on an appeal before a court against a decision in administrative proceedings. As was recalled by my noble friend Lord Carlisle, last week the Committee debated the question of administrative proceedings in relation to Clause 1. The reference to such proceedings in Clause 14 is to an appeal before a court against a decision made in administrative proceedings, whereas in other parts of the Bill—such as Clause 1—the administrative proceedings themselves are referred to.
  I hope that the Minister can clarify why it has been decided to refer to an appeal before a court rather than to the administrative proceedings themselves.
  Amendments Nos. 37 and 127 relate to the term "clemency proceedings", which is used in Clause 14 and elsewhere in the Bill. Specifically, they refer to the definition of such proceedings contained in Clause 52(1), which says that it means,
  "proceedings in a country outside the United Kingdom, not being proceedings before a court exercising criminal jurisdiction, for the removal of a penalty imposed on conviction of an offence".
  Amendment No. 127 would amend that definition by changing the words,
  "removal of a penalty",
  to,
  "removal or reduction of a penalty".
  It seeks to probe the precise nature of the definition. Do the words "removal of a penalty" cover the situation in which the power of clemency is exercised to commute a death sentence to a period of imprisonment? If one was being pedantic, one could say that that is not a penalty being removed because there would still be a penalty.
  I hope that the noble and learned Lord will also be able to explain whether the definition of clemency proceedings is intended to extend the scope of the Bill's provisions, not just to the death penalty case but to other cases in which the power of clemency is exercised, such as a reduction in the length of a prison

  GC 69
  sentence. If that is the Government's intention, I may be pedantic about the use of the word "removed". I beg to move.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I should have asked this question in relation to Clause 1. The words "clemency proceedings" are used only in relation to the Schengen convention, and not in any other instrument of law in this country. I may be entirely wrong about that, but I have never seen that expression before. Can my noble and learned friend say whether a similar provision has been included in any other legislation?
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I support what my noble friend Lady Anelay has said. In Clause 14, when dealing with proceedings in which the,
  "territorial authority may arrange for evidence to be obtained",
  why under subsection (1)(c) should that be,
  "on an appeal before a court against a decision in administrative proceedings, being carried on, or intended to be carried on"?
  Why should it not be an application that relates to the administrative proceedings themselves? I say that because "administrative proceedings" is defined in Clause 52 as applying to,
  "administrative authorities in respect of administrative offences where a decision in the proceedings may be the subject of an appeal before a court".
  That may be a definition of the term "administrative proceedings", but proceedings themselves are taken before the administrative authority. When the Minister from the Home Office was replying to the question of what were the administrative offences before administrative authorities, he said they were,
  "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".—[Official Report, 13/1/03; col. GC9.]
  Does that mean—and if so why—that one can make a request for evidence to this country if one wants to use: it in an appeal—presumably against a conviction for a driving offence, which has been carried out by an administrative authority—in administrative proceedings, but one cannot respond to a request for the evidence if one wants it for the purpose of bringing the case and conducting the case before the administrative authority in the first place? I do not see why it is necessary to have the proviso that a decision in administrative proceedings must have an appeal before a court, either being carried on or intended to be carried on, when the application is made. It would be much more consistent with what we are told about Clause 1 that the application could be made in administrative proceedings—those being proceedings which are in fact subject to an appeal—should either party wish, but not that the appeal was a necessary prerequisite.
  Lord Goldsmith: The amendments seek to amend in different ways the definitions of the type of proceedings where the United Kingdom would be able to provide mutual legal assistance. It might be helpful if I explain in a little more detail what paragraph (c) is designed to cover, why its inclusion is necessary and how this relates to the existing judicial co-operation, mutual legal assistance provisions in the 1990 Act.
  GC 70
  It is the case that—and my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis alluded to this matter—implementation of the judicial co-operation of Schengen requires us to be able to assist other Schengen countries in relation to two categories of case: administrative proceedings and, at least, certain types of clemency proceedings.
  There has already been discussion in Committee about what "administrative proceedings" in this context means. They are not straightforward to identify and define because they do not have an exact counterpart in our own legal system. The example cited in the explanatory report to the Mutual Legal Assistance Convention is a German offence. That is an offence which, whilst not classified as a criminal offence, is punishable by a fine imposed by an administrative authority. It is known as ordnungswidrigkeit. However, there is a right of appeal to the ordinary criminal courts. It is intended to be an administrative proceeding where assistance might be sought.
  An example was given by my noble friend Lord Filkin of traffic offences, which under Dutch law are administrative offences. In this country they would be classified as criminal offences, albeit at the lower end of the criminal scale. There has already been an offer to provide any further helpful information as a result of the requests made when the Committee last sat.
  The term "clemency proceedings" is also difficult to define. It does not appear to us that there are domestic—United Kingdom—procedures that precisely fit that description either. Our European partners say that they have such procedures. They may in certain cases be analogous to appeal applications—as we might call them—which they describe as clemency proceedings. Under the Schengen Convention of 1995 we are required to provide assistance on that matter.
  To delete subsection (1)(c), which Amendment No. 36 seeks, would render us unable to provide the assistance required by Schengen and the 2000 Convention.
  Amendment No. 127 adds the words "or reduction" to the definition of the term "clemency proceedings". The noble Baroness said that it was a probing amendment. I go further: I think it is a good proposal that makes clear that clemency includes reduction as well as removal. I am happy to accept that amendment and to do so as it is drafted.
  The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, asked a detailed question about how Clause 14(1)(c) operates and, in particular, the relationship between proceedings on an appeal against a decision in administrative proceedings and those proceedings themselves. We should look at that matter and study carefully whether his point is one that ought to be taken into account in the drafting. I propose that we should look at the issue and indicate, having done so, what stance should be taken.
  Amendment No. 37 is not necessary, given that Clause 52 already defines clemency proceedings for the purposes of this part of the Bill.

  GC 71
  Therefore, I invite the noble Baroness not to pursue Amendment No. 36, and I have indicated my attitude to Amendment No. 127 when it is formally moved.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I want to make absolutely sure that I have understood the matter. According to Clause 52(1), the definition of "clemency proceedings" is the removal—and or reduction—of penalties for offences which were not tried as criminal charges, but are matters such as driving licence offences in other countries which are tried in a different court. That does not apply to criminal charges. Is that correct?
  Lord Goldsmith: I think not. They are two separate issues. The administrative proceedings are those which relate to an administrative offence, something which we might well regard as a criminal offence. It is tried as an administrative offence, but there is an appeal to a court and a penalty is imposed. Clemency proceedings are quite distinct. They are a form of procedure not known to us specifically, but which may well include what we might think of as an appeal for a reduction in a sentence which has been imposed on the conviction of a criminal offence. I do not know whether it is theoretically possible to have a clemency proceeding against the finding of guilt on an administrative offence. That is not the point. They are distinct issues.
  In order to put the matter beyond doubt, if one goes to the definition in Clause 52(1), it says quite simply that clemency proceedings are proceedings,
  "for the removal [and or reduction] of a penalty imposed on conviction of an offence".
  I can reassure the noble Baroness that it includes only convictions of criminal offences.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I hesitate to query the noble and learned Lord, but the provision says that they are,
  "proceedings…not being proceedings before a court exercising criminal jurisdiction".
  Lord Renton: Before the noble and learned Lord replies to that, I feel obliged to mention that I have been listening with great interest but with some confusion to the issue. Certainly, in our country the phrase "clemency" is used only in relation to other criminal proceedings. But here it is suggested that clemency proceedings in a country outside the United Kingdom shall not relate to proceedings before a court exercising criminal jurisdiction—exactly the opposite use of the word clemency. Frankly, and having listened carefully, the whole thing is very confusing.
  Perhaps I may make a rather bold suggestion. We all have great respect for the Attorney-General's legal ability, but instead of committing himself to an answer on these confusing and difficult questions now, perhaps he would consider between now and Report the whole use of the expressions, "administrative proceedings", "criminal proceedings" and "clemency".
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Goldsmith: By prefacing it by paying me that compliment, the noble Lord makes a seductive invitation, but, notwithstanding that, one to which I shall not accede. The specific point here is the definition of "clemency proceedings". Clause 52 refers to,
  "proceedings in a country outside the United Kingdom, not being proceedings before a court exercising criminal jurisdiction".
  I understand that to mean that the court that is hearing the clemency proceedings is not a court exercising criminal jurisdiction.
  The closest analogy I can provide—although this would not be proceedings—is that of a Home Secretary exercising clemency in the days when Home Secretaries did that. He would not be a court exercising criminal jurisdiction, but most certainly he would be considering the removal or reduction of a penalty that had been imposed on conviction of an offence. Not being familiar with the procedures in our European partner countries, my understanding is that there are proceedings that are not before a court exercising criminal jurisdiction but that involve consideration of removal or reduction of a penalty that has been imposed on conviction of an offence.
  I would expect that that means conviction of an offence in a criminal court. I hesitate about that only because the noble Baroness introduced the question of whether that may even apply to administrative offences. I do not want to say that it does not, although it seems to me unlikely that it does. The basic case will be that there has been conviction of an offence and there is a procedure called a clemency proceeding that goes before a body that is not a court exercising criminal jurisdiction that considers whether the penalty should be removed or reduced. If that is wrong, someone will write to correct me.
  Lord Renton: The logical conclusion of what the noble and learned Lord says would seem to be that there can be no clemency in relation to criminal proceedings elsewhere.
  Lord Goldsmith: I apologise to the noble Lord for partly not hearing and partly not understanding his point. Perhaps he would be kind enough to repeat it.
  Lord Renton: Perhaps I may explain. The Attorney-General is trying to persuade us that clemency in relation to proceedings outside this country refers not to criminal proceedings but to administrative proceedings, as defined elsewhere. But I cannot believe that there is no clemency in relation to criminal proceedings outside this country.
  Lord Goldsmith: If the noble Lord is picking up on what I said before, I do not think that he cites me—or at least my intention—accurately. No doubt that is my fault, not his. The best way to deal with the matter is for me to say that we shall consider it and, if there is something wrong in what I said, ensure that that is communicated. I was suggesting that this appears to be a form of procedure not known to us. I tried to give the closest analogy of which I could think.

  GC 73
  As the definition identifies, it involves proceedings before a body that is not a court exercising criminal jurisdiction but is considering the removal or reduction of a penalty that has been imposed on conviction of an offence. I do not think that I can take that any further today.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Before the noble Baroness withdraws whichever amendment she is going to withdraw, I thank the Attorney-General for saying that he would consider the point that I raised about the wording, "administrative proceedings".
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: First, I accept with alacrity the offer by the noble and learned Lord to take on board Amendment No. 127, in its modest drafting of a couple of words. If I had such luck with all probing amendments, I should be happy indeed, but I cannot expect that.
  The Committee's debate on the other amendments has highlighted the confusion that is so easily caused by the subject matter of the Bill and, occasionally, its manner of drafting. I do not say that in any way to criticise the draftsmen—far from it. It is an extremely difficult Bill to write in a form that is applicable to our system, given that its provision is sometimes pan-European and sometimes pan-World. We shall consider more closely the amendment that I am about to withdraw, especially having heard what has been said by my noble friends Lady Carnegy and Lord Renton. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 38:
  Page 8, line 29, leave out ", or intended to be carried on,"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 38 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 39. Amendment No. 38 is intended to probe the significance of the words,
  "or intended to be carried on",
  in Clause 14(1)(c). I take it that they relate to both clemency proceedings and to an appeal in respect of administrative proceedings.
  What level of certainty is required for the test laid down in the Bill of an "intention" to carry on such proceedings to be met and a request made? Can the noble and learned Lord comment on whether mere suspicion that proceedings may be commenced at some time would be enough for a request to be made? We are trying to probe the level of certainty.
  Amendment No. 39 is intended to allow us to consider more fully the definition of "administrative proceedings", in the light of last week's debate. We have just had a further snapshot of that. I hope that the Attorney-General can return to that in this context to give us a further burst of clarity.
  The amendment would restrict the definition of "administrative proceedings" to proceedings that if carried on in the United Kingdom would be proceedings before a court. I beg to move.
  Lord Goldsmith: On Amendment No. 38, the noble Baroness asked what degree of certainty is required before one can say that something is intended to be carried on. Let me first explain the purpose of those words.
  Amendment No. 38 would restrict assistance in relation to clemency and administrative proceedings to where proceedings had already started. That would introduce an unacceptable restriction on assistance. It would be in contrast to existing mutual legal assistance arrangements, by which we assist at the investigative stage. We can see that if we compare Clause 14(1)(c) with Clause 14(1)(b), which specifically provides that assistance can be given not only where criminal proceedings but where criminal investigations are being carried on.
  As for when it is right to say that clemency proceedings or other proceedings are intended to be carried on, the only answer that I cart give is that they are intended to be carried on when they are intended to be carried on. That question will depend on the facts of the case.
  I accept that Amendment No. 39 has been tabled to probe further what is meant by "administrative proceedings". In a sense, it does that well, because it would widen their scope far too far. It would define administrative proceedings as:
  "proceedings that if carried on in the United Kingdom would be proceedings before a court".
  That would include general civil proceedings, 'which are not relevant to the process.
  The definition of administrative proceedings in Clause 52(1) is deliberately precise and intended to catch the sort of administrative offences that we have been doing our best to illustrate and identify, but not to go further. So, I must resist both amendments.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I shall not take up the Committee's time. I appreciate the noble and learned Lord's answer and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 40:
  Page 8, line 36, at end insert—

  "(aa) that if the conduct constituting the offence were to occur in a part of the United Kingdom, it would constitute an offence in that part, and"

  The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 41. Amendment No. 40 would introduce the concept of dual criminality into the definition of criminal proceedings used in Clause 14.

  GC 75
  There is currently no requirement in the clause for the offences with which criminal proceedings or investigations abroad are concerned to be offences under the law of the United Kingdom. A request could therefore be made to the United Kingdom authorities to gather evidence in relation to an investigation or proceedings in respect of acts that were not crimes under the law of this country. At its lowest, Clause 14(2) would allow a request for evidence to be made when there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that such an offence had been committed.
  Of course, I recognise that the Bill replicates and develops what already exists in Section 4 of the 1990 Act. However, I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord would explain the extent to which the provisions of the 1990 Act have been used in respect of crimes abroad that are not offences under United Kingdom law, and to what extent the Government envisage that the provisions of the Bill will be so used in future.
  Amendment No. 41 relates to the issuing of certificates by authorities in other countries that will be conclusive in relation to the question of whether an offence under the law of another country has been committed and whether proceedings have been instituted there. The noble Lords, Lord Filkin and Lord Bassam, and I are all old hands from the proceedings of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. We all recall the debate on such certificates on a hot evening on 23rd July last year at col. 289 of the Official Report and remember the unhappiness that was expressed with some implications of those certificates.
  So although I realise that the Bill's provisions expand on those of the 1990 Act, I ask the noble and learned Lord about the operation of such certificates and whether the United Kingdom authorities have yet encountered any problems with the operation of the system. I beg to move.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I shall speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lady Anelay on Amendment No. 40. I hereby undertake that this will be the last time I shall speak this afternoon.
  I ask the following question. As my noble friend has pointed out, if one looks at the power to arrange for the evidence to be obtained, the court has to be satisfied that,
  "an offence under the law of the country in question has been committed"—
  that is, the country making the application. It does not necessarily have to be satisfied that similar conduct would be a crime in this country. Does that change the current law or not? I suspect that it does not. I believe that the 1990 Act has a similar provision.
  GC 76
  My real question is the following: why is there a distinction as regards fiscal offences? Clause 14(4) states:
  "If it appears to the territorial authority that the request for assistance relates to a fiscal offence in respect of which proceedings have not yet been instituted, the authority may not arrange for the evidence to be so obtained unless—
  (a) the request if from a country which is a member of the Commonwealth or is made pursuant to a treaty to which the United Kingdom is a party, or
  (b) the authority is satisfied that if the conduct constituting the offence were to occur in a part of the United Kingdom, it would constitute an offence in that part".
  It appears that, so far as fiscal offences are concerned—which I presume may or may not include money laundering—the court has to show that it is satisfied that the offence in question constitutes an offence in this country, whereas, as regards general applications, the court does not have to satisfy itself in that regard. What is the reason for that distinction?
  Lord Goldsmith: First, I address Amendment No. 40 which proposes that dual criminality should be a requirement in relation to any request for evidence. The noble Baroness has already provided the answer to that point, as has the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. I refer to the position under the 1990 Act. That Act does not require that the dual criminality requirement should be met, and neither does the provision we are discussing. I suggest to the Committee that it is absolutely right that it should not. To require a demonstration that the offence is an offence in this country would require an overseas authority investigating an offence under its own law to take on an unnecessary burden. By parity of reasoning we would not want overseas authorities to decline to deal with our requests on the ground that they were not sure that the matter about which we complained as a potential criminal offence was a criminal offence under their law as well.
  The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, asked why there is different provision in relation to fiscal offences. I suggest that the answer to that is that there is always different provision in relation to fiscal offences. They are regarded as of a particular character. I refer to traditional enforcement and assistance in regard to other countries' revenue laws. Those matters have always been treated in a special way. I anticipate—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that that background has resulted in a different regime in relation to fiscal offences. The noble Lord may recall from his practice at the Bar special rules under which English courts do not recognise certain decisions in relation to fiscal matters, whereas they do in relation to other matters.
  I turn to Amendment No. 41. The answer is the same. This is precisely the provision under the 1990 Act; namely, that a certificate should be conclusive. The territorial authority is not required to go behind the request and independently establish the facts of the case. I suggest that that was right in 1990 and remains right today. It would be impractical and undesirable to do otherwise. We would expect other countries to treat

  GC 77
  our certificates with the same respect, in the event that a certificate is necessary at all. With that explanation, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I appreciate that reply which goes to the heart of the matter. There is a quid pro quo here. It is a matter of mutual recognition. We must be able to ensure that other countries are prepared to take action when we want them to do something on our behalf. I refer to the Minister's comments on the 1990 Act. We seek to test the waters to find out how that Act has operated so far and whether its operation may be changed slightly as a result of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15 [Nominating a court etc. to receive evidence]:
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour had given notice of her intention to move Amendments Nos. 42 and 43:
  Page 9, line 17, leave out "Lord Advocate" and insert "Scottish Ministers"
  Page 9, line 21, leave out "Lord Advocate" and insert "Scottish Ministers"
  The noble Baroness said: I should explain that on a previous occasion I explained to the Committee that I had been in discussion with the Law Society of Scotland about the position of the Lord Advocate as regards certain aspects of the Bill. I had further discussions yesterday and discovered that the society was in considerable doubt as to the case that it wanted me to make. Therefore, I agreed with the society and with my noble friends not to move the relevant amendments. However, if the society comes forward with further cogent arguments, I may have to remedy the matter on Report. In the meanwhile, I shall not move the amendments.
  [Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 not moved.]
  Lord Goldsmith: The noble Baroness has given warning.
  Clause 15 agreed to.
  Schedule 1 agreed to.
  Clause 16 [Extension of statutory search powers in England and Wales and Northern Ireland]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 44:
  Page 9, line 41, after "constable" insert "or customs officer"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 44, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos, 45, 48 and 50 with which it is grouped. The whole purpose of this group is to test the statement at page 10 of the Government's Explanatory Notes about Article 13 of the convention.
  The Explanatory Notes state at paragraph 58 on page 10, with reference to Clause 16:
  "Subsection (2)(b) provides that a search warrant or production order may be applied for and executed without an overseas request if the constable who makes the application is a member of an
  GC 78
  international joint investigation team (as defined by subsection (5))…These provisions implement Article 13(7) of MLAC which contemplates investigative measures being undertaken without such a request by seconded members of a joint investigation team in relation to the team's investigations overseas".
  I have tabled the amendment to ask the noble and learned Lord to explain the apparent discrepancy between the drafting of the subsection with the information in the transposition note placed in the Library. That states that Clause 16(2)(b), among others, implements Article 13(7) enabling UK constables and customs officers seconded to joint investigation teams to obtain search warrants. It states that the constable or customs officer would make the application on the basis of his personal knowledge of the joint investigation, as he would in a domestic investigation. However, as the Committee is aware, subsection (2)(b) of Clause 16 simply refers to a constable. What is the reason for that? Has the power been given to a customs officer, and, if so, how?
  Amendment No. 45 seeks to write into the Bill the relevant wording in the Explanatory Notes. Paragraph 58 of the Explanatory Notes states:
  "The constable making the application for the warrant or order would have personal knowledge of the joint investigation as he would in making such an application in a domestic investigation".
  However, this requirement for personal knowledge is absent from the Bill. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to explain why the Government have decided that that should be the case and why it appears from the Bill that a constable will be able to make an application even where he has no personal knowledge of an international joint investigatiion, contrary to what the Government say they intend in the Explanatory Notes.
  Amendment No. 48 would require that any evidence seized by a constable by virtue of the provisions in Clauses 16, 17 and 18 would have to be delivered to the court or authority which made the request for assistance within such time as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe. I am, of course, always wary of giving additional powers to the Secretary of State—he has enough—but this is a probing amendment designed to clarify the timescale within which the seized evidence will have to be delivered to the court or authority that made the request.
  Amendment No. 50 is in similar vein. It seeks to prompt clarification from the Government on whether or not it will be standard practice to make and retain copies of the evidence obtained under Clauses 16, 17 and 18 before forwarding it to the relevant overseas authority. The evidence may be lost in transit, damaged or destroyed for some other reason. Do the Government plan that there should be a copy or photograph of the evidence as a back-up to cater for those eventualities? I beg to move.
  Lord Goldsmith: I shall deal first with Amendment No. 44. The answer to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is to be found in Clause 27(1)(b). She asked about customs officers. Clause 27(1)(b) provides for a power under which customs officers can be granted any of the powers conferred on police officers under Clauses 13 to 26.

  GC 79
  I turn to Amendment No. 45. It may help if I explain the purpose of Clause 16(2)(b). A framework for establishing international joint investigation teams was provided for in Article 13 of MLAC. The purpose of those teams is to carry out joint investigations into crimes with cross-border elements, with a view to improving and speeding up investigation of those crimes. Teams will be set up by two or more member states for a specific purpose, and investigations may be carried out in any of those member states. In practice, a joint investigation team will consist mainly of police and customs officers from the participating member states, but their examining magistrates, prosecutors and specialist advisers may also take part.
  All members of the team must act under the direction of the team leader, who must be provided by the competent authorities of the participating member state where the team is carrying out its investigation. If the investigation moves into another participating member state, the team leader would change.
  The subsection enables constables acting as members of international joint investigation teams to apply for search warrants or production orders under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. As the noble Baroness said, this implements Article 13(7) of MLAC, which provides that members of a team should be able to request their own authorities to take such measures as they would be able to request in a domestic investigation.
  A UK member of a team who is a police officer would be able under the subsection to apply for a search warrant or production order for evidence in the UK in relation to an overseas investigation, without a formal request for the evidence from abroad. Such a request would be unnecessary as the police officer would be applying for the search warrant or production order on the basis of his own knowledge of the investigation. That is a long but, I hope, not unhelpful, explanation of joint investigation teams.
  Amendment No. 45 is unnecessary because the constable applying for a search warrant must be a member of the international joint investigation team and will therefore have personal knowledge of the joint investigation, just as he would if he were a member of a domestic investigation team. I hope that that explanation helps the noble Baroness.
  Amendment No. 48 would impose a time limit for the transmission of seized evidence to the requesting authority. We believe that that would be unnecessarily restrictive. We are under no obligation to return evidence within a specified time. Current legislation does not set time limits. No doubt it is a matter of good practice that evidence is generally returned as soon as possible, but that does not automatically mean that there will be a specified time limit. There may sometimes be good reason not to return evidence immediately; for example, if the request involves a number of searches, it may be practical to wait for all the evidence to be collected and consolidated before sending some of it back.
  GC 80
  I turn finally to Amendment No. 50. We do not see any point in having a requirement that copies of all evidence sent abroad should be kept. That is of no practical benefit to the United Kingdom authorities. It does not happen at present and the Government do not see any need to change that practice. It is possible that the police will keep a record, but certainly we can see no practical benefit in a requirement to retain a copy of every single document provided to an overseas authority. Therefore, I invite the noble Baroness not to press that amendment.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Renton: I want to say a word about Amendment No. 48 to which the noble and learned Lord referred briefly. The kind of proceedings that we must envisage are entirely new situations so far as concerns this country. The interesting point about the Bill is that it creates new situations which the Government and our legal authorities will sometimes have difficulty in enforcing. I believe that the expression,
  "within such times as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe",
  is worth including. I do not consider that we can simply live optimistically in relation to this matter; we must ensure against unnecessary delays. Therefore, although I do not ask the noble and learned Lord to commit himself at the moment, I hope that between now and Report he will give further thought to that point.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response and, in particular, for the clarity that he has given to the matter of the joint investigation team. That was worth adding to the record. With regard to time limits, I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton that, sometimes, good practice should not only be debated but should be put into effect. I shall certainly consider that point—
  Lord Goldsmith: As the noble Baroness has referred to that point, perhaps she will allow me to intervene to say that this is not new law. Again, the reference is to the 1990 Act, which does not prescribe a time limit; and I am told that there have been no problems in practice. If that is the case—wise though the words of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, may be—it seems unnecessary to change matters on this occasion.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The Minister managed to interrupt the sentence just as I was about to say that I realised that it was part of the 1990 Act. Therefore, although I shall consider the matter again, the issue comes within the context of the general pattern of good practice. I shall also look again at the matter of copies of evidence, which was referred to by the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
  Clause 16 agreed to.
  Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
  Clause 19 [Seized evidence]:
  Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 46:
  Page 11, line 16, after second "to" insert "the Secretary of State who will then forward the relevant evidence to"
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 46. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 49, which is in the same group, although the amendments deal with somewhat different issues.
  Amendment No. 46 would amend Clause 19(1). Under that subsection, at present:
  "Any evidence seized by a constable under…section…17…is to be sent to the court…which made the request for assistance".
  The effect of the amendment would be that, instead of being sent to the court, the evidence would be sent to the Secretary of State, who would then forward it to the court or authority which made the request for assistance. Therefore, it would be monitored by an independent agency within the United Kingdom before it went abroad.
  The amendment has been proposed by the Law Society, which is concerned that there should be independent monitoring of the order and of the evidence seized. It is a matter of some concern whether the provisions in Clause 26, which will prevent the evidence which is protected by legal privilege being sent abroad, will be sufficiently observed.
  Of course, the court cannot make an order under Clause 26 unless it has reasonable grounds for believing that it does not consist of items subject to legal privilege. But the fact that some items may be subject to legal professional privilege will not necessarily be apparent on the face of the document. Indeed, even if it is, it may from time to time be overlooked.
  If the person whose property had been seized were properly legally advised, he would no doubt be able to raise this issue before the property was removed from the United Kingdom. However, it is possible that he will not be properly legally advised or that, for some reason, such as absence from the country, he will not have an opportunity to raise the matter before the property is sent abroad. Therefore, it seems desirable that there should be some way of monitoring what is happening in order to see whether any particular problem arises.
  I turn to Amendment No. 49, which I consider to be of some importance. Under Clause 14, before a United Kingdom authority arranges for evidence to be obtained in order to assist foreign criminal proceedings or an investigation, it must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed or that the investigation is being carried on in a requesting country. However, once the evidence has been sent, there is no restriction on the use that can be made of it in the requesting country.
  This amendment has been tabled in response to concerns raised by Justice. I should declare that I am a vice-chair of the council of Justice. Those concerns are that the provision could lead to a fishing expedition and that a foreign country could institute proceedings.
  GC 82
  The foreign court could then give a certificate ender Clause 14(2) if there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence had been committed or that an investigation was being carried on. The evidence could then be taken and sent to the requesting country. That country could use the evidence for any purpose and not merely for the proceedings or investigation for which it was originally obtained.
  That could present problems, even if these provisions were limited to a participating country. But, in fact, the provisions apply to any country in the world. Therefore, we believe that the territorial authority should have a power, but not an obligation, to require an undertaking to be given by the requesting court or authority that the evidence will be used only for the purpose for which it has been sent. That power could be used if, for example, it was believed that countries which received the evidence were using it to go on fishing expeditions and if it were felt that some control needed to be exercised over it. I beg to move.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I have a brief question. Does the Minister accept that, where there is direct transmission, it is possible that material that was not directly relevant to the investigation could be seized? What do the Government intend should happen to such material?
  Lord Goldsmith: This group of amendments deals with two separate topics. The first is the question of the route for transmission. In speaking to Amendment No. 46 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Goodhart, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 47 and 64, which stand in the name of my noble friend Lord Filkin.
  The first amendment would require all evidence seized in response to a request for evidence under the search powers in Clauses 16, 17 or 18 to be sent abroad via the UK Central Authority, rather than being transmitted directly from the constable who seized it. It would not allow any flexibility between those two methods.
  For all the reasons that I explained earlier, the Government want to make the transmission of evidence directly by the constable who seized it the norm. It would be a more efficient means of sending evidence and would cut out central involvement in the UK once the evidence had been obtained. However, we recognise that, while that should be the norm, there will be some cases where direct transmission of evidence may not be appropriate. That would be the case if there were, for example, a very complex request where evidence was to be taken at multiple locations by multiple police forces and it 'would be more practical to send all the evidence back to the Central Authority, which could then send it on. The Government tabled Amendment No. 47 in order to permit flexibility.
  The noble Lord tabled his amendment on the basis that he would like there to be control by the Central Authority of the evidence seized, particularly in relation to questions of legal professional privilege. But present practice is that the UK Central Authority

  GC 83
  does not currently inspect seized evidence. It may be voluminous and substantial. Therefore, transmission via the territorial authority through the Central Authority will not give the imprimatur of quality that the noble Lord wants; it will simply delay the process. Therefore, we resist the attempt to require that to be the only route.
  Amendment No. 49 seeks to restrict the use to which the requesting authority may put evidence obtained from the United Kingdom. The Government consider that the requirement imposed by that amendment would be unduly restrictive. We cannot legislate for overseas authorities. If we made such a requirement, we would have no way of enforcing it in the absence of a binding international agreement. We can, and do, restrict our own use of evidence obtained from overseas but, as a matter of policy and practicality, would not wish to establish a general obligation to do so in relation to incoming requests.
  We do restrict the use of material obtained using Section 2 powers of the SFO. Those are particularly powerful powers, if I can use that expression—I cannot think of another at present. But, as a matter of policy or practicality, we would not think it right to have a general obligation in the way that Amendment No. 49 would require. Therefore, we resist that amendment.
  Lord Goodhart: I appreciate the difficulties that Amendment No. 46 would create. I have raised that issue and it is not a matter that I should expect to take any further. I welcome government Amendment No. 47.
  Amendment No. 49 still causes me some concern. I appreciate that there would be serious difficulties in enforcing it, but I am concerned that some countries may use information supplied under this power for purposes which might be regarded in this country as improper.
  In those circumstances, I shall consider whether to bring back an amendment for consideration in some other form. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 47:
  Page 11, line 16, at end insert "or to the territorial authority for forwarding to that court or authority"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 48 to 50 not moved.]
  Clause 20 [Overseas freezing orders]:
  Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 51:
  Page 11, line 39, leave out paragraph (c)
  The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment would be to leave out paragraph (c) of subsection (3) in Clause 20. Subsection (3) as drafted provides for an order to be made by,
  "a court exercising criminal jurisdiction in the country…a prosecuting authority in the country…[or] any other authority in the country which appears to the territorial authority to have the function of making such orders".
  Again, this is an issue raised by Justice, which is concerned that the provision in paragraph (c) is too wide. It is desirable that overseas freezing orders must be subject to some judicial scrutiny. They should not merely be made administratively. The amendment would mean that the freezing orders would have to come from authorities which have the power to make orders and not merely from those which appear to the territorial authority to have the function of making such orders.
  A domestic freezing order must be made by a judicial authority; and a freezing order, whether domestic or overseas, can have serious effects. It may, for example, deprive the owner of property of the use of that property for a substantial time or possibly even permanently. In such cases, while we support the idea of mutual assistance, we feel it is desirable that such orders should be granted only where in another country, as in this country, the order has been made by a judicial authority. I beg to move.
  Lord Goldsmith: Given the noble Lord's remarks, his proposal is even more radical than the amendment that he has moved. Even if the amendment were accepted, the provision would leave overseas freezing orders capable of being made either by,
  "a court exercising criminal jurisdiction in the country",
  or by,
  "a prosecuting authority in the country".
  With respect, it does not make sense to say that the amendment is designed to have the effect that a freezing order can be made only by a court.
  Under the framework decision, we are under an obligation to recognise orders issued by judicial authorities. In a number of EU countries, orders of this kind could be made by examining magistrates, who have no precise equivalent in this country. They are plainly legitimate judicial authorities—"judicial authority" is the description in the framework decision. But, plainly, we must be able to enforce orders that they make. An examining magistrate might not accurately fall within the description,
  "a court exercising criminal jurisdiction in the country",
  or,
  "a prosecuting authority in the country".
  Therefore, the purpose of Clause 20(3)(c) is to cover all judicial authorities in other EU countries. I say "other EU countries" because that is the limit on the application of this provision. EU judicial authorities are designated under the 1959 Council of Europe convention, so they are clearly identified.

  GC 85
  For many years, we have been able to execute requests for mutual legal assistance, including for search and seizure, by authorities of this type. Section 7(4)(b) of the 1990 Act includes that type of person. That is re-enacted by Clause 13(2)(b) of the Bill. So the provision merely applies to the new concept of the freezing order the same approach that has already been adopted in relation to mutual legal assistance. It has not caused any difficulties in practice. It must be available for the enforcement of overseas freezing orders.
  Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. I understand the issues that arise. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 52:
  Page 12, line 7, leave out "person who" and insert "court or authority which"
  The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Filkin, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 55, 60 to 63, 74 to 76, 128, 132 and 133.
  These are all technical and drafting points. Amendment No. 52 to Clause 20 is a drafting amendment to reflect correctly the requirement of the framework decision for the certificate to be signed by or on behalf of the competent judicial authority.
  Amendment No. 55 to Clause 21 clarifies that the rules referred to here are rules of court, which may be made under Clause 49 of the Bill.
  The two amendments to Clause 24—Amendments Nos. 60 and 61—have the effect of simplifying the structure of the clause and clarifying that evidence seized should be retained until a request has been received and considered. The previous drafting did not reflect the framework decision in that respect and would have required automatic transmission of evidence by virtue of receipt of the request without allowing for it to be considered.
  Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 to Clause 25 are designed to clarify the conditions for the release of evidence to ensure that evidence may be released only in accordance with the grounds provided for in the framework decision.
  The three amendments to Clause 28—Amendments Nos. 74 to 76—are designed to make it clear that an offence prescribed under Clause 28(5)(b) may be prescribed by means of a general description and not only by specifying a particular offence. That will enable us to designate not only the offences listed in Article 3(2) of the framework decision but also a generic type of offence. It will cover, for example, cases covered by Article 3(4), in relation to which we are obliged to assist if there is dual criminality.
  The first amendment to Clause 52—Amendment No. 128—simply adds a definition of "customs officer" to the existing list. The second amendment—Amendment No. 132—clarifies that the existing definition of "process" applies to England, Wales and
  GC 86
  Northern Ireland. A separate definition has been added, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, may be pleased to note, for Scotland correctly to reflect the legal terms used in the different legal systems. The third amendment—Amendment No. 133—is needed because there was a concern that, as currently drafted, a summons issued by a prosecuting authority, as opposed to a court, overseas—for example, an examining magistrate—would not be included within the definition of "process" in Clause 52. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 21 [Considering the order]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 53:
  Page 12, line 21,1eave out "a court" and insert "the High Court"
  The noble Baroness said: When the overseas freezing order is received, the Secretary of State has to nominate a court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland to give effect to the order under Clause 21(1). But Clause 21 is silent on what level of court that must be. I have tabled the amendment merely to ask the noble and learned Lord whether it could be a magistrates' court, a county court, a Crown Court, a High Court or even the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
  My amendment requires that the order should be given effect by the High Court, merely to elicit from the noble and learned Lord an explanation of which court is "a court" for these purposes. I beg to move.
  Lord Renton: The Government should consider this amendment carefully. I cannot imagine that minor matters will be the subject of proceedings tinder the Bill. I should have thought that the Secretary of State, instead of merely referring the matter to some relatively minor local court—which he could do under the Bill as drafted—should refer it to the High Court.
  I say with respect to my noble friend that to replace the expression "a court" with "the High Court" is not quite adequate in terms of drafting. I think that the amendment should refer to an application to the High Court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, to give effect to the overseas freezing order.
  This is a minor drafting matter. In principle, however, I believe that it should become the responsibility of the High Court rather than any minor court.
  Lord Goldsmith: This short debate has strongly reflected the other way round our previous debate in Committee on freezing orders. Then, I argued strongly that it was entirely appropriate that magistrates' courts, which have great experience in dealing with the granting of search warrants, should deal with the granting of domestic freezing orders.
  The current position in relation to requests for mutual legal assistance is that the provision in the 1990 Act leaves it to the Secretary of State to decide which

  GC 87
  court should deal with the matter. Albeit in the context of freezing orders, that is precisely what is proposed in this clause.
  The Government could not accept the amendment that imposed the obligation to limit execution of these orders simply on the High Court. As I said on a previous occasion, it would be wrong to compare evidence freezing orders with assets freezing orders. They are quite different. They are simply another form of gathering evidence at the request of an overseas government.
  Requests for evidence from overseas are currently generally dealt with by a magistrates' court. The Secretary of State has the power to put it to someone else, but there seems no reason why that procedure should not be followed for evidence freezing orders under the new procedure. That is why we cannot accept Amendment No. 53.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful, as always, to my noble friend Lord Renton for his comments on drafting. I promise him that the amendment was intended merely to elicit clarity. If I were to pursue the matter, I should make sure that I sought his advice before bringing it back.
  I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for providing the explanation that I anticipated he might give. It was helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
  Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 55:
  Page 12, line 35, at end insert "of court"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  5.30 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 56:
  Page 12, line 42, leave out "the participating country" and insert "a part of the United Kingdom"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 57.
  These amendments return to the issue of double jeopardy. Clause 21(6) allows the court not to give effect to the overseas freezing order if,
  "the person whose conduct is in question were charged in the participating country with the offence to which the overseas freezing order relates, he would be entitled to be discharged under any rule of law in that country relating to previous acquittal or conviction".
  That is, he would be able to rely on any rule against double jeopardy. The amendments would change the applicable rules on double jeopardy to those in the relevant part of the United Kingdom. This amendment probes whether there will be situations in which a person would be able to rely on the double jeopardy rule in the UK, but any rule of the overseas country. Thus, if the conduct had been committed in
  GC 88
  the UK, the courts would be giving effect to an order that might be contrary to the principles of double jeopardy that we apply.
  Perhaps the noble and learned Lord would also clarify the reference to a "previous…conviction" in that subsection. Might that prevent the freezing of evidence relevant to criminal investigations where there had been a conviction overseas, even though the criminal investigation was ongoing, perhaps in relation to further offences or in respect of accomplices who were involved in the offence? I beg to move.
  Lord Goldsmith: I say straight away that these amendments will be considered. As they stand, they would have the effect of limiting the double jeopardy approach to consideration of the law of the United Kingdom. Clause 21(6) has been drafted to prevent the requesting state seeking evidence that could not be used in its courts because of the double jeopardy rule and we should not want the United Kingdom to have to send evidence to France when there was no possibility of a trial ever taking place there. That would be an abuse of the system.
  The amendment would prevent us from taking that proper approach, which we do not think wise and we cannot accept it as it is currently drafted. However, we agree that it should be possible to refuse cases in which prosecution would violate our own rules on double jeopardy and we will further consider bringing forward our own amendment to provide for refusal in cases in which prosecution would violate United Kingdom rules of double jeopardy. I hope that that is helpful.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: That is most helpful. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for saying that he will consider the principle further; that is exactly what we were trying to get at. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
  Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 58:
  Page 13, line 3, at end insert—
  "( ) The third condition is that the freezing order is manifestly incompatible with the certificate which accompanies it."
  The noble Lord said: Under Clause 20, when an overseas freezing order is sent to this country, it must be accompanied by a certificate giving the specified information. There are provisions about how it must be signed and it must include,
  "a statement as to the accuracy of the information given in it".
  Clause 21 states that the overseas freezing order must be complied with by a court. Subsection (5) states:
  "The court may decide not to give effect to the overseas freezing order only if, in its opinion, one of the following conditions is met".
  There follow two conditions, the first of which, in subsection (6), we have debated—it was the subject of Amendment No. 56. The second condition is that,
  "giving effect to the…order would be incompatible with any of the Convention rights".
  Amendment No. 58, which was raised because of concerns from Justice, requires the order not to be made if it is caught by a third condition; that is,
  "that the freezing order is manifestly incompatible with the certificate which accompanies it".
  Article 7 of the draft framework decision sets out the grounds on which,
  "competent judicial authority of the executing State",
  may refuse to apply the freezing order. One of the conditions is that the certificate,
  "is not produced, is incomplete or manifestly does not correspond to the freezing order".
  That does not appear in the Bill. I appreciate that the reason for that may be that the Bill's draftsmen may have taken the view that it is implicit in Clauses 20 and 21 that a certificate that is manifestly incompatible with the freezing order cannot be a certificate within the meaning of Clause 20. I should appreciate that position. If that is not the case, it appears that there is a lacuna in the Bill. This is a probing amendment and I look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.
  Lord Goldsmith: The basis of the amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made clear, is the ground for refusal that is allowed for in Article 7(1)(a) of the framework decision.
  As a matter of principle, the Government agree that execution should be refused if the order and the certificate are manifestly incompatible. We differ over how that is to be determined. That, in our view, is for the Secretary of State to consider under Clause 20 when the request comes through. I emphasise, as does the article in the framework decision, that the relevant condition is that the certificate is manifestly incompatible with the order; it must be clear on the face of it. I am not trying to define "manifest"; I am merely explaining what the word means in ordinary English. Officials in the Central Authority will be well placed to consider that issue. The Government's view is that in those circumstances, the item will not be sent on and therefore will not reach the court in the first place.
  To put the matter briefly, one of the preliminary checks that the Secretary of State will carry out, under Clause 20, before referring the order to the court for enforcement, will be whether or not the order and the certificate are manifestly incompatible. It will be unnecessary for the court to make that decision and unnecessary therefore to place that requirement in the Bill as one of the requirements. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured that the Secretary of State sees that as one of the checks that has to be made by him and accepts that we do not believe it appropriate to agree to the amendment.
  Lord Goodhart: I certainly accept the procedure that is envisaged—that the order should be looked at by the Secretary of State and should not be sent on to the court, and that it is therefore not necessary for the court to consider an incompatibility. I am still concerned that the Bill should state that before the Secretary of State sends a copy of the overseas freezing order to the court, he must satisfy himself that the
  GC 90
  certificate is one that is not incompatible with the terms of the overseas freezing order. I will consider that.
  Lord Goldsmith: In considering that, I direct the noble Lord's attention to Clause 20(5), which requires the order to be,
  "accompanied by a certificate which gives the specified information".
  He may consider that if the certificate is incompatible with the order, it cannot be a certificate that contains the specified information; and if he agrees with that analysis, the Bill would contain something that the Secretary of State would have to consider.
  Lord Goodhart: I shall certainly consider that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 22 [Giving effect to the order]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 59:
  Page 13, line 19, leave out "section 21" and insert "sections 21 and 22"
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment raises questions about PACE. It is intended to establish why only Section 21 of PACE, and not also Section 22, applies to seized evidence by virtue of Clause 22(4). After all, Section 21 of PACE is concerned with the right of the person from whom the evidence is seized to have access to it and to be able to copy it, so long as it would not prejudice police investigations. That will apply to evidence seized for the purposes of an overseas freezing order under the Bill's provisions.
  It appears, however, that Section 22 of PACE will not apply. That lays down provisions on the retention of evidence. I refer primarily to Section 22(1), which requires that evidence seized shall be retained only,
  "so long as is necessary in all the circumstances".
  Will the noble and learned Lord explain why the Government decided that Section 22 of PACE would not apply? I beg to move.
  Lord Goldsmith: The answer to the noble Baroness's question is that Section 21 of PACE is appropriate because it applies in relation to the seizure of evidence, but Section 22 does not appear to the Government to be relevant because that relates to the retention of evidence, and that is not what the clause is about.
  It may help if I say more about, Clause 22. It describes how the nominated court will give effect to the freezing order. The clause provides for the issue of a warrant by the nominated court. The warrant would authorise a constable to enter and search the specified premises to seize and retain specified property. It follows the procedures in PACE for giving effect to ordinary search warrants.
  In line with PACE, it also provides that for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, if the evidence to be seized is of such a character that, if there were domestic

  GC 91
  proceedings, the appropriate procedure would be by way of a production order, the court should issue a production order.
  The clause authorises the constable to remove any material produced to him by virtue of a production order and confirms that any such material is to be treated as seized material. That brings in the reference to Section 21 of PACE.
  Clause 22(1)(b), as the noble Baroness notes and as I have just suggested, indicates that the warrant authorises the constable to "seize and retain" the evidence. I hope that that explanation is of assistance. I do not believe that there is anything at all sinister about this. The reference to Section 22 simply does not appear to the Government to be relevant in this context.
  5.45 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 22 agreed to.
  Clause 23 agreed to.
  Clause 24 [Evidence seized under the order]:
  Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendments Nos. 60 and 61:
  Page 13, line 39, leave out from beginning to "any" in line 40.
  Page 13, line 41, leave out from "be" to end of line 7 on page 14 and insert "retained by him until he is given a notice under subsection (2) or authorised to release it under section 25.
  (2) If—

  (a) the overseas freezing order was accompanied by a request for the evidence to be sent to a court or authority mentioned in section 13(2), or

  (b) the territorial authority subsequently receives such a request,

  the territorial authority may by notice require the constable to send the evidence to the court or authority that made the request."
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 25 [Release of evidence held under the order]:
  Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendments Nos. 62 and 63:
  Page 14, line 11, leave out "24(2)(a)" and insert "24 if, in its opinion—

  (a) the condition in section 21(6) or (7) is met, or

  (b) the overseas freezing order has ceased to have effect in the participating country."

  Page 14, line 18, at end insert—
  "( ) If the territorial authority decides not to give a notice under section 24(2) in respect of any evidence retained by a constable under that section, the authority must give the constable a notice authorising him to release the evidence."
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 26 [Powers under warrants]:
  Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 64:
  Page 15, line 1, after "sent" insert "to the territorial authority or"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 27 [Exercise of powers by others]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns.Baroness Anelay of St Johns. moved Amendment No. 65:
  Page 15, line 12, leave out "Treasury" and insert "Secretary of State"
  The noble Baroness said: I tabled the amendment in response to an issue raised in the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Clause 27 contains an order-making power to provide that functions conferred on the territorial authority may be exercisable by the commissioners of Customs and Excise. In subsection (1), that order-making power is conferred on the Treasury and not on the Secretary of State. The second report from the Select Committee states in paragraph 7 that the department's memorandum does not explain why that power is exercisable by the Treasury rather than by the Secretary of State. It goes on say:
  "There may be reasons for this, and the Committee considers that the Government should provide an explanation for this form of delegation".
  I agree. I tabled the amendment so that the noble and learned Lord can give that explanation to the Committee. I beg to move.
  Lord Renton: Will the Minister consider some further reasons in this context, in addition to those given by my noble friend Lady Anelay? I concede that the expression "Treasury" has often been used in previous legislation. When I was a Home Office Minister years ago, I believe that I used it myself. However, the Treasury is merely a government department. Ministers should always be the people who are responsible for enforcing legislation when Parliament has required them to do so. The Bill should refer to those people. I do not know whether I am going too far or hoping for too much but I hope that the habit of calling on the Treasury to do something or to be given a power will cease and be replaced by a reference to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or a Secretary of State.
  Of course, the expression, "Secretary of State" is a conveniently wide term. In the context of the Bill and of Clause 27 in particular, it would be more logical if the Secretary of State were given the power. The Secretary of State is referred to in subsection (1). Subsection (2) gives him a power, as do a number of earlier clauses. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will carefully consider this matter. It cannot harm the Bill to give the Secretary of State the power. It would be more logical and—dare I say—more precise.
  Lord Goodhart: My Amendment No. 66 in this group raises exactly the same point. However, since tabling the amendment, I have read the Government's response, which is printed as Annex 2 to the fifth

  GC 93
  report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, and I find that explanation adequate. Therefore, I would not in any event have moved my own amendment.
  Lord Goldsmith: The phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, describing the Treasury as "merely a government department" is one which I noted with interest. I do not believe that any Minister, as the noble Lord has been, with responsibility for a spending department would ever describe the Treasury as "merely a government department".
  As to the specific and perhaps somewhat constitutional point that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, raised about whether it is right to identify a particular person or body as "the Treasury" or "the Chancellor of the Exchequer", as the noble Lord himself indicated, the description of the Treasury is used in legislation—indeed, it is used in the 1990 Act. No doubt Treasury Ministers will read with interest what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said in relation to that.
  The principal point raised in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is whether it is right that these powers should be exercisable by the Treasury or by the Secretary of State. As Clause 27 makes clear, the powers relate to the exercise of powers by the commissioners of Customs and Excise or by an officer commissioned by Customs and Excise—in other words, a Customs officer.
  The power for these orders is to be vested in the Treasury rather than the Secretary of State because the Treasury is the government department which has responsibility for Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. I do not believe that any question has been raised about whether it is right for Customs and Excise or Customs officers to have such powers. Indeed, the noble Baroness previously indicated that she wanted guidance as to where that power was to be found because it should be there. Therefore, the point is simply: who is the right person to exercise the powers??
  The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is right to draw attention to the explanation given to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I understand that not only is the noble Lord content but that the committee has expressed itself content with the explanation given. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness.
  I should have said that in this group I shall speak also to government Amendments Nos. 67, 68, 69, 72 and 73, all standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Filkin. I should put on the record what those amendments seek to achieve. They seek to expand the powers that may be conferred on Customs officers under this section. The first government amendment—Amendment No. 67—is the key and the others are essentially consequential.
  The first amendment would make it possible to give Customs officers the power to apply for orders to freeze evidence overseas. As Customs officers could already be given powers to deal with incoming freezing orders, it seems sensible to ensure that they can deal
  GC 94
  also with outgoing requests. It is considered appropriate for Customs officers to be able to exercise such powers. For the same reasons, we consider it appropriate to ensure that Customs officers can apply for freezing orders as well as make requests for evidence through mutual legal assistance procedures.
  The Committee will know that Customs investigators frequently take the lead on international investigations, particularly concerning drug trafficking. It is just as likely that, as would a police officer, a Customs officer will wish to apply for an order to freeze evidence that he knew was located in another EU country. Therefore, if there were an investigation into drug trafficking involving the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, where Customs were leading in the UK and relevant evidence—for example. papers relating to bank transactions—was believed to be located in the Netherlands, it would make sense for the Customs officer who had been in possession of full knowledge of the case to be able to apply for the order to freeze that evidence.
  The other amendments in the group are consequential, apart from Amendment No. 128, which places the definition of a Customs officer in the definitions section.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response. He said that I was asking whether this power should be exercised by the Treasury or by the Secretary of State. I did not pose that question; I was simply inviting him to place on the record, which he did, the Government's response to the point raised by the Select Committee. I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
  Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendments Nos. 67 to 69:
  Page 15, line 15, leave out from "under" to "to" in line 16 and insert "sections 10, 11 and 13 to 26"
  Page 15, line 18, leave out "this group of" and insert "those"
  Page 15, line 19, leave out from "by" to "or- in line 21 and insert "a customs officer"
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 70:
  Page 15, line 23, at end insert "and guidance issued by the Secretary of State"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 70, which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 71, standing in my name.
  Amendment No. 70 would require that where the Treasury provides for a function conferred on a constable to be exercised by a Customs officer, or a person acting under the direction of such an officer, he would need to follow guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
  Amendment No. 71 prompts clarification of the broad powers of the Secretary of State by Clause 27(2), which provide that functions conferred on him or on a

  GC 95
  constable under Sections 13 to 27 may be exercised by a prescribed person; in other words, more or less anyone.
  Paragraph 81 of the Explanatory Notes states:
  "Subsection (2) provides for the territorial authority to confer similar powers on other authorities in the future, should such other authorities develop a role in the execution of mutual legal assistance requests".
  That is extremely vague. The powers allow the Secretary of State to confer these functions on anyone. That may well be flexible and what the Government require. We require the Government to clarify the types of bodies and persons they are thinking about at this stage.
  Finally, there is a drafting point that the Government might agree to look at. Clause 27(2) allows the Secretary of State to provide that,
  "any function conferred on him under this group of sections",
  may be exercisable by someone else. Does that extend the power under Clause 27(2) to confer functions on others? Thus the Secretary of State could, by order under Subsection (2), delegate his power to confer functions on others to someone else. The matter gets very complicated. Perhaps the Government might want to include the words "other than this subsection". I beg to move.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: In relation to Amendment No. 70, I ask the noble Baroness where have the words,
  "and guidance issued by the Secretary of State",
  appeared in other legislation? I do not think that they ever have.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Goldsmith: The purpose of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to issue guidance describing the circumstances in which a Customs officer might exercise powers under Clauses 13 to 26. If I have misunderstood, I should be pleased to be corrected by the noble Baroness, but I do not think that I need to explain why it is thought essential to be able to confer powers on Customs. I hope that the answer that I gave in debate on a previous amendment explained that sufficiently clearly.
  There is no need for further guidance. The conditions will be prescribed by the order, which will be binding. No doubt it will be open to the Secretary of State to issue guidance on that point if that seems appropriate, but it is unnecessary to refer to that in the Bill. Of course, guidance will be issued covering all of the Bill's new provisions.
  Amendment No. 71 would delete Clause 27(2). That would also restrict a key enabling provision that is intended to allow authorities to take on executing powers in the same way as is provided for Customs. The new power will give the Government flexibility to effect greater direct transmission—a subject which we have discussed—should that be desirable in future. No other authorities have been identified at this stage, but a review of our mutual legal assistance system more generally—which is currently in progress—may
  GC 96
  conclude that such powers should be conferred on the Crown Prosecution Service or Serious Fraud Office; for example, to enable them to handle incoming requests. However, at present they do not want such powers.
  I understand that the power was considered by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, which accepted the department's explanation that we needed to provide flexibility for the future and found the power to be appropriately delegated.
  Clause 27(2) will not apply to the powers under Clause 27(1), because Amendments Nos. 67 and 72, one of which has been accepted and the other of which I have spoken to, amend Clause 27(1)(a).
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Perhaps I may begin by referring to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I shall certainly not be able to point him to chapter and verse of Acts in which guidance has been included in the Bill. I am aware that Governments of any colour balk at the idea of including guidelines in Bills and that Opposition parties always want to include them. However, all Governments have passed Bills that make reference to guidelines; indeed, one part of the Courts Bill refers to guidelines, and we hope to add more—I give notice of that intention. So such references exist, but I regret that I cannot steer the noble Lord to the precise reference. Perhaps I ought to ask the Library for at least one example to satisfy him.
  I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. His point about the drafting is absolutely right: changes to Clause 27 have dealt with that. On Amendment No. 71, he says that the Government are conducting a review and, as a result, other bodies may be identified—the CPS or SFO, for example, although he says that at present they do not seek or welcome such status. He puts his finger on our problem with all of this, which is that whether it is the framework decision or whatever, so much of what will effectively govern the working of the Bill when enacted is not fully fleshed out. We are having to agree to procedures that may be modified in future. We want to ensure that they are modified in such a way as to act properly to ensure judicial co-operation. We are not trying to hinder that. We are trying to make it more straightforward while ensuring that proper safeguards are in place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
  Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendments Nos. 72 and 73:
  Page 15, line 26, leave out "this group of sections" and insert "sections 13 to 26"
  Page 15, line 28, leave out "this group of" and insert "those"
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 28 [Interpretation of Chapter 2]:
  Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 73A:
  Page 15, line 36, at end insert—

  ""freezing order" means any measure taken by a competent judicial authority in the issuing State in order provisionally to prevent the destruction, transformation, moving, transfer or disposal of property that could be subject to confiscation or evidence,"

  The noble Lord said: This is largely a probing amendment. It probes in two different respects. First, the amendment repeats the definition of a freezing order, which appears in Article 2(c) of the draft framework decision. That states:
  "'freezing order' shall mean any measure taken by a competent judicial authority in the issuing State in order provisionally to prevent the destruction, transformation, moving, transfer or disposal of property that could be subject to confiscation or evidence".
  There is no separate definition of "freezing order" in the Bill. Clause 28(1) states:
  "domestic freezing order' has the meaning given by Section 10(2)".
  Clause 10(2) states:
  "A domestic freezing order is an order for protecting evidence which is in the participating country pending its transfer to the United Kingdom".
  Clause 28(1) defines "overseas freezing order" as having the meaning given to it by Section 20. Clause 20(2) states:
  "An overseas freezing order is an order—
  (a) for protecting, pending its transfer to the participating country, evidence which is in the United Kingdom".
  Are the Government satisfied that the word "prevent" covers all the nouns referred to in Article 2(c) of the framework decision; that is: destruction; transformation; moving; transfer or disposal of property? I suspect that it probably does, and that it protects by preventing those things. However, it seems to me that "protect" could be wider than the definition in Article 2(c). If the evidence is something which is perishable by virtue of natural decay, unless it is literally frozen, "protect" would seem to cover taking steps to preserve an item of evidence by freezing it, but the wording of the framework decision would not. Is that seen as something that would create problems?
  My second point is one which I anticipate the noble and learned Lord may not be able to answer today. I shall be happy to have it dealt with later in writing. Under the framework decision, a freezing order can be used to protect property not only for the purposes of evidence but for the purposes of making it subject to a confiscation order.
  The Bill contains no reference to confiscation. So I wonder what is the position in regard to a freezing order for property which might be subject to confiscation. I have looked at Section 74 of the Proceeds of Crime Act, which relates to England; and there are equivalent provisions for Scotland and Northern Ireland. That appears to provide for the equivalent of a domestic freezing order where a confiscation order is being sought. But I cannot find in the Proceeds of Crime Act or anywhere else a provision for the equivalent of an overseas freezing
  GC 98
  order where confiscation proceedings may occur outside the United Kingdom and an order is sought in the United Kingdom for freezing that property subject to the making of a confiscation order. Is there such a provision anywhere in legislation, or have I overlooked it in the Proceeds of Crime Act? If not, is not one needed, and should it not be included in another part of the Bill?
  I see no equivalent to a domestic freezing order in proceedings for a civil recovery order under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act—although this could well be because a civil recovery order cannot be regarded as confiscation within the meaning of the framework decision. I beg to move.
  Lord Renton: I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will consider the amendment sympathetically. Various types of freezing order are mentioned in the Bill, but, so far, only one has been defined.
  Clause 10 refers to domestic freezing orders, and Clause 11 deals with the sending of freezing orders. Clause 12 refers to the,
  "Variation or revocation of freezing orders".
  Overseas freezing orders are dealt with at some length in Clause 20, and subsection 2 contains a definition of an overseas freezing order. But we are left wondering what are the other types of freezing order. The amendment is an attempt to provide an overall definition of any kind of freezing order, and it is a good attempt at drafting.
  I do not think that the amendment goes quite far enough. It refers to,
  "the destruction, transformation, moving, transfer or disposal of property".
  "Property" is not defined. Although it could be argued that a definition is unnecessary, it could mean the disposal of information of various kinds, especially with modern equipment, and information is not regarded as property. Therefore, the word "information" could well be added and would make the amendment more complete. For the reasons given by the noble Lord, to which I have tried to add, we need a definition in the Bill.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Goldsmith: It might be helpful if I start by indicating an answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. He rightly drew attention to the fact that the framework decision deals with two kinds of freezing. It deals with arrangements for freezing assets—that is property—and for freezing material wanted as evidence. Those are two distinct concepts.
  We believe that the freezing of evidence will facilitate international investigation. Therefore, we have taken the earliest opportunity to implement those new arrangements. That is the only part with which the Bill seeks to deal in the freezing context. Freezing of assets is a more complicated topic. It needs to take account of other developments. We already have new domestic, as well as international arrangements, in this

  GC 99
  area—the noble Lord drew attention to some of those—which were introduced by the Proceeds of Crime Act. The Government are keen to ensure that those are properly established before embarking on further steps at the international level.
  In addition, the JHA Council is currently discussing a framework decision on the mutual recognition of confiscation orders. Asset freezing is a concept closely related to confiscation orders. To some extent it is an interdependent preliminary step to confiscation. We need to ensure that there is coherence and consistency of approach in the legislation adopted to implement both those instruments. That could not be resolved until the content of the confiscation instrument is settled. That is why the Bill does not attempt to deal with the freezing of property.
  That being the case, it follows that the proposed amendment, which is lifted from the definition in Clause 2(c) of the framework decision, is necessarily too wide. The definition relates to property and evidence. There is another reason why it is too wide. The definition in Article 2(c) uses the concept "issuing state". An issuing state is defined in Article 2(a) of the framework decision with the important qualification of:
  "in the framework of criminal proceedings".
  If one did not somehow include those words, this would be an extremely wide definition which would catch civil injunctions also. That is not what the Bill is designed to deal with.
  For those reasons, this particular definition would be inappropriate. We take the view that the definitions of "domestic freezing order" in Clause 10(2) and "overseas freezing order" in Clause 20(2) are more than adequate. They are perfectly sufficient to identify what those two concepts deal with. I have listened attentively to the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Renton. However, at present it is not obvious to me that there is any gap. Given what the Bill is trying to achieve and given that both domestic freezing orders and overseas freezing orders are defined, enough is dealt with. For that reason, the Government cannot accept the amendment and do not believe that any additional definition is required.
  Lord Renton: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, it is highly curious that various different kinds of freezing orders are mentioned in the Bill, but only one is defined. If the general reasons he has put forward are enough, one wonders why the overseas freezing order should require a definition. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius, if the Committee would forgive my saying that.
  Lord Goldsmith: I can always forgive the noble Lord for speaking Latin, particularly in a legal context, although these days others take a different view.
  I hope that it is helpful to say that at present I do not see where the gap is. We have two concepts in the Bill. First, the domestic freezing order, an order made in this country sent overseas, is defined in Section 10(2). That definition is picked up again in Clause 28(1). For
  GC 100
  example, although Clause 11 is headed "Sending freezing orders", the substantive provisions refer to a domestic freezing order which has been defined.
  There is then the other sort of freezing order, the overseas freezing order. That is defined in Clause 20(2) and again picked up in Clause 28. There are provisions for dealing with overseas freezing orders. The noble Lord may want to consider further if there is a gap which I have missed, which I should be happy to deal with in correspondence. However, I hope that I have sufficiently answered his point.
  Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Renton, for his support. As regards the definition point, it is fair to say that this is a probing amendment, and I find acceptable the explanation given by the noble and learned Lord. As regards the making of a freezing order for the purposes of confiscation, I am happy that the noble and learned Lord was able to deal with that point today. I note with interest that we can expect further legislation to apply the concept of freezing orders to the process of confiscation in due course. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment Nos. 74 to 76:
  Page 16, line 12, after "prescribed" insert "or of a description prescribed"
  Page 16, line 13, after "offence" insert "or a description of offences"
  Page 16, line 15, after "offence" insert "or offences"
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 29: [Hearing witnesses abroad through television links]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 77:
  Page 16, line 35, at end insert—
  "(1A) An order under subsection (1) shall be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
  The noble Baroness said: We now turn to the issues of hearing witnesses abroad through television links. Amendment No. 77, by way of general introduction, gives background to these matters. Currently, television links are covered by provisions in primary legislation. However, the amendment would allow the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers power to extend it to other types of criminal proceedings by order.
  Paragraph 85 of the Explanatory Notes does not give enough clarity. It states:
  "the clause makes provision…for the Secretary of State to extend this provision to other types of criminal proceedings in the future".

  GC 101
  It would be helpful to know what other types of proceedings may be covered and what kind of departure from current practice might happen in future. I beg to move.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): Clause 29 partially implements Article 10 of the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (the MLAC) which provides for hearing witnesses via video link where it is either not possible nor desirable for the witness to travel to the state where his evidence is required. The clause deals with the circumstances where the UK requests evidence in that way.
  Clause 29 permits the Secretary of State to expand by a negative resolution order the types of proceedings in which the UK may request that kind of evidence from overseas. The amendment would require such an order to be made by affirmative rather than negative resolution. The Government do not believe that that would be necessary as UK courts are already able to request that type of assistance from overseas in certain proceedings by virtue of Section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and Section 273 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
  The types of proceedings covered presently include homicide, serious fraud cases and cases involving the evidence of children. The clause provides for those sections to apply to further types of proceedings. Clearly, there are many other potential criminal offences to which those types of proceedings could be applied. All I would say at this point is that there are no present plans by the Lord Chancellor's Department to do so.
  I go further. Any decision to extend the types of cases in which that sort of assistance is provided would follow only after extensive consultation with all parties concerned and would reflect a consensus view across the criminal justice system. We believe, therefore, that Clause 29 provides a practical solution ensuring that Section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act and the corresponding Scottish provisions may be extended in future, but with the safeguard that that would be done only after the proper forms of consultation, which, I put on the record, were carried out.
  The clause has general application and is not restricted to participating countries. That reflects the existing position under the Criminal Justice Act. We consider that those arrangements have particular benefit in relation to countries outside Europe, which may pose greater travel obstacles for witnesses. That sort of assistance is a useful tool in trials which deal with offences which take place in more than one state, and which are often those involving organised criminal gangs.
  In the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform on the Bill, no comment was made on the power. We understand, therefore, that it is satisfied that the level of scrutiny of
  GC 102
  the power is appropriate. I hope that what I have been able to say by way of explanation satisfies the concerns raised by the noble Baroness.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He referred to the fact that the Select Committee was content with the provisions. I did not intend by my amendment to signal that we were not content with the Select Committee's decision. It was just a tool to elicit the helpful answer given by the noble Lord.
  It is useful to have on the record that the Government would make these changes only after —I believe the Minister said—extensive consultation and having achieved consensus across the criminal justice system. Perhaps another matter which the Government would need to take into account is having the budgets to put in place the IT system. Perhaps that would be part of the consultation process. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 29 agreed to.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 78:
  After Clause 29, insert the following new clause—
  "APPLICATION OF SECTIONS 30 AND 31
  (1) This section applies for the purposes of sections 30 and 31.
  (2) Before a person gives evidence he shall be informed in ordinary language of—

  (a) whether or not he is compelled to give evidence (and if so in what circumstances), and

  (b) the uses to which his evidence (or the fact of his failure to give evidence) may be put by the court in a country outside the United Kingdom before which the proceedings are carried on."

  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 78 seeks to clarify the position under Clauses 30 and 31 when witnesses are giving evidence to courts abroad from a court in the UK through a television or telephone link. I seek to elicit by way of clarity what rules on compellability will apply and what rules on the right to silence will apply. To what use will witnesses' evidence be put by the foreign court? Would there be, for example, protection against self-incrimination, or would that be a matter for the law of the foreign state in question on a case-by-case basis? Will the witness be informed of those rules before giving evidence?
  I return to a comment I made on the previous amendment. What will be the facilities for this to be carried out? Where will they be placed? Will they be part of the ordinary provision of IT for courts here or will there be special courts which will be particularly well provided with the right kind of IT back-up? I beg to move.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The purpose of this new clause is to increase the protection of witnesses summoned to give evidence via television link. While the Government understand the concerns behind the

  GC 103
  amendment relating to rights of silence, compellability, use of evidence, and so forth, we believe that proper safeguards are already provided.
  In the case of TV evidence, witnesses may be compelled to give evidence. In the case of telephone evidence, they may not. Schedule 2 makes clear that there is a significant difference between the two types of hearing. Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 2, which relates to television links, and is entitled "Securing attendance of witnesses", states that the nominated court has powers for securing attendance of a witness as it does for proceedings before that court.
  By contrast, paragraph 11 of Part 2 of Schedule 2, relating to telephone links, is headed "notification of witness" and gives the court the power only to inform a witness of when the hearing will take place. It goes on to state that the,
  "court must be satisfied that the witness is willingly giving evidence by telephone".
  Schedule 2 sets out the circumstances in which a witness cannot be compelled to give evidence by television link; namely, if he or she,
  "could not be compelled to give [it] in criminal proceedings in…the United Kingdom",
  if participating in a domestic proceeding; if giving evidence,
  "would be prejudicial to the security of the United Kingdom";
  or,
  "in his capacity as an officer or servant of the Crown".
  The first point ensures that the witness is granted at least the same protections as in domestic proceedings.
  The usual domestic summons procedures will apply in relation to television hearings under Schedule 2. The summons will be issued by the domestic court in accordance with our law under Section 97 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. Summonses set out when and where the witness should appear, the consequences of failure to comply and details of whom to contact for more information. We consider the existing summons procedure to be sufficient and robust.
  The second requirement—that the witness be informed about the uses to which the evidence may be put—is unnecessary. Witnesses summoned to provide evidence by virtue of a summons issued under Clause 15 are not provided with information about the uses to which their evidence may be put, although they will obviously be aware of the context if they are being called as witnesses.
  A witness giving evidence in domestic proceedings would similarly be aware of the context, but would not necessarily be informed of the detailed uses to which the evidence might be put. It is extremely unlikely that the domestic authority would be able to provide the witness with such information. The overseas authority conducting the hearing will inform the witness of as much as is necessary under its law regarding the use of evidence and the implications of failure to comply, but, as the hearing will be conducted under the
  GC 104
  supervision of that authority—as is made clear in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2—we would not include that condition in the Bill.
  The noble Baroness asked about the circumstances in which TV hearings might take place. I am advised by the Lord Chancellor's Department that some 154 magistrates' courts have already been set up for remand links and that these would generally be the ones used. These links currently operate only between courts and prisons for use in remand hearings. I am sure that the noble Baroness is familiar with those. The technology is in place and merely requires refinement by the responsible contractors in order to provide the link services to the courts.
  The witness would be present in the UK court. The camera would be linked up to the court in the requesting country. Those facilities would enjoy the benefits of existing security controls in our court buildings. I can provide some examples of where we have seen such systems used in other countries. It is starting to be an established process and procedure and we are becoming increasingly familiar with it. I hope that that assists.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: One of the most important points was made at the very end of the noble Lord's remarks. He said that we are becoming more accustomed to these systems as they become more established. I should expect "we" to mean those who are involved daily in the criminal justice system.
  As a magistrate, I presided over a case where evidence was rightly given by television link. Of course, a witness—or possibly a defendant, although we are dealing here with witnesses—is not necessarily accustomed to such links. It may be the one and only occasion when a witness has come into contact with the court system, and certainly with television links. Therefore, I am sensitive as regards the amount of information that should properly be given to a witness. He may be an expert witness. The way in which the television links are set up, and the way in which split screens are used, may strongly govern the effectiveness of the evidence.
  I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting out the general background. In particular, I am grateful to him for placing on record the Government's intention to use the magistrates' courts. We look forward to seeing how the resourcing goes in terms of making sure that it will work. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 79:
  After Clause 29, insert the following new clause—
  "APPLICATION OF SECTIONS 30 AND 31 (NO. 2)
  (1) This section applies for the purposes of sections 30 and 31.
  (2) For the avoidance of doubt, proceedings before a nominated court are not to be treated as proceedings before a court of any country other than the United Kingdom, and nothing in sections 30 and 31 confers any jurisdiction on a court of any country other than the United Kingdom in respect of anything done in the United Kingdom."
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 79 seeks to probe the position in respect of jurisdiction, especially in relation to contempt. Could a witness giving evidence from the United Kingdom be proceeded against for contempt in a foreign state even though his conduct was not a contempt under UK law and thus no action was taken under Clause 30(4)? I beg to move.
  Lord Renton: I support the amendment, although I have a confession to make: I have not kept in mind the detail of the Bill sufficiently to know whether the purpose of the clause has already been stated in any other way in the Bill. I hope it has not—because in that case my noble friend's suggestion is rather desirable.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for sparking this discussion, as it will enable us to clarify the situation. Other than for the purposes of con tempt of court and perjury, television and telephone hearings are not proceedings before the domestic (UK) court. The Bill simply enables witnesses to be heard as part of proceedings before the overseas court.
  Under the Mutual Legal Assistance Convention we, as the home authority, are obliged to ensure that perjury and contempt of court in such circumstances are subject to domestic sanctions. That is necessary because the overseas court which is conducting the hearing will be unable to take any direct action itself. I hope that that provides the clarity sought by the noble Baroness.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The Minister has given the answer that I expected. My difficulty still remains. We shall be enforcing a system whereby someone could be accused of an offence of contempt which was not committed in this country. I shall examine the provisions carefully. The Minister's answer is the most that he could possibly have given in the circumstances. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 30 [Hearing witnesses in the UK through television links]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 80:
  Page 17 line 5, leave out subsection (2).
  The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 81 to 84. They cover the giving of evidence by television links. Amendment No. 80 asks the Government to explain what authorities the Secretary of State considers will have the function to make requests as envisaged in the clause. Will they be courts, police, prosecuting authorities or public defenders? Who will be the authorities? I ask the question in order to have an answer on the record.
  Amendment No. 81 inserts a new subsection which provides extra protections. The request should specify the reason why it is not desirable or possible for the witness or expert to attend in person; it should state the name of the judicial authority and the names of the
  GC 106
  persons who will conduct the hearing; and it should state that the witness is willing to give evidence by television link in the proceedings before that court.
  I have not dreamt up those protections. They appear to be in paragraph 8 of the second additional protocol on page 7. Why have the Government decided not to put them on the face of the Bill?
  Amendment No. 82 removes the Secretary of State's discretion. Subsection (3) states that,
  "the Secretary of State must…in writing nominate a court in the United Kingdom where the witness may",
  give evidence through a television link unless he considers it inappropriate to do so. I am trying to elicit guidance from the Minister. In what circumstances would the Secretary of State consider it inappropriate to give effect to a request for TV link evidence? The noble Lord may be able to provide an example from existing practice where it may have been thought inappropriate.
  Amendment No. 83 introduces an element of good practice into the procedure. It provides that the attention of the witness should be drawn to subsections (4) and (5) before he gives evidence, so that he is aware of the possible consequences of giving that evidence. In particular, it is important that people should be aware that UK rules on contempt and perjury will apply before they give their evidence,
  As to Amendment No. 84, what happens if the contempt constitutes an offence of contempt under UK law but not under the law of the state where the evidence is being received? Would any further action be taken on that matter? I beg to move.
  Lord Renton: I agree with three of my noble friend's amendments, but there are two that I find rather difficult to support; namely, Amendments Nos. 80 and 82. She has a very powerful reason for seeking the Government's views on the need for Amendments Nos. 81, 83 and 84. Those or similar amendments are essential to ensure that justice is done. I shall not trouble the Committee with the detail at the moment, but the Government need to consider the matter very carefully. Perhaps the Minister would rather not give an answer today on Amendments Nos. 81, 83 and 84. However, I think that the points in those amendments must be dealt with.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall try to provide the best answer that I can. If I miss something, I am sure that we can pick it up later.
  Amendment No. 80 deletes the explanation of the term "external authority". The noble Baroness was kind enough to explain that she is seeking guidance to what "external" authorities are. My understanding is that these are the same authorities that generally make requests for mutual legal assistance. They would be courts, prosecutors, central authorities, examining magistrates, official persons and bodies with investigative and prosecuting functions. I think that I am right in saying that these are drawn from arrangements that existed under the 1959 convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters. Article 24 of

  GC 107
  that convention makes declarations stating which authorities it deems to be judicial authorities. That is where that definition is drawn from.
  Amendment No. 81 would require incoming requests from overseas authorities to include the three pieces of information specified. We are not about to accept this amendment, although the Government understand the intention behind it; and we considered including the first two requirements on the face of the Bill. We concluded, however, that it would make the clause unnecessarily restrictive.
  The first two conditions are requirements of article 10 of the Mutual Legal Assistance Convention. The problem with including these conditions in a clause of general application is that other future agreements containing provisions on television evidence might not be expressed in precisely the same terms as the convention. For that reason, we do not want the Bill to be drafted so narrowly as to exclude the granting of assistance under other agreements, although in practical terms we would expect these conditions to be met in order to be able to make the necessary administrative arrangements to set up the hearing.
  That does not mean that we shall apply a lower standard to requests from outside the EU. In contrast, we consider that the current drafting provides for greater discretion in the absence of an international agreement, because of the general discretion provided for in subsection (3), which provides that the Secretary of State is to nominate a court to hear the evidence unless he considers it inappropriate to do so.
  Imposing the third proposed condition—that a witness is willing to give evidence—would also run contrary to the provisions of the convention, so we could not possibly agree to its inclusion. It is possible to impose such a condition only in relation to hearing accused persons—if member states choose, in accordance with Article 10(9), to extend the provision to hearing accused persons. The Government do not propose to enable accused persons to be heard in that way at all.
  Subsection (3) gives the Secretary of State discretion not to take forward a request. That is the issue addressed by the third amendment in the group, Amendment No. 82. The point of having that discretion is to enable the Secretary of State not to comply with a request where that request would contravene national law. We consider that the approach in the Bill is preferable because it retains an overall discretion for the Secretary of State in all cases, while not being unduly prescriptive in the conditions that it imposes in relation to overseas requests. We consider that the discretion conferred on the Secretary of State in subsection (3) should be sufficient to meet the concerns that the second amendment seeks to address. In other words, he will be able to refuse requests if they do not contain the necessary information.
  The Secretary of State will consider requests from EU countries on the basis of whether they conform to Article 10 of the Convention. If they do not—that is,
  GC 108
  if there is no indication that it is undesirable or impossible for the witness to travel, and so on—the Secretary of State can refuse to execute the request. In relation to non-EU requests, if an international agreement is in force, we will assist on the basis of its provisions; in the absence of an international agreement, the Secretary of State may exercise his discretion to assist. In those circumstances, he could impose conditions along the lines of those contained in the convention, for example, or, if appropriate in particular cases, more stringent requirements.
  The fourth amendment, Amendment No. 83, would introduce a statutory requirement to inform witnesses of their rights and obligations as defined in the clause. It is hard not to be sympathetic to the intention behind the amendment. However, we consider that Schedule 2 contains sufficient safeguards regarding the rights of witnesses and think the amendment unnecessary.
  Witnesses who provide evidence in that way will be subject to the same rules on contempt of court and perjury as if they were testifying in a normal domestic court proceeding. They are also protected by any additional rights and privileges that they would have if physically present at the overseas proceeding.
  The fifth amendment, Amendment No. 84, would limit the circumstances in which a witness summoned to give evidence before a UK court would be deemed to be in contempt of court. It is unacceptable because it would place an undue burden on the domestic court to have to establish whether an act by a witness in its presence that is contemptuous of court in the UK would also be in contempt of court in the overseas country. The Committee will understand that that would require detailed knowledge of many other legal systems, which is, frankly, impractical.
  The clause is designed to protect the domestic court system. After all, the overseas court will be conducting the proceedings. As I explained, it will be for it to establish whether anything that occurs at the UK hearing constitutes contempt for its purposes. We feel that that is a sufficient safeguard.
  6.45 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank my noble friend Lord Renton for his support for three of the five amendments. I certainly dare not return to the two that he did not support: Amendments Nos. 80 and 82; I shall take his advice on them. I am grateful to the Minister for giving such a full and helpful explanation in response to all the amendments. I was intrigued by his comment in passing on Amendment No. 81 that the Government had considered including paragraphs (a) and (b) in the Bill, but decided that that would be an unnecessary restriction. I shall reconsider that and may return to it on Report, but I do not want to commit myself at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 81 to 84 not moved.]
  Clause 30 agreed to.
  Clause 31 [Hearing witnesses in the UK by telephone]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 85:
  Page 17, line 43, at end insert—
  "( ) confirm that the witness has received independent legal advice"
  The noble Baroness said: Schedule 2 does not ensure that evidence given by telephone is protected in the same way as evidence given by television links. One assumes that the difference is simply due to the fact that a witness cannot be compelled to give telephone evidence and that it is not admissible evidence in the United Kingdom. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the defendant has an opportunity to receive legal advice. I beg to move.
  Lord Goodhart: The names of my noble friend Lord Dholakia and myself are attached to the amendment, but I shall speak also to Amendment No. 91A, which is in this group but which is in our names alone.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 91A is to ensure that someone who is giving evidence by television link in a court is entitled to receive legal advice in connection with his right to privilege. The arrangements for television link evidence are a little unclear. It is necessary under the Bill that they are given in a court. I assume that the court is more likely than not to consist of a district judge sitting in a magistrates' court—it seems unlikely that it would go higher than that or that it would be heard by a lay magistrate.
  The role of what I shall assume to be the district judge is very limited. The district judge sits there presiding while the television camera is on the face of the witness. There will obviously be a television screen in the court at the other end, from where the questions will be asked. The duties of the nominated court appear to be only to establish the identity of the witness, under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2, and to intervene where it considers that necessary to safeguard the rights of the witness, under Paragraph 5. Under Paragraph 9(1),
  "the witness cannot be compelled to give any evidence which he could not be compelled to give in criminal proceedings in the part of the United Kingdom in which the nominated court exercises jurisdiction".
  That is directed primarily at the privilege against self-incrimination. I do not need to refer to the following sub-paragraphs.
  The examination and cross-examination of the witness may—more likely than not, will, where he or she comes from a non-English speaking country—be carried out in a foreign language. Paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 states:
  "Rules of court…must make provision for the use of interpreters".
  I find it unlikely that those rules are intended to ensure that all the questions put to and answers given by the witness must be translated for the benefit of a judge who has no possible interest in the substance of the case. If they must be translated, that will make the proceedings much more lengthy and expensive than necessary.
  GC 110
  On the other hand, if they are not translated, because the judge will not understand what is going on he will be unable to decide whether the witness is being asked a question that he or she is entitled to refuse to answer on grounds of the privilege against self-incrimination. In those circumstances, the witness ought at least to be given advance advice of what questions he or she might be asked but may be entitled to refuse to answer on grounds of self-incrimination. Otherwise, it is hard to see how those rights can be protected.
  The whole question is rather difficult. It may be that translation is intended even in the case of, say, a Polish witness being examined and cross-examined in Polish, but I should like to know what is the position.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I certainly understand the spirit and intent behind the amendments. The noble Baroness gave the game away when she referred to the defendant, when perhaps she meant the witness. I can see where she is coming from in saying that. I can foresee some of the difficulties that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has raised and shall try to cover them.
  The first amendment, Amendment No. 85, would provide additional safeguards for witnesses being requested to provide evidence by telephone link. It would require the requesting authority to confirm that it had received independent legal advice agreeing to participate. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, gave a good exposition of the second amendment, Amendment No. 91A. It would provide additional safeguards by requiring rules of court to provide for legal advice to be given "where appropriate".
  Although we understand the desire to protect the rights of witnesses—because that is what they are—the Government believe the amendments to be unnecessary and that witnesses will have sufficient protection in any event. To go a step further than that, the amendments would introduce inconsistency between the assistance available to witnesses in domestic proceedings and those participating in foreign proceedings from a UK court.
  If a person is summoned to appear as a witness in domestic proceedings, there is no obligation for that person to seek legal advice, as Amendment No. 85 suggests, nor is there an automatic right to legal advice regarding his or her rights, as suggested in Amendment No. 91A. It would not be right or consistent to require provision of legal advice in relation to appearing as a witness as part of overseas proceedings when the UK itself does not require or provide that in the domestic criminal context.
  Under the Criminal Defence Service Regulations 2001, legal advice may be provided to a person who is a witness in criminal proceedings if he requires advice regarding self-incrimination. However, there is no general provision regarding access to legal advice for persons appearing as a witness in domestic proceedings and the court will not ordinarily inform people of those rights.
  With regard to Amendment No. 85, the clause as drafted requires the requesting country to confirm that the witness is willing to give evidence by telephone in

  GC 111
  proceedings before the overseas court, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the MLAC. As an additional safeguard, it requires the court to satisfy itself that the witness is willing. That provides protection to the witness if, having agreed to give evidence, he changes his mind by the time of the hearing. There is no question of issuing a summons to unwilling witnesses, because there is no power to summon witnesses in relation to telephone hearings.
  The provision does not have general application. We do not expect it to be used frequently. In any event, not all member states are able to request this type of assistance. We understand that it is mainly used by Scandinavian countries.
  In relation to the second amendment, the responsibility is on the court to ensure that the witness is not compelled to give any evidence which he could not be compelled to give in criminal proceedings in the UK. Paragraph 5 of Part 1 of the schedule provides that the court may intervene to safeguard the rights of the witness, so for example if the spouse of a suspect had been summoned to appear as a witness, the court could inform the witness that under domestic law they are not obliged to testify. So the court could play—as one would expect in the United Kingdom context—a more pro-active role.
  We consider that the domestic court, which acts mainly as a facilitator in these hearings, will adequately fulfil the function of protecting the rights of the witness without introducing far more rigorous protections that apply to the thousands of witnesses who appear in our courts as part of domestic proceedings.
  The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raised the question of interpretation. The domestic court could intervene if a matter was not understood as it could view that as a necessary step to take to safeguard the rights of a witness. Translation will have to be audible to the judge. In many cases translation from, say, French to English will be advantageous for a witness. He or she will give evidence in the mother tongue in any event. In those circumstances the judge should be fully aware of all the questions. As the noble Lord rightly avers, the district judge in this instance will intervene if he thinks that it is right to do so.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: Before the noble Baroness responds to those comments, I should say that I am pleasantly surprised by the noble Lord's reply. I had rather assumed that there would be no translation facilities available if a witness was being cross-examined in a foreign language which he understood perfectly well. I am pleased to hear that that is not the case. However, that process certainly involves considerably more time being taken up. As regards the more widely spoken European languages, is it contemplated that a panel of district judges might be sufficiently fluent in those
  GC 112
  languages to be able to sit as judges without having an interpreter present? I cannot see any legal objection to that in so far as this country's laws are concerned.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is our expectation that the relevant proceedings would take place in English. Therefore, there would need to be translation.
  Lord Goodhart: But the proceedings surely could not take place in English. I refer to the examination of the witness and the witness's replies. If, as I said, a Polish witness was being examined by Polish lawyers, that process could not be undertaken in English. It would have to be translated for the benefit of the judge alone.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Of course.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that full and helpful response. He correctly identified the fact that I had slipped up by calling the relevant person a defendant rather than a witness. I did so as I was thinking of the need to provide safeguards for witnesses who could conceivably become defendants in the circumstances we are discussing. Witnesses need to be aware of the likely implications of the evidence that they provide. I accept the explanations that the noble Lord has given but on Report we shall want to examine closely what protections might be necessary for witnesses in the circumstances we are discussing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 31 agreed to.
  Schedule 2 [Evidence given by television link or telephone]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 86:
  Page 63, line 30, at end insert—
  "The nominated court must be notified that the witness is willingly giving evidence by television link."
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 86, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 87, 88, 89, 91 and 92. These amendments are also concerned with protection for witnesses who give evidence by television link or telephone.
  Amendment No. 86 simply imposes a requirement that the court that is nominated should be told that the witness is willingly giving evidence by television link. The anticipation is that if that assurance is not given the proceedings would not go ahead. Is that the case?
  Some protection is given to the witness in paragraph 5, to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred when speaking to Amendment No. 91A. That paragraph states that the nominated court may intervene where it considers it necessary to do so to safeguard the rights of the witness. We seek the Government's view on how far the court should have a role in safeguarding those rights. Amendment No. 87 would remove the discretion of the court to act in these circumstances and would require it to intervene. It is a tool for intervention.
  Paragraph 7 provides that the evidence will be taken in accordance with the laws of the country which has requested that television evidence should be given, but it also provides that the evidence will be subject to any measures the Secretary of State has agreed with the overseas country to protect the witness. Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 probe what approach will generally be taken by the Secretary of State in protecting witnesses.
  Amendment No. 91 probes another aspect of the protection which should be afforded to witnesses by providing that the witness could not be forced to give evidence which he could not be compelled to give in criminal proceedings in the overseas country concerned.
  Amendment No. 92 extends protection to witnesses giving evidence by telephone by requiring the court to intervene where it thinks it is necessary in order to protect the rights of the witness. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: As the noble Baroness said, Amendment No. 86 seeks to restrict the power of the court to secure the attendance of witnesses to circumstances where the witness is willing to attend. That is unacceptable for the reasons I gave in relation to the second amendment to Clause 30. The UK cannot restrict the application of these provisions to circumstances where witnesses are willing to give evidence because Article 10 of MLAC applies to all witnesses, not only willing ones. We consider that it is appropriate to have the power to compel witnesses to attend and that will be achieved by issuing a summons, as would be done if they were required to appear as a witness in a domestic criminal proceeding.
  The noble Baroness explained that Amendment No. 87 is a tool for intervention. It seeks to replace a discretionary power of the court to intervene to protect the rights of the witness with an obligation to do so. While the Government understand the sentiment behind the amendment, we consider it unnecessary. As drafted, the court is granted a discretionary power to intervene, enabling it to do so if necessary. We have confidence that our courts will use that discretion. That seems entirely sufficient for the purposes of protecting witnesses.
  The Government consider that Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 are inappropriately worded. Amending
  "any measures for the protection of the witness"
  to
  "those measures for the protection of the witness"
  could imply that such measures would be agreed in all cases. n practice it is unlikely to be necessary to arrange for protection of witnesses in all cases. We therefore consider the current drafting to be appropriate as it does not presuppose that such measures are always necessary.
  Amendment No. 89 would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the overseas authority has the specified function. That seems to reflect an earlier proposed amendment to Clause 7, which we opposed on the basis that it would introduce an unacceptably high test for the domestic authority to meet. In the
  GC 114
  context of Schedule 2, the Government consider that the current drafting has all the advantages of what we describe as "linguistic consistency" with that clause.
  Amendment No. 92 would replicate the provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 2 regarding the intervention of the court to safeguard the rights of the witness, as set out in Part 2. Again, we do not consider it necessary or appropriate to include that provision. We also believe that it could have a confusing effect.
  Under Clause 30 and Part 1 of the schedule, which govern television links, witnesses may be required to attend and are compellable, subject to the privileges in paragraph 9 of Part 1, which we have already discussed.
  Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 91. The Government appreciate that the intention of the amendment is to protect witnesses from testifying where they would not be obliged to do so under the law of the requesting country. However, we consider that unnecessary and impractical. Again, it would place a high burden on our domestic courts if they had to examine the law of the requesting country in coming to that view. The right of a witness not to testify if he could not be compelled to do so under the law of the requesting country exists under that country's law. The domestic court involved in the hearing will not know all the details of the requesting country's legal system, nor the circumstances when witnesses could not be compelled to give evidence. We do not believe that it should be expected to do so.
  I hope that those explanations satisfy the noble Baroness. If they do not, clearly we shall be able to pursue these matters further.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble Lord. As I said during debate on the previous group of amendments, I believe that on Report we shall need to return to issues concerning the protection of witnesses. I certainly appreciate some of the Minister's comments with regard to Amendments Nos. 88 and 89, and I doubt whether I shall wish to proceed with those.
  I was intrigued with the Minister's response to Amendment No. 87. He commented that the amendment was perhaps unnecessary because we have confidence in our own courts to exercise a discretion in the right way. Indeed, like the noble Lord, I do have confidence in our courts. I believe that the difficulty is that they need to know when they should exercise a discretion. They are going into some fairly uncharted territory here.
  Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raised issues relating to the translation of proceedings. We may need to discuss that matter later but, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 87, 88 and 89 not moved.]
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 90:
  Page 64, line 8, at end insert "including those competent in sign language"
  The noble Baroness said: In rising to move Amendment No. 90 and speak to Amendment No. 93, I am aware that it is an interesting fact that, as a result of the changes in procedures in both this House and another place, the Grand Committee sits for quite some time after the main Chambers have adjourned. However, be that as it may.
  I tabled these amendments simply in order to obtain an assurance from the Minister that the Government will have regard to the needs of witnesses who are deaf or hard of hearing. The Minister will be aware that a substantial number of people in this country—somewhere between 7 million and 8 million—have hearing difficulties. One would assume that the proportion must be the same in other countries, too.
  As we have already discussed in debate on other amendments, the rules in Schedule 2 that cover the giving of evidence by telephone and television link refer to interpreters. My amendment simply asks the Government whether interpreters will include those who are competent in sign language or, indeed, in other forms of communication. It is obvious that that would be of benefit to those giving evidence by television. One would also need to know what measures were in place to assist those giving evidence by telephone. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I can be brief in responding on this matter. The term "interpreters", as it currently stands, is drafted in general terms and would include those competent in sign language. The provision is included to meet the requirement of Article 10 of the MLAC. In practice, domestic courts would always provide interpretation in the event of a
  GC 116
  witness not understanding the language in which the proceedings were being conducted because the interests of justice would not be served without interpretation.
  Therefore, sign language applies as well as verbal interpretation. Under the terms of Schedule 2, the rules of court must already make provision for the use of interpreters. We see no reason why the term "interpreters" should not include those competent in sign language. As I have always understood, signing must be a language all of its own and therefore I see no problem with that. However, we are grateful for the opportunity to clarify the situation. I believe that that will probably have been the last word from either of our two Houses this evening.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I can be even briefer in welcoming that excellent response, which I shall transmit to the British Deaf Association and the Royal National Institute for Deaf People. They will be as delighted as I am. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 91 to 93 not moved.]
  Schedule 2 agreed to.
  Lord Filkin: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Monday, 27th January at 3.30 p.m.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): The Committee stands adjourned until Monday, 27th January at 3.30 p.m.
  The Committee adjourned at sixteen minutes past seven o'clock.

  Zimbabwe: Consular, Passport and Visa Services
  Zimbabwe: Consular, Passport and Visa Services
  North Korea
  North Korea
  Afghanistan: Security
  Afghanistan: Security
  British Council: Works of Art Exhibitions
  British Council: Works of Art Exhibitions
  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act Powers of Detention
  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act Powers of Detention
  Terrorism Act 2000, Part VII
  Terrorism Act 2000, Part VII
  Defence Logistic Organisation: Temporary Deployable Accommodation
  Defence Logistic Organisation: Temporary Deployable Accommodation
  Light Forces Anti-Tank Guided Weapon
  Light Forces Anti-Tank Guided Weapon
  Ex-Service Personnel: Rough Sleepers
  Ex-Service Personnel: Rough Sleepers
  Midlands Co-operative Society: Planning Decision
  Midlands Co-operative Society: Planning Decision
  Special Educational Needs
  Special Educational Needs
  Hunting
  Hunting
  Animal Movements Regime
  Animal Movements Regime
  NHS Consultants
  NHS Consultants
  Teacher Training Qualifications: Irish Republic
  Teacher Training Qualifications: Irish Republic
  Mayoral Elections
  Mayoral Elections
  Council of the Isles
  Council of the Isles